Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Team Trump this week filed multiple, off the wall motions to dismiss the indictment in the District of Columbia. One such motion claims that the First Amendment bars prosecution. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.113.0_1.pdf

The motion nowhere acknowledges or discusses that speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute is unprotected by the First Amendment. SCOTUS has opined that:

It rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. We reject the contention now.

Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). The Court there elaborated:

It is true that the agreements and course of conduct here were as in most instances brought about through speaking or writing. But it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed. [Citations omitted.] Such an expansive interpretation of the constitutional guaranties of speech and press would make it practically impossible ever to enforce laws against agreements in restraint of trade as well as many other agreements and conspiracies deemed injurious to society.
Id.,> at 502.

[loki13]

Arguably, some of the arguments made in the motions border on the sanctionable. But for the ... more rope given to defense counsel in criminal matters providing a zealous defense, I'd certainly think so.

Anyway, I think that the audience for some of these arguments isn't the judge, or opposing counsel, or the appellate courts.

It's the client. And, by extension, the true believers, who can breathlessly pass this on without understanding the lack of merit.

[not guilty]

Don't leave out the donors.

[loki13]

I am assuming that the Venn Diagram of the true believers and the donors to his legal defense funds is close to a perfect circle.

[Life of Brian]

Arguably, some of the arguments made in the motions border on the sanctionable.

Very much like your argument here borders on disingenuous. The sly lead-in with “arguably” means you could point to just about anything.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's not what it means. You should just listen and learn from loki. He can sneeze more legal knowledge than you've been able to accumulate in your lifetime.

[Life of Brian]

Just going along with the notion that the guy that said "what's this Rumble thing, anyway?" last week doesn't just do a better job of covering up gaps in his knowledge in the legal sphere, raw knowledge is only a piece of the puzzle in the practice of law as (I hope) you know. As here, it's his penchant for half-truths and outright distortions based on his knowledge that I tend to find problematic.

Did you happen to identify any borderline-sanctionable conduct?

[David Nieporent]

Did you happen to identify any borderline-sanctionable conduct?

Arguing double jeopardy based on impeachment is an obvious one.

Arguing that forging electoral votes is protected by free speech is another. Arguing that he didn't know he wasn't allowed to forge electoral votes because John Quincy Adams lobbied the House to elect him in 1824, is a third.

And arguing "vindictive prosecution" because he didn't plead guilty in the documents theft case, and "selective prosecution" without even attempting to point to a comparator, are fourth and fifth.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, wait: I also forgot his the-president-is-a-king immunity motion.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, the next Way Clever Lawyer has tagged in to try to save Loki from himself. And this one is SO clever and such an expert on so many different areas of law, he even knows how the apparent issues of first impression will come out so it's frivolous even to try!

Setting all that aside, given some of your word choices along with the fact that you didn't bother to quote any actual language from the motion, I'm going to take Occam's advice and presume that's because you distorted the actual arguments to make them sound as unreasonable as possible.

[David Nieporent]

Presuming makes an ass out of you and you.

[Life of Brian]

If the word does not fit, you musta quit.

[not guilty]

LoB, have you considered why Team Trump's off the wall claims are issues of first impression? Could it be that no competent lawyer disregards the giggle test? (And because no prudent lawyer undertakes to represent a schmuck like Trump?)

[Life of Brian]

Could it be that no competent lawyer disregards the giggle test?

Well, no -- it actually couldn't be if you actually were to think about it for even as much time as it took to rip off your snarky comment. Most of the issues David listed (the actual issues, not his sauced-up rhetorical flourishes) have had no opportunity to be tested before, because this is the first time the prosecutorial machinery has been so dead-set on taking out a former President that they've gone into full-on kill/crush/destroy mode like this.

[David Nieporent]

Well, some of them — like the vindictive prosecution / selective prosecution — aren't issues of first impression at all, and his arguments don't pass the laugh test. If you look at the brief, what they did is cherry pick sentences from cases where those arguments were rejected — because those are pretty much always rejected — and pretend to divine a standard where he prevails.

But, yeah, others are insane. Former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution? Impeachment triggers a double jeopardy bar? (Note that these are the exact opposite of the argument Trump made during Impeachment II: Electric Boogaloo.)

But the fun part is that Life of Brian hasn't bothered to look at any of this; he's just arguing for the sake of defending Trump.

[Life of Brian]

he’s just arguing for the sake of defending Trump.

Ackshully if you take a minute or two to read it, the thread you tagged into was about sanctionable arguments by lawyers.

The next-state goalpost shift -- my guess once folks actually came off their initial "oooo.... get 'im" fever and started thinking about the actual implications of drawing that sort of line in the sand and putting garden-variety zealous advocacy/appellate preservation behaviors at risk -- is not exactly subtle.

[not guilty]

There is not much authority for a trial court's sanctioning criminal defense lawyers for making outré arguments. There is not an equivalent in criminal practice to Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The limits on advocacy are practical and prudential. A defense lawyer does not serve his client well if he loses credibility with the court or with the jury. Misrepresenting the facts or the applicable law is unethical and unwise.

[David Welker]

The double jeopardy argument sounds like it is possibly an issue of first impression, Nieporent.

So, not obvious at all.

Just because an argument is unpersuasive (in your opinion or my opinion) doesn’t mean it is frivolous.

Something being frivolous is also not highly subjective. It isn’t based on how you feel about an argument.

[Zarniwoop]

"I'm left handed so I can't be convicted of murder" is probably an argument of first impression, too.

Doesn't make it non-frivolous.

[not guilty]

The double jeopardy argument sounds like it is possibly an issue of first impression, Nieporent.

Of course it is an issue of first impression. Only two previous presidents were impeached and acquitted. The first of them was never prosecuted criminally, and the second reached a nonprosecution agreement before leaving office as president.

President Grant's Secretary of War, William Belknap, was impeached, acquitted, and subsequently indicted, but the case was dismissed prior to trial on motion of the prosecutor. It appears that no other person acquitted after a Senate impeachment trial was thereafter charged criminally.

There is no authority that jeopardy attaches to a federal impeachment or the trial thereof. Donald Trump has not been placed in jeopardy at all, so any claim of double jeopardy is specious.

[David Nieporent]

Of course it's frivolous. It textually doesn't apply.

1) Impeachment is not being put in jeopardy of life or limb.

2) The Constitution expressly provides that people who have been convicted in an impeachment trial are "nevertheless [] liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law"!

(Now, it's true that it doesn't expressly say that people who were acquitted at an impeachment trial are also subject to prosecution, but that's not how double jeopardy ever works. It doesn't turn on whether one was convicted or acquitted the first time; it turns on whether one is being tried twice for the same offense.)

[David Welker]

Nieporent,

I am not aware of any established authority addressing this issue.

The text you quote covers people who have been convicted. It doesn’t talk about those acquitted by the Senate.

I think the argument is a loser. But that doesn’t mean it is frivolous. There is a big difference between losing arguments and frivolous arguments.

I am not impressed with Blackman’s “officers of the United States” don’t include the President nonsense. It isn’t sanctionable to make that argument merely because I am unimpressed.

The concept of frivolous must be objective. Things like, not even doing research so not even being aware of precedent going against your position. Stuff like that. A fully researched losing argument is not frivolous.

[David Nieporent]

The text you quote covers people who have been convicted. It doesn’t talk about those acquitted by the Senate.

I wrote four paragraphs, the first three of which were a combined four sentences. You would have had to read all the way to the fourth paragraph to see that I expressly addressed that.

And, despite your stomping of feet, it's frivolous. Double jeopardy expressly only applies to criminal cases. Impeachment is not criminal. For many frivolous positions there is no "established authority" because the arguments are so crazy that nobody has made them before.

[ReaderY]

Questionable arguments in motions to dismiss seem pretty standard practice in criminal defense, at least for defendants with deep pockets. The need to give a criminal defendant a zealous defense gives a little more leeway to make arguments that might be considered frivolous in a civil context. Trump’s lawyers don’t seem to be behaving all that differently from lawyers of other high-profile defendants in criminal cases. Like other deep-pocket defendants allowed bail, merely delaying the trial can be a victory in and of itself. The only difference might be that Trump’s position as President at the time of the events makes it easier to construct unprecedented arguments, which tend to be impervious to frivolousness complaints however weak in substance. I wouldn’t consider any of this unexpected.

[Dan Schiavetta]

IOW, lawyers whose clients are willing to pay sky-high fees are allowed to be frivolous, harassing and delaying.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Especially lawyers paid for by thousands of gullible "supporters"...

[AmosArch]

So question. What's the point of this recent trend of a sign language interpreter taking up a 3rd of the screen real estate in every government press conference when the miraculous futuristic technology of subtitles exists and is far more inclusive? Are deaf people illiterate? I guess I can kind of see why they might be in person at the conference even though deaf people are like what? A fraction of a percent of the population. But it seems sort of pointless virtue signaling to have them clogging up the screen itself.

[Frank Drackman]

Saturday Night Live did it best almost 50 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSh0dAaqIA

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is back when it was actually funny.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't say that subtitles aren't superior in terms of communication if you can do them, but my experience with real time computer generated subtitles is that they're utter crap.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree with Brett here about real time subtitles. Watching them it is easy to see significant errors. As good as AI is it cannot really adjust to the variations and subtilties of the human voice.

[Krayt]

This sounds like a perfect solution for predictive AI -- given several ranked possibilities for a guessed word, which one is most likely given the context?

[Moderation4ever]

Well certainly we know the power of spell checkers and predictive power of text apps. But both have humans checking them and we know that in some cases the program misunderstands and uses the wrong word. That why people either check or send a follow up message correcting the error.

[John F. Carr]

In my experience they usually do a decent job. You can still get an idea what's going on through all the almost but not quite right guesses.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it depends on the topic, I'm usually watching technical/scientific videos, and the computer just doesn't have the relevant vocabulary.

[Kazinski]

I don't mind as long as they give Garret Morris the contract for making the press conference accessible to the hearing impaired.

[Mr. Bumble]

Second! OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT!!!

[John F. Carr]

I know of a moderation team that would be tempted to ban you for that. Jokes about deafness upset the snowflakes. I know it's not really a joke about deafness. It still upsets the snowflakes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there something that doesn't upset the snowflakes?

[Kazinski]

Cochlear ear implants that allow deaf people to hear upset some deaf activists.

[Nige]

'pointless virtue signaling'

Doing good things is bad now.

[AmosArch]

So since you didn't actually have an answer to the question are you admitting you can't think of any benefit? If you're agreeing it doesn't have any benefit why would it be good then?

[Nige]

It benefits deaf people.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot doesn't realize how close he is to the punch line of a race-ist joke

[Sarcastr0]

I don't see this happening.

Maybe you just watch too much Woke media.

[Kleppe]

"What’s the point of this recent trend of a sign language interpreter taking up a 3rd of the screen real estate in every government press conference"

It's just shallow virtue-signaling.

[loki13]

Really? I thought it was just to annoy people with small televisions.

Ahem.

Anyway, I have never understood the supposed "put down" of virtue signaling. After all, we live in a society, and at a minimum, don't we all want to be viturous?

What's the alternative? Jerk signaling?

(looks at some of the comments) ... Oh. Never mind!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I have never understood the supposed “put down” of virtue signaling.

Yet another example of you being either fundamentally disingenuous or far dumber than you desperately want everyone to think you are.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a put down because when you're virtue signaling, you're generally not doing anything sensible or productive. Otherwise it wouldn't be "signaling", it would just be "virtuous".

Like, wearing a face mask while driving alone in your car, or out hiking in a state park.

[loki13]

Two things on that-

First, it seems to be a catch-all for "things I don't like," which presupposes that the person isn't doing something productive.

Second is actually more concerning. We should all want to signal to each other to do virtuous things. That's how a society works. I don't always want to do "the right thing," but I usually know what the right thing is, and I do it- partly because it is the right thing, and partly because I think it's important to set that type of example for the people around me.

If you think that something isn't productive or efficacious, it's simple enough to simply say that. Instead, and weirdly, you have chosen the rhetorical trick of implicitly conceding that (1) people you don't like are virtuous (not you), and (2) you don't think that setting an example is, in fact, a good thing in society.

Which is a weirdly un-conservative thing to argue. But, you know, you do you!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

First, it seems to be a catch-all for “things I don’t like,”

You're not that stupid.

[David Welker]

The problem with virtue signaling is its tendency to turn into an off-putting self-righteousness.

What if you are wrong about which virtues you signaled? People are embarrassed to admit they are wrong, so it also has a sort of lock in effect.

It also intends to imply a sort of moral superiority, which, in a society based on equality can be considered unvirtuous.

The isn’t really a mind your own business sort of attitude. Next step, censor all the people who disagree with you because they lack virtue.

[David Nieporent]

Anyway, I have never understood the supposed “put down” of virtue signaling. After all, we live in a society, and at a minimum, don’t we all want to be viturous?

The put down of virtue signaling is that by its nature it's just signaling. Being virtuous is doing good for other people. Virtue signaling is saying, "Hey, look at me; I'm a good person," without actually helping anyone. A good (if extreme) example is the so-called "land acknowledgement."

(To be sure, it's better than vice-signaling, which is the MAGA GOP.)

To be clear, I am not saying that providing sign language interpreters is virtue signaling; it does have a tangible benefit.

[BrotherMovesOn]

DMN, what is "land acknowledgement"?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Never mind, thanks. Yes, that's an 'extreme' example of a declaration without much force. Friend of mine is a vp of a fairly large charitable trust and played back some edited audio (from Zoom) for her spouse and me in which various heads of regional offices included in their introductions which Native American tribe/nation had previously been in possession of the land they were zooming in from. I thought it was amusing.
Then I never thought about it again until it was mentioned.
Win Win

[Absaroka]

A fad at universities where each meeting is started with something like "We acknowledge this university is occupying land stolen from the Punxsutawney people". Without any intent of giving the land back.

Here's a long form.

[loki13]

" A good (if extreme) example is the so-called “land acknowledgement.”"

I have to admit, I ran into this for the first time this past summer. And it was ... interesting.

I do think that there is an issue when people pay lip service to something, as opposed to actually doing it. It's easy to make a land acknowledgment; it's hard to actually do something to (for example) improve the conditions of Native Americans. Heck, instead of making a land acknowledgment, how about paying them (their descendants, etc.) for that land? Yeah, like that will happen.

I just strongly disagree with the term, and the idea behind it. Again, virtue is good. We should encourage virtue. Too often, it's used as a shorthand for people that just don't like something.

To put it more concretely, if you have a problem with the land acknowledgment, is it because you think that the underlying issue (understanding that these lands once belonged to the Native Americans) isn't virtuous, or because you think that the underlying issue is virtuous, and that this is a hollow and hypocritical attempt? Using the phrase obscures the issue.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure if that last question was rhetorical, but I'll assume it wasn't. I do have a philosophical problem with the concept underlying land acknowledgements — that the second-to-last people to conquer a territory are the true and rightful occupants of that territory and everyone else is an interloper regardless of how long ago in time we have to go — but that's not what makes land acknowledgements virtue signaling. What makes them virtue signaling is the second thing you said: that they are utterly empty gestures. "We're on your stolen land. We acknowledge it, which makes us better than the people who don't. Hey, look at us. Now let's move on."

[loki13]

I appreciate that you answered the question. But this illuminates the issue I have with the term. To you, the underlying issue isn't virtuous. So to you, they aren't even "virtue" signaling.

Which circles around to what I originally said-
"First, it seems to be a catch-all for 'things I don’t like{.}"

Which is a fair point to make! The thing is, people, all the time, make statements (through speech, expressive conduct, association, or other in-group marks of affinity) about what they think is right, or virtuous. Instead of just making the empty statement of "virtue signaling," it's better, in cases where you don't agree with the underlying issue, to just say that you disagree with the underlying issue.

To put it in perspective, to think otherwise is to understand that, to a certain extent, almost all comments here are just "virtue signaling" - speech that usually shows what a speaker is aligning within, without actually accomplishing anything.

Let's be honest ... we're not really accomplishing anything. As much satisfaction as I might get from occasionally dunking on a bad Blackman post, it's not like it actually matters.

[susancol]

'Way back when I knew much more about the "AMESLAN (american sign language) v. Signed English" and the rancorous dispute within the deaf community about these two options. Bottom line, AMESLAN is clearly recognized as a separate, NON-ENGLISH language. Rules of grammar, word order, etc. are quite different and yes, there were plenty of AMESLAN users who were not proficient in reading standard english. At the time, (mid--70s), there was resistance to teaching deaf children through Signed English (which uses much of the AMESLAN signs, but pretty much translates word-for-word, using common english grammar), and Signed English was expected to make it easier for deaf children to learn to read english. Objections were that society was being unfair to expect non-hearing individuals to "give up their language (Ameslan)" and "make them learn a second language" (english/signed english).

[jb]

AIUI, sign language interpreters introduce emotion and inflection that's not present in the words themselves. Kind of like the difference between listening to a song versus reading the lyrics.

Sorry anything done to help anyone else even if it doesn't negatively affect you in any way annoys you enough to need to tell strangers about it, though.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArch, presumably your accustomed mode to perceive language communication is to listen to speech, not to read subtitles. I personally prefer not even having subtitles in sight, when I can understand the speech. Even professionally prepared subtitles for movies are generally full of obvious abridgments and presumptive summaries. Real time AI subtitles are worse. On television, you can readily see how bad by turning on subtitles for a movie made using a language you understand.

If a deaf person's accustomed mode to perceive language communication is sign language, what basis do you have to omit the opportunity for deaf people to get language communication by their accustomed mode, instead of by translation to subtitles?

[David Nieporent]

Disabled people do not have the right to pick their own accommodation.

[AmosArch]

According to leftists all homophobes are secret closeted homosexuals. So does that mean homophobia is 100% the fault of homosexuals themselves or as near to 100% as being 100% of homophobes would make them?

[apedad]

Not sure of the answer but the absolute, vehement, relentless focus you guys have on homosexual issues is simply astounding.

It's like you like awake in bed a night thinking about homosexual things.

[Martinned]

Why do you think they obsess about trans issues so much? They accidentally saw some TS porn and now they're panicking that they might be gay.

[AmosArch]

You progs are the ones spending millions if not billions on endowed professorships, departments, institutes, initiatives, concerning gays and trannies not to mention inserting it everywhere you can from schools to books, tv to movies to comics to even food ads. Often in careers entirely devoted to the subject and go home to talk about it on forums dedicated entirely to this singular issue. Not to mention going to parades and events centered around the topic.

But nope the people that points out how unusual this is are the ones obsessed with it. Sure. Can you say projection?

[Martinned]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

[Nige]

In other words gay people existing is equivalent to homophobic hate campaigns. 'If you didn't exist or you had the decency to be ashamed of existing we wouldn't hate you so much!' Of course, homophobia was rampant to the point of being endemic back when being gay was heavily stigmatised, so your premise is pretty rocky.

[AmosArch]

So you agree with the theory that homosexuals are responsible for homophobia?

[Nige]

Sounds more like homophobia is responsible for some homosexuals being homophobic. Where homophobia comes from is a whole other issue.

[AmosArch]

Where does homophobia come from then? The tooth fairy? Someone has to spread it. Even in this thread progressives are insinuating homosexuality which I never said I had a problem with, for even expressing a question about an opinion they consider 'homophobic'. This mirrors pop culture where they do this almost like a reflex. So they've proven what I've said that they believe all or at least a majority of homophobes are homosexual. Therefore homophobia is primarily the fault of gay people according to progressives. If covid was 100% or even just largely a disease created and spread by white men I doubt progs would think its fair to lecture blacks about how awful it is they were spreading it.

[Nige]

'Therefore homophobia is primarily the fault of gay people according to progressives.'

Homophobia is the fault of homophobes.

[loki13]

More to the point, according to AmosArch's "logic" ... Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism.

And no, it's not always true that homophobes are, in fact, gay (or queer). However, there have been more than enough times where we have seen this occur (it's fairly well-known as a coping mechanism) that it's become a thing.

After all, if you're perfectly comfortable in your sexuality, then you don't really care what other people do, do you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Keep in mind that homosexuals are a small fraction of the population, well down in the single digits. Even if a significant percentage of them presented as 'homophobic' as a result of denial or concealment, there's no reason to think that they'd make up a very larger percentage of people who are 'homophobic'.

I think rather that the claim that 'homophobia' is suppressed homosexuality is a sort of not terribly clever rhetorical judo, intended to prompt people who don't like homosexuals to abandon that position to defend against the claim.

In reality, of course, 'homophobia' is nothing but a disgust reaction, a function of what's been called the 'behavioral immune system'. Male homosexuals are a major disease vector, after all.

This would probably explain why 'homophobia' doesn't typically extend to lesbians, who in contrast aren't a significant disease vector, so there's no sociobiological benefit from being disgusted by them.

[loki13]

Wow. Pseudo-science used to justify prejudice.

That's got a great history. Good to see some people still trot it out.

[Joe_dallas]

He is not using pseudo science to justify prejudice.
He is using real science to explain the bias

very distinct difference.

[loki13]

Mmhmm. Do I really need to go through the history of people using "real science" to justify their racism, their anti-Semitism, or their other prejudiced beliefs?

Trying to cloak bigotry in pseudo-science has a truly disturbing history. Also? This isn't science. Just because Brett asserts something doesn't mean it's true. And as Brett has told us in the past, if he hasn't personally observed something, no one can say if it ever happened ... which does make actual science kind of difficult.

[Joe_dallas]

As I stated, He is not using pseudo science to justify anything, He is using real science to explain what is happening.

Note the distinction.

[Sarcastr0]

Invoking Real Science like a religious talisman with zero depth or understanding.

Maybe Joe is from Warhammer 40K?

[bernard11]

What fucking science?

That gay men get STD's at a higher rate than average? So what? That in no way suggests that the "disgust reaction" is responsible for homophobia. Not at all. Your link doesn't present any evidence for that.

It's just some shit you made up. Not science.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Hence your previous bullshit about not understanding why "virtue signaling" is a bad thing.

[Joe_dallas]

Queen

When was the study period ?

October - December 2020 as described in the methods ? or
sometime after January 2021 as stated in "evidence before the study"?

Evidence before the study
In January 2021, we searched PubMed for articles on rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst ethnic minority groups and amongst the Jewish population. Search teams included “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, seroprevalence, “ethnic minority”, and “Jewish” with no language restrictions. We also searched UK government documents on SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst minority groups.

Methods
We performed a household-focused cross-sectional SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey between late-October and early December 2020 prior to the third national lockdown.

[Joe_dallas]

I will add, the results of the study do not surprise me.

though it should also be noted, the study period was early in the pandemic, and it would be likely the results later in the pandemic (summer of 2022), would revert back to the mean. ie relatively small differences in overall infection, hospitalization and death rates vs the overall population rates.

[Joe_dallas]

Google the following study, Shows mental health issues remain after transgender treatment

Gender-affirming treatment and mental health diagnoses in Danish transgender persons: a nationwide register-based cohort study Get access Arrow
Dorte Glintborg, Jens-Jakob Kjer Møller, Katrine Hass Rubin, Øjvind Lidegaard, Guy T’Sjoen, Mie-Louise Julie Ørsted Larsen, Malene Hilden, Marianne Skovsager Andersen
European Journal of Endocrinology, Volume 189, Issue 3, September 2023,

[Joe_dallas]

Toward Rigorous Methodologies for Strengthening Causal Inference in the Association Between Gender-Affirming Care and Transgender Individuals’ Mental Health: Response to Letters
Richard Bränström, Ph.D., John E. Pachankis, Ph.D.
Published Online:1 Aug 2020https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20050599

[Sarcastr0]

'Google the following study' is something people who don't understand science say.

Unless it's longitudinal, a single study is just cherry picking whether you realize it or not.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 16 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
‘Google the following study’ is something people who don’t understand science say.

Sacastro - you certainly jump to unfounded conclusions

I post the title simply because my system blocks my posting the link. Otherwise I would post the link.

[Nige]

'Male homosexuals are a major disease vector, after all.'

This is just another way of saying you're scared you'll have sex with a gay man.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! Doubling down on the rhetorical judo after your opponent wasn't budged the first time.

[Nige]

How else are you going to catch their diseases?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I don't know, maybe by a blood transfusion, like so many did before they finally decided that male homosexuals wouldn't be allowed to donate?

Just recently decided to let them donate blood again. The biology didn't change, they just stopped caring about the victims they'd create. It was more important to be inclusive.

I can't donate because of a cancer that would have killed me over a decade ago if it hadn't been completely cured, that's how 'careful' they claim to be. But cancer victims don't have the political clout of homosexuals, I guess.

[Zarniwoop]

‘Male homosexuals are a major disease vector, after all.’

This is just another way of saying you’re scared you’ll have sex with a gay man.

Oh, be generous. An alternate interpretation is that Brett is jealous of the fact that gay men have (on average) a lot more sex than he does, and are having more fun. Pretty typical Puritan reaction, really. Not uncommon at all.

[Sarcastr0]

Remember how you said homosexuals have been at the forefront of every pandemic in world history?

Yeah, you're awful.

[Nige]

It's an interesting take, what with anti-semitism being such a high-profile topic at the moment. As with Muslims and the blood libel, he's reattributing tropes of Jews spreading disease to gay men.

[Sarcastr0]

'filthy disease-ridden queers' has been a trope on the right for quite some time.

Yes, it has some dark historical echoes.

[Joe_dallas]

hiv transmission
monkey pox
to name just a few

Dont let actual facts conflict with your ignorance of history and science.

hint these are well known facts, though they have to be attacked in the world of woke science

[shawn_dude]

Or, you could turn to real science for information.

[Nige]

You're not homophobic because you're afraid you'll catch monkey pox off a gay man if you have sex with them. You're homophobic because you're looking for justifications for your homophobia.

[Kleppe]

*flies literal flag*
*accuses others of being obsessed*

[Nige]

Homophobia has twisted and harmed a lot of people, gay and straight.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Homophobia has twisted and harmed a lot of people, gay and straight

Transphobia has twisted a lot of people, professor and professee

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry, you're the friggin poster child for Homofobia,
Always wondered why the Coaches would stand outside the showers, supposedly to make sure everyone showered, I'd try to shower with the Brothers (not really "with" you Homos, at the same time) , I'm sure you diddled your fair share of them, but I think they'd put up more of a fight.

[OtisAH]

This is a common misconception among permanently aggrieved “homophobes.” It’s not all homophobes who are closeted homosexuals. Just the ones who endlessly obsess about homosexuality and homosexuals. You know, like the guys who constantly post here, every day and twice on open threads, their graphic depictions of homosexuality and who otherwise inject their “disgust” anywhere they can shoehorn it in (heh).

Those are the guys fapping to things they claim to despise and cruising downtowns late at night. Regular folks who just get squicked out when they see two men holding hands are ignorant, but probably straight.

[Zarniwoop]

According to leftists all homophobes are secret closeted homosexuals.

"All or nothing thinking is a common cognitive distortion that involves viewing the world as a binary. It divides experiences into categories of either “black or white” and “right or wrong.”

Thinking in a binary can influence how you interpret and respond to the world. All-or-nothing thinking may become an unhelpful pattern because it doesn’t always accurately reflect our complex reality. It may also lead you to experience anxiety and pessimism. "

https://psychcentral.com/health/all-or-nothing-thinking-examples

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The real inventor of head-banging punk-ass rock-n-roll was…. Giuseppe Verdi. This premiered in 1951:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21VVx7NXn-Q&t=5m24s

[Voize]

I think you're off by a century on that premiere date, but surely the enduring question is whether when the Duke sings about "changeable women" does he mean they are trans?

