Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[apedad]

Size of Trump's hands at center of Supreme Court trademark case: 'Trump Too Small'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments over whether the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) violated the First Amendment when it refused the registration of a political slogan on T-shirts that criticizes former President Donald Trump without his consent.

In 2017, Steve Elster, a politically active Democrat attorney in California, wanted to get the phrase "Trump Too Small" printed on T-shirts to sell. The phrase originated from an exchange on the 2016 debate stage between Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. The Florida senator made a crude joke in reference to the size of the former president’s hands.

But when Elster sought to trademark the slogan, he was denied by the PTO, and the Trademark and Trial Appeal Board upheld the decision, because the mark identified Trump without his consent.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/size-trumps-hands-center-supreme-court-trademark-case-trump-too-small

Any trademark experts who can provide input on this?

[Reallynotbob]

The Court was categorically dismissive of the claim during argument. It's not a burden on speech to be denied trademark status.

[loki13]

I completely think that the Court was dismissive, and rightly so.

That said, I do wonder how they will square the absolute dismissiveness that they viewed the application of the First Amendment to trademark in this action, with the solicitousness in which they viewed the First Amendment argument in Matal v. Tam (aka, the "Slants case.").

[John F. Carr]

Good taste is subjective. "Identifies an individual" is likely to be objective.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Good taste resides in a subject but that does not make it subjective.

"It is better to suffer the subjectively unsatisfying than to commit an injustice, and this is because to be just is objectively good for a person, to be unjust – objectively bad. Hildebrand also emphasizes that the sphere of value is incommensurate with the sphere of the subjectively satisfying. It is not merely that one happens to be more valuable than another. A person forced to choose between caring for a friend in grave moral need and attending a social gathering is not choosing between two values on the same scale, but rather between two incommensurate forms of importance which appeal to different aspects of a person in order to move him to action."

[Voize]

The Court summarized Matal v. Tam in Iancu v. Brunetti (2019) in this fashion:

The eight-Justice Court divided evenly between two opinions and could not agree on the overall framework for deciding the case. (In particular, no majority emerged to resolve whether a Lanham Act bar is a condition on a government benefit or a simple restriction on speech.) But all the Justices agreed on two propositions. First, if a trademark registration bar is viewpoint-based, it is unconstitutional. And second, the disparagement bar was viewpoint-based.

In the end it didn't matter whether the denial of registration stifled speech, it was enough that the speaker was disadvantaged because of the viewpoint he expressed.
Despite their dismissal of Elster's burden claim during argument, it should not be a factor in their decision if they remain consistent with those earlier cases. What will matter is that they find this case involves a content-based rather than viewpoint-based restriction and so is due a lesser standard of scrutiny.
They very likely will find it content based, but I was surprised by Brunetti. In that case registration was denied on the basis of the mark containing "immoral or scandalous matter". The Court found that restriction to be viewpoint based because determining whether a message is immoral or scandalous depends on whether it comports with "society's sense of rectitude and morality", and that is viewpoint dependent.

[loki13]

Thank you- appreciate the breakdown. I knew about the viewpoint-based analysis, but Brunetti had completely slipped my mind.

[myself]

I wonder if any of these folks applied for trademarks.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male conservative blog
has operated for (at best)

ONE (1)

day without publishing
a racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least

THIRTY-SEVEN (37)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
37 different, distinct discussions
that include racial slurs,
not just 37 racial slurs; many
of those discussions have
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.

[Frank Drackman]

Man you're quick,
I guess you really did trade your Tamsulosin for Internet time.
What kind of connection do you have at
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx??
Not Internet, the Tamsulosin, might need to start it myself soon.

Frank

[tylertusta]

Please don't feed the trolls.

Instead, it's best if you mute him. He thrives on causing problems here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many racial slurs would it take to constitute a problem in your judgment, tylertusta?

(If the racial slurs are a plus for you, how many racial slurs would you like to see each year at this blog?)

[Frank Drackman]

Your "Bettor" Barry Hussein Osama used the "N-word" in his best selling Auto-Erotic Biography, "Wet Dreams of my Father", and he seemed to do OK (He didn't really use the "N-word" he said the actual word)
So that's "One"

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No need to hold back here, Frank Drackman. Mainstream America has progressed to a point at which racial slurs are unwelcome, but the Volokh Conspiracy welcomes racial slurs . . . and quite regularly.

Thirty-eight . . . it's going to be close as the Volokh Conspiracy strives to reach a once-a-week pace on racial slurs throughout 2023.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How many racial slurs would it take to constitute a problem in your judgment, tylertusta?

Well, you said nigger four times in the thread where you said this:

What kind of person uses “nigger” but censors “cop succor” and “slack-jaw?”

So I guess the number is more that four.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are the defender Prof. Volokh deserves.

Try to remember this when you are begging the culture war's victors for leniency toward the bigoted stragglers from the Federalist Society and Republican Party.

[apedad]

Judge denies ACLU brief supporting Trump in gag order fight in Jan. 6 case

The ACLU will not be allowed to weigh in on the matter of a federal judge’s gag order on Donald Trump, despite having already prepared a brief in favor oIn an arguably surprising twist, the stalwart civil rights organization — which notes that it had filed 400 legal actions against the Trump administration — had asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan for permission to argue that her gag order in the criminal case against the former president for allegedly trying to subvert the results of the 2020 election is unconstitutional.

On Tuesday, Chutkan denied that request.

“Leave to file denied,” the federal docket reads. “Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third-party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing.”

https://lawandcrime.com/trump/judge-denies-aclu-brief-supporting-trump-in-gag-order-fight-in-jan-6-case/

IANAL so learned something new about federal court procedures.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bending over backword to give Trump a fair trial.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

You seem to not grasp Dickens
While Mr. Bumble preaches Christian principles, he himself fails to live up to these lofty ideals by behaving without compassion or mercy toward the paupers under his charge.

How can you even think fair trial when the horror of the continuing J6 imprisonment goes on.

[Nelson]

Yes, the horror! Incarcerating criminals is such a bad idea.

[Frank Drackman]

Only "January 6th" criminal I see is that murderer Michael Byrd.
When is his "Trial"??

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

/sarc

[tylertusta]

The brief would be better served being filed at the DC Circuit anyways.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

As Pete Townshend said, citing such dreck as Octupus's Garden-- the Beatles killed Rock n Roll. Soon after we go Punk bands. All because stupid ditties and 64-track monstrosities , good or bad, were not rock n roll. Should have know you would have no real taste in any department of life 🙂

[Longtobefree]

"Rock and roll has been going downhill since Buddy Holly died"

[Frank Drackman]

There's a very wicked '55 Chevy looking for you.

[Nelson]

The day the music died.

[Frank Drackman]

There’s more great music on any 1 side of “The Beatles” than Pete Townshend’s/The Who made in his/their whole career, and I like The Who. OK, maybe 2 sides. make it 4 In no particular Order, “Back in the USSR, While my Guitar Gently Weeps, Happiness is a Warm Gun (Bang Bang Shoot Shoot), Blackbird, Rocky Raccoon, Revolution, Why don’t we do it in the Road, and of Course “Helter Skelter” (She’s comin down fast)

Frank “Lighten up Charlie, it’s about a Roller Coaster”

[Bob from Ohio]

This is your worst comment ever.

[Frank Drackman]

That's your worst comment ever.
Sorry if I have to be the one to say the Baby's ugly, but the Who show what would have happened if the Beatles had continued as a Band,
"It's Hard"?? "Face Dances"?? And yes, I know Mc Cartney (My favorite Beatle, he's Left handed) had some lemons ( "Spies like Us"? "Ebony & Ivory"??) but made up for it with "Band on the Run"
and "Live and Let Die"
See, that's bad when Paul McCartney's throw aways are better than your band's whole Discography

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

Not your Who opinion, your Beatles opinion, Helter Skelter, good, really?

[Frank Drackman]

I got Blista's on mah finguhs!!!!!

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Post will be pleased he was displaced. He welched on the bet.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Aaaah, you jumped to an invalid conclusion with your usual avidity. No, I am NOT a Who fan.

[Bob from Ohio]

I hope you have not summoned David Post.

Early Beatles was the epitome of pop rock. Great stuff.

The later stuff was just drug induced dreck. Most of the songs were only popular because it was the BEATLES!

[Frank Drackman]

Even Bono knows the Beatles were "Gear" I like U2's version of Helter Skelter better than the Original (Of course the Beatles didn't know who Charles Manson was, so they couldn't do that cool "This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles, we're stealing it back!"
Imagine if the Beatles had continued, maybe have Jimi Hendrix (Lefty BTW) and Jimmy Morrison (not a Lefty) sit in on a few tunes??

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pete Townshend has dropped the faux sniping at the Beatles (the Stones and Beatles did as well) and declared he “loved” them: “They were delightful, absolutely delightful.”

(He continues to contend the Beatles were more pop than rock, but the Lifehouse collection demonstrates that anyone who produced Won’t Get Fooled Again and Quadrophenia is a poor candidate to complain about “64-track monstrosities.”)

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Wow, what a stupid reply. 64-track is 64-track, monstrosity or no.
You live on dumb comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The superstition seems to have pickled your synapses.

Were you a victim of childhood indoctrination at the hands of credulous, substandard parents, or are you a case of adult-onset superstition?