[Brett Bellmore]

Jewish students locked in library during pro-Palestinian rally at Cooper Union

Various news accounts say the students locked themselves in for their own safety. The students themselves claim the University locked them in. And then turned the police back when they called 911.

Obviously we need more Gazans in America, but my real question here is, false imprisonment; Who's more at risk from that sort of charge, the demonstrators or the university itself? Seems to me the latter.

[Commenter_XY]

Antisemitism is becoming normalized in America. That is what is happening.

I cannot believe it is happening here.

[Frank Drackman]

Zuerst kamen sie......

[Brett Bellmore]

Never think it can't happen here. That only makes it more likely that it happens here.

[apedad]

Antisemitism has bi-partisan supporters so hopefully we can find a bi-partisan solution.

“Antisemitism allegations feed internal conflict among Texas Republicans”

Accusations of antisemitism surrounding a far-right Texas group and state lawmakers it has supported are feeding the growing knives-out conflict among Texas’s ruling Republican Party.

The moderate and conservative wings of the Texas GOP are engaged in a broad fight over the “political rot” of white nationalism and antisemitism that Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan (R) says is “festering” in the state Republican party’s ranks.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4275361-texas-republicans-anti-semitism-allegations-feed-civil-war/

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, the difference here, and it's obvious, is that the Republicans are actively fighting it. Though they have to be careful, because such accusations are frequently used as a weapon in internal fights.

[bernard11]

the Republicans are actively fighting it.

Did you read apedad's link?

"The Republicans" aren't actively fighting it. Some are. Some are promoting it. Amazing how often characters like Nick Fuentes show up with Republicans, including Trump.of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

Can't fight something if there's nobody on the other side of the fight, bernard.

[Kazinski]

This data point is from Europe but I expect it is he same story here:

None of this, however, contradicts the reality that in the US, Europe, Australia, the UK and Canada, the targeting of Jews now comes overwhelmingly from the left and its constituencies. A detailed 2017 survey from the University of Oslo found that in Scandinavia, Germany, Britain and France, most anti-Semitic violence came from Muslims, including recent immigrants. Similarly, a poll of European Jews found the majority of incidents of anti-Semitism came either from Muslims or left-wingers. Barely 13 per cent traced it to right-wingers.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/10/23/why-jews-are-abandoning-the-left/

I'm not denying that some rightwingers are anti-semites, but I don't actually think their should be a "bipartisan solution" to antisemitism other than enforcing laws against violence and vandalism. People have a constitutional right to be idiots but not to break the law.

[Martinned]

For the record, these are the MEPs who voted against a resolution condemning Hamas:

NI: de Graaff, Nikolaou-Alavanos, Papadakis Kostas, Uhrík, Ždanoka
The Left: Aubry, Botenga, Daly, Flanagan, MacManus, Mesure, Omarjee, Pereira Sandra, Pimenta Lopes, Rego, Urbán Crespo,
Villanueva Ruiz, Wallace
Verts/ALE: Miranda, Pedicini, Urtasun

(NI are the independents, who are extreme right, and the Verts are the Greens, i.e. on the left.)

A further 24 abstained, from across the political spectrum, but I suspect that at least some of these will have abstained because they felt the resolution didn't go far enough.

ECR: Rooken
ID: Annemans, David, De Man, Haider, Kuhs, Limmer, Mayer, Vandendriessche, Vilimsky, Vistisen
NI: Konstantinou, Radačovský, Roth Neveďalová
PPE: Băsescu, Ehler, Schwab
S&D: Agius Saliba
The Left: Hazekamp, Konečná, Villumsen
Verts/ALE: Auken, Jakeliūnas, Riba i Giner

(ID is extreme right but a political group, PPE are the conservatives, and S&D are the social-democrats.)

[Bob from Ohio]

No one cares.

EU legislature is just a dumping ground for national parties to place their losers and trouble makers.

[Martinned]

The reason why it's a useful place to look for confirmation (or not) of Kazinski's claim is that it is a parliament that is actually democratic. For years Nigel Farage sat in the European Parliament while failing to win in House of Commons elections. EU law leaves member states free about their election systems, but only to a point. A pure first-past-the-post like in the UK and US is not allowed. Hence the significant number of nutcases that are there. (Where they can do no harm.)

[Nelson]

"most anti-Semitic violence came from Muslims, including recent immigrants"

Yes, the biggest complaint about Muslims, especially those who recently immigrated from theocracies, is that the are ... progressives? Not deeply conservative, but ... progressive? And their antisemitism isn't caused by their cultural upbringing, but by their ... progressiveness?

You can't honestly believe that, can you?

Muslims, particularly those with strong beliefs, are the definition of right-wing.

Even evangelical Christians have managed to reconcile their thinking to somewhere slightly before or slightly after Darwin. Their Muslim counterparts are still a few centuries short of the Enlightenment.

"I’m not denying that some rightwingers are anti-semites"

How generous of you. Of course it would be impossible to deny the "Jews will not replace us" chanting, Confederate flag waving, torch-carrying displays of the hard right. Admitting to the unabashed public support by conservatives of people who openly espouse antisemitism is merely acknowledging the obvious.

"but I don’t actually think their should be a “bipartisan solution” to antisemitism other than enforcing laws against violence and vandalism"

Here we are in 100% agreement. Antisemitism is disgusting, but disgusting speech is exactly what the First Amendment is there to protect.

"People have a constitutional right to be idiots but not to break the law."

Exactly.

[Brett Bellmore]

The key question is why it is happening here. I see at least two issues.

1. The rising percentage of Muslims in America due to immigration policy changes. Traditionally Muslims have been well under 1% of the American population, but their numbers have been rapidly increasing in the 21st century. Largely, I think, due to immigration from majority Muslim regions where anti-Semitism is accepted majority opinion. And it doesn't help that, rather than being dispersed, they tend to immigrate to particular areas, forming concentrations where they're a larger percentage of the population.

Muslims tend to get more aggressive as their percentage of the population rises, and this happens at a surprisingly low percentage.

But I don't think that would be enough, if the society they found themselves in was aggressively hostile to anti-Semitism.

2. Leftism in academia. Sadly, while fascists got purged from large areas of American life during and after WWII, due to Stalin being our ally, (Even though he'd started the war together with Hitler!) the commies never got similarly purged. Rather, they managed to portray the effort to do the same with them as a 'witch hunt'.

So wide swaths of academia are dominated by radical leftists, and the radical left has long been anti-Semitic. This means that Islamic anti-Semitism doesn't look so bad to them.

[Nige]

‘I see at least two issues.’

You know, people study this, you don’t actually have to make up whatever shit fits with your priors. Muslims? The left? The most notably anti-semitic force in the US, and elsewhere, has been right-wing white nationalism. The christian fundamentalist right loves Israel right now, for certain values of ‘love’ because that’s where they want all the Jews to go to fight their Final War before the Apocalypse. Anyone who thinks the Israelis and the Palestinians maybe should try to find some sort of peaceful settlement is anti-semitic because that’s what Jews and Palestinians are for. As for the rest of the right who ‘support’ Israel, they just love a good war.

‘Sadly, while fascists got purged from large areas of American life’

This is ahistorical in the extreme. The fifties in America saw both ‘commies’ and Jews being purged and hunted and hounded.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, complaining about people making up shit, and then making up shit yourself, isn't a good look.

I AM a right-wing Christian. We don't love Israel because it has to be around to be destroyed in the final battle. They're our wayward coreligionists who we still hold out hope for.

[Nige]

Oh yeah, I forgot, the ‘good’ Christians hope they’ll convert before The End.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good Christians hope everybody converts before the end, Nige.

[Nige]

I'm sure we'll all come around after the Rapture.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, as long as you’re not threatening to drive me into the Sea, or murdering my people, you could be friggin Ho-Chi-Minh-Fidel-Castro-Trudeau-Kennedy. and I wouldn't care.
Speaking of “Holding out Hope” what’s taking Hey-Zeuss so long to come back? Funny, because we Jews have a reputation for being punctual (someone find me a reference to “Jewish Peoples Time”) But I kid Hey-Zeuss, and are you sure he wasn’t Mexican? Just find me a Jewish Carpenter today, and they do tend to arrive late.

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"Final War before the Apocalypse"

Its a fringe believe at best and its importance is hyped by libs to scare off Jews from voting for GOP.

Standard Christian belief is no one can hasten the "Second Coming", it happens in God's good time.

[Nige]

The right has so many 'fringe beliefs' it's run out of fringe.

[Nelson]

"Its a fringe believe at best"

At this point, the tapestry of cultural conservatism seems to be more fringe than fabric.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Great line. You win today.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The christian fundamentalist right loves Israel right now, for certain values of ‘love’ because that’s where they want all the Jews to go to fight their Final War before the Apocalypse."

Bullshyte.

Sane Christians know that the Lord has his own schedule and there is nothing we can do to advance it. We support Israel because they are the good guys in a rough neighborhood. So they are Jewish, they are also socialists -- whatever. Israel is the one free country there -- and Israel had our back during the Cold War and that counts for something.

And antisemitism, at least in academia, was in the 1920s. It was declining (not increasing) in the 1950s.

[Zarniwoop]

Sane Christians ...

But Nige was talking about "the christian fundamentalist right".

[Dr. Ed 2]

I agree -- it's academia.

[Moderation4ever]

You could of course replace Muslims with any number of terms or nationalities and come to the same conclusion. Irish, Italians, Germans, take your choice.

[Don Nico]

C_XY, I think a large amount of anti-Semitism has always been here, but people actually knew it was unacceptable. Now with the pro-Hamas protests, many have come out of the closet.

[Nige]

The fact that anti-semitism surges like this whenever the I/P conflict escalates really should be yet another reason to find ways to de-escalate and bend all efforts towards peaceful solutions. But no. Conflict builds charachter or something .

[Don Nico]

"But no. Conflict builds charachter or something ."
Why is it that you always find a way to turn a reasonable statement into a childish snark/

[Nige]

Because facile sarcasm keeps the despair at bay.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I wouldn’t say that anti-semitism surges at times like these: rather, circumstances like these prompt some typically-discreet anti-semites (including a disturbing number of posters here) to show their true colors.

[Nige]

Sure, that's probably the case.

[Commenter_XY]

Nas....Glad the antisemites 'out' themselves.

[Don Nico]

That is exactly what I think.

[Jerry B.]

And, perhaps not surprisingly, it's coming from the Left.

[Ed Grinberg]

Antisemitism is becoming normalized in America. That is what is happening.
I cannot believe it is happening here.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/canary_in_a_coal_mine
https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/politics-current-affairs/2021/12/canaries-in-the-coal-mine-dara-horn-and-bari-weiss/

[Commenter_XY]

Ruth Wisse nailed it.

[Nige]

Crusaders against the woke mind-virus suddenly embracing the reality of bigotry and its victims and its roots in the past reacing into the present, mostly as a way of defending their precious war.

[shawn_dude]

I can. The MAGA crowd has whipped up the usual bigotries to create divisions within the country, which is why we're seeing a surge in conservatives attacking Black history, LGBT rights, and women's rights. It would be shortsighted to assume that we'd somehow leave anti-Semitism behind when resurrecting the usual scapegoats.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like maybe we should wait until this story's facts are nailed down.

Or you can run ahead with your narrative based on this anecdote, sketchy as it is.

There's absolutely some anti-Israel nonsense that is spilling over into antisemetism happening in some places. It's also hard to tell if it's widespread because every student that say boo is being amplified.

And, as was noted below, outside the students being dumbasses context the right is full of antisemites. Like old-school 'Jews control the media and want to replace white people with their black client race' antisemites.
There's a couple of them on the VC! Though BCD is pretty quiet these days.

[Martinned]

Borrowing from behind a paywall:

Amazon, TikTok, LinkedIn, Pinterest reveal content-removal data in first DSA transparency reports
25 Oct 2023

Amazon, TikTok, LinkedIn and Pinterest have each removed millions of items of content from their services since the EU’s landmark new content-moderation law came into force — with the majority of removals proactive — according to their first Digital Services Act-mandated transparency reports. The firms are all “very large online platforms” under the DSA. There are 15 other VLOPs, plus two very large online search engines, which are expected to publish their reports in the coming days.
Amazon, TikTok, LinkedIn and Pinterest have each removed millions of items of content from their services since the EU’s landmark new content moderation law came into force, they have disclosed.

The firms are all “very large online platforms” under the Digital Services Act, or DSA. As part of their obligations, which came into force on Aug. 25, they must produce a biennial transparency report on how they comply with the law.

Each company’s report said they had removed and hidden millions of items of content, and that the majority of removals were proactive.

— Amazon —

Others listed the reporting period as approximately from Aug. 25 to the end of September. But Amazon, whose store constitutes a VLOP, listed removals for the first half of 2023.

During that time, Amazon said, it made 274 million proactive content-moderation actions. It removed 84.2 million items of content; disabled access to 133.6 million items of content; “partially suspended provision of the service” in 51.5 million cases, and suspended 4.2 million accounts.

Most (220 million) of those decisions related to a product, with the remainder relating to images, text or video.

“Globally in 2022, we invested more than $1.2 billion and employed over 15,000 people — including machine learning scientists, software developers and expert investigators — dedicated to protecting customers, brands, selling partners, and our store from counterfeit, fraud, and other forms of abuse,” Amazon said in its report.

— TikTok —

TikTok, a video-sharing platform popular with a younger audience, said today that it “proactively removes the vast majority of illegal and other harmful content” which violates its community guidelines, terms of service, or advertising policies.

In September, it proactively removed more than 4 million pieces of content and ads for these types of violations; seven times more than it removed following a user report. It received more than 35,000 illegal content reports, relating to about 24,000 unique pieces of content, and just over 16 percent of this content was found to violate local law — the DSA does not state what is illegal, instead referring to local laws on illegal content — and removed or hidden.

TikTok estimated that it has 6,125 moderators “dedicated to moderating content” in the EU, its report said.

— LinkedIn and Pinterest —

From Aug. 25 to Sept. 30, LinkedIn proactively removed 35,046 items of content, about half of which were for “infringement and defamation,” and 9,800 job posts.

It received 86,640 reports from users related to content, identified a violation in 3,747 of those; removed 3,285 of those items of content and hid 12. It received 9,362 reports related to job posts; identified a violation in 2,787 and removed 2,427.

Excluding automated decisions, LinkedIn took a median time of approximately 23 minutes to make a content-moderation decision after receiving a report. Its global estimated error rate for automated content removal was between 8 and 14.4 percent. The error rate is based on a test where it sends a random sample of content removed by the automated system, and compares it to what a human reviewer would have done.

From Aug. 25 to Sept. 24, Pinterest removed about 8 million items of content and hid about 15 million items of content. Most of this was done proactively, and most was for adult content.

— More to come —

There are 15 other VLOPs designated under the DSA, and two very large online search engines. They include Meta Platforms’ Facebook and Instagram services and Google’s search, maps, app store, shopping and YouTube services. The other platforms' reports are expected to come in the next few days, as the exact deadline varies between companies.

Enforcement of the DSA has already gotten underway, with Meta Platforms, TikTok and X, formerly Twitter, all having received formal requests for information from the European Commission (see here). Today is the deadline for Meta and TikTok to respond, X’s deadline was last week.

[John F. Carr]

I think the supporting data is here: https://transparency.dsa.ec.europa.eu

Based on the summary above the free speech fight, which is what I care about, is obscured by economic warfare.

[Kazinski]

The Nigel Farage debanking scandal has totally vindicated Farage:

A UK regulatory agency ruled the bank Breached data protection laws.

The Chairmen of Coutts bank’s parent was already ousted over the scandal in July. And may lose millions of pounds of deferred compensation.

The BBC retracted its report, based on the chairman’s lies and both the reporter and the BBC apologized to Farage.

Farage obtained internal bank memos that showed his views on climate change were the primary reason they debanked him but they hated him for all his conservative views.

“The former NatWest chief executive breached data protection laws when she spoke to a BBC journalist about the planned closure of Nigel Farage’s bank accounts, the UK’s information watchdog has ruled.

An Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) report seen by the Guardian said that Alison Rose broke rules on two counts: first by revealing that Farage had a banking relationship with its private bank, Coutts; and secondly by providing “misleading information” that led the BBC to believe the bank was closing his accounts for purely commercial reasons, linked to his wealth.

“Mr Farage’s rights were infringed because of this,” the ICO report said.”

“ICO said it did not plan to take any further action, given that NatWest – which is 38.5% owned by the taxpayer – had already launched an investigation into the incident and Rose had stepped down over the scandal.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/25/ex-natwest-chief-breached-nigel-farages-privacy-watchdog-rules

Here is one of the key bits from the banks internal memo: ” ‘A particular area to consider is NF stance on climate change it does not align with the bank’s purpose or B’Corp ore objectives.’”

Note that BCorp is an American non profit that advocates debanking and economic warfare on conservatives and conservative institutions.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/24/former-eu-parliament-member-nigel-farage-got-de-banked-due-to-his-skeptical-stance-on-climate-changenot-aligning-with-natwest-banks-objectives/

All in all not a bad result for Farage, major embarrassment for a major bank, sacking of its CEO. An apology from the BBC. And likely he’s going to get a decent settlement, or maybe already has.

It was so bad even the Guardian didn't try to spin it.

[Martinned]

1. Farage stamps his foot because he's not allowed to bank at the rich people bank anymore.
2. The bank over-reacts, and the CEO of the parent company goes on TV to do damage control.
3. In so doing, she says things she shouldn't, because of data protection law.
4. The government is Very Concerned about people being debanked because of their political opinions, and orders an investigation.
5. The investigation shows that it's a non-issue.
6. Meanwhile, the CEO has been fired, and Farage still doesn't have his Coutts account back. But he got a lot of publicity out of it.

Profit?

[Martinned]

FCA sets out initial findings on bank account access and closures

The information supplied by banks, building societies and payment companies suggests that no firm closed an account between July 2022 and June 2023 primarily because of a customer’s political views.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-initial-findings-bank-account-access-and-closures

[Kazinski]

When was Farage's account closed? Looks like it was May of 2023, and we know now that it was closed for political reasons.

Then they lied about it.

[Martinned]

Because he no longer met the thresholds for how much money they could make off him.

[Nige]

It was closed because he didn't have enough money in it any more. It was still a lot of money for man-of-the-people Farage, but not enough for Coutts, dontcha know.

[Kazinski]

NatBank has specifically admitted that is not true.

Why are you disseminating Misinformation that even the original source admits isn't accurate?

[Nige]

No it hasn't.

[Kazinski]

What about the internal bank memos?

“A particular area to consider is NF’s [Nigel Farage’s] stance on climate change — it does not align with the bank’s purpose or B’Corp objectives.”

Why would the government be very concerned about banks debanking customers for their political views if banks wasn’t debanking people over their political views?

And how about that BBC apology:
""There is no fault or no blame on the BBC. This now goes right back to the Natwest Banking Group [owners of Coutts].

"Someone in that group decided it was appropriate, legal and ethical to leak details of my personal financial situation.

"That, I think, is wrong on every level - and that is where the spotlight should be and it will."

Mr Jack, who tweeted his apology, said his story had been "from a trusted and senior source".

"However, the information turned out to be incomplete and inaccurate. Therefore, I would like to apologise to Mr Farage," Mr Jack continued.

Mr Farage later said: "Jack says, in the tweet, that his information came from a trusted and senior source. I would suggest that it may well have been a very senior source."

On 21 July, the BBC updated its original article to say it had "not been accurate". Mr Farage then asked for a formal apology from the BBC."

The BBC had to admit it was wrong, I guess you are still standing by their story, long after the BBC gave up on it.

Did Israel still bomb the Hospital too?

[Martinned]

Why would the government be very concerned about banks debanking customers for their political views if banks wasn’t debanking people over their political views?

Because the Tory Party has been taken over by Farage and UKIP.

[Kazinski]

Would that were true. They wouldn’t be trailing Labour in the polls.

Why bother voting for Labour Lite?

[Martinned]

Literally nobody in the UK would ever dream of describing the current Tory Party as "Labour Lite". Even your alt-right friends on GB News have many complaints about the Tory Party, but not that it is too much like Labour.

[Nige]

‘They wouldn’t be trailing Labour in the polls.’

Or to put it another way, that’s one of the many reasons why they are.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, the Tories always trail Labour in the polls until Election Day.

[Martinned]

How did that work out for them last week? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Mid_Bedfordshire_by-election

[OtisAH]

I mean, we should probably consider “the first Labour victory in the seat since its creation in 1918” to be a bit of an outlier, no? For now, anyway.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And we should probably re-define the word "always"...

[Martinned]

There was a similar swing away from the Tories in Tamworth on the same day, in a constituency that voted 66% leave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Tamworth_by-election

[Martinned]

When the BBC is being leaned on by the Tory Party and the tabloids, I'm perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that its original reporting was politically unwelcome but accurate. This, after all, is how the BBC is run: https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1717460461547819415

[Brett Bellmore]

"Update 21st July 2023: We acknowledge that the information we reported - that Coutts' decision on Nigel Farage's account did not involve considerations about his political views - turned out not to be accurate. Since this article was originally published on the 4th July, Mr Farage submitted a subject access request to Coutts bank and obtained a report from the bank's reputational risk committee. While it mentioned commercial considerations, the document also said the committee did not think continuing to have Mr Farage as a client was "compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation". We have amended this article's headline and copy to make clear that the details about the closure of Nigel Farage's bank account came from a source. "

Wow. In a world of weasel worded corrections, this stands above them all. They amended the story to make it clear the details "came from a source".

Based on this, I guess "from a source" is a British term for "unsubstantiated claim by somebody we'll continue to trust and shield knowing they misled us"?

[Nige]

That was the most pathetic ‘scandal’ ever. The British establishment have spines of wet spaghetti in the face of right-wing demagoguery.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This was an ICO ruling; it had nothing to do with "de-banking".

[Martinned]

Here is what Travers Smith, the law firm engaged by NatWest to investigate this mess, found:

Review 1 - External review of the decision to close the accounts of Mr Farage

• The exit decision was taken at a Wealth Reputational Risk Committee meeting in November 2022. The former NatWest Group CEO, Alison Rose, played no part in that decision.

• The exit decision was lawful. It did not amount to a direct or indirect breach of applicable laws and was made in accordance with the relevant bank policies and processes.

• On balance, the exit decision was predominantly a commercial decision. Coutts considered its relationship with Mr Farage to be commercially unviable because it was significantly loss-making.

• The Coutts Eligibility Criteria were not a relevant factor in the exit decision.

• There were other factors considered as part of the decision-making process. Foremost among those other factors was the risk Coutts perceived to its reputation in the eyes of its stakeholders. But these were not, in Travers Smith's view, factors that drove the exit decision.

• Mr Farage's public statements on various issues were not a determining factor in the exit decision. Rather, Travers Smith consider them to have supported the decision.

• Coutts had a contractual right to close Mr Farage's account and the decision was made in accordance with relevant bank policies and processes.

• The way the exit decision was communicated to Mr Farage was not in accordance with the bank's policies and processes, in particular giving reasons to customers in non-financial crime exits. No adequate reasons were given.

• Coutts did not comply with the FCA's Dispute Resolution: Complaints sourcebook, in part because no complaint was logged for several months after it was made.

• The decision taken in May 2022 to continue to classify Mr Farage as a PEP was incorrect. However, if he was to have been declassified as a PEP, he would have been re-categorised as a non-PEP with a risk profile of "high", with broadly the same screening requirements.

Review 2 - Review the circumstances surrounding the BBC article and if any leak of confidential customer information or breach of GDPR occurred.

• Confidential customer information concerning Mr Farage was conveyed, whether expressly or impliedly, from Alison Rose to the BBC on 3 July 2023 and / or 4 July 2023.

• Her disclosures probably amounted to a Personal Data Breach for the purposes of GDPR. They might also amount to a regulatory breach by members of the NatWest Group, but this is a matter for the regulator to decide.

• At the time of her disclosures to the BBC, Alison Rose had not seen the contents of the first data subject access request provided to the client in July 2023.

• Whilst Travers Smith made certain observations about the risks she should have appreciated in making the disclosures to the BBC, their opinion is that, in doing so, she did not consciously set out inappropriately to disclose the relevant information.

• There was no leak of Mr Farage's specific detailed financial information (such as account balances).

• There was no evidence of any other relevant leaks of customer confidential information from NatWest Group.

• NatWest Group's response to the possibility that confidential information had left the organisation did not breach any relevant regulatory obligations.

Additional conclusions

• Coutts failed to pay due regard to the interests of Mr Farage and failed to treat him fairly in the round because of the failings across Coutts and NatWest Group set out in Travers Smith's two reports. This might also amount to a regulatory breach, but is a matter for the relevant regulator to decide.

[David Nieporent]

• There were other factors considered as part of the decision-making process. Foremost among those other factors was the risk Coutts perceived to its reputation in the eyes of its stakeholders. But these were not, in Travers Smith’s view, factors that drove the exit decision.

• Mr Farage’s public statements on various issues were not a determining factor in the exit decision. Rather, Travers Smith consider them to have supported the decision.

This is double-talk. Either the bank considered these factors or it didn't. Presumably what they're trying to say but failing because they talk British instead of English is that his political views were not a but-for cause.

[Martinned]

For everyone's collective amusement, the FT has found that the new book by UK shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves was partly plagiarised from Wikipedia and other sources: https://www.ft.com/content/e4c190b0-cc4e-4dc4-945b-9f680ce1c67f

In Germany, of course, that would immediately end her political career, but in the UK I suspect it will be merely a temporary embarrassment.

[Martinned]

Here is a post on Marginalrevolution about the book from last week (pre-scandal): https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/10/the-women-who-made-modern-economics.html

[John F. Carr]

In the USA too. Charges of plaigiarism didn't end Biden's career. It only put off his presidential ambitions.

So Germany cares? I'll file that bit of trivia away next to "Members of Parliament seriously expect other members to be honest and avoid personal attacks."

[Martinned]

In Germany having a doctorate is very important for people's political careers. (NB a German doctorate is not like an American PhD. It's about halfway between a PhD and a Master's.)

And over the years a lot of politicians have been caught having plagiarised either their dissertations or other serious writings. Perhaps most famously there was Baron Karl-Theodor von und zu Guttenberg, who might well have gone on to be Angela Merkel's successor as the leader of the Christian-Democrats, had he not been forced out as defence minister in 2011 due to a plagiarism scandal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg#Plagiarism_scandal_and_resignation

[Krayt]

"I didn't plagiarize shit. I never even met the ghost writer!"

[apedad]

New Search Tool Improves FOIA.gov User Experience

FOIA.gov, the government’s central resource for information about the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), was updated today with a new Search Tool that helps the public more quickly locate commonly requested information.

The Search Tool is designed to simplify the process of making FOIA requests and finding federal government documents. It can help a user connect with the right agency to make a request or find publicly available information quickly and easily. With over 100 agencies subject to FOIA and hundreds of FOIA offices, it can often be difficult for the public to find information efficiently.

https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/new-search-tool-improves-foiagov-user-experience

Everybody complains about the govt and FOIA is one of the best tools to obtain information for inquiries.

And yes, it's not perfect.

[Life of Brian]

And yes, it’s not perfect.

That's being very kind. I just tried a few queries of varying complexity and subject matter, and in each case it suggested a half dozen completely off-point documents (most of which also clearly fell outside the date range I included as suggested in the instructions), and another half dozen completely inappropriate agencies. Apparently six useless results is the cutoff.

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in 2nd amendment news:

At least 22 people are dead and dozens are injured following two shootings Wednesday night at a bowling alley and a restaurant in Lewiston, Maine, and an intensive manhunt is underway for a person of interest, officials say.

Robert Card, 40, of Bowdoin, is a person of interest and should be considered armed and dangerous, Maine Department of Public Safety Commissioner Mike Sauschuck said.