Carry on, clinger. So far as your reliance on right-wing bigotry, belligerent ignorance, and silly superstition could carry anyone in modern, improving America.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/10/hamas-jews-illiberal-left-progressive-israel-terrorism.html

The article fairly clearly explains why "progressives" think that slaughtering (certain) women & children is A-OK.

[Reallynotbob]

The article clearly divides progressives from what the author calls the illiberal left. You're making a claim the author does not.

"To many progressives, this whole debate has seemed abstract, trivial, and counterproductive. Even progressives who are not supporters of the illiberal left have been reluctant to criticize it. They see the left’s foibles as a distraction from the larger fight with the radical right — a fight that, to be sure, I also see (and have always seen) as the paramount struggle in American politics.

"It is easy to understand why a progressive could arrive at this conclusion in good faith. The illiberal left has little ability to use state power — it is a miniscule faction within the Democratic Party, and the United States government is bound by robust First Amendment protections. (For this reason, state censorship is still mostly carried out by the Republican Party, whose illiberal wing is vastly larger). The stakes of this ideology have therefore been confined to the private sphere. Left-wing illiberalism can get dissenters fired from a job, but not sent to a Gulag."

[tylertusta]

For this reason, state censorship is still mostly carried out by the Republican Party, whose illiberal wing is vastly larger

The fucking irony.

Well, he's going to get an education once SCOTUS takes up Missouri v Biden

[Reallynotbob]

I mean, there is the whole "libraries shouldn't provide books about stuff we don't like" wing of the GOP.

[Reallynotbob]

So the states that pulled out of the Election Registration Information Center because fraud, or something, are now... recreating it.

"These states have decided that instead of using a wheel, they're going to invent a spherical device that will allow them to easily transport and roll items from A to B," said Josh Daniels, a former Republican county clerk in Utah. "Political officials who made bad choices to exit ERIC now have to make up the difference by essentially reinventing ERIC but without the benefit of years of experience and a system that has improved over time."

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/20/1207142433/eric-investigation-follow-up-voter-data-election-integrity

[Brett Bellmore]

I never did really understand the drive to leave ERIC. But essentially all of the accounts talking about why states are doing it have been from the perspective of those opposed, which I see as a bit of a red flag that I might not be hearing the full story.

I do understand there are some concerns about data privacy, and ERIC pushing aggressive measures to get people registered to vote, rather than just sticking to be an election security clearinghouse.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Any "get out the vote" measures are likely to result in more of the "wrong people" voting.

[Zarniwoop]

It's legit to be protective of driver's license data from the various states, but at the same time it can provide key data to determine if newly-registered "John Smith" in North Dakota is the unique "John Smith" who used to live in South Dakota, or a different "John Smith" who happens to share a common name. Using that data in a reasonably secure environment is precisely what ERIC has years of experience doing, and is now being re-created.

Perhaps the issue relates to GOP officials thinking the "wrong" people were being encouraged to vote (younger, more mobile, more diverse --> perceived less likely to vote GOP). And I'm not surprised that they want to whisper that part.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, "shoemaker, stick to your last!"; I don't think ERIC should have been pressuring member states to take any GOTV actions. They should have stuck to their narrowly defined original mission: Enabling member states to detect double voting.

And. Nothing. More.

[jb]

Here's ERIC's mission:

"ERIC’s mission is to assist states in improving the accuracy of America’s voter rolls and increasing access to voter registration for all eligible citizens."

Just looking at some historical documents, it seems like the idea of using registration data to also identify eligible voters who weren't registered has been part of the goals of the organization throughout its history.

So you may not agree that this should be part of ERIC's mission, but it seems like you're rewriting history to suggest that it's voter registration efforts are divorced from its original mission.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough. Their failure was built in from the beginning, then, by having TWO missions, instead of one.

Things work best, I think, when each organization has the most narrow focus possible. So it may efficiently achieve that focus, without alienating anybody by doing something else.

There’s no synergy here, as each state already has internally the information necessary for GOTV drives. Mandating GOTV drives just compromised the dedication to being the best possible Center for Electronic Registration Information.

[Reallynotbob]

"...the most narrow focus possible."

That chicken sandwich on the Burger King menu must really grind your oats.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not really, for two reasons:

1. I like the chicken sandwich.

But, mainly,

2. If I go there for a burger they don't mandate that I get a chicken sandwich, too. It's just on the menu, I'm not forced to get one if I walk in.

The complain seems to be that ERIC mandates you buy the chicken sandwich: GOTV drives are mandatory to be a member in good standing.

[Reallynotbob]

Mandate? No. Encourage additional purchases? Yes.

[jb]

As far as I can tell, the only thing ERIC requires is informing unregistered voters* that they can register to vote. Which I guess you can call a "GOTV drive" but doesn't seem particularly aggressive or burdensome. Some might even say it's the kind of thing states should be doing anyway, if they already have all of the information.

It's pretty telling that Republican states would rather lose what basically all of them acknowledge is a key tool in fighting voter fraud because they're worried about eligible but unregistered voters actually getting out and voting.

* Based on a list that they maintain of called the Eligible but Unregistered voters list, which seems to fit pretty squarely in the scope of things that an entity keeping track of registration information might pay attention to.

[SimonP]

But essentially all of the accounts talking about why states are doing it have been from the perspective of those opposed, which I see as a bit of a red flag that I might not be hearing the full story.

The "red flag," Brett, is that your information diet apparently includes outlets that are in favor of withdrawing from ERIC but don't want you to know it's happening, or to have enough understanding about the process to be able to evaluate why they might be in favor of withdrawing from ERIC.

"I'm sure there must be a pro-withdrawal argument somewhere" is not the right inference, if you've already taken steps to balance your information diet. Which your every other comment indicates you have done.

[Brett Bellmore]

My information diet, in this case, was selected by Google and Bing. Which didn't seem interested in directing me to any source that would explain the states' motives from the state's own perspective.

Just from the perspective of people who disagreed with the action.

[SimonP]

They don't have the "news" in your part of South Carolina, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what I was talking about: Basically all the news accounts describe these actions from the perspective of people opposed to them.

[Nelson]

In a sign of impending sanity on the part of Republicans, the national security is slowly starting to become more important than abortion. Some of them are openly criticizing Tommy Tuberville for holding up military promotions and appointments over abortion. Better late than never, I guess.

https://apnews.com/article/tuberville-holds-military-schumer-nominations-99a156198d325a329a98208785ea80f9

[loki13]

I think that the recent health issue of Marine Commandant Gen. Eric Smith may have finally caused some increased urgency, if not a full return to sanity, among members of the GOP.

The Pentagon's anger over Tuberville's stupid games is starting to show, and given all that is happening (especially with American troops in the Middle East), I think that some are finally realizing that if things escalate further, continuing to humor a single senator's crazy (and nationally unpopular) crusade is unlikely to play well.

[Frank Drackman]

Guy had a Heart Attack, more likely due to genetics, blood pressure, cholesterol, Type "A" personality (not many Type "B" Marine Corpse Officers) That's why they have an Assistant to the Assistant Commandant (and seeing as how the last Confirmed Commandant gave away all of the Marine Corpse Tanks and most of their Big Artillery, I'd be happy with Staff Sergeant Schmuckatelli in there)
And the whole blaming Coach Tuberville (want to blame him for something? Auburns Scheduling the Citadel in 2004) is such bullshit, they could confirm any of these Schmucks in 20 minutes, it just serves their purposes to distract from the hundreds of American Hostages in Gaza Parkinsonian Joe paid 100 billion ransom .

Frank

[loki13]

Apparently, the lack of respect for the military is an Auburn tradition!

[Frank Drackman]

Auburn's got one of the biggest ROTC units in the Country, even has a big Navy one (nearest Ocean's 3 hours away, so is Pensacola) Fort Benning (I refuse to use that new Yankee name) Maxwell AFB 1/2 hour away. Current Sec Def Floyd Austin got a Master's at Auburn, Former Marine Commandant Carl Mundy (the smart one, who didn't want Women/Homos) Former NSA Director Michael Rogers, Marine Corpse General Holland Smith "Father of Amphibious Warfare", Johnny Spann, Marine/CIA first Amurican killed in Afghanistan Wah, Marine Corpse General James Livingston awarded Medal of Honor for heroism in Vietnam,

and thousands of Putzes like me
so, yes, of course we don't respect Fat Fucks like Floyd Austin (He's not a real Auburn guy, just got his required-check-the-box-Masters-Degree there)

Frank "Yesterday I couldn't spell "Marine", now I are one!"

[loki13]

Aw, your comments are the living embodiment of res ipsa.

What, did you and ol' Coach think that the military was going to start allowing 320nd trimester abortions, and then remember how your mom kept asking for a do-over when she found out you were getting your little piece of toilet paper from Auburn "Can't Spell Cat if You Gave me the C and A" University?

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, Latin, you must be really “smart”! But you’re really not, because you went straight to the Ad Homo attack (I took Latin too, well, “Medical Latin”) OK, I majored in “Poultry Science” I knew I was going to Medical School, why clutter your Brain with useless facts you’ll never use like Engineering? Lets see, Apple CEO Tim Cook, More Astronauts than you can shake a stick at (Jan Davis (STS 47, 60) Hank Hartsfield (STS 4, 41, 61) Ken Mattingly (pulled from Apollo 13, Command Module Pilot Apollo 16) Jim Voss (STS 44, 53, 69, 101, ISS)

Feel Stupid enough yet??