Law enforcement officials in Maine tell CNN that Card is a certified firearms instructor and a member of the US Army Reserve. Card had recently made threats to carry out a shooting at a National Guard facility in Saco, Maine, and also reported mental health issues, including hearing voices, the officials said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/25/us/lewiston-maine-shooting/index.html

[Frank Drackman]

Well you dipshits are always saying gun owners need to be "Well Trained"
a Mass Shooter might be "Armed and Dangerous"??
thanks for the Tip!

Frank "I am to (Armed and Dangerous*)"

* to any bad guys

[Dr. Ed 2]

What amazes me about the Lewiston tragedy is that no one shot back. Maine's a Constitutional Carry state where lots and lots of people have guns.

I also wonder if the VA made the situation worse via the two week committment of the perp last summer. Why civil libertarians aren't screaming about our psych committment process is beyond me, but I can't help but wonder if it's like wounding a bear, if we are making people *more* dangerous in the process.

There is also something I am wondering about but will not speculate on publicly yet.

[ThePublius]

I wonder why, if he was committed, he still had his guns.

[Don Nico]

where did you see that he was committed

[Dr. Ed 2]

Multiple press reports including the Bangor Daily.

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/who-is-robert-card-lewiston-maine-shooting-person-of-interest

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, I believe it was included in the BOLO that law enforcement broadcast (and was overheard on scanners). The BDN's political editor has connections with the Maine State Police and hence was breaking a lot of stuff last night.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was in the BOLO
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/10/26/news/central-maine/robert-card-family-surrender/

[Frank Drackman]

Same reason Hunter Biden had his gun, Criminals don't really give a fuck about gun laws.

[Idihax]

Truth. If someone is dangerous, whether because he's a garden variety thug or mentally ill, he needs to be locked up

[Moderation4ever]

"What amazes me about the Lewiston tragedy is that no one shot back"

How quickly do you think this happened? The shooter had military training. This is not a John Wick movie, this is real life.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A *lot* of people in Maine have had military training, particularly in Lewiston.

[Moderation4ever]

Well let's hope the shooter was an outlier and that others with military training in Lewiston don't go on shooting sprees.

[loki13]

As usual, Dr. Ed is incorrect.

Maine in general isn't particularly known for having people with military training- sure, it's above places in New England like Massachusetts (another place he claims to know about), but is about at the exact average in terms of states ... well below the states that actually have lots of people with military training. Moreover, Lewiston itself isn't a hotbed of military training.

What he's probably doing is conflating the Maine ideal of hunting (which is still prevalent) with military training. But they aren't the same thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am posting this article from Army Times because my many critics might find it interesting. https://www.armytimes.com/news/2023/10/26/maine-mass-shooting-suspect-is-an-army-reservist/

I can't find any ready figures relative to percentage of population of states that are in the Reserves, I only know that a lot of people in Maine traditionally have been because it is a good paying part-time job in a state where wages historically have been low.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What part of that article of you feel supports your point?

[Absaroka]

FWIW, this purports to list 'veteran population' by state (scroll to the table at the bottom).

Using those numbers and wiki's population numbers I get 74 vets per 1k for Maine vs. 61 for NC, which I guessed would have a high proportion.

I'll leave doing the other 48 states as an exercise for someone who cares waaaay more than I do 🙂

(In my casual experience, I haven't noticed that vets are more likely to CCW than anyone else. Also, the category 'veterans' includes both sonarmen and infantry.)

[loki13]

Nice find! I was using the number of enlistments as a proxy (Maine is in the middle). Per that site, Maine is 3rd from the bottom in Army reserve units per capita.

That said, I do have to offer a retraction and apology. While Maine isn’t an extreme outlier, I did find a website that ranks the states in terms of per capita veteran population (as of January 2023), and it did rank 5th. It’s not the extreme outlier that is Alaska, and I’d say that the states from Tennessee through Maine are roughly comparable (and certainly far different than the extreme outliers on the other end, such as Massachusetts and, especially, NJ/NY/Utah) …

but I stand corrected. Facts are facts.

[Absaroka]

"Army reserve units per capita."

Just gotta say ... 'units per capita' has to be one of the weirdest metrics ever, unless units are similarly sized. I'd be surprised if they are ... there are caretaker units, I think that only have small cadres, and ones that are pretty fully manned. An AF tanker squadron might be flying as much as an active duty one, and be similarly manned. A reserve artillery battalion probably has a lot bigger headcount than an SF detachment, etc, etc.

I've been wrong before, though!

[Frank Drackman]

Maine is a pretty miserable place, Navy used to have a P3 Orion base there, until it got to be too miserable even for the Navy. They also had their SERE (Survival/Evasion/Resistance/Escape) School there, classroom part was at Brunswick NAS, the POW part at Rangeley, closest hospital was in Canada. In the winter you couldn't tell it from Siberia.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm… The P3 Orion base was Cold War related when we were keeping track of Soviet subs — they’d fly out of Brunswick. When the Cold War ended, the mission ended.

That was the remnant of a lot of WW–II anti-submarine flights from not only Brunswick a lot of other USAAC bases along the coast, and Cutler NAS is still the Atlantic sub communication site. Dow AFB and Loring AFB were SAC bases, with WWII refueling bases in Houlton & Presque Isle (for planes being ferried to Europe).

Here’s a map of Maine: https://ontheworldmap.com/usa/state/maine/maine-tourist-map.jpg

I believe they used to use the White Mountain National Forest on the ME/NH border. If you have helos, Canada may be closer, but there are hospitals Farmington or Skowheagan, and the nearest trauma center is Lewiston, with the Level 1 being in Portland.

And as to Brunswick NAS, the land is so valuable that no one really much cared about the NAS being closed — it’s prime oceanfront land.

And are there ski areas in Siberia? Sugarloaf, Saddleback, etc are up there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm, it's come out that one victim fought back with a KNIFE.
Thinks would have been different had he been allowed a gun.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dad-to-a-maine-shooting-victim-says-learning-his-son-died-a-hero-made-it-worse/ar-AA1iUk9R

[Moderation4ever]

Think about the situation if the attacker had had a knife rather than a gun.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the usual: The shooting took place in "gun free zones", so only the bad guy was armed.

[Nige]

When you're to blame for getting shot by a mass shooter because you didn't go armed because of the prevalence of mass shootings becuase of how easy it is to get guns.

[Idihax]

What exactly do you propose to "make it harder to get guns" that comports with the fact that gun ownership is a Constitutional right?

Because I can tell you right now that what your ilk has proposed and implemented in New York, California, and New Jersey doesn't cut the mustard.

[Nige]

Sorry, can't do anything about access to highly dangerous assault weapons because of the Constitution! Those people are dying FOR the Constitution! They should be proud!

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is like complaining about the "assault" Ford F-150.

AR-15 stands for Armilite Rifle, Model 15 -- which was in the civilian market when the military bought a modified version of it, the M-16.

[Idihax]

No one has ever able to explain why a collapsible stock and a pistol grip makes a rifle so much more deadly.

When you press them, they just say "Any gun that can fire a lot of bullets quickly," which is the vast majority of guns out there, including standard Glocks.

A deranged shooter with a Glock 19 and a few mags can cause plenty of carnage too.

[Martinned]

That is like complaining about the “assault” Ford F-150.

...which you need a licence to operate. A licence that they can take away from you for all sorts of reasons.

[Idihax]

To operate on public roads. Not to keep at your house on your own property.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You can even have a "fully automatic" F-150 on your own property.

[Nige]

Oh not the fucking gun nerds here to tell the victims which version of the Green Lantern they got shot with.

[Idihax]

Sorry, but when you're trying to ban guns based on features, a discussion of features is appropriate.

[Nige]

Features used to kill lots of people in mass shootings.

[Idihax]

And not used for mass shootings as well. You're an idiot.

[Nige]

'Just the odd mass shooting here and there.'

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Features used to kill lots of people in mass shootings."

Now you want to talk about "features"? Make up your mind.

[Nige]

Like what? Tassles? Cat ears on the muzzle? Sparkly star stickers?

[Noscitur a sociis]

AR-15 stands for Armilite Rifle, Model 15 — which was in the civilian market when the military bought a modified version of it, the M-16.

Not that it should have any bearing on their legality, but the AR concept was very much designed from the beginning as a potential military service rifle.

[Idihax]

So what? The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect military armaments.

"ever terrible implement of the soldier."

But I can tell you definitively that the Due Process Clause was not intended to protect the right of sodomites to bareback other dudes.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Not that it should have any bearing on their legality, but the AR concept was very much designed from the beginning as a potential military service rifle.

Nor should that have any bearing on much of anything in this context. Virtually every firearms design is history started out as an idea for a military application, including your grandpappy's bolt-action "deer rifle". This is because there's an enormous amount of overlap between what makes a weapon suitable for use by infantry and what makes it suitable for use in self-defense, hunting large game, etc.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Agreed. The fact is really only relevant because Dr. Ed claimed the opposite.

[Idihax]

What is an assault weapon, and why is it more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon? Please be specific.

[Nige]

See the hole at the end? Bullets come out and kill people.

[Idihax]

So any gun is an assault weapon by your standard. Got it, thanks for the honesty.

[Nige]

So inane distinctions are more important to you than mass shootings and their victims. Got it, thanks for the honesty.

[Idihax]

Again, if you're trying to ban guns based on features, a discussion of features is necessary.

[Nige]

No, gun nerdery is never necessary outside of gun nerd circles.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot unaware of Human "Holes" and what comes out of them

[Idihax]

He, the good Reverend and Sandusky are experts on that

[NOVA Lawyer]

Semi-automatic rifles are, obviously, significantly more dangerous than semi-automatic handguns. But you know that. There's a reason these sorts of mass shootings are not typically committed by people carrying Glocks. It's AR-15s and the like. There are reasons, which you know, for psychopathic would-be mass murderers' choice of weapons.

Stop pretending to be ignorant.

[Idihax]

That's actually not true at all. Rifles are more accurate at a distance. In an enclosed room full of terrified civilians, distance or accuracy is not that important. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to kill 33 with a Glock. Of the 458 mass shootings (or whatever number is stated by the left) this year, the vast vast majority were committed with handguns.

In any case, banning "assault weapons" is not the same as banning "semi-automatic rifles."

My guess is that the reason they're certain mass murders' choice of weapons is because of their aggressive appearance, but the lack of that aggressive appearance isn't going to deter a would be mass shooter.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Virginia Tech shooter was able to kill 33 with a Glock."

Ft Hood shooter also used a pistol, 13 dead.

As did Dylann Roof, 9 dead.

[Idihax]

Bob from Ohio, and the Navy Yard shooter used a crappy old shotgun and used it to take a pistol from a guard. 12 dead there.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You also understand that rifles not only have greater distance and accuracy, the distance is a result of higher muzzle velocity with corresponding greater penetration (through multiple bodies, minor obstructions like tables, drywall, doors, etc.).

Top shootings by year (5 or more deaths and 10 or more total victims):

2023: AR-15, AR-15, semi-auto handguns, AR-15 2022: M4 rifle, AR-15, semi-auto handgun, AR-15, semi-auto handguns, AR-15 2021: semi-auto handguns, semi-auto handguns, AR-15 2019: semi-auto rifle, semiauto handguns, AR-15, semiauto handguns

So, for the past five years, in mass shootings with at least 5 dead and 10 total victims, AR-15 or other semi-auto rifle was used in 10, handguns in 7. Semi-auto rifles are definitely used more often (though handguns, which tend to be easier to get and were used in many of the more personal killings, were used fairly frequently). BUT wait, there’s more, all of the shootings resulting in the most casualties either involved a single shooter with a semi-auto rifle or multiple murderers using handguns. And all of the shootings with more than 12 dead involved semi-auto rifles. It’s either quite a stastical oddity or semi-auto rifles are more dangerous than handguns.

And it’s the latter, obviously, because it’s just easier to kill and injure lots of people by firing rounds going 800-1000 m/s and energy of 1300-1800 J (which is what comes out of an AR-15) rather than 350-600 m/s and energy of 480-730 J (9mm handgun).

Shorter: Stop being intentionally obtuse. There’s a reason combat soldiers are equipped with rifles and use rifles including in house-to-house fighting.

The advantage of handguns is that they are easier to carry and conceal (and maneuverability in very tight quarters and no, not just a house or building, but, say, in a car or a very small room in close interpersonal combat). Every other advantage with respect to killing goes to a semi-auto rifle.

[Idihax]

I think this is a great example of correlation not causation. But suppose they are deadlier. Why is banning collapsible stocks and pistol grips so productive, when the "problem" you note is muzzle velocity?

[Nige]

You've convinced me. Ban them all.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Semi-automatic rifles are, obviously, significantly more dangerous than semi-automatic handguns. But you know that. There’s a reason these sorts of mass shootings are not typically committed by people carrying Glocks. It’s AR-15s and the like. There are reasons, which you know, for psychopathic would-be mass murderers’ choice of weapons.

Stop pretending to be ignorant.

As opposed to you, who appear to not be pretending.

When your mowing down unarmed, helpless victims who are essentially trapped in a somewhat confined area, the fact that they’re unarmed and helpless is a FAR more significant factor than the inherent attributes of whatever weapon you’re using. As already pointed out, other mass killings (including the worst school shooting ever) were accomplished using pistols. The fact that the victims were defenseless and unable to get away quickly enough was what mattered. Sometimes they don’t even need to be in a confined space (Charles Whitman at UT Austin).

The AR-15 and similar rifles are by far the most popular types of long guns in the U.S. Observing that they're commonly used in shootings is like observing that Toyota Camrys are disproportionately involved in traffic fatalities.

Hell, some of the worst mass killings in modern history didn’t even involve any firearms at all. The Bath School massacre, the worst school killing in U.S. history, was accomplished using a bomb. 87 people were murdered at the Happy Land night club in the Bronx by some asshole with a $1 worth of gasoline and a lighter.

The unfortunate reality is that it just isn’t difficult to kill a lot of defenseless people when they’re gathered together in one place.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, killing a bunch of people in a confined space can be done with a variety of methods. However, killing a lot of strangers in any other circumstance pretty much requires a semi-auto rifle.

It’s like observing that large trucks are more dangerous than cars and you pointing out that plenty of people have died in Toyota Camrys. Sure, but the killing potential of a semi is much higher which is why there are much more stringent regulations on semis and other large vehicles and who can drive them.

You’re really being intentionally obtuse. Why does every modern army equip their front-line soldiers with rifles, even when they know they are going to be in close combat (e.g., house-to-house)? Because semi/full auto rifles are more efficient at killing. Period.

[Idihax]

No, you moron, they equip them with rifles because they're often going to need to switch to situations where distance and accuracy is the most important, and it's not practical to carry two long guns.

When SWAT units are clearing a building, they often use 9mm carbines.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Idihax,

Yes, a carbine, not a pistol.

Do you suppose they use 9mm carbine instead of higher velocity, higher energy ammunition because, unlike a mass murderer, a SWAT team is trying not to kill lots of people, but only the specific people they are after?

FFS.

Who's the moron?

[Idihax]

A carbine fires the exact same cartridge as a pistol, you fool.

They use a carbine because the recoil is more manageable and there's no advantage to rifle caliber rounds in closed quarters.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, killing a bunch of people in a confined space can be done with a variety of methods. However, killing a lot of strangers in any other circumstance pretty much requires a semi-auto rifle.

So you're doubling down on your own ignorance even after it was demonstrated to be exactly that, even given real-world examples? Bold move, Cotton.

You’re really being intentionally obtuse.

You really need to invest in a mirror. All of your posts on this subject betray a level of topical cluelessness that should embarrass even a slow third grader. This one was especially idiotic:

Why does every modern army equip their front-line soldiers with rifles, even when they know they are going to be in close combat (e.g., house-to-house)?

Because those same soldiers also need to be equipped and trained for combat at long distances, in which they regularly engage.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, a carbine, not a pistol.

Do you suppose they use 9mm carbine instead of higher velocity, higher energy ammunition because, unlike a mass murderer, a SWAT team is trying not to kill lots of people, but only the specific people they are after?

FFS.

FFS indeed. What is "9mm carbine instead of higher velocity, higher energy ammunition" supposed to mean? There's no such thing as "9mm carbine" ammunition. There's 9mm ammunition that can be used by some pistols and/or carbines, but that doesn't make it "9mm carbine" ammo. And just what the hell is your argument here? That shorter-barreled, lower-powered carbines (or versions of carbines, since the AR-15 and similar rifles are also carbines) are somehow more accurate and selective of their targets than carbines chambered for rifle rounds? Or you think they're significantly less lethal in close-quarters? The ghosts of Cho's victims at VA Tech would like to have a word with you.

Who’s the moron?

In this case that's clearly you.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But wait, let's look at the actual real-world data rather than relying on your topical ignorance-based assumptions, with that data being from the worst 29 worst mass shootings in U.S. history available here:

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

Since we're comparing the effects of pistol ammunition vs rifle ammunition we'll have to compare only those incidents that involved only one or the other (the casualty data is not broken out by ammo type for mixed-type incidents, which would be extremely difficult), so we need to compare only the 21 incidents that were carried out using only one or the other. We can tell which is which because the descriptions of the weapons uses tells us which class of ammunition they used. Handguns are listed as either "pistol" or "revolver", and rifles chambered for rifle ammo are listed simply as "rifle", whereas rifles chambered for pistol ammo are listed as "carbine". The only real problem is that there are only a few cases where the non-fatal injuries are divided into gunshot wounds vs other incidental injuries, so the ratios of fatal to non-fatal injuries by ammo type are a bit fuzzy. But there's no reason to presume that incidental injuries are more likely for one shooting vs another, as all we can do is use what info we have. So using the data provided we come up with the following (I'll use "pistol" to refer to those incidents where only pistol ammo was used, and "rifle" for the rifle ammo-only ones):

(A) Pistol ammo was favored over rifle ammo by 2:1.
(B) Total pistol injuries outnumber total rifle injuries by ~1.4:1.
(C) Total pistol fatalities outnumber total rifle fatalities by ~1.6:1.
(D) Pistol ammo resulted in an average of 14.21 fatalities per incident, compared with 17.86. So slight edge to rifle here.
(E) In spite of (D), 70.26% of injuries in pistol incidents were fatalities, compared with 59.4% for rifle incidents.

The real-world data doesn't seem to support your "I don't really know the facts but here's what I imagine to be true" theories.

[Frank Drackman]

Anders Breivik used a Glock, idiot

[Idihax]

This guy really is a complete idiot.

[OtisAH]

“What kind of idiot goes bowling without a firearm?!”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly -- because it is illegal to have a gun in a bar, all the manager had was a knife, which he used to try to stop the perp.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dad-to-a-maine-shooting-victim-says-learning-his-son-died-a-hero-made-it-worse/ar-AA1iUk9R

[Idihax]

That doesn't really surprise me. I carry most of the time, but probably wouldn't in a bowling alley, especially if I was having a beer or two.

[Moderation4ever]

Good for you. You seem to recognize that the right to have a firearm also require personal good sense.

[Voize]

... no one shot back.

Clearly there is an urgent need for more guns in Maine.

[Idihax]

A schizophrenic who was hearing voices in a saner time would have been locked up forever.

Liberals, you have blood on your hands. It was *your* actions in the 1970s to let our nutcases run loose that led to all of this.

[apedad]

So you can't see the difference between locking up people with mental health issues and trying to prevent them from having weapons?!?

[Idihax]

Yes, I can see the difference. The former works. The latter doesn't.

[apedad]

So you get to pick and choose which amendment to ignore.

Right.....

[Idihax]

There's no amendment that prohibits institutionalizing people with due process, and in fact, it was common in the 1800s.

[apedad]

There’s no amendment that prohibits removing weapons from people with due process.

FTFY

[Idihax]

Correct. But you people don't want to remove weapons from dangerous people with due process. You want to either remove weapons from potentially dangerous people with no due process, or you want to remove weapons from ALL people.

[apedad]

Nope!

I've said repeatedly here that we need a STRONGER due process - especially for a person to have their weapons RETURNED.

[OtisAH]

Loser.

[David Nieporent]

Liberals, it was your actions that let Idihax free to run loose.

[apedad]

While the bullets killed and injured many people in the short term, in the long term each bullet fired was a shot into the Second Amendment and eventually Americans will decide enough-is-enough and revoke 2A.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wishing you a long life but I don't think you will live to see it.

[Idihax]

Not in a country with 40 million blacks and 40 million Mexicans will white Americans ever go along with that

[Brett Bellmore]

It's funny how that march of yours keeps getting further away from the direction it's headed.

[Idihax]

In his defense, I think there's a contingent of people who do want to "do something," but if you explain to them that there's no easy fix, many of them accept it, in my experience.

In this particular case, there is an easy fix. Lock up our schizophrenics, especially those who threaten to do exactly what this guy did.

[Zarniwoop]

what’s your definition of “schizophrenic” (or more generally, “insane”)? Specificity, please. Who gets to define it? Specificity, please.

Would you accept the same sort of regime to define unacceptable weapons? Specificity, please. Who gets to define them? Specificity, please.

If you want an arbitrary defintion of “insane”, would you accept a similarly arbitrary definition of “assault rifle”?

[Idihax]

Schizophrenic is a medical term. Are you really as dumb as you sound?

[Zarniwoop]

“Assault rifle” is a technical term. Are you really as dumb as you sound?

Oh wait, you disagree with that? Legit.

That’s the problem. You think one term is easily definable and readily ascertainable in individual cases, while the other is some ineffable concept that can never be known by mere humans.

Some good friends have a now 20-something son with a schizophrenia diagnosis. He’s doing OK … but not great … I’d agree that he shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms, actually. Yet, your solution of “lock them up and throw away the key” is massively oversimplistic and horrific to the concept to ordered liberty … just like a suggestion to “ban all guns for all people all the time”.

You propose simple-and-absolute answers, but real life is a lot more complicated than that.

[Idihax]

Assault rifle is a technical term. Assault weapon is not. Your friends' schizo son should be locked up. AT best, he'll be an annoying but harmless nuisance. At worst, he'll be a killer. Society is better off with its defectives locked up or euthanized.

[Zarniwoop]

Your friends’ schizo son should be locked up.

See, that's where your absolutism is the problem. You look at a simple label, and make a blanket pronouncement. The facts: he's in a group home, employed, doing OK. More productive than not, really.

Why do you want to imprison him? Also, why do you hate the Constitution? And are you willing to raise you own taxes to pay for it? Or do you fap to the idea of imprisoning people, just to make them suffer "because they deserve it"?

Maybe next you can suggest all non-aryan people should be sent to work camps to cure their "laziness".

[Idihax]

I don't see why we would have to raise taxes to round up our inferiors and humanely euthanize them. That would be a lot cheaper in the long run.

[Bob from Ohio]

"revoke 2A"

A Constitutional amendment? 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of the states?

Good luck!

[Ed Grinberg]

They (Democrats) have pretty much come out and said how they plan to do it. After he gets reelected, Biden “expands” and “packs” the Supreme Court. And then Democrats at all levels of state & federal governments will be free to pass whatever legislation / to issue whatever executive orders they wish. Say goodbye to your constitutional rights.

[Idihax]

Right, they'll uphold any gun law as a "reasonable restriction."

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

More likely, they will strip jurisdiction from federal courts to hear gun-related cases arising under the 14th amendment. The constitution itself doesn’t change, but you’ve effectively shifted enforcement - and thus interpretation - to the states, as vertical stare decisis only applies where a decision could be overturned by a higher court.

Republicans could have done the same thing with abortion. There’s no good excuse for them having failed to do so.

[Krayt]

You compare the wrong things, sir. Compared to loss of freedom, the well-established historical norm the Second Amendment works against, the slow dribble of gun murders over the centuries is itself left in the dust.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Eventually" the Earth will crash into the Sun...

Unfortunately, there is no way to "wish" the problem out of existence. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US, and a clear Constitutional right to own them, so if Sandy Hook, Uvalde and Las Vegas didn't result in that "inevitable" popular repudiation of the 2nd Amendment, you might consider that it may never occur.

[Zarniwoop]

KK, I gotta object there. Purely technical, but:

Eventually, stellar evolution indicates the the Sun will expand (in a few billion years). And in the process of becoming a red giant, the Sun will envelop the Earth, rather than the Earth crashing into the Sun.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

While the bullets killed and injured many people in the short term, in the long term each bullet fired was a shot into the Second Amendment and eventually Americans will decide enough-is-enough and revoke 2A.

I've been hearing simpletons like you make that same prediction over and over again for most of my 62 years, and we're now further away from your pipe-dream...with the distance still increasing...than ever before.

[Nelson]

"eventually Americans will decide enough-is-enough and revoke 2A."

No they won't. Nor should they.

The way to balance the freedoms of the Second Amendment and the safety of Americans is for gun owners to be held responsible for anything done with their guns as long as they possess them.

While it wouldn't prevent situations like this, where a legal gun owner used his own gun to kill people, I have been assured that law-abiding gun owners aren't a danger to their neighbors. So that situation should be an infrequent exception.

It would, however, increase the penalties for straw purchasers who get guns for gang members, irresponsible gun owners who leave loaded guns lying around unattended, those who don't (or won't) keep track of their guns, and other intentionally illegal or grossly irresponsible behavior.

Strict accountability for, and the expectation of responsibility from, legal gun owners isn't an unreasonable expectation. Gun ownership is a right, and one that should not be eliminated. But it is understood that responsibility goes hand-in-hand with a right. Legal gun owners should be as obligated to the former as they are deserving of the latter.

[Armchair]

We gots a new Speaker of the House. Mike Johnson.

Democracy, it's messy sometimes, but it gets the job done.
I got to say, part of me prefers the messy nature of this, then the lockstep everyone is suddenly completely behind a single person.

There are a variety of views and opinions in a caucus, and this type of thing where there's a real effort need to be made for compromise and agreement on a single person seems more normal.

[Kazinski]

I watch Bloomberg news a lot in the mornings, they seemed a little down it got resolved, but they did cut away from their coverage to Hakeem Jeffries statement about how bipartisan Democrats were throughout the whole hostage crises.

[loki13]

Let's briefly go through this again, since it appears necessary given the "hostage" comment.

The GOP made the rule that allowed the GOP to oust their own speaker.

The GOP (through Matt Gaetz) then ousted their own speaker. Something that only the GOP could do.

The GOP had all the power to get a new speaker. In accordance with all of history, they had all the chips. Now, at any time, they could have offered any concession to the Democrats (in terms of rules, or positions on committees, or even a say in who the next speaker was) in order to get Democratic votes for a "compromise candidate." But they didn't, again, because they are the majority party and they didn't want to.

Further, they could have tried empowering a more minimalist speaker role with Democratic support (and held some talks to do so), but refused to bring that measure to any vote because ... they are the majority party and they didn't want to.

Instead, they bickered among themselves for a long period of time, and eventually they did what the majority party always does- select a new speaker.

Which some people in their blinkered world view are trying to turn this into ... the Democratic Party's fault. As opposed to being exactly what it is- just an example of the dysfunction of the GOP, which is riven between factions- some of them interested in typical conservative governance, some of them interested in populist bomb-throwing, and some of them interested in personal self-aggrandizement. Which is extremely difficult to handle when you have a very small majority.

[Mr. Bumble]

Won't go through your whole post, but this is wrong:
"The GOP made the rule that allowed the GOP to oust their own speaker."
See the linked "fact check"
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/When_was_the_%22motion_to_vacate_the_chair%22_rule_last_used_in_Congress

"This power comes, technically, not from the Constitution but rather from a parliamentary rules manual written by Thomas Jefferson during his tenure as Vice President—and President of the Senate—between 1797 and 1801. The manual—now known as Jefferson's Manual—was adopted by Congress as an official rule book in 1837. "

[Magister]

The rule was changed this year by the GOP as a concession by Kevin McCarthy allowing a single representative to make that motion. The ultimate problem is that the Republicans have a faction of crazies who would like nothing better than to shut down the House. As the linked fact check reports, Boehner's retirement was prompted in part by the failed motion to remove him and Ryan initially would run for Speaker only if the rule were changed (although he eventually dropped that condition). That the House was never plagued with this by crazies for two centuries is more about norms of actually governing that the GOP has destroyed.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You didn't think a "fact check" from 2015 might not have fully captured the situation in 2023?

What the Republicans did (last January) was change the threshold from five to one, making it significantly easier to trigger a vote to oust the Speaker.

[Life of Brian]

What the Republicans did (last January) was change the threshold from five to one, making it significantly easier to trigger a vote to oust the Speaker.

Since we’re trying to paint a complete picture, what the Republicans actually did was restore the threshold to what it was way back in the hoary year of 2018, before Pelosi raised the threshold to help protect her tush against [relatively] young Democratic upstarts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks.

[Life of Brian]

My pleasure. This is a perfect example of the phenomenon I noted upthread -- Loki speaks so confidently, extensively, and matter-of-factly that some folks apparently just give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually knows what he's talking about instead of just saying what he wants to be true (or, best case, believes to be true based on the apparently very limited bubble he lives in).

[Magister]

It's more likely the Democrats were protecting themselves against the crazy Republicans who had decided to weaponize the motion to vacate. Both Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy wanted the same rule, but caved to the extremists. Nobody thought it needed before 2015, as it was only used once in over 200 years before that (the only time it was voted down).

From 2020, Freedom Caucus presses McCarthy to launch long-shot bid to oust Pelosi. Without the rule change, the Freedom Caucus would likely have done so without McCarthy.

The hard-line Freedom Caucus has a long history with using a motion to vacate to go after House leaders. Former Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), now Trump’s chief of staff, once filed a motion to vacate against former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio); it never received a vote on the House floor but Boehner soon resigned. And the House Freedom Caucus often dangled the procedural tool as a threat during former Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) tenure.

[Life of Brian]

That's a nice speculative article and all, but the precise reason they had to admit it was a "long shot" is because the Republicans were -- of course -- in the minority at the time (36 seats down, to be exact). So the only way Pelosi could have actually gone down was with the help of (a lot of) defectors from her own party.

[Magister]

Less speculative than your baseless assertions that Pelosi did it because of the Democratic left. In her narrow election in the previous Congress, she only lost a few votes from centrist Democrats, not surprising for representatives in swing districts who wanted a little distance from Pelosi, regularly demonized by Republicans nationwide.

[Life of Brian]

We have two choices here:

1. Genuine fear over an actual intra-party coup that could actually happen.
2. Groundless paranoia over an inter-party coup that could not.

If you have some actual evidence that Pelosi had truly gone cuckoo and #2 was actually the motivation, I'm happy to read it. In the meantime, I feel no particular obligation to demonstrate to you that water is wet.

[Magister]

You of course have no evidence of anything, only your own baseless speculation. A more likely possibility than either you list is that the Freedom Caucus would use the privileged motion to vacate to disrupt the chamber, regardless of which party held the majority, which they had already deployed against their own majority, and Democrats modified the rules to avoid this.

[Life of Brian]

[misthreaded -- see below]

[Life of Brian]

This is a nonfalsifiable, boogeyman under the bed theory. Good thing Pelosi started wearing her lucky rabbit's foot!

In all seriousness, you've convinced me that I did indeed leave something out. The third and most likely explanation is that Pelosi pushed for this rule change to protect herself from an intra-party challenge, while at the same time whipping up conspiracy theories in the press about how Republicans might (make a motion that would be summarily and resoundingly defeated and then... um... some sort of underwear-gnome-worthy PROFIT?), knowing gullible partisans would unquestioningly carry that water.

[Magister]

You start from your desired conclusion, that Pelosi and the Democrats did something bad, and speculate furiously to try to make it seem so.

The strong evidence against the leftist cabal you've built up in your still completely baseless conspiracy theory is that the most leftist Democrats didn't feel this was aimed at them, or they would have pushed to get rid of the rule in 2021 when Pelosi became speaker on a much slimmer majority. Whose behavior led to a perceived need for this rule, which Ryan and McCarthy both wanted? The Freedom Caucus. Who did push to get rid of this rule when they had leverage to do so? Yes, the Freedom Caucus.

[Brett Bellmore]

A mostly accurate summation, I think. It's pretty silly trying to make this thing any fault of the Democratic party; It would be fairly unusual, to say the least, for the minority party to give the majority any help in electing a Speaker.

I don't find the whole thing particularly upsetting, though. The party establishment couldn't ignore it's right wing, and the right wing couldn't rule by itself, so they ended up compromising on somebody low key and competent the whole caucus found unobjectionable.

I mean, obviously not somebody the Democrats will like, but that's par for the course when you're not the majority.

[loki13]

I don't disagree. I do think that the overall process resulted in a worse candidate (for various degrees of "worse") being chosen as the Speaker, but that's the GOP's business. I also don't think that any of the fantasy notions of involving the Democrats were more than that- fantasy. Because the GOP knew that any members who did that would be relentlessly attacked, so there was never any incentive for individual members to push that absent broad consent from the party, which was never coming.

FWIW, when I say "worse," I don't think that he will necessarily be a bad choice. He may end up being a great Speaker. But he's certainly not a person they would have selected based on his prior credentials....

A. The hard-right, Trumpists like him. But his involvement with J6 will be a problem for the members who are in more moderate districts when it comes time for the next election.

B. He is really, truly bad at fundraising. Sure, McCarthy might continue to help in the background, but that's not a great attribute.

C. He's never served as the chair of a major committee, or shown any prior ability to wrangle votes. So after the initial honeymoon period ... which will involve the "fun" of getting the government funded ... he will have to go back to managing the same disparate factions that incredibly talented politicians with a lot of experience had so much difficulty with.

Time will tell if he ends up rising to the occasion, or if this is an example of seizing a poisoned chalice.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe he'll just... do the job of Speaker? The actual job, I mean. That would be refreshing.

[OtisAH]

“Maybe he’ll just… do the job of Speaker? The actual job, I mean.”

The mind reels at the possibilities of Brett’s understanding of the speaker’s role and responsibilities. But whatever it is, it’s sure to be stupid.

[Nelson]

Brett, what do you see as the actual job of the Speaker of the House?

I'm assuming you mean that the position has taken on more roles and powers than it should, but I'm not sure where your objections lie.

What is your objection to the role of Speaker as it is practiced today?

[bernard11]

so they ended up compromising on somebody low key and competent the whole caucus found unobjectionable.

Well, low-key anyway. Competence remains to be proven. And let's not pretend the guy is not an extremist. Just a low-key one.

[Kazinski]

Well you misunderstand Loki, I wasn't claiming that the Democrats were responsible, or that they had anything to do with prolonging the speakership fight.

My reference was to the fact the media covered it as a hostage crises. While it was certainly a big thing it was hardly a crises. In fact it was just a minor reenactment of when the Conservatives first replaced Boris Johnson, and next Liz Truss in the UK last year.

[loki13]

Well, then I apologize for misconstruing what you were saying.

That said, you can't blame the media for its breathless coverage. First, because that's what they do, and because that's what people watch.

Second, your analogy to the UK, while not completely accurate (the PM is a little different than the Speaker) is similar in this fashion- that was a big deal in the UK! Just like this was a big deal here!

Third, and most importantly, it was actually a story in terms of relevance- in modern history, what was going on was completely unheard of. Not a small thing.

The idea that this kind of factionalism would so paralyze the GOP in a manner we had not previously seen despite the presence of multiple ongoing crises that would normally provide at least some cover for unity was the real story.

The question that will be answered in the upcoming weeks and months is whether this band-aid choice will hold ... well, at least through the next election cycle.

[Kazinski]

Sure that is what they do.

That’s why they have lost almost all credibility.

And as for unheard of, maybe it should be heard of more often.

The Speaker of the House is a lesser office compared to PM of the UK, yet the idea of challenging the speaker with a no confidence vote has been considered beyond the pale for more than a century.

How many PM’s have been kicked out by a no confidence vote, or the threat of one, since the last house speaker was kicked out?

I'd be surprised if it was only 10 times.

Its ridiculous to say a house speaker should never be challenged. It should happen a lot more often.

[Nelson]

Perhaps, but under a parliamentary system it is a challenge to the coalition that the PM is supported by.

Removing a PM usually results in a new coalition being formed, since if the old coalition had remained united a no confidence vote would have failed.

What happened in the House was Republican on Republican violence, instigated by Matt Gaetz for his own self-aggrandizement.

Jim Jordan tried to force his way to the gavel, but fortunately for America that pompous jackass got his shit pushed in in a very public manner. Three times. It was the best part of this whole shitshow, watching him lose more and more support each vote they took.

I don't see the value in wingnuts being empowered to neuter one of the houses of Congress for weeks because of a selfish, eight-member minority.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That said, you can’t blame the media for its breathless coverage. First, because that’s what they do, and because that’s what people watch.

Yes, we certainly can't hold people responsible for the choices they make, now can we?

[Nige]

Republican incompetence and dysfunction is good actually!

[Armchair]

The Republican Caucus is not monolithic. It represents a large variety of views, it's a "big tent". With that the case, one should expect some degree of "messiness" as things get worked out.

On the other hand, when a party claims to represent a large variety of views, but everyone meekly gets in line, without any real struggle on the big issues...you've got to ask. Do they "really" represent a large variety of views? Or do they just say that.

[Nige]

Not being monolithic and not being able to get your shit together are two different things. Which of the differences involved here were substantive policy differences and which were pure clashes of grotesque personalities? The absence of any interest in legislative accomplishments is glaring. Where do all those death threats fit in?

[Armchair]

The proverbial "shit" has been gotten together. So, why whine?

[Nige]

You're the one trying to make that clown show look like anything but the clown show it was.

[Idihax]

Correct. The Democrats have no dissenters. Every one of them is a far leftist.

[Nelson]

Every single one, eh? Joe Manchin would like a word with you.

[Idihax]

He voted in favor of the wasteful and inflationary March 2021 "stimulus" and he spearheaded the Inflation Reduction Act. And even though he claims to be a cultural conservative, I have no doubt that if the Schumer made a deal with him, he'd vote to protect abortion and the "right" of the Rev. Kirkland to penetrate Sandusky in the shower.

[Nelson]

"he’d vote to protect abortion"

Anyone who believes in personal liberty and opposes government imposing mimority moral values on people supports protecting abortion. That's why legal abortion is supported by the American public, including every religious group (including Catholics) except evangelical Protestants.

If the definition of a far leftist is voting for spending bills and supporting abortion, most Americans are far leftists.

[Sarcastr0]

This wasn't your usual coalition building, Armchair.

Your empty attempt at spinmeistering is only underscoring how crippled the GOP is.

In my opinion, this is due to not having a fundamental principled core these days. Or even a set of cores.
It's such a hollowed out party, all it cares about is owning the libs. Which makes power struggles be over nothing, with nothing to compromise over.

Dems, by contrast, have pet issues. Perhaps too many of them. But it gives them something to parlay over.

[Bob from Ohio]

Little the GOP House wants can possibly become law. So a fringe can run amok.

You think by your framing the GOP was a rump like in the 30s.

It flopped around a bit but got it done in the end. Nothing was delayed or stopped.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not about what can become law - I said nothing about numbers. Its about having some kind of ideological core beyond wanting power.

The GOP is now full of people like you, and it's already becoming a crabs in a bucket situation.

[Bob from Ohio]

"GOP is now full of people like you"

Sadly no.

[Sarcastr0]

Victory for it's own sake and the ends justify the means is you and the GOP - like twins.

You're just not as effective as in your head.

[apedad]

“'GOP is now full of people like you'” Sadly no."

Very true Bob from O!

What I'm not sure is; are you the RINO or is it the others?

[Magister]

Crabs are individually offended at being compared to Bob and the GOP, but are unable to work together to organize an effective protest.

[Kazinski]

The House should have power, the majority of the House should have power, and the Presidents job is to faithfully execute the laws.

That is the way the constitution is designed.

[Sarcastr0]

Uh, the Constitution explicitly says the 'executive Power.'

[Kazinski]

Whoosh. Read the constitution.

All spending bills have to originate in the house. If that isn't control of the levers of power I don't know what is.

[Kazinski]

I think you misunderstand Bob. The House has o pass spending bills, if they don't pass it it doesn't get spent.

The federal government hasn't passed its spending bills on time since 1996. Since then its depended on omnibus and stop gap spending bills rather than have the committees come up with the spending bills for each department.

For the House to get control of the government they have to change that, and if the house can do that what they say the government can spend money on, and what they say they can't then becomes law.

[Sarcastr0]

The federal government hasn’t passed its spending bills on time since 1996

This is not the same problem as Chaos House. The parties not being able to come together is not the same as the GOP circular firing squad.

In other news, the new speaker seems pro-shutdown.

[Nelson]

"Little the GOP House wants can possibly become law."

No, little that the right fringe of the GOP in the House wants can possibly become law. That's a very different thing.

"So a fringe can run amok."

Running amok is the feature for a large portion for the House GOP, not a bug.

[hobie]

Messy. Yes. Now we have an insurrectionist as speaker. He tried to strip the votes from the people in Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania...but not Louisiana

[Frank Drackman]

Good!,
Better than that Black Surpremercist Hakeem Jefferson (Stupid Token(He is the "Minority Leader") can't even spell his fake African name right, it's supposed to be "Hakim" as in the Rifle the Egyptians lost multiple wars to the Israelis with (have a nice one, "Never Fired and only dropped Once")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakim_Rifle

Frank

[Estragon]

How excited are the people who want to get rid of no fault divorce?!

[Ben_]

"I got to say, part of me prefers the messy nature of this…"

If you were as shallow as the Democrats you would know that appearances are the only way to judge anything. The middle-school mean girls say Mike isn’t cool and the process was unfashionable.

[M L]

I saw some clips of Mike Johnson droning on about systemic racism and BLM and George Floyd, he sounded just like a progressive. Which seems just a little bit odd.

I'm sure hes a YUGE neocon and big "foreign aid" guy too.

[shawn_dude]

MJ:
- An ardent Christian Nationalist
- Supports merging church and state
- Virulently anti-LGBT (former lawyer for the ADF (an SPLC classified "hate group.")
- Proposed a nationwide "Don't Say Gay" law
- An election denier and architect of the Electoral College count debacle on Jan 6
- Anti-abortion (supports nationwide ban)
- Climate change denier
- Great Replacement conspiracy theory nut

If *that's* what the MAGAts are defining as "progressive," y'all are just batshit crazy.

[Nige]

Young Earth Creationist, too. But he has a black kid, so he's woke.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in the District of Columbia, claiming selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.116.0_3.pdf The motion utterly fails to identify any person(s) who, having committed similar offenses of which the prosecution was aware, were nevertheless not prosecuted. That is the sine qua non of a selective prosecution claim.

[hobie]

How does Trump keeping finding the dumbest attorneys in America?

[Frank Drackman]

Same way you keep making the stupidest comments in Amurica.
The Judge already found him guilty, I'd call it a Kangaroo Court but it'd be insulting to the Kangaroos, and you know the Juries in DC/ATL are gonna be all Floyd George fans, only place he might get a fair trial is in Florida, the real Jury votes next fall, no way Parkinsonian Joe's still alive then (No assassination, Parkinson's) you really think Common-Law Harris can carry Georgia/PA/MI/WI/AZ??

Frank

[SRG2]

His attorneys are, I think, like football coaches who bring in a difficult player who's been kicked out from a few other teams, in the belief that somehow they will be able to manage him.

[loki13]

Except at the end of the day, the football coaches get paid.

And most of them don't have to worry about jail time or losing their license to coach.

[Life of Brian]

And most of them don’t have to worry about jail time or losing their license

Nor, of course, do attorneys who vigorously pursue the most transparently frivolous grounds in asylum cases, nor attorneys who for decades present a wagon train of transparently frivolous appeals on technical grounds for unquestionably guilty murderers. Oh, wait -- we've come full circle on selective prosecution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

How does Trump keeping finding the dumbest attorneys in America?

He uses the same method he uses for judicial appointments. Pick the person most likely to tell him what he wants to hear. In both cases, what Trump wants to hear is likely insanely dumb, so the outcomes are alike. It is an efficient method, by the way, if you disregard whether the result matters for some other reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As we made clear in our motion to dismiss based on fair-notice principles, which we incorporate herein, the track record of similar, unprosecuted, efforts dates back to 1800 and includes at least seven other elections. "

[not guilty]

Uh, no. The language which the motion purports to incorporate appears at page 25 0f the referenced motion:

There is a long history in our Nation—dating back to 1800 and encompassing elections in 1800, 1824, 1876, 1960, 2000, 2004, and 2016, among many others—of disputing the outcome of close Presidential elections, publicly claiming that election results were tainted by fraud, filing legal actions to challenge election results, lobbying Congress to certify disputed election results in one side’s favor or the other, and organizing alternate, contingent slates of electors to assist in such efforts. In other words, all the chief alleged acts charged in the indictment have a long historical pedigree in American electoral history, and they have long been decided in the political arena. President Trump is the first person to face criminal charges for such core political behavior as disputing the outcome of an election.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.113.0_1.pdf

That ipse dixit assertion identifies no criminal actors and specifies no prosecutorial decision makers. The crimes Donald Trump is charged with is not merely disputing election results, and there is no one in American history is similarly situated to Trump. A selective prosecution claimant must demonstrate that the federal prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. To establish a discriminatory effect, the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996).

Defendants bear a "demanding" burden when seeking to establish that they are being selectively prosecuted in an unconstitutional manner. Armstrong, at 463. "In order to dispel the presumption that a prosecutor has not violated equal protection, a criminal defendant must present clear evidence to the contrary." Id., at 465.

One U.S. Court of Appeals has defined a "similarly situated" person for selective prosecution purposes as one who engaged in the same type of conduct, which means that the comparator committed the same basic crime in substantially the same manner as the defendant — so that any prosecution of that individual would have the same deterrence value and would be related in the same way to the Government's enforcement priorities and enforcement plan — and against whom the evidence was as strong or stronger than that against the defendant. United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 810 (11th Cir. 2000). Accord: United States v. Stone, 394 F.Supp.3d 1, 31 (D.D.C. 2019). If there is no one to whom defendant could be compared in order to resolve the question of prosecutorial selection, then it follows that defendant has failed to make out one of the elements of its case. Discrimination cannot exist in a vacuum; it can be found only in the unequal treatment of people in similar circumstances. Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 144-45(D.C. Cir. 2000); Attorney General of U.S. v. Irish People, Inc., 684 F.2d 928, 946 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

[Brett Bellmore]

You needed to reach the discussion of alternate slates of electors starting on page 28. Maybe by doing a search for the word "electors"?

[not guilty]

Uh, Team Trump there is not claiming that anyone engaged in criminal conduct in 1876 or in 1960 or in 2000 that nevertheless went unprosecuted. (Not to mention that today's decision makers were not in any prosecutorial capacity then.)

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they’re claiming that their conduct is the same as the conduct in 1960 that wasn’t treated as criminal, which is to say, wasn’t prosecuted. And therefore, they were not suitably on notice that it would now be treated as criminal.

It's not that nobody previously did it, but that nobody who previously did it ever got prosecuted for doing it.

[not guilty]

"A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996). Such a claim presupposes that the actors who were not prosecuted had in fact committed crimes under circumstances similar to the offense(s) the accused is charged with.

Trump's yammering about "selective prosecution" of conduct which itself is noncriminal is nonsensical.

[Life of Brian]

Trump’s yammering about “selective prosecution” of conduct which itself is noncriminal

More silly table pounding. If it's noncriminal, he shouldn't be prosecuted for it either. That's... sorta the point here.

[Nelson]

It's Trump's lawyers who seem to be confused as to whether it's criminal or not.

As I understand it, his lawyers are simultaneously claiming that it isn't criminal but at the same time it is criminal and wasn't prosecuted a long, long time ago by different prosecutors.

Lawyers, is that accurate?

[Life of Brian]

It's called arguing in the alternative, and it's a very common way to structure a legal argument. Here, if the prior conduct wasn't prosecuted because it wasn't criminal, then Trump's isn't criminal either. If on the other hand the prior conduct was criminal but still wasn't prosecuted, then Trump is being singled out for selective prosecution.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Arguing in the alternative.

[not guilty]

Uh, Trump's lawyers did not claim to be arguing in the alternative. They asserted a claim of selective prosecution, but did not identify a single comparator. That is incompetent lawyering, plain and simple. They never asserted that anyone who previously challenged a presidential election result committed a crime by so doing.

Have you actually read the various motions to dismiss, LoB? Yes or no?

Have you ever tried a criminal jury trial or written a brief on appeal?

[Life of Brian]

Is your pecker as sizable as I represent mine to be? Yes or no?

I see you've tiptoed away from some of your more embarrassing gaffes upstream and are now shifting into your chest-thumping mode in a different thread that looks safer.

Most would have enough self-awareness to understand how weak and insecure that sort of silly saloon-style strutting makes them look.

[not guilty]

Southern folk wisdom teaches that when one throws a stick into a pack of dogs, the dog that gets hit is the one that hollers.

Once again, weasel, have you actually read the various motions to dismiss? Yes or no?

Have you ever tried a criminal jury trial or written a brief on appeal?

I don't care about your pecker -- if you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

[Life of Brian]

Have you ever tried a criminal jury trial or written a brief on appeal?

You try this prancing, swaggering "whip out your credentials" nonsense every few months, and it's not ever going to garner a different result. Again, I suspect it's ultimately grounded in insecurity, since you tend to hurl it out as a distraction when you get painted into a corner on one of your slavishly shallow analyses.

if you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

As Maggie Thacher might have put it, if you have to say you're a big dog, you're just a yappy little mutt.

[not guilty]

IOW, the answer to my questions is no, but you lack the integrity to acknowledge it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEzfhclKO8Q

[Life of Brian]

And there's your "oooo.... adoptive ADMISSHUN!!!" line you're clearly so proud of remembering from your evidence class. Have you considered mixing it up at all? This silly routine got stale about 3-4 cycles ago.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Always helpful when LoB examples the kind of retort which looks convincing in MAGA-land. He gets it pitch-perfect, every time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So today is the Palestinian day of rage in American academia.

Today is the day that America learns the extent to which Radical Islam has penetrated and now controls American academia.

This isn't playing well in flyover country....

[Frank Drackman]

Its not playing well in Brooklyn
Though I wouldn't admit it, I did always think (Dr.) Baruch Goldstein went a little overboard, today, not so much.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, if American Jews stopped voting for leftists....

[Sarcastr0]

So pro Jew, Ed is.

[Frank Drackman]

In todays world anyone not supporting our Extermination is Pro-Jew

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.businessinsider.com/which-lawmakers-voted-against-israel-resolution-hamas-attacks-progressives-2023-10

I wonder what it must be like for Jews who live in these 16 congress-persons' districts...

[Sarcastr0]

Better tell those Jews how they should vote if they want to be truly Jewish, eh Ed?

[Frank Drackman]

Not as bad as Barry Hussein Osama telling the Israelis how to fight their war.

[Ed Grinberg]

What I meant was: imagine being a Jew, living in a district represented in Congress by someone not opposed to what happened in Israel on 10/7 -- i.e., not opposed to mass slaughter of Jews.
Forget about "be[ing] truly Jewish"; I'd say that voting for someone like that means you are not truly human.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/09/sara-foster-blasts-those-not-supporting-israel-amid-hamas-war-you-are-not-human/

[Frank Drackman]

We've Survived 10+ years of Barry Hussein and Parkinsonian Joe, I like our enemies being out in the open, easier to identify and "deal" with

[Sarcastr0]

You say 'imagine being a Jew' but what you're saying is more 'Jews think like this.'

Probably? Depends on the Jew? You're trying to pick a fight on behalf of a third party.

My friends who are Jewish have a wide variety of opinions at the moment. None of them are happy with the situation, but I wouldn't venture to speak to their opinion generally beyond that.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Here is a press release Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued on October 9, 2023: "Today is devastating for all those seeking a lasting peace and respect for human rights in Israel and Palestine. I condemn Hamas’ attack in the strongest possible terms. No child and family should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing oppression and occupation in the region. An immediate ceasefire and de-escalation is urgently needed to save lives.”

So much for not being opposed to what happened in Israel on 10/7. But I suppose that if you have decided to declare that voters who support someone like AOC “are not truly human,” mere facts aren't going to stop you.

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine

[apedad]

ACLU sides with Trump, argues Jan. 6 case gag order is unconstitutional

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Wednesday urged the judge overseeing former President Trump’s federal 2020 election criminal case in D.C. to reevaluate her gag order, arguing it is unconstitutionally overly broad and vague.

The ACLU said the order is vague enough to violate Trump’s due process rights, contending he “cannot possibly know” what he is permitted to say.

“The entire order hinges on the meaning of the word ‘target,’” the ACLU wrote in its brief. “But that meaning is ambiguous, and fails to provide the fair warning that the Constitution demands, especially when, as here, it concerns a prior restraint on speech.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4275146-aclu-trump-jan-6-gag-order-unconstitutional/

I can agree with this position.

We are in uncharted territory with Trump's trials so there will be decisions that may have to be re-addressed and Trump's lawyers have absolutely no qualms about pushing those limits.

[Nige]

Didn’t he doxx and lie about a court clerk? I expect the problem here is the lack of procedures and rules to adequately deal with somone who behaves like Trump, an uncrowned king.

[apedad]

That was in the fraud case.

The ACLU thing is about the Jan 6 case.

We need a scorecard or something.

[Commenter_XY]

We need a scorecard or something.

Ok, now that was pretty funny. Data dashboard? 🙂

[Nige]

Damn. Right. Sorry.

[Martinned]

Just cancel his bail, put him in jail and take away his phone.

[ThePublius]

Yea, and damn the Constitution!

[Martinned]

Do you think the Constitution says that prisoners have the right to a phone, or that it says that accused criminals who violate their bail conditions are entitled not to have their bail revoked?

[loki13]

To make two obvious points-

1. There cannot be a per se rule that “running for President” means you cannot be charged, tried, or sent to prison. Or else we would see A LOT of people suddenly run for President.

2. The idea that you cannot run for President from a jail cell would be news to Eugene Debs.

(By saying this, I am not expressing any opinion as to the merits of the Donald Trump’s bail conditions. Obviously, it is typical for a defendant … well, SOME defendants (ahem) to be out prior to the trial. OTOH, it’s also entirely possible for even THOSE TYPES of defendants to be remanded back into custody for screwing around. If you don’t believe me, ask SBF.)

[David Nieporent]

1. There cannot be a per se rule that “running for President” means you cannot be charged, tried, or sent to prison. Or else we would see A LOT of people suddenly run for President.

Of course not. Don't be silly. There needs to be a per se rule that being Donald Trump means you cannot be charged, tried, or sent to prison.

[Frank Drackman]

Hunter would probably like it, it's one place he could get his crack easily.

[Bob from Ohio]

"put him in jail"

Why do you hate the Secret Service?

[Martinned]

He can still be in a rich people jail for all I care. Just a rich people jail with bars where he's not allowed access to social media.

[Bob from Ohio]

Your sexual fantasy is never going to happen.

[Kazinski]

But all his escape attempts should be free.

[Martinned]

What part of "I think this is a difficult question" do you not understand???

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, something we can agree upon.
Awaiting not guilty's counter argument.

[not guilty]

I haven't read the ACLU brief, but the Special Counsel's filing in opposition to Trump's motion to stay the gag order pending appeal is persuasive. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.120.0.pdf

[not guilty]

The government is requesting that the Court modify Trump's conditions of pretrial release.