Frank

[loki13]

Stupid? No. I work under the reasonable assumption that you post here on a regular basis only to justify the continued rants of the Reverend Arthur Kirkland. Most people might think that he was completely wrong, and yet … here you are!

Well, that … and, of course, I am quite sure that other universities and colleges (those that feature actual learning) are pleased to see your continued vocal and proud support of Auburn (with all that it entails), as I am quite sure it increases their yields.

By the way .. playing doctor with your sister, even when you’re still doing it in your forties, doesn’t actually make you a doctor.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, There, now we can be friends again!

[Paladin_44]

(Nancy) Jan Davis - Georgia Tech in '75. I was her freshman chemistry teacher (teaching assistant, actually).

[Frank Drackman]

Both of my Military Pilot daughters are Tech Grads, Aeronautical Engineering of course, did they still have the "Drown Proofing" requirement in 1975? Always thought it was cool when Tech had a Nuke-ular Reactor on Campus, right in Midtown Atlanta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neely_Nuclear_Research_Center

Frank

[Kazinski]

Nothing to do with lack of respect.

Its more respectful to recognize promotions individually by Congress as specified in the constitution, than to do mass promotions by unanimous consent.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that’s actually not what’s going on.

Tuberville has spoken about what he wants and it's not some principled stand against unanimous consent.

[Nelson]

"Its more respectful to recognize promotions individually by Congress as specified in the constitution, than to do mass promotions by unanimous consent."

This is one of the most pathetic attempts at justification for a clearly unjustified ideological hijacking I've ever heard.

[Bob from Ohio]

We have too many generals and flag officers. 800 versus 2000 in WW2 with an armed force 1/5 the size.

Too many stars too, 3 and 4 star glorified clerks, like the chief supply officer and chief trainer. Before WW2, only the Army Chief of Staff had 4 stars and if he continued in service, he reverted to 2. Now 15 in the Army alone.

[Nelson]

If only we could have frozen the world (and the military) at WWII. I'm sure that wouldn't have ended badly at all.

[bernard11]

Always good to hear from Napoleon himself on matters of military organization.

[damikesc]

Schumer can bring these up to the floor for votes.

Tuberville is just not providing unanimous consent, and I applaud him for it.

[Nelson]

Why?

[Martinned]

Indeed. Having politicians decide about military promotions is bonkers, particularly below general/admiral level.

[Nelson]

I meant why does he applaud Tuberville for hamstringing the US military.

I'm a huge supporter of civilian oversight of the military. And equally supportive of the oath they take being made to the Constitution, not a specific officeholder or, indeed, any individual.

[Martinned]

There's some distance between "civilian oversight of the military" and "individual service members' careers are subject to a vote by politicians".

[Frank Drackman]

Said like someone who never served, all Commissioned Officer promotions have to be approved by the Senate, even mine were, believe it or not.

[Nelson]

Not really. The idea that the military is subservient to civilians is pretty empty if control of higher officers remains in-house.

I do believe there is a minimum rank that Congress has to approve. Definitely generals and some (maybe all?) colonels. One of our more military-connected friends probably knows the cutoff.

But in this case, it’s confirmation to new positions that is causing problems, so the head of the Marines or a new base commander, for example. And then, of course, all of the promotions into the positions that would be vacated by the promoted officer, since they obviously aren’t going anywhere. Which leaves people stuck in limbo for transfers and new postings.

Even the positions that don’t require Congressional actions are now impacted by one man, due to his selfish actions based on his personal beliefs. He is about the worst example of “self before country” that we’ve seen in a long, long time.

And to push his personal agenda he’s hurting not just national security, but an entire group of people who espouse “country over self”. The irony would be darkly comic if it weren’t real.

[Frank Drackman]

Put your bifocals on, I just told you, ALL Commissioned Officer Promotions are approved by the Senate.
If you'd served as a Commissioned Officer you'd know.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Nelson, the Senate can vote on each promotion individually. That option has always been there. Maybe the Senate can do something useful and get voting on those commissions.

More broadly, we need far fewer humans and far more drones, missiles and space tech in the military.

[Frank Drackman]

Vote on the Commissions?? you mean have the Senate actually do some Senate Work ("WORK?????!!!!??? WORK!?!?!?!?!? am I the only one who remembers "(The Many Loves of) Dobie Gillis"???)
Much easier to blame it on Coach Tuberville, that way they don't have to pay the Generals, and they get to use the R's as a punching bag, a "Win-Win"

Frank

[bernard11]

Stop with the juvenile rationalizations, XY.

[Commenter_XY]

What rationalization? I stated a fact: The Senate can vote on each commission, no sweat. Don't want to talk to Senator Tuberville? Well alright then. Better get voting. The Senator doesn't appear to be budging. Maybe talk to him.

There are only 300 votes or so, each at 30 minutes. It could be done by December if there are a few vote-o-rama sessions.

Team D controls the Senate, last time I checked.

[Nelson]

"The Senator doesn’t appear to be budging."

So we should surrender to the ideological terrorist who wants to shoehorn abortion into a completely (and necessary) duty like military promotions? And spend a couple months doing it the hard way just so we can indulge his moral authoritarianism?

What could possibly justify such a colassal waste of time and effort?

And if you applaud it now, is that a blanket approval for anyone who attaches irrelevant personal beliefs to the efficient functioning of government?

[bernard11]

What rationalization?

Rationalization of Tuberville acting like a complete asshole.

You know, XY, you can be a Republican without buying all that RW shit.

There are only 300 votes or so, each at 30 minutes.

150 hours. Giving in to a guy who is determined to be a jerk and hold the military hostage. Fuck Tuberville.

[Nelson]

"Nelson, the Senate can vote on each promotion individually."

And? I can clean my kitchen floor with a toothbrush, but it doesn't make much sense to do it that way. Especially if there is zero valid reason to abandon the Swiffer for the toothbrush.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, stop funding abortions.
Are there no feminist charities willing to do this?

[Nelson]

Abortion isn't relevant to military promotions.

[Nelson]

"More broadly, we need far fewer humans and far more drones, missiles and space tech in the military."

Are you under the mistaken impression that's why Tuberville is screwing over the country?

[Martinned]

The idea that the military is subservient to civilians is pretty empty if control of higher officers remains in-house.

You mean other than that there's a civilian president who is the commander in chief, and a Congress that sets the budget for the military, controls declarations of war, etc.?

[Nelson]

Correct. Being the C-inC is only viable if everyone respects the title. And funding the military is a given, so there isn't much control given by the budgeting process.

At this point in our history we probably don't have to worry about it, but funding the military and letting them make all of their own personnel decisions, historically, has ended with the President staring into a gun as a military junta takes over.

As I said, not likely here. But also not worth giving up control to the military

As despicable as Tuberville's tantrum has been, it's been an excellent stress test for the military. They haven't considered a coup or defying civilian oversight, proving they are the loyal, honorable, dependable people we want in the military. The fact that a Marine literally almost worked himself to death rather than abandon his oath or resign his commission speaks volumes about our military, all of it good.

Tuberville, on the other hand, has been exposed as the shallow, ideological, heartless, arrogant asshole that characterizes way too many cultural conservatives.

When you believe that your personal moral beliefs are more important than national security, military readiness, and individual liberty, yiu can no longer be trusted to influence policy. That level of hubris and callousness is disqualifying.

[Martinned]

At this point in our history we probably don’t have to worry about it, but funding the military and letting them make all of their own personnel decisions, historically, has ended with the President staring into a gun as a military junta takes over.

I'm curious. How does having the Senate vote on military promotions prevent a military junta in the US?

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't, if the votes are on autopilot. It only does so if they're paying attention.

But paying attention is work, and they don't like being forced to actually do their jobs...

[Martinned]

If the Senate started paying attention to individual voters, the only result would be that they'd get into arguments with the DoD about why there aren't enough people from (say) Wisconsin being promoted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably. The theory really doesn't scale, does it?

[Don Nico]

Yes, indeed. The Chiefs of Staff do report to their respective Service Secretaries, and promotions to higher ranks require senate approval, just like top bureaucrats do. There is also Congressional oversight. And that is for a starter.

[Kazinski]

Read the appointments clause of the constitution.

Congress could change the procedure by law.
"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone,
in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

[Nelson]

“by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”

And promotions have always gotten a consent from Congress. Every single one. You just seem to object to the way they get consent.

Are you opposed to voice votes in all things, or just when defending an indefensible person doing indefensible things for indefensible reasons?

[Kazinski]

Hmmm, what does unanimous consent mean to you?

I don't think it means mandatory consent.

[Nelson]

It means that, unless you have a relevant, topical, or practical objection to the issue in front of you, you don't object. If every Senator attached their personal pet issues to every voice vote, choices would have to be made between floor votes on routine matters and floor votes on important matters.

If your objection isn't to the issue at hand, sit down and shut up you arrogant asshole.

[Martinned]

Yes, and I'm saying that it should.

[Frank Drackman]

If "Ifs" were "buts" and "shoulds" were "woulds" what a great world it would be!

[Bwaaah]

It's still a long way from "but" to "therefore," and "would" to "did."