[Life of Brian]

As I read it, the section purporting to rebut vagueness relies on single DC Circuit case, and cherry-picks a single dictionary definition (each time from a different dictionary) for certain terms to supposedly show how unmistakably clear the scope of the order is. Do you truly find that quality of argument persuasive?

[not guilty]

"As I read it, the section purporting to rebut vagueness relies on single DC Circuit case, and cherry-picks a single dictionary definition (each time from a different dictionary) for certain terms to supposedly show how unmistakably clear the scope of the order is. "

That is simply a falsehood.

[Life of Brian]

That is simply a falsehood.

How tellingly lazy. You linked to the case, so I know you have it. The argument is on pages 26-29. The DC Circuit case the section appeals to throughout the section is United States v. Bronstein; the first dictionary supplying the cherry-picked definition of "target" is the Oxford English Dictionary; the second dictionary supplying the cherry-picked definition of "interested party" is Black's Law Dictionary.

I'll wait for your thoughtful explanation of how any of that is remotely false.

[not guilty]

Is it difficult to comment with pants on fire? In addition to United States v. Bronstein, 849 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the government’s reply at pages 26 through 29 quotes and/or cites the following decisional authorities regarding vagueness:

ACLU v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 303 F.Supp.3d 11, 27 (D.D.C. 2018)
Bryant v. Gates, 532 F.3d 888, 893 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 794 (1989)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 305-06 (2008)

And FWIW, Bronstein includes a comprehensive discussion of authorities regarding vagueness claims.

Donald Trump is dense, but even he should have no trouble discerning whether his commentary is “targeted” to a witness or other person identified in Judge Chutkan’s order — if he wants to comply with that order.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I'm shocked -- shocked -- that you'd resort to silly gotcha mode. The fact that there's an occasional side or string cite to a different case on a tangential issue does not affect one whit that they're trying to ride Bronstein all the way home on this. Remove it, and their entire argument falls apart.

Donald Trump is dense, but even he should have no trouble discerning whether his commentary is “targeted” to a witness

I take it this table-pounding is attempted cover for your concession on my cherry-picked dictionary definition point. And strangely enough, the ACLU completely disagrees with you that Trump (or anyone) faced with the word "targeted" would be able to sufficiently predict its contours so as to both fully indulge in protected speech and avoid contempt.

[Magister]

If they were pivoting between Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster, you might have a point. "target" probably doesn't have a special legal meaning, but "interested party" likely does, so consulting Black's Law Dictionary on that one seems unremarkable. Does either dictionary have definitions for both?

[Life of Brian]

My point was not that they picked the wrong two dictionaries, or the wrong sole dictionary. There are lots of dictionaries, each of which has multiple definitions. How is the target of a gag order to know which one they'll be judged under?

[not guilty]

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and reading comprehension, who wanted to comply with Judge Chutkan's partial gag order, could easily determine how to do so. The order is specific as to whom it applies to, appropriately narrow as to what subject matter to steer clear of, and instructive as to what political commentary is permissible.

That having been said, Donald Trump's lawyers illustrate the perspicacity of Upton Sinclair's famous comment: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

[Life of Brian]

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and reading comprehension, who wanted to comply with Judge Chutkan’s partial gag order, could easily determine how to do so.

Of course: one could guarantee not being dragged into a contempt hearing by not making any public statements whatsoever about the case or anything related to it. Much beyond that, it starts getting dicey. And even if you win, you still had to take the time/expense to deal with the hearing. Is saying anything at all really worth it?

If you genuinely don't understand how that sort of cloud of uncertainty is excessively chilling to Constitutionally protected speech, I don't know how to help you.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump understands when and as to what he is gagged, and when he is not. When Judge Chutkan granted an administrative stay of the order, Trump promptly trashed Mark Meadows in social media commentary that the order would otherwise have prohibited.

[Life of Brian]

Donald Trump understands when and as to what he is gagged, and when he is not. When Judge Chutkan granted an administrative stay of the order, Trump promptly trashed Mark Meadows

Speaking of dictionaries, your sense of the word “promptly” needs a tune-up. The gag order was stayed nearly a week ago; Trump posted about Meadows the middle of this week. It’s like a throwback to people hundreds of years ago that went outside and did silly little dances because every time they did, eventually it rained.

Back in the world of rational logic, the timeline was 1) Judge Chutkan stayed the gag order; 2) a few days later news broke that Mark Meadows had made an immunity deal; and 3) Trump posted about it almost immediately after the news broke.

And even if in some weird alternate universe you were correct on causation, that would just demonstrate my point quite crisply. “When” is absolutely true. But “as to what” is murky to the point where under your theory he waited until the order was stayed to say anything about Meadows at all.

[Martinned]

Today in "wow, who knew that Switzerland might have trouble counting votes correctly?"

Switzerland revises election results after counting error
Far right performed slightly worse while centrist parties did better than the erroneous count showed

As a result the populist right (SVP) got 27.9% of the vote instead of 28.6%.

Like the FT explains, this might actually affect the composition of the Swiss government, which has basically been more or less the same since 1848. (The SVP got an extra seat in the 1990s, but that's about it.)

The Greens have already declared that the adjusted result makes them more likely to fight for a place in government. The seven seats on the Federal Council are allocated between the four largest parties in parliament in a set ratio — 2:2:2:1 — known as “the magic formula”. There is no constitutional basis for the allocation, however.

With a strengthened hand — and a narrative which has subtly shifted in their favour — the Greens are more likely to try and fight for a historic alteration to the ratio in the coming weeks.

https://www.ft.com/content/9b2265e6-2d4e-4b10-8309-0a905d72f5cc

[Bob from Ohio]

Wow, the left benefits from a "mistake" in counting votes. Unprecedented!

[Krayt]

It was a joke during the Cold War that the Soviet central committee had a higher turnover rate than the US congress.

[Martinned]

I can see how it would blow your mind that the authorities in three of the most conservative cantons in the country did a recount that disfavoured the populist right-wing party.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Run by CINOs, obvs.

[Martinned]

They didn't let women vote until 1990 in those parts of Switzerland. Make of that what you will.

[Kazinski]

That's nothing, our census department, by its own admission, miscounted the 2020 census beyond the margin of error, and three Blue states got bonus Congressional seats, and two Red states were deprived their rightful seats:

"In a shocking report that has not received the attention it deserves, the U.S. Census Bureau recently admitted that its 2020 Census count of the American population was incorrect in at least 14 states."

"As explained below, as a result of these errors, Florida did not receive two additional congressional seats and Texas did not receive one more congressional seat. Meanwhile, two other states, Minnesota and Rhode Island, each retained a congressional seat that they should have lost, and Colorado gained a new seat to which it was rightfully not entitled."
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/census-bureau-errors-distort-congressional-representation-the-states

[Sarcastr0]

miscounted the 2020 census beyond the margin of error

"The purpose of the Post-Enumeration Survey is to measure the accuracy of the census. The survey measures the accuracy of the census by independently surveying a sample of the population."

"
For Immediate Release: Thursday, March 10, 2022
Census Bureau Releases Estimates of Undercount and Overcount in the 2020 Census
March 10, 2022
Press Release Number CB22-CN.02
Post-Enumeration Survey and Demographic Analysis Help Evaluate 2020 Census Results
March 10, 2022 — The U.S. Census Bureau released results today from two analyses about the quality of the 2020 Census counts. While both showed the strength of the count for the total U.S. population, each analysis revealed that the 2020 Census overcounted or undercounted various demographic groups.

“Today’s results show statistical evidence that the quality of the 2020 Census total population count is consistent with that of recent censuses. This is notable, given the unprecedented challenges of 2020,” said Director Robert L. Santos. “But the results also include some limitations — the 2020 Census undercounted many of the same population groups we have historically undercounted, and it overcounted others.”

"The Black or African American alone or in combination population had a statistically significant undercount of 3.30%. This is not statistically different from the 2.06% undercount in 2010.

The Hispanic or Latino population had a statistically significant undercount rate of 4.99%. This is statistically different from a 1.54% undercount in 2010."

This is not a conspiracy.

You want an accurate census, amend the Constitution to allow for sampling.

[Idihax]

Or better yet, amend the Constitution to make clear that one with more than a nominal drop of non-European blood is not entitled to the protections of citizenship.

[shawn_dude]

Maybe Florida and Texas couldn't figure out how to simultaneously discourage Black and Latinx voters and encourage them to respond to a census? Or perhaps they had trouble figuring out how to gerrymander those non-white votes into safe GOP seats that elect wingnuts like Matt Gaetz so they settled for undercounting to maintain existing white nationalist seats.

[Armchair]

So, the war in Ukraine is important, and it's important the US provide assistance. But assistance, and "unlimited assistance" are different things.

Since the war began, the US has provided approximately $75 Billion in aid to Ukraine since the war began. That's not small potatoes...it's approximately 50% of the money the US spends annually on the US Army itself. Once could theoretically buy approximately 7,500 M1 Abrams for Ukraine with $75 Billion. (Ukraine has actually gotten just 31). This doesn't count the aid that Europe has sent Ukraine. But Biden's asking for more money. Another $61 Billion.

So, I think it's not unreasonable to ask...where has all the money gone? What's the accounting on this new requisition? If you're spending $1 Billion to get 100 M1 Tanks to Ukraine in the next 3 months, that's one thing. If you're spending $1 Billion to get 100 M1 Tanks to Ukraine in 2030.....perhaps that money could be better spent elsewhere. And if you're spending $1 billion on "stuff" that isn't identified...maybe there's something else going on and that shouldn't be allocated either.

These are important questions to ask. This doesn't mean Ukraine isn't supported. It does mean that accounting and reasonable plans are actually needed.

[hobie]

People seem to forget that we've been locked in a cold war with Russia for 80 years. Spending trillions just to maintain a detente. Now one lone country is having to wage the fight the western world should have done decades ago. Ukraine is the world's proxy and we owe them everything they need

[Mr. Bumble]

You're saying Patton was right?

[hobie]

Most definitely he was right. Ross Perot was also right (recall he stated that at the time in 1992 post Soviet collapse that material aid to a then-floundering Russia would be the best money we ever spent. Instead, the crooks took over)

[Bob from Ohio]

Should have bought nukes in exchange for aid [and bribes]. No nukes, probably no Ukraine invasion.

[bernard11]

I actually agree with this.

[Kazinski]

Ukraine had nukes but they gave them up in the 90's when the US and Russia game to an agreement with Ukraine where they would jointly guarantee Ukraine's security.

Obviously Ukraine was quite naive, I'm not sure whether Clinton was naive or mendacious in his assurances to Ukraine to get them to agree.

[Commenter_XY]

Q: How did weaponry sent to Ukraine manage to make it into Hamas' hands?

Q: UKR Prez Zelinski has fired his defense minister and a bunch of generals for corruption. How should US policy change in response?

[Sarcastr0]

CLAIM: A video shows a BBC News report confirming Ukraine provided weapons to Hamas.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The widely shared video clip is fabricated. Officials with the BBC and Bellingcat, an investigative news website that is cited in the video as the source, confirm that neither outlet has reported such a claim. Experts say there is no evidence of Hamas making such a claim, either, and say there is no reason for Ukraine to arm the militant group.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-israel-hamas-ukraine-russia-weapons-265852026856

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Gosh, what a surprising turn of events...

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there's a strong argument that where it's gone is into bleeding a strategic adversary dry. Which is always a nice thing to do, if you can arrange to do it with other people doing the dying.

And, you know, we did sort of give Ukraine some guarantees when we persuaded them to give up the nukes the USSR had left in their territory.

[hobie]

Agree

[Commenter_XY]

UKR has managed to destroy roughly 20% of RUS military capacity in Europe, forestalling any thought of Russia invading NATO countries anytime soon. In a straight up conventional fight, NATO will crush RUS. That much is clear.

If the US strategic goal is to fight RUS down to the last Ukrainian, it is working out splendidly. Eastern UKR is just a human meat grinder.

[Sarcastr0]

the US strategic goal is to fight RUS down to the last Ukrainian

Low key advocating for Russian imperialism. Quit it.
This is not a proxy war; we didn't start it, Ukraine has agency, and much of the world is with Ukraine alongside the US.

[Frank Drackman]

God is on the side with the bigger Army

[Brett Bellmore]

"Low key advocating for Russian imperialism."

I'm not seeing where you're getting that.

[Sarcastr0]

He’s against US supporting Ukraine in this. He has posted a number of times he thinks this is a proxy war with the Ukaine as a catspaw.

He has also mentioned in the context of his position on the war in Ukraine that he doesn’t like the Ukraine because of how they treated the Jews before WW2.

Grudge based policy positions.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I get that, I don't get how he reaches "low key advocating for Russian imperialism". That would seem a better fit to just letting Russia take Ukraine.

[Sarcastr0]

low key advocating for Russian imperialism
=is the same as=
just letting Russia take Ukraine
=is the same as=
Ending support for Ukraine

[Brett Bellmore]

"the US strategic goal is to fight RUS down to the last Ukrainian" DNE "just letting Russia take Ukraine". If anything it equals the opposite.

[David Nieporent]

You're misunderstanding. When he says "fighting RUS down to the last Ukrainian," he's criticizing that.

[Krayt]

"Oh noes! So many Ukrainians are dying! Best to step aside and let Putin have it. Like Putin, I care for Ukrainians."

[John F. Carr]

Ukraine is far short of the death toll of a major war by historic standards. When several percent of fighting age men are dead the two sides can put themselves on the list with the Confederacy and Russia in the World Wars.

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr, you are right = Ukraine is far short of the death toll of a major war by historic standards. When several percent of fighting age men are dead the two sides can put themselves on the list with the Confederacy and Russia in the World Wars.

[Frank Drackman]

Russians grow up playing Chess,
a "Straight Up Conventional Fight" against NATO would be stupid, that's the kind of thing Amurican Generals/Politicians(Redundant, I know) do.
Russia has a "Queen" (several thousand actually) that they won't be afraid to use, again, unlike our Pussy Amurican Generals/Politicians.
I'm a Peace Freak, but don't be surprised when an Amurican Aircraft Carrier is sunk by a Russian Akula (The Pentagon will blame it on a MAGA sailor)

Frank "Peace, Freak"

[Jerry B.]

Well, it's better than giving $400 billion plus to slackers who can't pay off their college loans, even though they're making up to $125,000 annually ($250,000 for a couple).

[apedad]

Want to hear something awesome?!?

The military:

- Paid 75% of my bachelors and masters degrees.
- Have been paying me 50% of my military pay even though I retired over two decades ago.
- Pay about 90 - 95% of my medical costs (doc visits, meds, etc.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you for your service.

[Nelson]

Seconded.

[Frank Drackman]

Even more awesome?
paid all of my Med School, even paid me some $$$ while going (some $600/month, big money in the 80's)
Get this, they paid me to learn how to fly, and then I got paid extra every month to ride in the back of an FA18D, in fact if you didn't fly (I always did) you'd get a nasty-gram threatening to take your flight pay.
Of course they stopped paying me when I got out as soon as I'd paid back my time, it was fun, but not fun enough to work for half of what my Civilian pay is...

Frank

[Krayt]

My freshman year at U-Mich, my roommate was another engineering student. Never saw him after that.

Senior year I’m walking down the street, and this guy pulls over, it’s him. He had quit school and joined the navy, and the navy had sent him back to get a nuclear engineering degree.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Good for you. What did we get out of it?

[Nelson]

Security.

And a ruinously expensive war and graft ... I mean reconstruction ... in Iraq.

But the second part isn't the fault of the soldiers, or even the military brass. That part (and the Freedom Fries it gave us) was pure Republican politics,

[Frank Drackman]

That Parkinsonian Joe, Hilary Rodman, and John Kerry supported (before they were against it)

[Nige]

Always funny to see Trump voters complain about loans getting paid off. You’re supposed to just bully them through legal means or declare bankruptcy!

[Nelson]

This loan plan of Biden's is an obscenity. There are exactly zero justifications for it.

Any solution that kept the debt on the student's books, but adjusted the repayment schedule for those who can't afford it? Problematic, but at least worth a conversation. Debt forgiveness? Absolutely not.

[Nige]

That's just for banks and billionaires.

[Sarcastr0]

where has all the money gone

You realize we are giving them depreciated already bought assets, right? Stuff we already paid for but weren't planning to use. So it's not coming from our defense appropriations. Or at least not at the full value.

Does that mean we shouldn't pay attention to the accounting? We should still pay attention. But lets not pretend it's time for a full audit right now.
Ukraine is doing a lot better than anyone expected when the invasion first began and lets not pretend they have F-35s.

[Krayt]

The crocodile tears for money is disgusting.

Spending is better than deaths, or letting tanks roll through Europe.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Considering it is government spending, we can pretty much assume that it will be wasteful.

[Sarcastr0]

We can assume it *was* wasteful. These items were probably procured a decade ago.

[David Nieporent]

You realize we are giving them depreciated already bought assets, right? Stuff we already paid for but weren’t planning to use. So it’s not coming from our defense appropriations. Or at least not at the full value.

Yeah. I think the media has done a terrible disservice to Ukraine (not that the media owes Ukraine, but it does owe the truth) by making it seem like the U.S. is sending bushels of cash to Ukraine, reporting (e.g.) that "Biden is asking for $10 billion more for Ukraine." But it's actually $10 billion (or whatever) worth of materiel, not $10 billion in cash.

To be sure, the U.S. will have to replace some or all of that stuff eventually; I'm not saying it won't cost us. But sending a planeload of rockets is very different than sending satchels of money.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think we should be aiding Ukraine, but I'll say this: The US will have to replace some or all of that stuff eventually, just like we'll have to eventually refill the strategic petroleum reserve.

Doesn't mean we will have done so by the time we need it ourselves...

[Nige]

KEEP OVERSPENDING ON THE WORST THINGS IN THE WORLD.

[M L]

"the US has provided approximately $75 Billion in aid to Ukraine since the war began...But Biden’s asking for more money. Another $61 Billion."

NO! Of course the answer should be no. This is ridiculous and obscene.

"So, I think it’s not unreasonable to ask…where has all the money gone?"

Waste, fraud, and abuse. The military industrial complex, like Ike said. Probably a couple billion in Zelenskyyyyyyy's offshore account.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Notably absent from your expert analysis was any evidence at all.

At least we know your account hasn't been hacked.

[DaveM]

In Canadian news today, it was just announced that Frenchman's Bay, covering 133 acres with two blocks of residences fronting Lake Ontario, has been put up for sale. Asking price is a cool $60 Million CAN. The bay -- including the land beneath its waters -- is zoned Residential.

The bay has been in private hands since 1852. Although the British Crown typically owns all bodies of water in Canada, the Pickering Harbour Company was given the land in a charter signed by Queen Victoria in 1853. The company was later sold to Harold Hough and his East Shore Marina in 1962.

And now, it could be yours. https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26165049/600-liverpool-rd-pickering-bay-ridges

[hobie]

$60M but only four bathrooms. Pass

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course it's in Canada.

[Krayt]

I think they consider you a "sourdough" until you've pooped in the woods during winter.

[Kazinski]

I find a handful of snow makes a refreshing wipe in lieu of TP.

And then you can wash your hands too.

I'm not sure just what happens when it thaws in the spring, but at least there isn't any TP to which can last for years.

[Frank Drackman]

how many bathrooms do you need?

[Zarniwoop]

OK, that's objectively high-larious. You win the VC for today. Everyone else go home, try again tomorrow.

[ReaderY]

Judge Chambers issued his opinion in Genbiopro v. Sorsaia, the case in which a manufacturer of mifepristone had sued claiming West Virginia’s abortion laws were pre-empted by the federal FDCA and violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.

The opinion dismissed all but a small part of the lawsuit and found for West Virginia on the heart of the claims, but on narrow grounds. It declined to invoke the Major Questions Doctrine. But it said that the FDCA statutory provisions requiring that restrictions not unduly interfere with patient access were directed solely at the FDA itself, instructing the FDA not to impose safety restrictions on legacy drugs that unduly interfered with patient access. And while Judge Chambers used ordinary statutory analysis rather than the Major Questions doctrine to reach the result, he concluded that Congress had not intended to express an opinion about abortion in enacting the relevant provissions. Judge Chambers said the FDCA’s express anti-preemption provision, instructing courts not to find pre-emption absent an explicit provision, compelled concluding that Congress did not intend to preempt state abortion laws by implication.

In deciding the Dormant Commerce Clause claim, it concluded that National Pork Producers Council decided the case. Just as California’s banning of pork produced in what it deemed an immoral manner was found not to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, West Virginia’s near-ban on abortion doesn’t either. Judge Chambers said National Pork Producers compelled this outcome. West Virginia has far less impact on the national economy than California. While National Pork Producers claimed California’s riles would require them to change the way they produce pork, West Virginia’s ban imposes no changes on GenBioPro’s manufacturing process. Moreover, National Pork Producers, suggested that an outright ban on a product for non-economic reasons simply does not implicate the Dormant Commerce Clause, and West Virginia’s ban is quintessentially non-economic in character.

Accordingly, state anortion bans do not conflict with either the FDCA or the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Judge Chambers, a Clinton appointee, appeared somewhat reluctant to reach this result, saying his holdings were compelled by precedent in several places.

Judge Chambers said that a comparatively minor part of West Virginia’s regime, a ban on prescribing abortifacient via telemedicine, conflicted with the FDCA, and allowed the suit against that provision to proceed.

[ReaderY]

The opinion did not reach some of West Virginia’s arguments, including its Comstock Act argument, that federal law (taking other federal laws into account) actively favored its position. It concluded only that the FDCA itself did not conflict (except for the telemedicine provision) and there was no Dormant Commerce Clause violation. Perhaps these arguments might be addressed if the telemedicine provision is litigated further, or if the motion to dismiss is appealed.

[ReaderY]

It’s at least possible the opinion will affect other cases. For example, the Biden administration has asserted in several cases that general language in various federal statutes should be interpreted as implying a general federal policy favoring access to abortion.

This case torpedoed an argument that the FDCA implied such a policy, on narrow statutory-interpretation grounds, without resorting to external arguments such as the Major Questions Doctrine, the Comstock Act, etc.

But its reasoning could apply to other cases where statutory interpretation is the method of resolution. The opinion rejected an argument that abortion is a “necessity,” holding that after Dobbs courts can no longer presume abortion in general is necessary, and what is and isn’t a necessity has become a matter for legislatures and not courts. Just because the FDA has approved a drug does not give courts license to hold that it is necessary.

A similar approach might possibly apply in other cases where the Biden administration or other plaintiffs have used general language in federal statutes, such as “medically necessary,” to assert that courts must accept federal agencies’ or doctors’ opinions about whether abortion is medically necessary in a particular context and cannot impose stricter medical necessity rules.

[apedad]

Looks like pro-Trump lawyers’ guilty pleas in Georgia are already coming back to haunt him in Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case

Most noticeable, though, was (special counsel Jack) Smith’s expectation that, if Trump does raise an advice-of-counsel defense (i.e., that he was just doing what his attorneys advised in the lead-up to Jan. 6), there will be litigation over the issue — in no small part because three lawyers just pleaded guilty in Fulton County and, as part of their agreements, will have to testify truthfully against all defendants in the sprawling Georgia RICO prosecution.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/looks-like-pro-trump-lawyers-guilty-pleas-in-georgia-are-already-coming-back-to-haunt-him-in-jack-smiths-jan-6-case/

The noose gets a little tighter.

#ETTD

[loki13]

I would look at this from a procedural standpoint.

The reason that, IMO, the attorneys for Trump are fighting this is pretty simple- it’s all procedural. If they can delay announcing the defense (advice of counsel) until the last possible minute, then they might be able to argue for a continuance of the trial. Which, given court calendaring, could push it off significantly.

The DOJ is aware of this, which is why this is such an important issue for them.

(While I acknowledge that I can be wrong, and I also acknowledge that there are real substantive issues going on, I find that if you start with the belief that Trump’s strategy is to try and throw as many spanners at the works in the hopes that one will hit … a lot of what is going on makes more sense. And is also in keeping with his past practices.)

[Krayt]

Why is it important for the DOJ to nail him before the election?

They should be agnostic.

"But Trump wants to delay until after the election!"

So? You are agnostic about that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The defendant in a criminal trial halting his own prosecution doesn't raise any red flags for you?

[Krayt]

If the only concern is “Oh my god, that stops us from gittin’ ‘im before the election!”, then a little, but nothing major.

Remember this is the umpteenth effort to use the power of government to investigate the political opponent you hate.

And the use of threats to sanction section 230 unless the big Internet companies censored harrassing tweets of your political opponents, right before an election, which was done.

And, finally, a rare use of one of the Tyrant King’s nastiest golf clubs in his golf bag of tyrant tricks: expropriating the estate of irritating noblemen as a final sanction.

But sure, aside from all that, it’s just pure, disinterested, coincidental governmental behavior.

Pull your head out of your facetious, echo-chamber dominated stinkpadding. I assure you, the people chucking shit into that echo chamber, power hungry individuals planting stuff for you to believe, don’t care. You are to believe it. They are to take power.

And no, another Trump presidency would be a disaster, walking away from Ukraine so a thug can take over, and sending signals to China go ahead with military expansion.

So I am torn, which assholery shall rule the world? That, or miserable constitutional abuses at home to git ‘im!???

[loki13]

What are you talking about? What constitutional abuses?

Look, there was actually a lengthy investigation prior to the indictment. And then he was indicted on August 1, 2023.

Again, these were for crimes that date back to 2020 and the beginning of 2021.

Now, by law, once the indictment is filed and the defendant is aware of it … the trial is supposed to commence within SEVENTY (70) days. Of course, it doesn’t have to … but that’s the requirement.

What’s the actuality? Six months is a good rule of thumb … with the caveat that some federal cases could reasonably go to the year limit. Past that … is incredibly unusual.

Now, let’s compare this to another case. Sam Bankman-Fried. A very complex case. More complex than this one. Indicted in the middle of December 2022. Trial started less than ten months later, on October 3, 2023.

Now, the trial for DJT is set for March 4, 2024. That’s seven months later. Notably, the Judge rejected the DOJ’s request that it start in January. Trump’s counsel probably could have gotten it a little bit later (such as the summer) but they chose to make the absolutely absurd argument that the trial take place in 2026.

Again, the only reason to delay the case isn’t based on the needs of the case, but the needs to the defendant- which is the type of special pleading that Courts routinely reject in other circumstance. As explained, the Court rejected the proposition that we would treat this differently just because it’s Trump. There is no special “Trump law” exemption.

[Commenter_XY]

There is no special “Trump law” exemption.

Really? C'mon Loki13, I have never seen anything like this before.

[loki13]

Anything like what?

A federal criminal trial scheduled seven months after indictment? Again, he doesn't get a special exemption from normal procedure.

[David Nieporent]

And the use of threats to sanction section 230 unless the big Internet companies censored harrassing tweets of your political opponents, right before an election, which was done.

I mean, there were absolutely no such threats, but note that before the election it was Trump who was president. So any threats to punish the companies was coming from his administration against Biden.

[loki13]

I don't have any idea what you were responding to, other than, perhaps, the voices in your head?

I was making the rather banal observation that Trump's team is trying to delay. And that the DOJ is trying to ensure that there is no delay. Which is pretty basic procedural stuff from a Law 101 perspective.

But why don't you explain to me, like I'm a slightly dumb golden retriever and you're a person with a breadth of knowledge and acumen about the law, what your point is in, any why you're responding to me.

[David Nieporent]

“But Trump wants to delay until after the election!”

So? You are agnostic about that.

Well, no. Prosecutors are not agnostic about whether they prosecute people. Since the official position of OLC is that sitting presidents can't be prosecuted at all, and since there's a chance Trump could win, if the trial is delayed until after the election it could then be delayed until 2029. Why on earth would they be agnostic about that?

That's setting aside the fact that if he wins he'd almost certainly have the case dismissed. Why would they be agnostic about that?

[Nelson]

"Why is it important for the DOJ to nail him before the election?"

Considering he would definitely pardon himself for anything and everything if he wins? I'd say the interest of justice is in preventing any delay.

If he's innocent, it won't matter. Why do you think he so desperately wants to delay things?

[ReaderY]

It’s probably at least 90% procedural. But I doubt it’s entirely so. Every now and then a long-shot argument sticks and results in a win. People with deep legal expense fund pockets can better afford to make and brief these long-shot arguments, and take their chances, than people represented by a public defender.

[not guilty]

Unless he testifies at trial, I wonder how Donald Trump could adduce evidence of what advice from counsel he claims to have relied upon. The attorneys who have pleaded guilty in Georgia are unlikely to be helpful if called as defense witnesses. Other attorneys such as John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani have significant criminal exposure themselves and could assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Any documents, memoranda, emails, etc. are not self-authenticating, and Trump may or may not have read them himself.

If Trump does assert advice of counsel as an affirmative defense, that waives the attorney-client privilege. The prosecution could call attorneys who likely counseled against Trump's harebrained scheme, such as Pat Cipollone, Patrick Philbin, Eric Hirschmann, Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you sense that Alina Habba and the other residual members of Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force are able to navigate those issues?

[John F. Carr]

A plea deal made a lawyer does not by itself waive a privilege that belongs to the client. The waiver of the lawyer's Fifth Amendment rights does make it easier to convince a judge that the crime-fraud exception applies.

[not guilty]

The assertion of reliance upon advice of counsel as an affirmative defense waives the attorney-client privilege. United States v. White, 887 F.2d 267, 270 (D.C. Cir. 1989); United States v. Crowder, 325 F.Supp.3d 131, 137 (D.D.C. 2018).

[Martinned]

Since the conservative lawyers who comment here seem to have a sudden inability to understand macro-economics whenever a Democrat is in the White House, let me summarise today's GDP number as simple as I can:

5% growth

[Martinned]

Or, with more detail:

- It's 4.9% to be precise
- This is a real number, so excluding inflation
- It's an annual number, comparing Q3 2022 to Q3 2023
- It probably will be revised at some point, but not by much, and it could be in either direction

[loki13]

Numbers are what they are.

That said, it's not going to make a difference for two reasons.

First, economics is intensely personal. While the economy, in general, doing well is a good sign for the incumbent (because it applies generally), people don't look at the economy generally- they look to their own situation and the situation around them.

Second, and most importantly, people increasingly view the economy through a partisan lens of distortion on both sides. I don't recall the source I saw recently, but it showed that opinions flipped (roughly by party) on the economy after Trump was elected.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a 'real' number, so excluding such inflation as the government deigns to admit has occurred. I'm not terribly confident that the government is honestly reporting inflation numbers, and I haven't been for at least a few decades, since they decided they didn't have to maintain a fixed "market basket".

[OtisAH]

Your expected idiotic reflexive skepticism is noted.

[Brett Bellmore]

You expected idiotic confidence that the government is reflexively honest is noted.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know shit about the US statistical agencies, and you don't care.
Just deny anything that you want to keep the world you believe in smooth as glass.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you don't know shit about anything.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Such an articulate elderly shut--in!
Sad, lonely old man, defeated by life.

[Ed Grinberg]

I’m not terribly confident that the government is honestly reporting inflation numbers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Statistics_and_Census_of_Argentina#Controversy

Although nominally independent, under the Nestor and Cristina Kirchner presidencies INDEC was subject to strong political pressure from the government, and its statistics were not considered trustworthy. Because INDEC's statistics were reported as being manipulated by the Kirchner government, it was considered "discredited".

Are we there yet?

[Sarcastr0]

See people posting this kind of bullshit don't believe it. If they did they'd be packing their things not posting nonsense on the Internet.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, there's someplace better I could move to? Tell me about it.

[bernard11]

No.

[Absaroka]

"since they decided they didn’t have to maintain a fixed “market basket”."

Maintaining a fixed market basket would be idiotic; in 2023 you want to be tracking the prices of cell phones and cars, not carriages and rotary dial phones.

Admittedly, that introduces complications. Another complication is allowing for changes in functionality - if cars cost more but last longer, how do you account for that? If in 1950 treatment for toenail cancer cost $100 and consisted of 'say your goodbyes', and today it can be cured by monoclonal antibody treatment costing $100k, what does that tell you about the health care CPI?

All that said, the Billion Prices Project ran for several years (2008->???) and it followed the official CPI data pretty well. I think credible criticisms of the CPI data (and there are some) will need a lot more nuance and data than 'surely the gov't is cooking the books').

[bernard11]

Absaroka,

You can't convince Brett of any of that, because he knows what he believes, and is not going to let anything like facts or logic change his mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

You've actually got a point about cell phones, for instance.

OTOH, replacing beef with chicken, because people are eating less beef and more chicken... because they can't afford the beef anymore? Yeah, I think that actually IS crooked manipulation of the market basket. Eventually they'll be replacing the chicken with dog food, at this rate.

I don't think the numbers are fully cooked. More like charred around the edges and cold in the middle.

[Absaroka]

Well, I see a lot of nuance here.

For example, between (very approx!!) 1900 and 1930 farmers mostly switched from horses to tractors. And IIUC the overriding reason was ... tractors were cheaper (among other reasons, you don't have to feed them when parked over the winter), But I think a lot of them missed the whole horse thing.

I know that today I see ranchers/farmers out mending fences on four wheelers almost exclusively; the last time I saw one on a horse was 1980 something. And I've asked how they like that, and almost all of them say they miss the horses, but the economics are compelling. Should we keep horses in the farmer's 'basket' because absent a price difference they like horses?

In my starving student days, the cheapest animal protein was salmon/tuna/jack mackerel. These days, I think canned chicken has edged them out.

People - well, me for sure - seek to optimize by price. Right after Thanksgiving in 1981?? the store was selling turkey livers for 7 cents a pound ... I filled the freezer compartment and had turkey livers all winter. If they had filet mignon for 7 cents a pound, I would have been equally happy with that.

When the relative price of steak and liver swings, some people won't substitute, and *their personal CPI* will swing as well. But a lot of people don't have strong preferences and *their personal CPI* won't swing.

Similarly, if you walk to work, you don't care a lot about gas prices, but if you have a long commute you do.

But you can't compute individual CPIs for everyone; you have to come up with an aggregate one that tracks the aggregate experience as best you can. And if you never substitute chicken for beef, you are ignoring people like me who happily switch to whichever is cheapest.

(I wish my parents were still alive, so I could ask, but my dim sense is that in their youth (Depression) chicken was considered the expensive meat; beef and pork were the cheap stuff. So if you had fixed the basket then, in the 1950's when beef got cheaper you'd be complaining the gov't was cooking the books by substituting cheap beef in place of expensive chicken)

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I typically fill the freezer with turkeys in the next few weeks, and eat them all year. When I was single it was the mainstay of my diet. Now that I’m feeding a family? Strangely, they don’t like eating turkey every other meal. Me? I love turkey. I'd eat it almost every day if I could.

But it’s clear that if beef is running 4 times the price of chicken, roughly, and they both go up 50% in price, you can make that 50% increase largely go away by lowering the fraction of beef in your market basket, and raising the fraction of chicken. Whereas a fixed basket will reveal that they both went up.

And that consumers will do the same when their paychecks aren’t keeping up with inflation doesn’t mean the inflation didn’t happen.

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord. They don’t just switch items 1-for-1, Brett. It’s weighted to avoid the very elementary issue you just brought up.

I've linked you to the BLS site on this before. It's fine if you don't want to read it; kinda boring stuff to many. But then don't post on it!

[Absaroka]

Brett, that they *could* be cooking the books doesn't mean they *must be* cooking the books.

It's a tough job. They have to come up with a single number to summarize a really complex situation. Just looking at beef and chicken, let's posit that in one year A)a study is released saying chicken is healthier than beef, B)bird flu kills a bunch of chickens, and C)a hard winter/drought in corn country/whatever raises the price of beef.

'A' will cause a shift from beef to chicken that is unrelated to price (but will raise the price of chicken and depress the price of beef). 'B' will raise the price of chicken, and 'C' will raise the price of beef. The poor guys trying to come up with a single number have to make what sense they can of all that.

You believe they must be going through a thought process something like 'Ha! We'll underestimate the CPI to help the fed budget!'.

But, cui bono? Helping the fed bottom line might appeal to a president or congress critters, but they aren't setting at the calculator computing the CPI. The people sitting at the calculators have ... CPI indexed salaries, and have grandma's living on social security. Why shouldn't they instead say 'Let's wildly inflate the CPI and give ourselves/Granny a big raise!'?

Your theory would require someone at the top leaning on them to jigger the numbers down, and *them complying without anyone leaking it to the press*. That seems reaaaaly far fetched to me.

It's fine to say 'the CPI systematically gets it wrong because of XXXXX', but you need to bring the actual evidence for XXXXX. Just imagining something could happen isn't evidence it did happen - any more than me saying 'of course they are inflating the CPI to inflate their salaries!' is evidence they are.

[bernard11]

it’s clear that if beef is running 4 times the price of chicken, roughly, and they both go up 50% in price, you can make that 50% increase largely go away by lowering the fraction of beef in your market basket, and raising the fraction of chicken.

So what? That someone could manipulate things that way doesn't mean they are. In fact, if that happens the relative prices haven't changed, so the relative proportion of chicken and beef will stay the same.

Now let's say the price of pork stays constant. Then there will be less of chicken and beef, and more pork, again relative to each other in the basket.

[bernard11]

Brett's rules:

1. "If some fact displeases me it's either a lie or due to some conspiracy. Always."

2. "No one I disagree with is arguing in good faith."

[bernard11]

replacing beef with chicken, because people are eating less beef and more chicken… because they can’t afford the beef anymore?

One too many "becauses" there.

Besides, what matters is the "relative price" of beef and chicken. If the price of either falls relative to the other consumption of that good will increase relative to the other.

There's no manipulation here. Get yourself a decent microeconomics book and read the part about indifference curves, consumer choice, etc., instead of pretending you know a lot of shit you have no understanding of.

[bernard11]

I haven’t been for at least a few decades, since they decided they didn’t have to maintain a fixed “market basket”.

This stupidity again. Or willful ignorance.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This is a belief of the same caliber as believing Joe Biden couldn't possibly have won the presidency, "campaigning from his basement".

[Nelson]

"so excluding such inflation as the government deigns to admit has occurred"

Inflation is measured the exact same way regardless of the administration. So even if the numbers are somehow "wrong", they are "wrong" in the exact same way every time. So it has exactly the same impact every time.

The upshot? Your skepticism, even if completely justified, would make exactly zero difference to the result. If x = y + z and y and z are derived the exact same way every time, the trend in x over time wouldn't be different even if y and z are in error.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Real disposable personal income decreased 1.0 percent"

[M L]

GDP is irrelevant to most people. The stock market also doesn't mean much to most.

Of course the inflation numbers are largely hogwash, too.

[Sarcastr0]

The key is if one number is good, to switch to another number and you can still shit on the economy.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, the key is to cherry pick a good number and ignore a bad one so you can hype Joe Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

That would be the case if I were arguing the economy is great and it's because of Joe Biden.

I am not.

OTOH, you lot are arguing the economy is bad and it's because of Joe Biden.
Hence your inconsistency.

[Bob from Ohio]

Our Dutch fool did however.

[bernard11]

You're an idiot.

Do you even know what GDP is?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Since the conservative lawyers who comment here seem to have a sudden inability to understand macro-economics whenever a Democrat is in the White House, let me summarise today’s GDP number as simple as I can:

5% growth

That’s funny. A couple of days ago you tried that same schtick when you were crowing about some bond interest rate increases as being an indicator that “the markets” were demonstrating their bullishness on the economy. When the stupidity of that was explained to you by those on both sides of the political spectrum you just walked away.

I’m still waiting for you to explain how the piss-poor inflation-adjusted performance of the S&P 500 over the past 3 years…and even more dramatically over the past month (and even worse today than when you made your claim)…jive with your claim that the markets think things are going swimmingly.

[Estragon]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! I ask you comrades— who amongst us has not taken a 270k interest-only loan* from a friend to purchase a luxury RV? Leave poor Clarence alone!

*proof of principal repayments pending. We know the loan can’t have been forgiven because it’s not reported as income on his taxes. Maybe we can get James Comer on the case— he seems like just the guy to go digging through old personal loans, amirite?

https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/justice-thomas-did-not-repay-substantial-portion-of-267230-loan-finance-committee-investigation-reveals-failed-to-report-forgiven-debt-on-ethics-filings-raising-questions-about-tax-compliance

[hobie]

If Clarence doesn't watch it, he might get charged with a crime

[Estragon]

I mean… forgiven loans need to be reported as income. It doesn’t get much more black letter than that. Smells like tax fraud to me.

[Zarniwoop]

Yeah, the IRS isn't nearly as generous about unreported income as the S.Ct. is about ethics requirements.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Justice Thomas should inform the committee exactly how much debt was forgiven and whether he properly reported the loan forgiveness on his tax returns and paid all taxes owed."

They're just speculating that he didn't report it in his tax filings, if you read it. They have no evidence that he didn't. (Probably intend to leverage this to demand copies of his tax returns, which they will dutifully promise not to leak...)

In fact, they're largely speculating that he didn't pay towards the principal, too, if you read the footnotes.

[Estragon]

“In fact, they’re largely speculating that he didn’t pay towards the principal, too, if you read the footnotes.”

Did you bring your calculator today, Brett? Because the guy who made the loan said in 2008 that Thomas had made the interest-only payments for 9 years and that amount equaled or exceeded the principal amount, and thus deemed the loan “satisfied”.

The original loan was for approx 267k. 7.5% interest rate. 9 years of payments.

Ps: next time you make a mortgage payment, try telling the bank that because you’ve paid the bank back more than the original purchase price, the loan is “satisfied”.

[Estragon]

Excuse me— allegedly 9 years of payments. I’ve only seen proof of one. Let’s get comer on this!

[Brett Bellmore]

You're doing the same thing they're doing here: "I don't have proof you made the payment, thus I'll assume you didn't." Treating lack of proof of innocence as evidence of guilt.

I think it quite possible, but not yet proven, that he paid the principal. It's also entirely possible, for all that it's not proven, that he reported the loan forgiveness on his taxes.

Well, the IRS will know if he didn't report the loan forgiveness, or if he presented proof that he paid the principal. Refer the matter to the IRS, and move on.

[bernard11]

The trouble is, Brett, that neither Welters nor his lawyer will simply say, "Yes, Thomas paid off the loan in full." Instead they weasel around with, "well, it was satisfied."

That doesn't suggest it's mere speculation that he didn't pay it.

[Estragon]

Then why the ridiculous story that the principal had been covered by 9 years of interest payments? Even if I believe the principal has been repaid (even Welters’ lawyer won’t actually say that, BTW) the numbers don’t add up

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, if you're concerned that this happened, why not refer it to the IRS, and move on? The IRS certainly knows what he filed with them!

What you're looking at, IMO, is little more than an excuse to demand Thomas' tax returns, which they will duly promise not to leak before the inevitable "oopsie!".

[bernard11]

why the ridiculous story that the principal had been covered by 9 years of interest payments?

Who knows? Can anyone do arithmetic?

Take out a loan at 7.5% and pay only interest for nine years. A few seconds with pencil and paper will demonstrate that the amount you have repaid is 67.5% of the loan amount, not 100%.

Further, you have not paid down the principal one penny.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Parkinsonian Joes/Hunter's bribes, be careful what you wish for. With Hunters addiction and Joe's Parkinson's they've effectively already gotten death sentences.

[bernard11]

Well, maybe.

In general, if your debt is canceled, forgiven, or discharged for less than the amount owed, the amount of the canceled debt is taxable. If taxable, you must report the canceled debt on your tax return for the year in which the cancellation occurred.

However, the law provides several exceptions in which the discharged amount is not considered canceled debt. These exceptions will be discussed later.

Later:

EXCEPTIONS to Cancellation of Debt Income:

Amounts canceled as gifts, bequests, devises, or inheritances
.....

[shawn_dude]

Cancelling it as a gift might get him out of hot water with the IRS but just make things worse when it comes to the ongoing USSC ethics scandal.

Judge gets $270,000 gift from rich benefactor. News at 11.

[Ben_]

"… ongoing USSC ethics scandal…"

The consequences of which are that leftist haters in the news media might say mean things about him. I wonder if he is worried about that?

[Bob from Ohio]

"he might get charged with a crime"

DOJ has already shown it will relentlessly attack political opponents.

[bernard11]

We know the loan can’t have been forgiven because it’s not reported as income on his taxes.

I'm not so sure about this. You can interpret loan forgiveness as income - this is certainly the case for business loans - but here it might reasonably be seen as a gift. Maybe some tax wizard in the group can address this.

Did Welters file a gift tax return? Whatever the conclusion, it does seem that Thomas failed to report the transaction on his financial disclosure forms. And it's certainly not appropriate for a Justice to accept quarter-million dollar gifts.

[Zarniwoop]

FN 6 from the committee report:

6 In certain cases, a forgiven loan may be recharacterized as a taxable gift; however, documents reviewed by the Committee indicate that the loan was intended to be established at arm’s length. Under federal tax law and regulations, bona fide business transfers are presumed not to be taxable gifts, if they are made at arm’s length and free from donative intent. See Treas. Reg. 25.2512-8

I'm not a tax attorney, but this seems to mean that absent some evidence of intent to make a gift, the IRS could presume the loan amount forgiveness in 2008 was taxable income to Thomas, rather than a gift from Welters.

This makes sense as a general concept: since the funds started as a loan, they should continue to be considered that way. After all, if Welters intended a gift, he could have made and actual gift in 1999, or filed a gift tax return in 2008. And if it was a gift in 2008, Thomas should have reported it as a ~1/4M gift; he didn't.

Smells like too-clever-by-half tax evasion to me.

[M L]

If the lender considered the loan satisfied because the principal amount had been repaid, then it’s possible that they reconsidered the loan as being low or no interest. They would need to meet the applicable federal rate requirements to avoid imputed interest, though.

[Zarniwoop]

That's plausible in the abstract, sure. What do you make of the actual evidence>/i>, though?

A Handwritten Note from Anthony Welters to Clarence Thomas, Dated November 22, 2008. Committee staff reviewed a handwritten note dated November 22, 2008 from Anthony Welters to Justice Thomas. Welters’ note states that Thomas has been paying Welters interest only on Thomas’s bus for many years.3 Welters’ note indicates that after Thomas’s upcoming payment, Welters would no longer seek further payments from Justice Thomas on the loan because, according to Welters’ note, Welters believed that Thomas had paid interest greater than the purchase price of the bus, and that Welters did not feel it was appropriate to continue to accept payments even though he had the right to them.

That makes no mention or even hint of "recharacterization" of the interest to principal. Is there any indication that Welters did so, or does that sound like more post-hoc rationalization for tax evasion?

[M L]

The note is what I was referring to, as someone else mentioned it above. The substantive point of it is that the original principal amount has been paid.

It doesn't make much sense to speak of "evidence" here. We have some scant reporting and a good deal of partisan conspiracy theorizing, it looks like. We don't know the first thing that would be necessary to intelligibly discuss "tax evasion" here. The IRS is surely aware of the matter and are always keen to go after conservatives, so I'm sure they will make the most of it.

[bernard11]

The substantive point of it is that the original principal amount has been paid.

No. It hasn't. That's ridiculous. The note stated a specific rate of interest. Thomas paid that interest for a period of time.

You can't just turn around and say, "Oh. We didn't mean it. The interest was only 2%, or whatever the IRS minimum rate is."

And what kind of lawyer are you if you say a handwritten note isn't evidence?

[M L]

Of course you can amend a promissory note. I'm not saying that's what happened here or that it can necessarily be done here as a way of resolving any tax issues, which for all we know don't exist.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're saying there's a chance!

[Estragon]

Quick math question ML:

Part 1: 9 years of interest- only payments at 7.5% on a principal of 267k. How many years before the interest payments would equal or exceed 267k?

Ok, next: take the date of the promissory note and then the date of this letter from Mr. Welters, and note the number of years that have elapsed.

For a gold star: are these two numbers equal?

[Estragon]

Actually, Welters (through his reps) hasn’t said the principal was repaid. He says the loan was “satisfied” which can mean a number of things.

[M L]

Notice I said the principal amount has been paid. Tax issues often take on a substance vs. form pattern, and I specified that I was speaking to the substantive aspect.

As for whether the amounts paid really do exceed the original principal amount, I don’t know. I’m just going by the comments here.

[Estragon]

“Notice I said the principal amount has been paid.“

Neither Welters nor Thomas have said that. What welters said was that by 2008, Thomas had made payments on the note that exceeded the original principal amount. But the numbers don’t work out.

And that’s not how loans work. Try that with your mortgage and see what happens!

[Bob from Ohio]

I’m not a tax attorney, but I'm going to talk out of my a** anyway.

[Zarniwoop]

Meh, I did take all three tax law classes my law school offered and got the top grade in two of them.

I’m inclined to think my posterior orifice is more qualified to talk than you are. Want to offer an alternative viewpoint based on law and facts?

I thought not.

[Bob from Ohio]

"got the top grade in two of them.

Congratulations on all your success.

"Want to offer an alternative viewpoint based on law and facts?"

Oh, I took tax in law school too! I b xpert 2!

[Zarniwoop]

I’m inclined to think my posterior orifice is more qualified to talk than you are. Want to offer an alternative viewpoint based on law and facts?

I thought not.

[bernard11]

OTOH, IRS publication 525 says:

Excluded debt.

Don’t include a canceled debt in your gross income in the following situations.

(A bunch of cases.)
.....
The cancellation is intended as a gift.

(Some more cases)

The footnote you cite refers to business loans, not personal loans.

[Zarniwoop]

I agree that there’s a plausible way the loan forgiveness could be considered either a gift from Welters, or taxable income to Thomas. What I’m curious about is how the IRS would view the issue, given the Senate reporting on the evidence. Because it can’t be both; that way lies tax evasion madness.

If the facts come down to
1) Welters told Thomas he doesn’t intend to collect any more, but did not file a gift tax return
and
2) Thomas did not file a tax return showing income from canceled debt

Who does the IRS go after? Does the IRS presume an initially papered loan was sub silentio converted to a gift by mere non-collection? I’m skeptical of that, so I’d lean towards #2.

But maybe Welters values his patronage of … cough cough, er, friendship with Thomas so much that he’d cop to his own tax evasion to shield the justice. Dunno.

[Estragon]

“But maybe Welters values his patronage of … cough cough, er, friendship with Thomas so much”

To be fair, they were definitely friends before he was on the supremes. Unlike, for example, Harlan

[David Nieporent]

If the facts come down to
1) Welters told Thomas he doesn’t intend to collect any more, but did not file a gift tax return
and
2) Thomas did not file a tax return showing income from canceled debt

To my knowledge, Thomas also failed to file a financial disclosure form saying that he had received a several hundred thousand dollar gift.

[Brett Bellmore]

The operative word there is "if". And the IRS knows which if either got filed.

[Nelson]

"but here it might reasonably be seen as a gift. Maybe some tax wizard in the group can address this."

After a small amount (less than 15k a year), gifts are taxable as regular income.

"And it’s certainly not appropriate for a Justice to accept quarter-million dollar gifts."

Except for the IOKIYAR clause.

[Absaroka]

Regardless of the details, I think people in the higher strata of public life should generally avoid getting loans from friends and so on. If you want a loan for an RV, get one from the credit union like everyone else.

If naught else, it let's you avoid false charges of impropriety.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would certainly not disagree with that. Much as I think Thomas above board in the courtroom, he cuts way too many corners in his private life. "I know I'm honest" is no substitute for looking honest.

[apedad]

Bowman pleads guilty to misdemeanor for pulling fire alarm in House office building

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor for falsely pulling a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building last month ahead of a key House vote.

Bowman appeared in D.C. Superior Court Thursday morning for his arraignment, one day after he was charged. Under an agreement with prosecutors, he will to pay a $1,000 fine and write an apology to the Capitol Police.

Under the agreement, the charge will be withdrawn in three months.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4276452-bowman-pleads-guilty-to-misdemeanor-for-pulling-fire-alarm-in-house-office-building/

No comment since folks will have their opinion either way (it was deliberate or not).

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see how anyone can take seriously the notion that it wasn't deliberate; He's not claiming he tripped and caught the fire alarm on the way down, after all, nor can he plausibly claim to not know what a fire alarm looks like.

My only complaint would be that I don't think he should get the charge withdrawn. He should bear that mark of shame, instead, for doing something so juvenile.

[M L]

I think he was interrupting an official proceeding, sounds more like an insurrection.

[David Nieporent]

He was of course not interrupting anything, since he was in a different building entirely, and had no desire to interrupt anything; the Dems supported the thing that was being voted on. (The thing that cost McCarthy his job.)

[Joe_dallas]

DN - last week you were claiming that it was unintentional - even though a grown man would know better.

Today video was released showing Bowman removing signs then walking over to intentionally pulling the fire alarm.

Today you are still downplaying his actions - typical leftist dishonesty

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and I'm guessing they were still considering protecting him, back when they didn't release that video. It is, after all, part of the same video that got released earlier, no technical reason they couldn't have shown it from the start.

But until they'd decided they'd have to sanction him SOMEHOW, they kept it hidden so that he'd have a little deniability.

[Sarcastr0]

There is some ambiguity between intent and purpose here, that's all. The act may have been intentional, but it wasn't for the purpose y'all are weakly claiming in an attempt to defend J6.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose there's a little ambiguity about what he intended to achieve by doing it. There's no ambiguity AT ALL about his having lied about it being by mistake. Or the fact that until just now they were concealing proof that he'd been lying...

I think we can stretch the ambiguity as far as some question about WHAT he intended to disrupt. Not to the point of denying that he intended a disruption. So, what do you suggest he actually intended to disrupt?

[Sarcastr0]

We all knew your telepathy would find another bad faith liberal, Brett.

You're like clockwork.

[Brett Bellmore]

How hard do you have to work to find bad faith, given the evidence that he walked up to a properly signed door, removed the signs, and then pulled a fire alarm? And then claimed to have been confused about how the door worked?

Seriously, the guy just lied, period. It's not even a close call, and it certainly doesn't require any mind reading to determine that.

[Sarcastr0]

Seriously. Period.

Your double standards are incredible and you don't even see them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, at this point you're nothing but a parody, and not even a particularly funny one.

[Sarcastr0]

You're so cocksure you know what someone else is thinking.

[David Nieporent]

DN – last week you were claiming that it was unintentional – even though a grown man would know better.

I was claiming no such thing. That wouldn't make any sense; obviously he didn't trip and grab the alarm lever as he was falling. It was intentional. The question was what his motive was, not whether he accidentally did it: was he trying to set off a fire alarm so he could interfere with the vote, or was he trying to get through an unexpectedly-closed door with confusing signs?

[Brett Bellmore]

The confusing signs he carefully removed before pulling the fire alarm, you mean?

Look, the guy was not confused, he knows what a fire alarm is, and he's familiar with fire exits where an alarm sounds when you go through them, they're literally all over the place. I don't think there's any plausible doubt about his intending to set off an alarm to cause a disruption.

[David Nieporent]

The confusing signs he carefully removed before pulling the fire alarm, you mean?

Yes. Does that change whether they were confusing?

I don’t think there’s any plausible doubt about his intending to set off an alarm to cause a disruption.