The talkers have taken over, and now, they say the biggest threat to Our Democracy is the Frank Drackmans of the world.

Can I hear a, "Oh. Shucks." to that?

[damikesc]

The military is free to decide to not fund abortions.

If abortion is so vital, then they can have all of the promotions done on a vote-by-vote basis.

The Sec of Defense et al certainly think abortion is that important, so he's letting them demonstrate it.

He isn't blocking floor votes on it whatsoever, so an opportunity to do it is very much available. It's just less convenient.

Good on Tuberville.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Remember circumstances like this when you and the other clingers are begging the culture war's winners for leniency -- a few safe spaces for residual right-wing racists, for example, or some special privilege for superstitious conservative gay-haters.

[Nelson]

"The military is free to decide to not fund abortions."

It's equally free to decide to help servicemembers get the medical care they desire if they are stationed in an anti-liberty state that bans abortion. Which is what they've chosen to do because it's the right decision.

"Good on Tuberville."

Yeah, it's so awesome when a single citizen screws over the entire military just so he can force his personal beliefs on everyone else. Authoritarianism is a good thing in your book, eh?

[damikesc]

Promotions are still quite capable. They're just not as easy.

Drop the controversial funding of abortion and the ease will return.

Simple solution. Biden and his cronies think abortion is more important.

So, test that resolve.

[Nelson]

"Drop the controversial funding of abortion and the ease will return."

Why? To the vast majority of Americans, it isn't controversial at all.

Are you suggesting we should give in to every minority-supported pet issue of every senator if they attach it to completely unrelated issues?

Abortion isn't important enough to block trash pickup over, let alone the efficient approval if military promotions.

[Voize]

Tuberville thinks he is highlighting military policies he disagrees with, but really he is highlighting the need to change Senate rules so they don't need unanimous consent to get their work done.

[Frank Drackman]

They don't need unanimous consent to get their work done, they're just too fucking lazy to have individual votes.

[damikesc]

Unanimous consent is done in lieu of voting. Voting is still quite possible and THAT is their job.

[jb]

If the Senate did nothing else, it would take months to address the backlog of promotions one at a time:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/12/politics/tuberville-military-hold-senate-700-hours-process/index.html

Of course, there's actual military crises going on in the world that the Senate needs to help address, and you know, maybe they should help fund the government at some point as well. It's absurd that one person's pet issue should be force the Senate to choose between keeping the military in good working order or actually legislating.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, Team D better get started on voting. They do control the Senate.

[Sarcastr0]

I never want to hear you complain about this or that initiative degrading national security ever again is this is your blithe attitude.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh please. National security. My ass.

You could lose every single one of those commissioned officers in battle, and there are plenty more to replace them. This is a political fight.

You know, Team D senators might actually try talking to the Senator from AL. You just never know what might come of that. I thought that was how the system was supposed to work.

[Nelson]

"Oh please. National security. My ass."

Yes, the top officer of the Marines is doing two jobs because of a lack of military promotions, landing him in the hospital.

There are over 300 promotions languishing, causing vacancies in important positions at the Pentagon, in the staff of the various branches of the military, and the upper command levels of major bases.

And it has extended down to the lower levels, as promotions and transfers for officers to fill the roles of the officers whose promotions have been held up are also paused. And, of course the officers set to fill those roles.

At this point the number of military families getting screwed by Tuberville and the GOP is a sizable percentage of all active duty officers, in addition to creating dangerous vacancies at the highest levels of the service branches and major bases.

So yes, national security. Your snarky and condescending comment notwithstanding.

[Nelson]

Or team R can tell the 1% of Senators that is causing this problem to stick to relevant issues on voice votes, not shoehorn his personal hobby horse into unrelated matters.

Which is, fortunately, what they seem to be coming around to. Better late than never for integrity to enter the Republican caucus.

[Voize]

Yes, voting to change the rules.

Put 100 people in a room and give every one of them effective veto power, relying only on their good graces not to abuse it. It's really astounding that it could ever have worked.

[Commenter_XY]

It actually does work = unanimous consent

What does not work is arbitrarily changing the rules.

[Voize]

Unanimous consent is a mechanism for suspending or waiving a rule. It appears all over the place in the Senate Rules, and there is a catch-all provision that says

Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules.

In fact there are very few "otherwise provisions", rules that cannot be gotten around by unanimous consent (one is the rule that Senators can't change their votes after the result of a vote is announced).
I don't disagree with having an emergency cord to pull for those unusual situations when you need one. The problem is that the Senate pulls it all the time, because their rules are unworkable as written, and as a result the Senate is heavily dependent on being able to suspend them.
That makes withholding consent a very effective weapon if a Senator decides to use it to hold the chamber hostage. Normally they don't do this, but I don't think it is because they are saints. Fear of a political backlash usually moderates their behavior but as we are seeing it is not 100% reliable. What would be reliable is reducing the effectiveness of the weapon and by doing so restoring democracy to the institution.

[Nelson]

Refusing to agree to unanimous consent over a completely unrelated issue is A-OK with you, then?

So Bernie refusing unanimous consent unless there is a $20 minimum wage is OK with you?

Joni Ernst refusing unanimous consent unless farm subsidies are raised?

Mike Lee refusing unanimous consent unless Mormonism is acknowledged as the true Christian faith?

Expecting unanimous consent to be agreed to unless there is a concern directly related to the issue at hand is completely reasonable.

Making excuses for zealots holding up everyday approvals for specious reasons is not.

[damikesc]

Also, Democrats could view the military as more important than their political issue and drop abortion from being funded by taxpayers for the military.

But they won't...so continue on Tuberville.

[Nelson]

"But they won’t…so continue on Tuberville."

Victim blaming is kinda a skill for you, eh? It isn't that one person who, for a reason supported by a minority of Americans and every demographic except evangelical Protestants, has halted military promotions that deserved the blame.

Apparently it's the people providing a means for people who have little choice over where they're stationed to access a widely-supported medical procedure that has been blocked by authoritarians in red states for indefensible reasons who are at fault.

Could you be any more dishonest in your arguments?

[Frank Drackman]

They usually have a choice of whether to get fucked or not.
Speaking of getting fucked, who's pulling (Insert XX name here) shift's while she's out killing her unborn baby? while she gets the inevitable mental health treatment when she gets depressed that she killed her baby? and even when everything goes great and she gets fucked by somebody she doesn't mind having a baby with, deploys in her place to a combat zone??

Frank

[damikesc]

"It isn’t that one person who, for a reason supported by a minority of Americans and every demographic except evangelical Protestants, has halted military promotions that deserved the blame."

Can they be passed via floor vote?

Yup.

So stop lying about what he is doing. He is simply not providing unanimous consent. Abortion is so important to the military that they should be willing --- hell, HAPPY ---- to shoulder that burden.

[Nelson]

“Can they be passed via floor vote?

Yup.”

What justifies such a colossal waste of time and effort? Do you think Congress has nothing better to do in the next two months than catch up on promotions that could be (and in the past, have been) handled all at once?

The problem is that you don’t recognize that the reason he is screwing the military over is completely invalid and unjustified.

“So stop lying about what he is doing.”

I’ve said that he is doing an unjustified thing for unjustified reason in pursuit of a personal moral belief that isn’t relevant to anyone else’s life. Which part is the lie?

“He is simply not providing unanimous consent.”

He is simply making the timely approval of promotions contingent upon the entire military submitting to his personal beliefs. What’s the problem with that?

“Abortion is so important to the military”

Abortion isn’t important to the military. They are literally not taking any position about their servicemenbers and their choices about abortion. They are merely making sure that if they want a medical procedure they can get it.

It is, however, the hill that Tuberville apparently wants to die on. Well, one of several, all centered around forcing everyone else to do what he thinks is right.

The easiest way would be for anti-liberty states to stop banning abortion before viability, but that isn’t going to happen. So the only practical solution is to bring the patient to a place that can provide the treatment they desire.

And no one would be happy about having minority moral beliefs forced upon them because a zealot has 1% of the seats in the Senate.

Well, no decent people would be happy. Cultural conservatives would be predictably ecstatic.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your lack of support for America's military -- a soldier sent by order to a backwater posting should be denied an abortion while a soldier posted in a better jurisdiction doesn't confront that problem? -- is noted and disdained.

Carry on, clinger -- but only so far as better Americans permit.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn’t realize Jerry Sandusky had such Tactical Expertise (His Penn State D-fences certainly didn’t)

[John F. Carr]

If we were facing a genuine crisis there would be pressure on Biden to back down.

[Nelson]

Why? He isn't the one causing the problem for unrelated, ideological reasons. Tuberville is the problem.

[John F. Carr]

For the same reason McCarthy backed down and made a deal with Democrats. The government needs a budget like the military needs promotions. Promotions are not as urgent so the drama is lasting longer.

[Nelson]

So give in to the wingnut terrorist? No. That isn't a good solution no matter how you look at it.

[Nelson]

And McCarthy was a raving lunatic with no facts or proof to back up his wild accusations and a massive drinking problem.

McCarthy was a villain and the Red Scare was a horrific example of what happens when you allow rabid ideologues to influence policy. I would call him the equivelent of a social media influencer, but he did too much damage to the country to equate him to such meaningless people.

[John F. Carr]

Kevin McCarthy, who recently lost his job as Speaker because he compromised with Democrats.