Of course there is: what was he trying to disrupt? Again, contrary to bad reporting initially portrayed it as, he did not pull an alarm in the Capitol. Pulling this alarm did not prevent the voting from continuing. (And, I emphasize: Democrats wanted this bill to pass. Obstructing it was not in their interest.)

[M L]

If he had intended to disrupt an official proceeding, would that be an insurrection? Like the Kavanaugh protests, 2011 Wisconsin protests, 2022 protests in Arizona and countless other examples?

[David Nieporent]

If he had intended to disrupt an official proceeding, would that be an insurrection?

No. Disruption and insurrection are two different words. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yes. Does that change whether they were confusing?"

No, it doesn't change that they weren't confusing.

Go ahead, construct some fantastic scenario where it was perfectly reasonable for him to walk up to an alarmed door, remove the signs explaining how they worked, and then pull a nearby fire alarm. It's going to be an interesting fantasy.

Let's stop pretending he just arrived in America from some isolated tribe on the Amazon, and everything is so confusing. The guy has spent his adult life around fire alarms that looked just like that, and alarmed doors with similar signage. He knew exactly what he was doing, and did it deliberately.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes. Does that change whether they were confusing?"

If they were confusing, why doesn't he appear confused in the video?

[Sarcastr0]

If they were confusing, why doesn’t he appear confused in the video?

Yes, obvious confusion is the only possible reaction.

What do you even think he was trying to do?!

The modern GOP is like 60% straw grasping, with the rest being nihilism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Then what was he doing?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Ow, my wrist!”

PS - will there be any effort to expel him (Even if his constituents might simply return him triumphantly to the House)?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think he didn’t come anywhere near that level of malfeasance. Put him in detention for a week. Have him write “I will not disrupt proceedings” a thousand times on the chalk board. Rub his nose in the fact that he was guilty of conduct he wouldn’t have tolerated when he was a school principle.

[Nelson]

I just had an image of Jamaal Bowman as Bart Simpson, writing on the chalkboard. Thanks for the chuckle.

[M L]

There are people claiming that someone pulled a fire alarm accidentally?

[Krayt]

Isn’t disrupting proceedings treasonous? Isn’t it corruption as you seek a benefit in changing the law?

Let me sit down and order a great 8-corner deep dish pizza. Ok, continue.

I am not saying it isn’t wrong, I just wanna see the tortuous needle threading.

[Nelson]

"Isn’t disrupting proceedings treasonous?"

Class, this is what "reductionism" looks like. It's not pretty.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No comment since folks will have their opinion either way (it was deliberate or not)."

There is now a video showing the whole episode.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup.

Bowman was lying.

[Life of Brian]

And here I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't acting out of malice but was just an incompetent chucklehead that couldn't read and couldn't grasp how or why a door that he could walk through during the week would be locked and alarmed over the weekend.

That'll teach me.

[apedad]

Woman who let dogs maul man to death in front of girlfriend — leaving his ears, nose, and eye ‘detached’ — is sentenced

A 36-year-old woman in Florida will spend multiple years behind bars because she allowed her three dogs to attack and maul a 63-year-old man to death earlier this year. First Judicial Circuit Court Judge Coleman L. Robinson ordered Kathleen Ann Taylor to serve a sentence of 2 1/2 years in a state correctional facility in the gruesome death of Nathaniel Posey, court records reviewed by Law&Crime show.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/woman-who-let-dogs-maul-man-to-death-in-front-of-girlfriend-leaving-his-ears-nose-and-eye-detached-is-sentenced/

So what's the VC consensus on what should happen to owners of dogs that attack and/or kill people?

[John F. Carr]

She had a habit of letting her ill-behaved dogs loose and they killed somebody. It's not like she was supervising them while they chewed on the guy.

I did not see what she was convicted of. She was originally charged with "negligent manslaughter, a second-degree felony". If I were the judge with full freedom to sentence, I would be inclined towards a shorter period of incarceration but a long period under supervision to make sure she doesn't have dogs again. I don't know what sentencing options are available under Florida law.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it very much depends on whether it just happens, or they "allow" it to happen. In this case the woman appears to bear considerable personal responsibility. The dogs didn't just attack out of the blue, and she'd had the capacity to have saved the guy.

[Estragon]

18 dead in Lewiston maine. The shooter had previously threatened to shoot up a national guard base, and checked into a mental health facility over the summer.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Roll call!

Who's missing from the Reason comments section?

[Estragon]

Jimmy the Dane is MIA…

My first thought was Dr Ed of course but unless he’s posting on the run— it’s not him

[OtisAH]

Random House Publishing is proud to announce that the beloved children’s book series “Clarence Gets a Freebie” is entering its 20th printing! In celebration, all proceeds will go to The Clarence Thomas Freebie Foundation, a not-supposed-to-be-profitable organization dedicated to enriching the lives of Clarence and Virginia “Ginny” Thomas and promoting conservative jurisprudence, if there’s any left over.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/25/1208600160/new-clarence-thomas-ethics-questions-about-forgiveness-on-luxury-rv-loan

[Estragon]

Lol, it’s probably time to roll out this classic

“MADILL, OKLAHOMA (The Borowitz Report)—Clarence and Ginni Thomas became stranded over the weekend after the engine of their quarter-million-dollar recreational vehicle suddenly ran out of caviar.”

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/clarence-thomass-rv-stranded-after-engine-runs-out-of-caviar

[Frank Drackman]

I heard the same story but it was Hunter's RV and it ran out of Crack

[hobie]

Hilarious. I also noted these other headlines in that New Yorker section:

More Satire from the Borowitz Report

House Republicans hold an emergency meeting to see who has to sit next to Matt Gaetz.

Republicans demand that Biden tell them why they are impeaching him.

Proud Boy will be in prison until he is Elderly Boy.

Donald Trump is only a few indictments away from clinching the G.O.P. nomination.

Ron DeSantis shakes up his campaign by replacing himself with an appealing person.

Clarence Thomas hikes the price of Supreme Court decisions to keep pace with inflation.

Rupert Murdoch calls telling the truth under oath the worst experience of his life.

[Aunt Teefah]

For those who bought Israel's absurd denial that it bombed the hospital in Gaza (and the Biden admin's shameful acceptance of that farce), it's worth reading up on Israel's long history of bombing medical facilities and personnel. One of the leading scholars on the Israel-Palestine conflict, Norman Finkelstein, recently had an excellent post on this:

Repeatedly, Israel blocked international relief efforts and prevented food and medical supplies from reaching victims. Israeli military forces also appear to have gone out of their way to destroy medical facilities—at least, if one wants to believe Israeli government claims about “pinpoint accuracy” in bombardment. “International agencies agree that the civilian death toll would have been considerably higher had it not been for the medical facilities that the Palestine Liberation Organization provides for its own people”—and, in fact, for many poor Lebanese—so it is not surprising that these were a particular target of attack.

In the first bombing in June, a children’s hospital in the Sabra refugee camp was hit, Lebanese television reported, and a cameraman said he saw “many children” lying dead inside the Bourj al Barajneh camp in Beirut, while “fires were burning out of control at dozens of apartment buildings” and the Gaza Hospital near the camps was reported hit… On June 12, four bombs fell on a hospital in Aley, severely damaging it. “There is nothing unusual” in the story told by an operating room assistant who had lost two hands in the attack; “That the target of the air strike was a hospital, whether by design or accident, is not unique either,” William Branigan reports, noting that other hospitals were even more badly damaged. Fragments of cluster bombs were found on the grounds of an Armenian sanitarium south of Beirut that was also “heavily damaged during the Israeli drive.” A neurosurgeon at the Gaza hospital in Beirut “insists that Israeli gunners deliberately shelled his hospital,” it was reported at the same time. A few days later, Richard Ben Cramer reported that the Acre Hospital in Beirut was hit by Israeli shells, and that the hospitals in the camps had again been hit. “Israeli guns never seem to stop here,” he reported from the Sabra camp, later to be the scene of a major massacre: “After two weeks of this random thunder, Sabra is only a place to run through.”

The Acre hospital was again hit on June 24, along with the Gaza hospital and the Islamic Home for Invalids, where “the corridors were streaked with blood.” The hospitals were short of supplies because Israel was blocking tons of medical supplies ready for shipment in Cyprus, according to the International Red Cross. By mid-August, the Islamic Home had been repeatedly shelled, only 15 of 200 staff members remained, and “several of the retarded children have died of starvation for lack of someone who has the time to feed them properly.” At the Palestinian Hospital for the Disabled (perhaps the same institution), “a visitor walking the gloomy corridors is approached by stumbling figures crying ‘Food, food’ in Arabic”; 800 patients remained, all mentally ill, half of them children, cared for by a dozen nurses.

A French doctor reported witnessing “an intense Israeli bombing raid around and against the [Gaza] hospital, which forced the evacuation of the hospital at the time.” When the Beirut mental hospital was hit shortly after, “800 patients varying in condition from senile dementia to violent schizophrenia were released into the streets of Beirut.” The hospital, clearly marked by Red Cross flags, was hit by artillery and naval gunfire, including four phosphorus shells. Medical personnel reported that the patients, including children with mental problems whose nursery was hit by rockets that set beds on fire, were 90% Lebanese. No military target was found within a half-mile. The hospital was, however, “precariously located near the Palestinian ghettoes of Sabra and Shatila, frequent targets of Israeli bombardment,” though the “immediate surroundings are residential” (i.e., not Palestinian slums).

Most of this was before the bombing escalated to new levels of violence in August. By August 4, 8 of the 9 Homes for Orphans in Beirut had been destroyed, attacked by cluster and phosphorus bombs. The last was hit by phosphorus and other rockets, though clearly marked by a red cross on the roof, after assurances by the International Red Cross that it would be spared. On August 4, the American University hospital was hit by shrapnel and mortar fire. A doctor “standing in bloodstained rags” said: “We have no more room.” The director reported: “It’s a carnage. There is nothing military anywhere near this hospital.” The hospital was the only one in Beirut to escape direct shelling, and even there, sanitary conditions had deteriorated to the point where half the intensive-care patients were lost and with 99% of the cases being trauma victims, there was no room for ordinary illnesses. “Drive down any street and you will almost always see a man or woman with a missing limb.”

The Red Cross reported that by August 6, “there were 130 beds available in west Beirut out of a total of about 1,400.” The American University Hospital was admitting only “those who look salvageable” on bad days, the staff reported. The Berbir hospital was “just an underground dormitory with generators churning away to give the few patients air.” At the Hotel Bristol, hit by an Israeli phosphorus shell, the Red Cross had set up an underground hospital. “The majority of the doctors and nurses working in the city have fled.” “Even the Red Cross delegation has been shelled twice. In an Israeli naval bombardment on July 30, six shells struck the building and on Aug. 5 it was again hit by two artillery shells.” The Berbir hospital was already seriously damaged by mid-July, with trails of blood in the corridors, many of the patients removed from the wreckage, and the mortuary full of corpses until the remaining doctors were able to leave the building to bury the unidentified bodies in a communal grave when the shelling and air attacks temporarily stopped.

One of the true heroes of the war is Dr. Amal Shamma, an Americantrained Lebanese-American pediatrician who remained at work in Beirut’s Berbir hospital through the worst horrors. In November, she spent several weeks touring the U.S., receiving little notice, as expected. She was, however, interviewed in the Village Voice, where she described the extensive medical and social services for Palestinians and poor Lebanese that were destroyed by the Israeli invasion. For them, nothing is left apart from private hospitals that they cannot afford, some taken over by the Israeli army. No medical teams came from the U.S., although several came to help from Europe; the U.S. was preoccupied with supplying weapons to destroy. She reports that the hospitals were clearly marked with red crosses and that there were no guns nearby, though outside her hospital there was one disabled tank, which was never hit in the shellings that reduced the hospital to a first-aid station. On one day, 17 hospitals were shelled. Hers “was shelled repeatedly from August 1 to 12 until everything in it was destroyed.” It had been heavily damaged by mid-July, as already noted. Hospital employees stopped at Israeli barricades were told: “We shelled your hospital good enough, didn’t we? You treat terrorists there.” Recall that this is the testimony of a doctor at a Lebanese hospital, one of those liberated by the Israeli forces, according to official doctrine.

An American nurse working in Beirut, who was appalled by the “watered-down descriptions in American newspapers,” reported that Israel “dropped bombs on everything, including hospitals, orphanages and, in one case, a school bus carrying 35 young schoolgirls who were traveling on an open road”; she cared for the survivors. The U.S. Navy Lieut. Commander in charge of removing unexploded ordnance in Beirut reports that “we found five bombs in an orphanage with about 45 cluster bombs in the front yard. We were called there after five children were injured and four killed.” About 3-5% of the shells and bombs failed to go off and are considered highly dangerous, he said. This particular orphanage, then, must have been heavily bombed.

[...]

Not only hospitals, but also medical personnel seemed to evoke particular fury. One eyewitness saw a Palestinian doctor, unconscious, “his hands and neck tied to a post, his face bloodied and covered with flies.” Palestinian hospitals were closed down, their staffs arrested, removed to prison camps, and brutalized.

In Sidon, the Israeli army closed down the Palestinian Red Crescent Hospital. A Dutch nurse working there told a reporter: “I was in Holland during World War II. I know what fascists are like. It’s terrible that all these women and children are being killed. Tell that to the world.” On the same day, the New York Times reported a Jerusalem news conference in which Imri Ron, a Mapam Knesset member (from Kibbutz Mishmar Haemek) and paratroop major, “spoke from a combination of political and military authority” about the “clean fight” the Israeli army had fought, “taking extraordinary precautions to save civilians.” Apart from the U.S. military itself, only an Israeli officer would be accorded such “authority” in the U.S. press. Ron’s authority is undiminished by the fact that he was such an enthusiast for the war that he volunteered to take part in it, though as a Knesset member he was not called up. We return to some of his further “authoritative” observations, comparing them to those of a different breed of Israeli military officers.

A Belgian doctor at the closed Sidon hospital, who “struggled to cope with wounded men, women and children” (victims of this “clean fight”), stated that “We had a good operation here. We were doing surgery and everything” before almost the entire staff was arrested by the Israeli army. Shipler reported the same events in the New York Times. He quotes the Israeli Major who is military governor of Sidon and who closed the hospital because, he said, “It’s obvious it’s not a good hospital.” Therefore, “At 11A.M. today I had all the patients moved out to a good private hospital, the Labib Medical Center,” not tainted by a Palestinian connection. He added that he had not ordered the arrest of a Norwegian nurse, though “she is a member of the P.L.O.,” because “we are democratic” and therefore “we are not taking women”—whether or not this was true at the time, it is false for the subsequent period, as we shall see. A Canadian and Norwegian doctor, along with Palestinian doctors, will be taken to Israel for interrogation and possible imprisonment, the Major added. Shipler visited the “good private hospital,” where no one seemed “pressed for time” and the director angrily refused to take patients from the closed hospital, explaining to his guests that “The first case I got from there, she had gangrene all over her body.” He will take only “good cases.” Meanwhile one Belgian doctor remained in the closed Palestinian hospital to take care of 58 patients, some badly wounded, amidst “a stench of filth and rotting flesh.” The director of the “good private hospital” is, incidentally, the son of a millionaire orange grove owner, who was quite pleased to be liberated by the Israeli army.

[…]

In his congressional testimony, [the Canadian surgeon Chris] Giannou reported that he was “a witness to four prisoners who were beaten to death” (reduced to two by the Times). He also witnessed “the total, utter devastation of residential areas, and the blind, savage, indiscriminate destruction of refugee camps by simultaneous shelling and carpet bombing from aircraft, gunboats, tanks and artillery,” leaving only “large blackened craters filled with rubble and debris, broken concrete slabs and twisted iron bars, and corpses”; “hospitals being shelled,” one shell killing 40-50 people; the shelling of the camp after Israeli soldiers had permitted women and children to return to it; the use of cluster bombs in settled areas; “the calcinated, carbonized bodies of the victims of phosphorus bombs”; 300 cadavers in one area while he was evacuating the Government Hospital; and much more. He saw “the entire male staff’ of the hospitals being taken into custody, leaving patients unattended, and “savage and indiscriminate beatings” of prisoners with fists, sticks, ropes with nuts and bolts tied to them. He saw a Palestinian doctor hung by his hands from a tree and beaten and an Iraqi surgeon “beaten by several guards viciously, and left to lie in the sun with his face buried in the sand,” all in the presence of an Israeli Colonel who did nothing about it. He watched prisoners “being rehearsed by an Israeli officer to shout ‘Long Live Begin’,” others sitting bound in “stifling heat” with “food and water in short supply.” He was forced to evacuate his hospital and bring the patients down to the seafront. The Norwegians confirmed his story and said that they had seen at least 10 people beaten to death, including an old man who was crazed by the lack of water and intense heat as the prisoners were forced to sit for hours in the sun; he was beaten by four or five soldiers who then tied him with his wrists to his ankles and let him lie in the sun until he died.

[…]

The Norwegian doctor and social worker told the story of their captivity in a report issued by the Norwegian Department of Foreign Affairs. Under Israeli captivity, they were forced to sit, hands tied, for 36 hours without permission to move, while they heard “screams of pain” from nearby. In an Israeli prison, they were forced to lie for 48 hours, blindfolded and handcuffed, on the interrogation ground. They report “extensive violence” against prisoners, including beatings by thick table legs, batons, plastic tubes “often with big knots in the ends” and clubs with nails. Officers were present during severe beatings, but did nothing. One of the most sadistic Israeli guards told them he was from a kibbutz where an Austrian girl had been killed by rocket fire. Prisoners were tied with tight plastic straps with sharp edges, “causing pain.” The Norwegians were given “preferential treatment.” Arab prisoners were subjected to constant brutality and degradation.

Dr. Shafiqul-Islam from Bangladesh, who was on the staff of the Palestinian hospital in Sidon, reports that he was arrested by the IDF while operating on a 12-year-old Palestinian boy with severe internal shrapnel injuries. He was not permitted to complete the operation, but was arrested, beaten mercilessly, forbidden to ask for food or water for 4 days, denied drugs or dressings for other prisoners on the grounds that they were “all terrorists,” and so on.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeezo-Beezo Aunt Queefa, put a cork in it already

[Aunt Teefah]

No, I don't think I will.

[Frank Drackman]

Not like anyones reading your bullshit anyway, spook.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nice try, Boris.

[Drewski]

"All evidence points to Hamas but it's the sort of thing Jews do, before drinking children's blood to celebrate."

[Aunt Teefah]

What evidence? That US and Israeli intelligence said so? Lmao.

If you think Hamas even has a weapon with the capacity to create that explosion, I've got a great price on a big, beautiful bridge, just for you. Not only that, the IDF literally warned that hospital in advance that it was going to bomb them.

[David Nieporent]

What evidence? That US and Israeli intelligence said so? Lmao.

Um, that's pretty much what every government has concluded.

Also, the photos actually establish that the hospital wasn't bombed at all, so there's that.

[Aunt Teefah]

Oh, it was never bombed now, huh? Is that the new Zionist line? I could’ve sworn “Hamas did it” was still the lie du jour. Forgive me, it’s hard to keep all the bullshit straight.

[David Nieporent]

Islamic Jihad — not technically Hamas — did do it. But the "it" that they did was to launch a rocket that crashed near the parking lot of a hospital, not bombed a hospital.

The hospital is intact. There's no rubble. There's no crater from a bombing. There are no Israeli bomb parts on site. You were fooled. (But it seems pretty clear that you wanted to be fooled because you like Hamas.)

[David Nieporent]

One of the leading scholars on the Israel-Palestine conflict, Norman Finkelstein,

Heh.

[Nelson]

That's a lot of words to say "killing civilians is justified if "those people" did awful things". Which, in case you were curious, is completely indefensible even if every single one of the allegations are true as stated. Which is extremely unlikely.

[Aunt Teefah]

You should really consider rereading it. You seem to be missing its main point, that being that killing civilians (particularly medical personnel and their patients) is NOT JUSTIFIED. Not sure how someone could comprehend something so poorly, but hopefully this will aid in your understanding.

[Nelson]

Well, since the evidence seems to support the position that it wasn't the Israelis, you took a lot of words to try to push a narrative with no objective evidence to support it.

You also seem to think that Hamas isn't a terrorist group and that they are justified in their fight.

They are terrorists and they aren't justified.

And I'm saying that as someone who has been a vocal critic of Bibi, Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank, and their intentional obstruction of a Palestinian state. Israel is by no means an angel, but Hamas needs to be wiped out root and branch. Terrorism and intentionally targeting civilians for kidnapping and killing is evil.

[Aunt Teefah]

"You also seem to think that Hamas isn’t a terrorist group and that they are justified in their fight."

There you go with your sub-literate reading comprehension skills again. Point me to where I said anything about Hamas. This post was solely about the acts of terrorism perpetrated by the IDF.

To be absolutely clear, I deplore all acts of terrorism against civilians, whether it be killing people at a music festival as Hamas did, or deliberately bombing ambulances, bakeries, and journalists as Israel is now doing.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

For anyone who thinks honest ballots are an invention of evil Republicans, here’s a column from someone who calls many Republicans fascists, supports a parliamentary system of government, and also says this:

“Though the Green Party and Libertarians do exist, they face such enormous requirements and constant legal harassment that simply getting on the ballot all but exhausts their resources.”

https://prospect.org/politics/2023-10-20-republicans-breaking-americas-ancient-constitution/

[Magister]

For anyone who thinks honest ballots are an invention of evil Republicans

I'm gonna go out on a limb that this was not what Margrave intended to write, because anybody who thinks Republicans are evil does not also think they ever did anything honest.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What would *you* call a ballot which doesn't arbitrarily exclude candidates?

[David Nieporent]

"Arbitrarily" doesn't mean what you think it means.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It doesn't mean keeping parties and candidates off the ballot based on popularity (as measured in votes in previous elections, or laboriously-gathered signature petitions)?

[David Nieporent]

You may not approve of that, but it's not remotely "arbitrary," no.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Because you say so?

By all means back up your assertion with arguments.

Meanwhile, I think the best test of the popularity of a party or candidate in any given election is how many votes they get in *that* election, and that they shouldn't be hidden from voters' view because they didn't get enough support at some previous election.

The point of these laws, of course, is not to purify the election process but to put obstacles in the way of non-duopoly candidates and discourage voters from fleeing the duopolist plantation.

[Nelson]

arbitrary
/är′bĭ-trĕr″ē/

adjective

Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
"stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice."

Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference.
"The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary."

Relating to a decision made by a court or legislature that lacks a grounding in law or fact.
"an arbitrary penalty."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What grounding do these restrictive ballot access laws have in law or fact?

I got some more definitions, and they're from Merriam Wokester so you know they're accurate. Here's one:

"existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as *a capricious and unreasonable act of will*" [emphasis added]

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

I'm glad I had the chance to expand your knowledge.

[Nelson]

You said ballot access was arbitrary. I was merely pointing out that ballot access rules are not arbitrary. You may disagree with the premise or the reasoning behind them (as I do), but calling them arbitrary isn't an accurate accusation.

I actually support ranked choice voting with a large number of candidates and no limit to how many candidates from each party. Let anyone who can pay the fee be on the ballot, just make the fee high enough to limit it to serious contenders and organized parties. Plus any vanity candidates who don't mind pissing away their money.

[David Nieporent]

just make the fee high enough to limit it to serious contenders and organized parties.

Just to be clear, Margrave opposes that, too. (Although he has allowed for fees, he supports only nominal fees.) And, frankly, I don't see why that's a better approach than the signature-based one. It seems to me that linking ballot access to popular support makes more sense than linking it to wealth.

[David Nieporent]

I’m glad I had the chance to expand your knowledge.

Not sure why you're citing something that refutes your point and then attempting a mic drop.

[David Nieporent]

Because you say so?

No; because that's not the definition of arbitrary.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

"Up over"
That is to say, not Australian.

Actually, you could have a fair Aussie ballot, but you can't unfairly exclude people if there is no pre-printed ballot.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For anyone who thinks honest ballots are an invention of evil Republicans,

Do you run into a lot of people who think that?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't know about "a lot," but I've run into Magister. Of course we disagree over what an honest ballot is. I think it means ballot access doesn't depend on popularity.

[Magister]

An honest ballot would identify the Republican party with their documented malfeasance.

[MoreCurious]

I've asked this question before, but since I never received an answer I'm going to keep asking it until I get a thoughtful, non-snarky response. Why Trump? Superficially, at least, most of the other Republican candidates appear to be moral, ethical, truthful, and rational. Trump possesses none of those qualities. Why would anyone support his candidacy rather than one of the others? (Please feel free to point out where I'm wrong in my description of Trump.)

[Estragon]

He has made being an asshole fun and acceptable. See, for example, the Paul Pelosi laugh line at that rally a few weeks back.

He’s tapped into the id of a portion of the electorate in a way that no other candidate approaches.

[MoreCurious]

That's exactly what worries me. I suspect he's saying out loud what a significant number of people believe but are afraid to say.

[Frank Drackman]

C’mon Man! if it was Mitch McConnel getting beat up by a Gigolo you’d be laughing your ass off (I would too).

[Estragon]

When do you leave for Israel again?

[Frank Drackman]

I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I doubt I'll be voting for a major party this time around, precisely because I don't like the duopoly's "pick one of two" mentality. If you're trapped in that mentality, the question isn't who's pure, but which of the two parties reeks less. Another consideration is making sure the worse candidate is defeated, rather than face a nominal resistance from a "good loser" opponent.

[MoreCurious]

So you don't see any difference between a Republican who is a lying, bigoted, cheating, unethical, misogynist and a Republican who is not?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As I indicated, and as I think you could have figured out from my remarks, if I considered myself bound by the two-party binary, I'd promote whichever candidate in the less-bad party had the best chance of beating the nominee of the more-bad party. Nor would I listen to the concern-trolling of the more-bad party: "Why don't you vote for someone it will be easier for us to beat? We'll respect you more if you do!"

That's the kind of dilemma you duopolists want to put me in, and I don't like it. I'll look for a good candidate even if (gasp!) he doesn't have the backing of a duopolist party.

[MoreCurious]

It's fine if you want to answer your own question instead of the one I posed. But I find it interesting that none of the Trump fans on this site seem willing to explain why him rather than someone you wouldn't be embarrassed to introduce to your grandmother or afraid to leave alone with your teenage daughter.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Your argument proves too much, because who would want to introduce JFK or LBJ to their teenage daughter?

For that matter, who would be fully comfortable introducing their teenage daughter to Grover Cleveland?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

(Notice that I left Bill Clinton off the list, that would be just too easy.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Or Tom Jefferson.

Hm, looks like a lot of Democrats.

[MoreCurious]

Still having trouble with your reading comprehension skills, I see.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Would you support the politicians I named in a primary election (or equivalent)? I presume not, since the average voter wouldn’t want them alone with their teenage daughter.

Again, this is the problem with the dysfunctional duopoly.

I'd prefer a candidate who isn't like Trump, but I'd also like a candidate whose relatives aren't mysteriously (and without any involvement by the candidate, of course) enriched by shady foreign corporations.

Also, a candidate who acknowledges that the national debt is a problem which we should at least try to handle.

and so forth.

[Bob from Ohio]

Lots of grandmothers are thrilled to meet Trump.

[windycityattorney]

I'll answer that for them. They are partisans. Trump is the de-facto head of the Republican Party. Because they are so deeply partisan and only care about Republican's winning...they have convinced themselves that their leader's faults are not as serious as (or as important as) preventing a Democrat from winning the next election.

They will bend over backwards to mitigate any faults, minimize any criminal charges, excuse any moral failing, etc...so long as he keeps owning the libs. And anybody who points out any of his faults, is automatically a TDS addled traitor. Which they will accuse me of for writing this and you for asking your question. Unquestioned loyalty to Trump regardless of events happening in objective reality is demanded at all times. Only their reality matters and they will hold onto their subjective reality and ride it down with the sinking Trump GOP ship. Trump is the king of grifters and his loyal base the happiest of marks. "Yes, the brilliant real estate billionaire needs my weekly $50 donation to fight the deep state."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If my state lets me vote in the Republican primary, I will probably vote for a non-Trump candidate. But just to make sure I have your approval, can you tell me if there are any *other* Republican primary candidates besides Trump who are morally unacceptable? I wouldn't want to jump from the frying pan into the fire.

[MoreCurious]

Sort of pathetic that you haven't managed to figure that out for yourself. So I'll give you a hint: vote for the kind of person that your parents, your teachers, and your religious leaders told you to emulate. It's not hard. If the candidate has a history of lying, cheating, and mistreating women, that person's not a good choice.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I will take your advice and avoid voting for a duopolist.

What about you? Did *you* vote for Bill Clinton?

(Don't worry, there's a statute of limitations - even if you voted for Bill in the old days, you could well have improved your standards since then.)

[MoreCurious]

Your feeble efforts to change the subject are amusing. Are you always so easily distracted that you can't follow the conversation?

[Zarniwoop]

Primary voters: the GQP base attaches a high value to "owning the libs", and that's sufficient to outweigh a lot of other considerations, including honesty, effectiveness, morality, empathy, intelligence, etc.

Sadly, it's kind of hard to formulate an answer that doesn't come across as "thoughtful, non-snarky" when the question is posed the way you have.

High-level GOP politicians: that's harder. I think a lot of the support Trump gets from elected officials and party members is a short-sighted, fear-based, cynical calculus that they'd rather keep their jobs and influence and insider lifestyle than be booted from the GOP because Trump throws a temper tantrum about lack of "loyalty" (see, e.g. Tom Emmer's 4hrs as candidate for Speaker of the House). I think it's a sad reflection on the GOP that so few have the integrity of Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, personally I preferred Paul, and would have voted for him in the 2016 primaries if he hadn't dropped out before reaching my state. Next year I expect I'll be voting for DeSantis in the primaries. But, to address your question...

"Superficially, at least". Yeah, that pretty much sums it up: "Superficially".

It all goes back to the aftermath of the 1994 election. Remember, the one where the Republican dog caught the car? Suddenly, Republicans were in control of Congress, for the first time in decades.

Now, for years, the GOP establishment had, to all appearances, been fighting the good fight in Washington. And losing, but what could you expect when they were in the minority? Now they were the majority, now it was going to be different!

It wasn't. Even with the majority, they contrived to lose. And the GOP base figured out that they were the victim of a bait and switch, that the establishment were just leading them on. And got horribly mad.

It's been a civil war in the GOP ever since, the party establishment desperately holding onto power, subverting every org the base tries to use to organize around, the base trying to replace them with folks who would actually TRY to do what they ran on doing.

So, by the time Trump came along, the fact that the GOP establishment hated his guts was actually a deal closer.

Then he actually turned out to be a pretty good President, and visibly was being thwarted by the Republican Congress, which really cemented his position.

At this point, the more over the top the assault on him gets, the more his base are convinced they've found their guy. I think that's a mistake, but it's an understandable one.

[Longtobefree]

Because he has done the job successfully before.
Other republicans just wander around giving in to democrats.
I was better off under Trump than under any democrat.
The democrat party platform is anathema to those who love personal freedom.

[MoreCurious]

You and the Margrave seem to have the same problem understanding English. My question concerned Republicans v. Republicans, not Republicans v. Democrats. Want to try again?

[Zarniwoop]

^^^ this

[Brett Bellmore]

But this WAS a Republicans v. Republicans response. Trump has a record of doing the job successfully. Everybody else running for the nomination lacks that qualification. So, why then should they pick somebody else?

I happen to think there are good reasons for picking somebody else, but it's not an irrational reason for preferring Trump.

[Nige]

'Trump has a record of doing the job successfully.'

Only if you accept your apologia for Trump not being able to get the government or his own party to do anything he supposedly wanted them do, which is no-one's idea of doing a job succesfully.

[Brett Bellmore]

He was, with some exceptions that had Congress' fingerprints all over them, quite successful at governing from a conservative Republican's perspective. That he wasn't a successful President from the viewpoint of a left-winger is kind of baked into that.

[shawn_dude]

That was the whole point of Jan 6, right? To be a more successful national leader by eliminating the need to work with Congress.

That also failed. Thankfully.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump demonstrably is willing to overthrow our republic to stay in power.

I don't care what policies you like, he's doing a bad job.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Because he has done the job successfully before.

What are some of his achievements that impressed you the most?

I was better off under Trump than under any democrat.

The democrat party platform is anathema to those who love personal freedom.

That being the case, seems like you would run as far away from Trump as possible, since he's about the only guy who might actually lose to them this year.

[Brett Bellmore]

Operation Warp Speed.
The Abraham accords.
Reducing illegal immigration to a tiny fraction of what Biden boosted it to.
Nearly halting the expansion of federal regulations.
Not emptying the strategic petroleum reserve.
Not deliberately driving up the cost of energy.
Not using Title XI to force women's sports teams to accept male players.
Not starting any new wars.
Not trying to make Americans' lives worse by tasking regulators with making gas appliances unavailable.

[Krayt]

I think this person nailed it on the head: he punches the shit out of the evil opposition.

Who is responding in kind. Pols benefit from you, hoi polloi, thinking of their power competition as demonic.

Meanwhile they dine out together at fancy restaurants and invest in things together. These demonizations are a gift to your stupid minds, not something real.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

These politicos have far more in common with their putative "enemies" on the "other side of the aisle," than with their voters.

[Nige]

'Who is responding in kind.'

See, this is the problem with false equivalence. The volume of vituperation coming from Trump is enormous, and is genuinly unhinged and sometimes just plain weird, the relatively mild criticism back from Dems is barely a fraction of it, but sure, they're both the same.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male conservative
"legal" blog has operated for

THREE (3)

days without publishing
a racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least

THIRTY-SIX (36)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
36 different, distinct discussions
that include racial slurs,
not just 36 racial slurs; many
of those discussions featured
multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the broader, incessant stream of
gay-bashing, misogynist, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, transphobic, and
immigrant-hating slurs and other
bigoted content published daily
at this faux libertarian blog, which is
presented from the receding, disaffected
right-wing fringe of modern legal academia
by members of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale and ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile.

>This is a good one, too.

That second one is specially dedicated to the pusillanimouses/pusillanimice/pusses out there. Carry on (as best you can).

[Frank Drackman]

3 days? Not sure I agree with your math there Jerry

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I might miss one or two of this blog’s incessant stream of vile racial slurs from time to time.

It will probably get tougher to keep up with the racial slurs after Prof. Volokh moves to a safe space for clingers.

[Ben_]

Liberal Matthew Yglesias says that antisemitic chants by Dems don’t matter because they’re just emotion-driven NPCs who can’t think anything through:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1717330969139585525

Exact quote is:

"A lot of Jewish people that I know are taking this sloppy thinking personally or feel it reveals an anti-Semitic core to the hard left.

But I’m a generalist so I know this is the kind of low-quality thinking they bring to every issue and it’s not about me. "

That will help him until thoughtless chanting becomes thoughtless action. Then it will be too late.

[M L]

Well. I can agree with him that the left brings low-quality thinking to every issue.

[Sarcastr0]

Post the whole thread, Ben. Your post is disingenuous in an attempt to pick a fight.
It's not all correct in my opinion, but it is actually pretty critical of the left, which you leave out.

"The signature flaw of far-left activist groups on everything from climate to Palestine to housing to policing is refusing to engage in any kind of specific way with how anything is supposed to happen beyond mystifications about political will.

I take everyone at their word that when they say “Free Palestine from the river to the sea” they mean a secular democracy with equal rights for all and not “kill all the Jews.”
But how do you accomplish that? That’s not what Hamas is asking for or how they run Gaza.

I am Jewish but I’m not particularly invested in Zionism as an idea, I personally enjoy living in a secular democracy. It’s a fine idea.
But then there’s Hamas entrenched in Gaza where the only way to fight them causes massive collateral damage and the answer is … ???

A lot of Jewish people that I know are taking this sloppy thinking personally or feel it reveals an anti-Semitic core to the hard left.
But I’m a generalist so I know this is the kind of low-quality thinking they bring to every issue and it’s not about me.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It’s the international relations equivalent of saying we need to decommodify housing or solve crime with health care programs or address inflation by banning greed, just people who can’t think seriously about any topic.

In other news, Bibi Netanyahu has spent his whole career scuttling every chance at peace and a two-state solution because all he wants in life is to grab more of the West Bank and it sucks.
Fuck him."

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not better in the long form. Naive fool.

[M L]

"It’s not all correct in my opinion, but it is actually pretty critical of the left, which you leave out."

The one part he quoted is the part you say he left out..

[Ben_]

I linked to the thread. When you quote the whole thread it reiterates that the leftists just say words with no thoughts or understanding.

And raging leftists who say stuff without thinking can also take action to directly harm others without thinking.

[John F. Carr]

Happy International Bat Week!

[Zarniwoop]

We can't stop here, this is BAT COUNTRY!

[loki13]

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

[Zarniwoop]

well played, sir, well played.

[Longtobefree]

So THAT is why everybody has gone batshit crazy!

[Idihax]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/26/politics/georgia-legislative-maps-order/index.html

A black ObaMuslim judge is allowed to hear a VRA case on black voters. If that's not the very definition of bias and impartiality, I don't know what is.

[David Nieporent]

Your last five words are right, anyway.

[Idihax]

Meanwhile, the obnoxious little hatter in New York dared to mouth off to Trump for challenging him.

[M L]

.

[Brett Bellmore]

Riiight. I mean, we have objective proof it happened, but they know nothing, nothing!

[Frank Drackman]

No joke about my Mom getting rapped by Run DMC/Snoop/2-pack/Biggie/The Fat Boys/Stevie Wonder/Marvin Gay/2 Live Crew??? you're slipping Queenie!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

"... after facing the prospect of an expensive and potentially unsuccessful legal battle with fast food giant Taco Bell.”

...and therein lies the rub.

[Idihax]

At this point, it's part of the general lexicon. Right decision not to fight it.

[hobie]

Don't know about other states, but in Texas school cafeterias Wednesday is always Enchilada Wednesday

[Krayt]

Beavis and Butt-head had a Taco Tuesday episode 25 years ago.

[Martinned]

if you can keep it...

[Armchair]

"And 8 wags the dog"

Which is why Jim Jordan is speaker.

[Bob from Ohio]

"8 wags the dog."

A 5 vote majority with the senate and executive being Dem controlled. Of course a committed minority will play politics. Nothing they want can possibly become law.

Last Congress since Dems controlled everything there was little incentive for the Hamas Squad et al. to cause trouble. So they didn't.

[apedad]

What rub?

That a corporation is using its assets to protect or enhance its operations?

[Mr. Bumble]

That any journey into the legal system becomes so expensive both in time and money.

[Brett Bellmore]

When an ice cream manufacturer decides to chase the market for durian flavored ice cream, (Honestly, it's pretty good if you can ignore the odor.) they don't start adding durian swirls to the Rocky Road. They sell it as a separate product.

[Frank Drackman]

And Martin Luther King jr just got in the way of James Earl Ray's target shooting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is that a normal occurrence at the libraries you frequent?

The existence of the protest is objectively documented.

The Mayor claims "The NYPD was present on scene and was coordinating with school security during the entire event, ensuring no one was injured." That being the case, how were they unaware of what was going on?

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-770180

[Mr. Bumble]

Seinfeld weeps.

[loki13]

"Its demise hit an inflection point in 2016, when a study showed that millennials were eschewing it because they simply couldn’t be bothered to wash the bowl and spoon. "

I have questions about this. First, it's one of those "too good to be true" statements that I have trouble believing- it's saying something that sounds truthy, and I want it to be true, but I really have to doubt the veracity.

Second, in terms of home foods and cleanup, cereal is still one of the easiest. Period. If you actually think about this for more than half a second, you know it. If you've observed young people (yes, even millenials) who have access to cereal and milk, along with other things, they will often default to it as an "easy" choice.

Which means that maybe there's other factors. It's no longer a cultural norm .... (I've seen people eat cereal more as a late-night snack than for breakfast). You can't eat it "to go" (you can take a breakfast sammie on the road). Maybe it's because of the concomitant decline in milk (I know a lot of households don't even buy milk anymore)?

[Kazinski]

I went to intermittent fasting about 10 years ago, I don't usually eat my first meal until 6pm, so I jumped off the cereal train a long time ago.

I try to avoid carbs too.

[Nige]

'Seperate but equal.'

[Life of Brian]

(Honestly, it’s pretty good if you can ignore the odor.)

There are two types of people in the world: people who have actually been around durian, and people who think complaints about its smell are grossly exaggerated.

[bernard11]

That's silly, Brett.

If they are selling cereal and want to increase sales to Asians, or gays, they might put a few Asians or gays in their ads. Just simple marketing.

No conspiracies needed.

[Frank Drackman]

Apparently N-words are missing the malapropism humor gene.
"I told my daughter's about the birds and the bees, they told me about my wife and Julio!, But I did, I drew them a Diaphragm, bought them some Condominiums, and prescriptions for the Low-Oral!"

Frank "I resemble that remark!"

[apedad]

And your solution is . . . ?

[Frank Drackman]

What's the deal with Cereal?? Why not Frank N Berry and Count Chockula in the same box?? Do you have to buy "Raisin" and "Bran" separately??

[Nige]

All those death threats had a surprisngly negative effect.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you agreeing with me? As for a solution, I wish I had one. Maybe all of the legal bright lights who comment here could offer something.

[Krayt]

They would have logs of the calls and what happened.

“The university turned the police back”. Riiiight.

“We had a call of Jewish students locked in a room by someone.”

“No…you can’t go check, sorry.”

“Ok, then. Bye!”

[OtisAH]

Here’s another you resemble:

Piece of shit.

[loki13]

Frank Drackman had spent most of his time online making incredibly bigoted jokes in order to laugh at the idiots who were stupid enough to think he meant it.

Except after a while he did mean it, and then somehow at the end of it he was a Nazi. Was this always how it happened?

(Apologies to Patricia Lockwood).

[Idihax]

We're happy to fund mental institutions that are more like jails. We just don't want to spend tons of money trying to "help" these people who are incurable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, I'm "thinking" about all of the quite dangerous psych drugs that are often tossed around like candy, and wondering how many of them the perp is (or was) on. They fry people's brains...

[Brett Bellmore]

How is that "pivoting"? Are they in some way contradictory?

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, lots of Nazis volunteer to work in Israeli Hospitals (for no pay either, just room/board, and maybe a little Bekaa Valley Wacky-Tabacky (medicinal use only! Hey, I’ve got the Glaucoma)

https://www.nbn.org.il/dr_volunteer/

Frank “Achtung Baby!”

[David Nieporent]

the school people actually associate with Alabama.

Strictly speaking, I don't associate any school with Alabama. Maybe a Waffle House or a Cracker Barrel or a feral hog, but not a school.

[Bob from Ohio]

A liberal idea to shut them in the first place.

A disaster, legislatures have to fund institutions at some level because of the risk of scandals.

[Idihax]

We don't need a crime for that. Throughout American history, the mentally ill have been involuntarily committed. This isn't something new, and it wasn't opposed by the founders at the time.

[loki13]

I appreciate that literary references are a little over your head, but I don't know how to put this in terms that you understand since I can't break it down in terms of SEC football.

Let's just say that there was fire at the University of Auburn that destroyed 20 of their books in their rare books collection. The real tragedy was that 15 of them hadn't been colored yet.

[Frank Drackman]

Loki13's stealing Steve Spurrier jokes from the 1990's, funny how he became such a shittier coach when he went to the NFL and South Carolina.
and it's "Auburn University" not "University of Auburn"
as in "The Auburn University Tigers defeated the University of Oregon Ducks 22-19 in the 2011 BCS Championship game"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Auburn_Tigers_football_team

Plagiarism?? Fucking up basic School Names? are you Parkinsonian Joe??

Frank

[loki13]

I prefer to call it what it is.

Alabama A&M. The Aggies of Alabama.

Which really says it all. Also? That Frank Drackman is a fan of the Alabama Aggies (First in Alabama Cow-lovin', Second in Football in the State) says everything you need to know about him.

It's a bad football team that supports a worse school, supported by the worst fans who spend most of their time on-line making racist jokes so that they can seem "edgy" compared to the fans of the school people actually associate with Alabama.

[Frank Drackman]

Loki 13 thinks calling someone an “Aggie” is an Insult, while coincidentally not saying what HFUBU he went to (I’m guessing Alabama A&M, you know, how it’s always the N-words using the N-word)

[loki13]

Ah. hit a sore spot?

You probably know the old saying?

Why is Vanderbilt in the SEC?

To counterbalance Auburn. After all, if you have a football team without any educational institution attached, you're going to need a real university without a football team.

(It is rather endearing that he thinks that his advocacy for Auburn ... helps. Cute, really.)

[bernard11]

Are any of the doctors?

[Nige]

You'll lock perfectly innocent people up rather than make it less easy for people to get guns to do mass shootings.

[Idihax]

No, I'll lock up people who are insane. They're not innocent of being insane, if they are insane.

[Magister]

A sad admission that the crazies on the right don't want the government to continue to operate, which is something that could become law.

[Nige]

Being 'insane' is a meaningless term. Or a blanket diagnosis to lock up anyone you want.

[Zarniwoop]

Please try to define "insane" with the same degree of exactitude you asked folks to define "assault rifle" in your comment above.

[Frank Drackman]

Nachos!

[Idihax]

Someone who hears voices telling him to hurt people.

[Zarniwoop]

Yeah, this seems like an unremarkable case of genericide to me. So the decisions by the TM holders (Taco John's for the Federally registered mark, and some place that I can't be arsed to look in NJ for a NJ-statewide mark) seem like eminently reasonable business decisions: look at the facts and concede, or ignore the facts, spend a lot of money, and then lose anyway.

Full disclosure: I’m an IP attorney (mostly patent, less but non-zero on the TM side).

[Zarniwoop]

Yep. My partner is now fully dairy intolerant (not just lactose, apparently a dairy protein allergy) and all milk is right out. And that means the entire household doesn't have cereal as a breakfast go-to.

(Extra sad that the allergy started to manifest shortly after she mooooved to Wisconsinland!)

[Nige]

What voices? Donald Trump? Jim Jordan? They're quite real, you know.

[Zarniwoop]

Someone who hears voices telling him to hurt people.

Simple response. Do you also accept that “a rifle designed to shoot humans and kill them” is an acceptable definition for “assault rifle”? It’s even simpler than all sort of accessories like “folding stock” and “flash suppressor”!

reminder, above you make hay out of

But suppose they are deadlier. Why is banning collapsible stocks and pistol grips so productive, when the “problem” you note is muzzle velocity?

Lots of nuance about guns, none about mental illness. I’m asking you to apply your own standards here. Surely you can at least pretend to be self consistent? Right? … right?

[Krayt]

Like a peanut allergy, possible death defying reaction, yikes.

[Zarniwoop]

Just lots of severe intestinal discomfort, not into anaphylactic shock territory. So ... could be worse?

[Idihax]

Yep, exactly. Had they fought it all along, it would be one thing, but people talk about Taco Tuesday now all the time at restaurants. The cat is out of the bag.

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect that, if they'd had 2-3 more seats in the Senate, they'd have done it a couple years ago. I fully expect them to pack the Court the moment they have both the White house and solid majorities in both chambers.

Really, with a 6-3 Court on 2nd amendment cases, the only way they're going to go anywhere on their 2nd amendment ambitions any time soon is to change the Court's composition.

Natural replacement could take decades, by which time Americans might be reaclimated to having their 2nd amendment rights. So they need an accelerated change.

Court packing, several versions of coerced retirement, or simple assassination, would appear to be their only options.

Personally, I think Republicans need to bite the bullet, and the next time they're in a position to do it, pull the trigger on a constitutional convention. That would let them lock in the size of the Court. Frankly, they should have done it during Trump's first couple of years.

[Zarniwoop]

That's a more succinct way to say "a short-sighted, fear-based, cynical calculus that they’d rather keep their jobs and influence and insider lifestyle than be booted from the GOP because Trump throws a temper tantrum about lack of “loyalty”"

... but I think we're on the same page here.

[Kazinski]

We want a much smaller operational government.

The government is too big to operate effectively. It shouldn't be bigger than 18% of GDP, so it needs to go on a diet.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm married to a Filipino, believe me, I've actually been around durian, enjoyed eating it, eventually healed from the wounds I suffered handling it...

The taste is pretty good, smells like rotting garlic.

[Krayt]

So you don't eat cereal out of sympathy, not because of medical risks from accidentally touching a milk carton?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm taking the position that the police are lying. They do that sometimes, you know.

[Idihax]

Because of liberal 1970s era court decisions we had to treat these people with "wuhspect"

[Life of Brian]

The taste is pretty good, smells like rotting garlic.

I personally can't find much to quarrel with Richard Sterling's description of "pig-shit, turpentine, and onions, garnished with a gym sock." I'll take your word for it on the taste. Weird how the two senses go in such wildly different directions.

[Nige]

ACAB

[Nelson]

The guy in Jersey had the only active trademark. He lost a case that challenged it in every state except Jersey because he didn't use it anywhere else (he only owns one restaurant in Jersey).

He more or less said in a recent interview that he couldn't understand why Taco Bell couldn't just buy the trademark for the same amount that they were spending to sue him.

His thinking was probably "what's a million or two to Taco Bell?". Their thinking was probably "Fuck that guy".

[Idihax]

Yes, they didn't want to set that precedent. But also, did he really do a good job protecting his trademark, even in NJ? There were plenty of Mexican restaurants using it all along, in NJ.

[Zarniwoop]

He lost a case that challenged it in every state except Jersey because he didn’t use it anywhere else (he only owns one restaurant in Jersey).

OK, I have not looked into the cases you're referring to, but there’s a significant difference between a state-level TM and a Federally registered one (the kind that entitles the owner to use the circle (R) mark). Federal registration through the USPTO is a thing. I suspect that was a major problem for the NJ state-level TM holder.

[Magister]

Republicans have leverage, controlling one side of Congress. The crazy ones prefer to shut down government if they can't get their preferences that don't command a majority of the Republican caucus; that's why they turned on McCarthy.

[shawn_dude]

Allergies like that often get worse. So if she’s allergic rather than not able to process lactose (like myself), then every contact is cumulative and could eventually lead to a response similar to a peanut allergy.

Eat cereal with cow’s milk. Kiss partner goodbye for work. Bad things happen.

I shifted to plant-based milk. Soy, in my case. But luckily, I can still eat cheese. That’d be the one thing I’d really, really miss. There’s no decent plant-based cheese.

[Zarniwoop]

Why did you even have to go for "is it sympathy instead of medical risk"? It's simpler than that.

We often have breakfast together ... so dairy "shockingly" happens a lot less often. When we nosh together we're more inclined to make eggs/bacon/toast, or oatmeal (timed cooker means it's as quick as cereal and milk!), or similar options.

Geez, not everything on VC has to be as antagonistic as you seem to want to make it. Like, human decency simple. Try it sometime.

[shawn_dude]

Milks in general are on decline.

Cereal, in general, has been getting a lot of bad press related to glyphosate content, too.

But my money is on younger people having a taste for breakfast sandwiches due to trends like avocado toast and similar, trendy concoctions that got a lot more attention on social media than your standard sugar-o's.

I remember those tiny boxes of sugary cereals you could cut open like a frog in biology class to make it's own bowl and fill with milk. I haven't seen one in a store in ages.

[Idihax]

That's a stupid response. A rifle is not designed to shoot humans. It's designed to shoot projectiles rapidly and at a high speed. What those projectiles are fired at depends on the user.

In any case, your definition for "assault rifle" would cover any semi-automatic rifle out there. It would leave only bolt action rifles and shotguns. Which is of course what you're aiming for.

[Zarniwoop]

I’m not offering any definition of “assault rifle”; it was an example of an over-simplified and useless definition that is precisely akin to your definition of “insane”. You know, not actually helpful.

I’m asking you to define “insane” (in the sense you want to use a metric to lock people away and deprive people of fundamental rights) with the same precision you ask of people to define assault rifle.

Can you or can’t you? I think you can’t. Which is a you problem, not a me problem.

If your best answer is “I know it when I see it” … that’s actually fine too. It signifies that you have values (good) but can’t articulate a coherent rule set (less ideal). Go you.

[Idihax]

The standard used prior to the 1970s. Meaning people who are likely either a danger to themselves or other, or are simply annoying and a societal nuisance.

[Zarniwoop]

The standard used prior to the 1970s. Meaning people who are likely either a danger to themselves or other, or are simply annoying and a societal nuisance.

So, just by way of example, anyone who carries torches and yells "Jews will not replace us"? Because someone considers them "simply annoying and a societal nuisance"?

You can't just hand-wave away some Constitutional rights.

Sort of like Robert Downey Jr. said: "You went full fascist, man. Never go full fascist."

[Zarniwoop]

But all that said, I hear you that you want a return to the 1970 view of who should be institutionalized, forget about modern developments! After all, you think it's good for society to be able to regulate dangerous people.

OK.

Would you also accept a return to 1970 gun regulation, forget about about modern developments? After all, others think it's good for society to be able to regulate dangerous things.

[Zarniwoop]

Maybe I should go out an register a mark for ... Frijole Fridays?

[Commenter_XY]

David, really? There has to be at least one school. One?

[Frank Drackman]

You just insulted about 100,000 Knee-grows who go to Alabama State/Alabama A&M/Tuskegee University, and 5 times as many who work at Waffle House/Cracker Barrell, talk about unaware.

Frank

[loki13]

You know, for a short period of time ... Frank was almost able to keep the racism out of it.

Leopard, spots.

[David Nieporent]

David, really? There has to be at least one school. One?

I'm dubious. Have you met anyone from Alabama?

[David Nieporent]

You do know that many straight women have a “disgust reaction” to lesbian activity, right?

Not based on my extensive research on, um, certain websites.

[Zarniwoop]

There's not a decent plant-based cheese, she misses that far more than milk. (and again .. the bonus sadness of not being able to eat cheese in Wisconsinland!)

[Nelson]

Sorry, it turns out I was wrong. The one relinquishing Taco Tuesdays in the other 49 states was Taco John's, the one in Jersey that just gave up was Gregory's Restaurant and Bar. I thought it was one company that held all 50 states, but it was actually two with a 49/1 split.

Either way, the Gregory's guy was the one in the interview angling for a payout. Not surprisingly, he didn't get it.

FWIW, I don't know if either was ever a federal trademark.

[Nelson]

Mole Monday would be a pretty tasty way to start the week.

[Nelson]

Holy crap, I had completely forgotten those. They had the perforations on the back of the box.

[Nelson]

No, it didn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why, that would require something outrageous, like actually looking at what he did and said! Like his casual jibe after the defeat of his “Contract”, that he’d only promised that it would be brought to a vote, not that they’d actually try to pass it.

To give you an example, when they got around to the balanced budget and term limits amendments, you know what they did?

Instead of honing one version of each, and having a vote on it, they brought them to the floor in multiple versions, so that everyone who needed to be able to say they'd voted for them could, without risk of any one version accumulating enough votes to pass. It was a process deliberately designed to fail.

[bernard11]

Well, I didn't follow all those machinations, but I will say two things:

1. I fully agree that Newt Gingrich is a dishonest asshole.

2. If in fact he killed the balanced budget amendment he deserves praise for doing so.