[Nelson]

Ah. My mistake.

But he didn't lose his job because he compromised with Democrats. He lost his job because the expectations of the wingnuts were impossible to achieve. There was no possible way for him to succeed.

[Voize]

He lost his job because he made a deal with Democrats, annoying Republicans, and he reneged on deals with Democrats, annoying Democrats. He burned bridges on both sides and found himself alone on an island.

[Nelson]

My point is that making agreements with the minority party is literally part of the Speaker’s job.

Expecting a Speaker to never compromise with the other party in a two-party system is part of what I was referring to when I said, “the expectations of the wingnuts were impossible to achieve”.

Reneging on agreements with Democrats was a means to appease the wingnuts. It was never going to work.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how Jimmuh Cartuh’s 50 some Amurican Hostages in Ear-Ron was a “Hostage Crisis” but Parkinsonian Joe’s hundreds in Gaza aren’t. He paid Ham-Ass their ransom, when do we get them back??

Frank

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Nelson, you are another purveyor of almost non-stop stupidities. What political priniciple says that abortion has to be on a common scale with national security. In the trades for national security, the decline in births and the assymetry of males-females in China are at the top of the security concerns.
and most of your posts show a real cluelessness in Economics. The main contributor to the welfare state is what is called the working pyramid. When Social Security started there were 40 workers to every beneficiary, it is now about 4 and declining. You will say, as usual, so what if the welfare state collapses, but that statement is a prime indication of your cluelessness to those who know Economics.

[Nelson]

"What political priniciple says that abortion has to be on a common scale with national security."

It isn't. That's my point. Abortion is not only so far separated from national secutiry in terms of importance that they are over each other's horizon, abortion a personal decision that Tommy Tuberville has exactly zero right to inject his personal belief into anyone's else's decision. Unless his mistress gets pregnant (allegedly, don't want to get sized for slander). After all, for cultural conservatives, abortion is evil until it could expose an adulterous relationship. Then it's fine.

Abortion will never be important, except as a dying issue used to identify authoritarian instincts in conservative politicians. National security will always be important. They aren't just not in the same league, they aren't even in the same sport. National security plays in the big leagues and anti-abortionists play on the kindergarten playground, where feelings are the most important thing.

"most of your posts show a real cluelessness in Economics"

Really? I'd love to hear how. Because I point out that supply-side economics is a corporate welfare boondoggle? Or that the Laffer curve is a bad joke? Or that the first step to fiscal discipline and balanced budgets is to control the massive losses from entitlement programs? Or maybe that capitalism, pursued in a lightly regulated free market, would solve a lot of problems? Or maybe that subsidies in things like education will always drive up prices?

Please, Adam Smith Jr., explain to me how "clueless" I am about economics.

"The main contributor to the welfare state is what is called the working pyramid. When Social Security started there were 40 workers to every beneficiary, it is now about 4 and declining."

Agreed. Perhaps that is caused, in part, by the largest single population cohort in American history moving from the worker side to the beneficiary side?

So what is your solution to that unavoidable reality? I have suggested raising the eligibility age by one year every two years for 10 years, removing the cap on FICA, and applying FICA to all income, not just earned income. Also negotiating drug prices for Medicare/Medicaid, but this Administration has managed, in a tiny way, to get that started. What are your ideas?

"You will say, as usual, so what if the welfare state collapses"

I've never said anything even remotely like that. Now you're just making stuff up? For what purpose?

"to those who know Economics"

OK, Mensa boy. If you know so much, what would you suggest to solve these problems? Realistic possibilities, please, not political fantasies or supply-side fanfic.

[Nelson]

The silence is deafening.

[damikesc]

You still don't question why the MILITARY chose to make it important to them.

[Nelson]

It doesn't matter. It isn't relevant to promotions. Promotions literally have nothing to do with abortion.

How many things are anti-abortion zealots going to screw up in their futile attempt to force everyone else to act the way they want?

[bernard11]

cluelessness to those who know Economics.

You are accusing someone else of being clueless about economics.

LOL.

[Don Nico]

"What political priniciple says that abortion has to be on a common scale with national security."
I should not be and that is why Tuberville should back down and why McConnel needs to twist his arm very hard.

[Krayt]

Tuberville sounds like it would be the next town over in Green Acres.

Then I realized that's probably how the name came about, someone in a farming community naming a new town cutsie.

[Aunt Teefah]

Brandon and the Demon-rats want to ship off $14 billion in no-strings-attached weapons funding to the government of Israel. A recent piece provides a good summary of the people who will be making use of this money. In short, a gang of fascists (yes, literally, by their own admission), terrorists (yes, literally credibly accused of planning a terrorist attack), crooks, kooks, and genocidaires. These are the people the "grown-ups" in DC want to give billions in taxpayer funding:

"Party: Otzma Yehudit
Major Player: Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir

To start, we have the single most unfortunate fact for hasbarists assigned with selling Zionism to the world’s many progressive Jews. This fact is the existence and relevance of Itamar Ben-Gvir, current Israeli Minister of National Security and head of Otzma Yehudit (lit. “Jewish Power”).

If Ben-Gvir did not actually exist, any description would come across as a crude, over-the-top parody of extremist Zionism. Currently running the ministry that once singled him out as a “good candidate for detention,” Ben-Gvir has dedicated his entire life to anti-Arab racism. Starting as a teenager, he moved around between several organizations that advocated for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs until settling on Kach, a fascist political party led by the convicted Israeli-American terrorist Meir Kahane. Kach, which was designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, European Union, and Israel itself, disavowed democracy and called for Israel to turn into a theocratic ethnostate. In their world, all of Palestine and Jordan, along with parts of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, were to be annexed by the Jewish state. Arabs who came under Israeli control would either flee or be enslaved. All territory under Israeli control would be opened up for Jewish settlement. Marriage and sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews would be banned. The army would be given shoot-to-kill orders against anyone who attempted to resist this regime.

Because of how extreme this all is, you may be wondering if I’m exaggerating things. I’m not. All you have to do to see where Kahane and his followers stood is to look at the laws he proposed while in the Israeli parliament, such as:

“Non-Jews in the State of Israel will be without any national rights and without any part in political proceedings in the State of Israel. A non-Jew will not be able to be appointed to any position of authority and will not be able to vote in elections to the Knesset or to any other state and public body.”

“Non-Jews will be obliged to assume duties, taxes and slavery. If he does not agree to slavery and taxes, he will be forcibly deported.”

“A non-Jew will not live within the jurisdiction of the city of Jerusalem.”

“A non-Jew who has a marital relationship with a Jew is liable to 50 years in prison. A Jewish prostitute or a Jewish male who has an affair with a non-Jewish male is sentenced to five years in prison.”

Today, Kach no longer exists. The party faced a mortal blow with Kahane’s 1990 assassination and was officially banned in Israel in 1994 after party supporter Baruch Goldstein went on a shooting spree and murdered 29 people in a Hebron mosque. But Itamar Ben-Gvir has carried on its legacy ever since, both in word and deed. According to The New Yorker, he has been convicted of criminal charges at least eight times, including but not limited to support for a terrorist organization and incitement to racism. His criminal record is reportedly so long that a court once had to change the ink in their Xerox when printing it out. In his speeches, Ben-Gvir refers Kahane as nothing less than a saint; as for Goldstein, the terrorist mass murderer, Ben-Gvir hung a gigantic mural of him in his living room for almost the entirety of his adult life, only taking it down recently when fellow ultra-right settlers said it was bad optics. He still refers to both as “martyrs” to this day, even in speeches given in his capacity as National Security Minister.

Ben-Gvir first came to public attention in Israel in the mid-1990s as a hardline activist against then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the Oslo accords, and peace with Palestinians as a concept. And as the Israeli right’s rhetoric towards the Prime Minister and his policies became increasingly violent, Ben-Gvir was right in the middle of it, seemingly either closely associated with or directly engaged in attempts to physically harm Rabin. On live TV in 1995, Ben-Gvir was first introduced to the Israeli public brandishing a Cadillac emblem that had been ripped off of Rabin’s car. Speaking to reporters, he declared that, “We got to his car, and we’ll get to him, too.”

Also in 1995, Ben-Gvir was recorded dressed as Goldstein during the celebration of Purim. He declared to an interviewer that Goldstein was his “hero.” From his neck, he wore a placard bearing the inscription “Blessed is the man who opens fire.”

After spending about a decade as the go-to lawyer for Jewish terrorists and in-house counsel for a far-right group dedicated opposing intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews, Ben-Gvir officially entered politics in 2012 with the founding of Otzma Yehudit. While Ben-Gvir does not explicitly refer to Otzma Yehudit as the successor of Kach, the party is understood to be its ideological descendant. As the leader of the party and, by extension, the modern Kahanist movement as a whole, Ben-Gvir has made some efforts to “moderate” its image. He has made attempts, fruitless as they may be, to dispute allegations of racism, and has turned away from Kahane’s stance of deporting and/or enslaving all Arabs in the country, much to the consternation of his voters. Now, it just supports the deportation of Arabs who are “not loyal to Israel,” including Israeli-Arab politicians currently serving in the country’s parliament. Along with that, the party also supports the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, with harsh reprisals against anyone who resists Israeli rule. Like his idol Kahane, Ben-Gvir has called for anyone who does as much as throw stones at Israeli forces to be shot on sight. And as might be expected, Ben-Gvir, an illegal settler himself, supports unlimited expansion of illegal settlements throughout the occupied territories.

As for the current state of affairs in Palestine, Ben-Gvir’s take is that it’s apartheid, and that that’s a good thing. In his own words: “My right, the right of my wife and my children to move around [the West Bank] is more important than freedom of movement for the Arabs.” In the same interview, he turned to his interviewer, an Arab-Israeli reporter named Mohammad Magadli, and said, “Sorry Mohammad, my right to life precedes yours, that is the reality.”

In his capacity as Minister of National Security, Ben-Gvir oversees the Israeli police and prison system. Since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war, he has begun handing out rifles to illegal settlers in the West Bank, who are currently engaged in a spree of murders of Palestinians throughout the occupied territory.

Party: National Religious Party–Religious Zionism
Major Player: Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich

Bezalel Smotrich represents the more explicitly religious elements of the country’s ultra-nationalist right. While he doesn’t have a direct history of involvement with Kahanism in the way Ben-Gvir does, many of his policies are essentially indistinguishable from his. This is quite unfortunate for those who wish to write off the recently-elected Ben-Gvir as a one-off, because Smotrich has been a relevant player in Israeli politics for quite some time. First elected to the Israeli parliament in 2015, Smotrich has served happily within Netanyahu’s coalition throughout his career, an allegiance that has won him two cabinet-level titles in the past: Minister of Transportation from 2019 to 2020, and Minister of Finance, the powerful economic ministry he currently heads now. In addition to that, he also heads the administration of a large part of the West Bank, with a portfolio specifically dedicated to developing illegal Jewish settlements.

What defines the philosophy of this new Israeli power broker? In a word, two things: intense cultural conservatism and hatred towards both Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs. Smotrich is a self-declared “fascist homophobe” who has dedicated much of his political life to suppressing Israel’s LGBT community. He has regularly called gay Israelis “beasts” and refers to pride parades as “beast parades.” In fact, one of Smotrich’s first acts in public life was when he helped organize his own so-called Beast Parade, wherein he marched animals through the streets of Jerusalem as a protest against the city’s pride parade. While the politician has claimed that these are just his opinions, and that he won’t act on them by, say, “stoning gays to death,” his platform says otherwise. Smotrich’s father, Chaim Smotrich, spent his entire life advocating for the overturning of Israel’s secular legal system in favor of a system based on halakhic (religious) law, thereby turning Israel into a theocracy. Bezalel holds this same position. It’s hard to imagine that the rights of those Smotrich rails against would find much protection under such a regime.

These particulars of Israeli social policy may feel irrelevant in the context of the ongoing war, but remember: these are all Israeli Jews he is talking about. This is how he treats members of his own “side.” When it comes to Palestinians, things get beyond extreme. Smotrich has been attempting to harm Palestinians for a period of time spanning well before his entry into electoral politics. While his criminal record is not as lengthy as Ben-Gvir’s, it includes what is easily the most infamous act between the two. In 2005, Smotrich was arrested and detained for three weeks over his involvement in a plot to block cars and damage infrastructure in protest of the then-government’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Under most circumstances, such an arrest would have hardly been unusual for a figure like Smotrich, except for one thing that made it highly alarming: his group had allegedly built up a stash of nearly 200 gallons of gasoline that they planned to use to blow up cars on the highway at rush hour. While Smotrich has feverishly denied that party of the story, it has been seconded by none other than former Shin Bet deputy head Yitzhak Ilan, who personally interrogated Smotrich during his detention. While it’s worth noting that Ilan said this while running as a member of a party in the anti-Netanyahu opposition, he still has a great degree of credibility, and Smotrich doesn’t deny his role in the organized opposition to the withdrawal plan, which regularly threatened and sometimes engaged in violence.

If Smotrich is totally innocent of these charges, it would be hard to tell based on his positions. Like Ben-Gvir, Smotrich’s vision for the future of Israel is one explicitly based on apartheid. His ultimate vision for the Palestinians is that of a one-state solution, wherein Israel annexes the West Bank and Gaza. In this world, Palestinians will only be considered “residents” of the state of Israel. While the state will generously grant them “municipal autonomy,” they will not be able to vote for their own national government. Only Jews and (presumably) a minority of Israeli-Arabs from the pre-1967 borders will be permitted representation in parliament. Socially, the country will implement Jim Crow-style segregation. Palestinians will be forbidden from purchasing property from non-Jews. Everything up to and including maternity wards will be segregated by race. This is what Smotrich refers to as “Israel’s Decisive Plan”: where Palestinians, who he does not recognize as a people, will be eternally barred from either having their own state or having basic human rights under an Israeli one. As described by veteran Israeli journalist Ron Ben-Yishai:

[Smotrich] intends to flood, simply so, the [West Bank] with settlements and Jewish settlers. When this happens, the Palestinians are supposed to understand that they have no chance to get a state of their own and they would have to choose between one of the three options – a life of subjugation under Israeli rule, emigration or….death.

Ben-Yishai is by no means a bleeding-heart leftist. The necessity of maintaining Israel’s image in the world is a constant refrain throughout his piece, and he goes out of his way to frame Smotrich’s desires within the context of Netanyahu’s bid to remove judicial independence, the one issue Israel’s Zionist center cares about above all else. But even he can see that establishing “the apartheid,” as he calls it in the headline of his opinion piece, is Smotrich’s ultimate ambition. Whether Ben-Yishai’s beloved judicial system is truly a bulwark against this possibility remains to be seen, but his statements mark yet another example of mainstream Israeli figures candidly articulating the country’s political reality in a way that is reflexively declared inappropriate when it comes from overseas commentators.

While these white papers and long-term institutional designs might give off the impression that Smotrich is something of a legalistic counterpart to Ben-Gvir’s terroristic approach, violence plays a major part of his rhetoric and actions. In the past, he has had racist meltdowns in the middle of sessions of the Israeli parliament, once screaming at his Arab colleagues, “You’re here by mistake, it’s a mistake that Ben-Gurion didn’t finish the job and didn’t throw you out in 1948.” Like Ben-Gvir, he has called for Israeli forces to adopt a shoot-to-kill policy towards stone-throwers. In 2018, he called for a 17-year-old Palestinian protester to be shot for slapping an Israeli soldier. He not only defends all incidents of Israeli civilian violence against Palestinians on principle, but has called for such terrorism to be escalated. After West Bank settlers rampaged through the Palestinian village of Huwara this February, beating and killing Palestinians in the streets and setting fire to their cars and homes, Smotrich said that not enough had been done. He called on the Israeli military to join the rioters and “erase” the village of 5,570 people.

In his capacity as Minister of Finance, Smotrich plans and implements Israeli economic policy and drafts the country’s budget. He has used this authority to deny funds to Arab municipalities. As part of the country’s current power-sharing agreement, he serves as the de facto governor of the West Bank, with power over all civil policy in the territory. Smotrich also holds the additional title of “Minister in the Defense Ministry,” making him directly involved in Israel’s military decision-making.

Party: Likud

Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are both very influential players in Israel. They control some of the country’s most powerful and important ministries, especially as it concerns Palestinian policy. At the same time, they are also offhandedly referred to as marginal. While this belies their overall importance in the country’s politics, it is, in truth, a somewhat accurate description of their political standing. Ben-Gvir and Smotrich’s parties have six and seven seats, respectively, making them definitive minority parties. Together, they actually hold fewer seats than the country’s two religious parties, who are very important players in the country’s government but also difficult to analyze since they determine their policies based on what their religious leaders say. And they both pale in comparison to Likud: Israel’s sole remaining major party and the heart of its political right.

Major Player: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Likud’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, needs no introduction. He is Likud and Likud is him. While the party is, on paper, the country’s secular, mainstream, right-wing political force, it would be more accurately described in recent years as a personality cult for Israel’s longest-serving Prime Minister. His policies are their policies on everything, including on issues as contentious as Palestine.

I’ve gone over the nature of Netanyahu’s strategy during his tenure(s) as Prime Minister in previous articles and interviews, but if you want the long and short of it, it’s this: Netanyahu has dedicated his entire life to preventing the creation of a Palestinian state. He’s changed his rhetoric and moved the goalposts depending on the international climate, but that’s the upshot of it. When Netanayhu first won the Likud leadership in the early 1990s, he virulently opposed settlements as basic as the Oslo Accords, arguably played a role in Rabin’s assassination with his extremist rhetoric, and stalled out negotiations once he first came to power shortly after. After being kicked out of power in 1999 after an old generation of Israelis rightfully recognized that he had no commitment to the peace process whatsoever, he handed off Likud leadership to Ariel Sharon, who brought him back in power as the country’s Minister of Finance following Sharon’s 2003 election victory. This tenure, wherein he applied a Thatcherite economic policy regime (he’s not just far-right on Palestine) that brought the country significant foreign investment, helped rehabilitate his career. However, his time in power would come to an abrupt end after Likud cracked up over Sharon’s support for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Netanyahu resigned in protest over Sharon’s move, and after Sharon left his own party to start a big-tent centrist coalition, Netanyahu moved in to retake the leadership of the rump Likud.

This didn’t go very well at first. In the 2006 elections, Netanyahu’s Likud earned a pathetic 9% of the vote, hardly any better than the country’s pensioner’s party. But it was all only prologue to Netanyahu’s next and biggest act of all: his return to power and subsequent domination of Israeli politics. Through corruption scandals, indictments, and countless regional flare-ups, Netanyahu has remained in office almost continuously following his victory in 2009. And what a time in office it’s been. Netanyahu has been the architect of Israel’s current approach towards Palestine, with his approach centered around complete dispossession first and foremost. He made a mockery of peace talks, broke the back of the Israeli left, and did the heavy lifting to get figures like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in parliament in the first place. Throughout it all, his administration has presided over endless settlement expansions, violations of international law and human rights abuses.

At a certain point, describing Netanyahu’s beliefs becomes less of an act of profiling a specific individual and more of a description of existing Israeli policy. Essentially everything the country does and engages in comes from him, which is pretty concerning if you look at how he’s been talking lately. In a speech a few days ago, the Prime Minister invoked a Bible verse about killing women and children to describe his policy in Gaza.

And pro-Israel PR flacks think that pointing this out is unfair. They think it’s all unfair. Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, Netanyahu—these are all just politicians, they say. Most Israelis don’t even like them. You can’t judge a country based on who it elects; after all, wouldn’t it be unfair for someone to denounce the United States because of Trump? Putting aside the fact that you can absolutely do that first thing and that that second thing would, in fact, be totally fair, fine. Let’s play this game. Let’s look at somebody in the Israeli government who is (or at least was) liked by a majority of Israelis and also is currently deeply involved in the current conflict in Gaza. Is this where we can find the mythical even-handed Israeli statesman, a man who we can trust to bomb Gaza in good faith?

Major Player: Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant

Yoav Gallant, retired general and current Defense Minister, has a background that is quite different from Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, or Netanyahu. He fits firmly within a very common Israeli political archetype: that of a retired general or military chieftain who prioritizes security above all else, ultimately serving as a moderating force relative to the fire-breathing partisans they work with. And, indeed, Gallant has played such a role numerous times on a number of issues during his time as Defense Minister. The issue of Palestine, however, has not been among them.

In the context of Gallant’s political career, this may come across as a little surprising. Since the retired general entered Israeli politics in 2015, he has been a genuine moderate, breaking from the right in big ways on big issues. As a matter of fact, Gallant wasn’t even a member of the country’s political right when he first began his career. Rather than join Likud, he chose to become second-in-command of a new party, Kulanu, a centrist group that split off from Netanyahu’s party. Kulanu’s ultimate coalitional alignment was a major topic of speculation during the campaign, and Gallant himself was even rebuked by the party’s leader when he suggested that the party would seek to form a government with Labor’s Isaac Herzog before working with Netanyahu. While the party focused primarily on economic issues, it also rebuked Netanyahu’s approach, if not his philosophy, on Palestine, endorsing a two-state solution on paper while refraining to commit to any actual talks with Palestinian leaders. Gallant endorsed this approach, even saying during the campaign:

“It was through Zionist activity that we created the Palestinian people living beside us, and they are not going anywhere…It makes no sense for us to settle in places with a dense Palestinian population…We must grant the Palestinians territorial contiguity, which will allow them to run their own lives in an independent entity.”

Quite a far cry from Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. While Kulanu would ultimately join Netanyahu’s coalition following the election, all of this made Gallant look relatively reasonable. This impression was only further solidified after he quite strikingly joined up with Ayman Odeh, the Israeli-Arab leader of the Joint List, a former alliance of the country’s Arab parties, on a unity tour through the country’s Arab towns and cities.

But it all proved to be false impressions and empty words. As part of Kulanu’s power-sharing deal with Likud, Gallant was given the Ministry of Construction, a nominally low-level but politically decisive ministry that regulates, among other things, construction projects in illegal Israeli settlements. As minister from 2015 to 2019, Gallant kept up the Netanyahu government’s policy of settlement expansion, doing a great deal to facilitate the policy intended to make a Palestinian state impossible. And as time went on, Gallant would move even further to the political right. He abandoned Kulanu, joined Likud, and completely flip-flopped on Palestine, moving to the right of even Netanyahu on the issue. Where he once said it made no sense for Israelis to settle in Arab-populated territories, Gallant now called settlements the “Zionism of the 21st century.” Out was an “independent entity” for Palestinians: now, Gallant was “clearly saying no to a Palestinian state” and calling for Israel to fully annex the West Bank.

What accounts for such a massive shift? It would be easy to point to political expediency, but Gallant has made strong, even dramatic stands on principle in the past. Notably, he risked his entire political career earlier this year when he came out against Netanyahu’s proposed judicial reforms, a move that actually led to Gallant’s dismissal for a day until mass protests made the Prime Minister backtrack. If Gallant truly thought that it was in the best interests of Israeli security to make peace with the Palestinians, he would have said so.

The most likely explanation for this shift is that there was no shift at all, and that Gallant was always in favor of the complete dispossession of Palestinians the entire time. The only thing that changed was the way in which he articulated this. Back in 2015, when Barack Obama was in office and Netanyahu was facing tough polls, this involved usual meaningless lip service towards a two-state solution that he never intended to follow through on. But by 2019, when Donald Trump was in office and the Israeli right was riding high, there was ample room for Gallant to be more explicit about what he was euphemistically hinting at four years prior. When push comes to shove, he will never allow Palestinians their basic rights.

The consequences of having such a man in such an important position have been disastrous. This is especially the case because his ultranationalist ideology is infused with grudges from his military days. In 2009, Gallant commanded Israeli forces during Operation Cast Lead, the first major conflict between the country and Hamas following the latter group’s takeover of the Gaza Strip. The brutal tactics used by Israeli forces under Gallant’s command received widespread international attention, leading the United Nations to establish a fact-finding mission on the country’s behavior in the conflict. Their findings, as compiled in the Goldstone Report, documented war crimes and possible crimes against humanity by the IDF, including but not limited to usage of human shields and white phosphorus bombs.

Gallant’s only regrets are that he wasn’t harsher. He sees this war as his chance to make up for that.

Final Thoughts

Sometimes, there are situations where your subject makes your case for you. This is one of them. All of the descriptions of the figures profiled here come from their own beliefs, statements, actions, and associations. You don’t need much analysis to see the obvious conclusion here: that the people who run the Israeli government hate the Palestinian people, wish to see them dispossessed, and prioritize accomplishing this above all else. The origins of this hatred may vary wildly, from religious fanaticism to bloodthirsty ultranationalism to a strategy to stay out of prison, but the upshot is the same in the end. This intent cannot be ignored as the country continues to mercilessly pound Gaza and produce white papers advocating for the entire strip to be ethnically cleansed. To say that they are only doing such things out of concern for their safety is utterly farcical. Their hatred is what dictates every single one of their actions, as it always has.

Those who say that this is not the case, and that the intentions of these figures are either pure or unknowable, fall into one of two categories. The first is that they know absolutely nothing about Israeli politics and are speaking entirely out of their asses on a life-or-death issue. The second is that they are fully aware that Israel has a government of racists, terrorists, criminals and psychopaths and are lying about it.

You decide which is worse."

[loki13]

Pro tip- if you post something that long, you're going to get muted. If for no reason other than to make threads readable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't believe in muting but this may make me change my position.
Brevity is the soul of wit.

[Bob from Ohio]

Teefah deserves muting for being a Jew hating tankie.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You deserve muting for that kind of moronic comment.

[tylertusta]

Eh, I won't mute. I'll just smash that "Page Down" button four or five times.

[Brett Bellmore]

Get a blog of your own, and link to your posts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe extra long comments should be truncated automatically with a "read more" option.

[apedad]

I'll buy that!

[Zarniwoop]

Came here to ask if there's a "read more" option for commenters ...

[Michael P]

Fourthed!

[bernard11]

Fifth.

[Krayt]

This is a copy paste from elsewhere already.

[David Nieporent]

It's not his. He's stealing someone else's rantings.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's all pretty accurate, except for the part where he suggests Netanyahu's political rhetoric was responsible for Rabin's assassination. That's a little ridiculous.

[Nelson]

"Brandon and the Demon-rats want to ship off $14 billion in no-strings-attached weapons funding to the government of Israel."

Oh, no! America supports its allies and opposes terrorism!

Hamas is evil. That doesn't mean Israel is good, but the fact that Hamas is evil is unequivocal.

As a side note, opposing Israel's West Bank settlements and their national action (or lack thereof) concerning a Palestinian state isn't antisemitism. It's easy to support Israel against Hamas and oppose their illegal settlements.

In conclusion, Hamas is evil.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Oh, no! America supports its allies and opposes terrorism!"

The point is, perhaps a government that is staffed by terrorists and continues to do terrorism ought not be an ally any longer.

[Nelson]

"perhaps a government that is staffed by terrorists and continues to do terrorism"

Which is why we aren't allies with Hamas. Since, you know, targeting civilians for killing and kidnapping is evil, as are those who do it.

I know you are trying to make a false equivelence between Israel and Hamas. A lot of the policies pursued by Israel are wrong, but they aren't terrorists by any rational definition of the word.

[Aunt Teefah]

Israel's Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich was party to a plan to use 200 gallons of gasoline to blow up cars along a highway.

[Nelson]

"to blow up cars"

That's called vandalism. Terrorism is when you are trying to kill people, not force them to file an insurance claim.

Now if there were civilians in the cars, that would arguably be terrorism. So let me read the article (in English, please, I'm monolingual) about this attack you are talking about. Do you have a link?

[Aunt Teefah]

Here you go: https://www.timesofisrael.com/former-shin-bet-deputy-chief-said-to-call-hardline-mk-smotrich-a-terrorist/ "Former Shin Bet deputy chief said to claim MK Smotrich planned terror attack"

I'd have thought it would go without saying that the plan was for people to be inside the cars, but that was my mistake for underestimating the stupidity of Volokh Conspiracy commenters.

[Nelson]

So one person said another guy, a known hardliner, planned it?

Here's the difference between a terrorist organization and a democratic nation. When someone puts together a plan to kill civilians, a terrorist group like Hamas (the government of Gaza, don't forget) says, "Awesome! Let's kill as many innocent people as we can! Here's the money and weapons you'll need! Don't worry that it's humanitarian relief intended for our citizens. Killing innocent Jews is more important.".

A non-terrorist group like Israel (even under a morally bankrupt hardliner like Bibi) says, "No.".

See the difference? So does the rest of the world.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"he was freed without any charges being filed against him."

That's kinda relevant....

[David Nieporent]

That’s called vandalism.

No, that's called terrorism. But of course it didn't happen.

[VinniUSMC]

Right, that's why the US shouldn't be allied with Hamas. Glad we're all on the same page.

[Aunt Teefah]

Sure, we should continue to not ally with Hamas terrorists. We should also not ally with "Jewish Power" terrorists either.

[VinniUSMC]

Go find Misek and jerk each other to thoughts of Hitler. Fucking Nazi scum.

[Nelson]

"We should also not ally with “Jewish Power” terrorists either."

We don't. Apparently you are confused about what a terrorist group looks like.

[Aunt Teefah]

" what a terrorist group looks like."

Oh, right, they are only terrorists if they have a certain "look", if you catch my drift. But what should we call the people in the in-group that do shooting sprees and try to blow up civilians? Troubled kids? A few bad apples? Patriots?

[Nelson]

"Oh, right, they are only terrorists if they have a certain “look”"

Correct. If they look like a group that targets innocent civilians for killing and kidnapping, they look like a terrorist group. Which is why the armed forces of Israel don't look like a terrorist group and Hamas does.

"But what should we call the people in the in-group that do shooting sprees and try to blow up civilians?"

People? You seem to be trying to generalize so broadly that you can equate individuals taking actions outside of government orders and against the law (terrorists) with those acting under government orders (armed forces). There is a vast difference between the two.

Let's take the groups in the West Bank whose members are largely ultra-Orthodox Jews from the illegal settlements in the West Bank (allowed by Bibi's hard-right government) who attack and kill innocent Palestinians. Those are terrorists.

The armed forces of Israel are not. Based on your own linked article, when an Israeli hardliner planned to target innocent civilians for killing, the answer was no. Which was proved out by the fact that the purported attack never actually took place.

"Troubled kids? A few bad apples? Patriots?"

No, terrorists. But it isn't the Israeli armed forces carrying out orders when those attacks occur, is it? It's the ultra-Orthodox terror groups in the West Bank.

Hold on. You do realize that Gaza and the West Bank are two totally separate places with two totally separate governments, right? Hamas is the government of Gaza and also a terrorist organization, but the Palestinian Authority, controlled by Fatah right now, is the government of the West Bank.

[Don Nico]

"Let’s take the groups in the West Bank whose members are largely ultra-Orthodox Jews from the illegal settlements in the West Bank (allowed by Bibi’s hard-right government) who attack and kill innocent Palestinians. Those are terrorists. "
I find it disconcerting (at best) that Israel's government has not cracked down on these acts by settlers. They should suffer deep opprobrium and criminal penalties for terrorism. Given the large number of casualties that will necessarily occur in Israel's legitimate actions in Gaza, it should assure the US that is treats all terrorism in the same way.
Why the US? Because the US is getting ready to pressure for a cease fire

[Frank Drackman]

Worse? those old Black bag-ladies who just mumble/type incomprehensible shit all day long.

[Commenter_XY]

You should talk to lathrop about your 'wall of text' problem. Maybe he can help.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would much prefer Phil Spector's Wall of Sound.

[Aunt Teefah]

You all are free to scroll on by it and continue to type "Orange Man Bad" - "No, Old Man Even More Bad" back and forth at each other for 800 posts. You don't have to read it. But for anyone wishing to actually understand one of the most important world events to occur in years, it has a lot of significant information that you will not get from the mainstream media.

[Commenter_XY]

We know where you are coming from, AT.

[VinniUSMC]

We know where you are coming from, AT.

Nazi sleepover camp?

[Aunt Teefah]

Everyone who disagrees with me is Literally Hitler. Yawn.

[VinniUSMC]

You're not Literally Hitler. You're someone who seems to wish that Hitler had succeeded. Go follow in his footsteps, starting with his last step. Fucking Nazi scum.

[Aunt Teefah]

Lmao you mad? You sound mad. Do yourself a favor and take a walk, have some lunch, and get yourself a nap. No sense giving yourself an aneurism over someone disagreeing with you on the internet.

[Nelson]

"Nazi sleepover camp?"

Game, set, match. Vinni wins VC today.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Epic bacon comment - you win the internet today, gentlesir!"

[Frank Drackman]

You're just pissed it's always a Jewish guy who tells you the gems in your Diamond encrusted Dildos aren't genuine. Get yourself a $19.99 pair of Jewler's Loupes, it isn't that hard! (that's what she said)

Frank

[damikesc]

tl; dr.

To an extreme.

Learn to summarize and link.

[Nige]

Have to say I do wonder about Biden’s unequivocal support for Likud and Netanyahu, who are clearly utter catastrophes and willing to kill as many people as they can while locking up anyone who objects, when it’s hugely unpopular with his voters, which includes most Jewish Americans. It’s mostly only popular with right-wing weirdos nostalgic for the kill-’em-all glory days post 9/11, ie, people who are far right hardliner Netanyahu supporters. Catastrophically-bad-government supporters. Press for a ceasefire, Joe. The only people who will call you anti-semitic were mostly calling you crooked, racist, a pedophile and brain-dead already.

Also, summarise and link, it’s just better.

[Aunt Teefah]

Yes, yes, got it with the link thing. Unfortunately it was from a paywalled substack, so I don't think that was doable. Not a tech person though, so might be wrong.

Re: Biden, this is killing him with young voters. It will also kill him in the key swing state of Michigan, which has a large concentration of Arab immigrants. If he does not use his leverage to get Israel to back off, this could be the death knell of his reelection.

[Commenter_XY]

AT, I did read the entire piece. There are no angels in political leadership. Not in Israel, not in America, not in Ukraine, not in Russia, not in South Africa, not in Iran, not anywhere.

Doesn't change anything. There is nothing to negotiate with Hamas. Hamas will be obliterated. They will die violent deaths, or be touched by darkness that can be felt (buried in their tunnels).

After Hamas is obliterated, it will be time to address the question of what to do with a palestinian society steeped and stewed in Judeocide. There is no future for anyone who supports Judeocide inside Israel (which btw, will eventually include Gaza, Judea, and Samaria). That is the hard question.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Gaza is obliterated, Israel will follow relatively soon.

Israel is able to do as it wishes -- but, relatively soon, only so far as it can manage with American military, political, and economic skirts to hide behind.

[Commenter_XY]

You're confused, Arthur. I said Hamas will be obliterated, not Gaza.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel seems confused. It is obliterating Gaza.

If Israel can take Gaza and the West Bank and hold them without American support that will be quite an accomplishment. I do not expect the American mainstream to stick around for that entire ride, though, so I do not expect it to happen.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Israel (which btw, will eventually include Gaza, Judea, and Samaria)"

That sounds an awful lot like "from the river to the sea", which I'm told is an antisemitic hate crime to say. Does that principle work in the other direction?

In all seriousness, I actually do appreciate anyone willing to consider and engage with well-reasoned perspectives that are in opposition to them. Honestly. I try to do so myself frequently.

I too wish that both sides of this conflict had better political leaders. But the problems with the current arrangement go far beyond the politicians. There will be no "obliterating" Hamas. Sure, I suppose it's possible (though highly unlikely) that they all die in the tunnels. But what will all the brothers and sons of the innocents killed do after the war is over, other than form Hamas 2? No one has ever bombed their way out of an insurgency. If Israel wants security - real, long-term security - it has to end the blockade and the occupation. The only way out of the Gordian knot is to cut it.

[Nelson]

"If Israel wants security – real, long-term security – it has to end the blockade and the occupation. The only way out of the Gordian knot is to cut it."

Yes, the blocade is awful and inhumane. Israeli policy is based on fear that they could be attacked by neighboring countries or terrorist groups at any moment.

And that fear is justified.

One day after Israel was created in 1948, it was attacked by neighboring countries, starting the First Arab-Israeli War. Then you have the Six Day War in 1967, where Israel was attacked by neighboring countries. Then there was the Yom Kippur War in 1973, where Israel was attacked by neighboring countries.

Interspersed you have had various organized terrorist conflicts like the Palestinian Fedayeen insurgency starting in 1951, the Palestinian insurgency in southern Lebanon from 1971, the Hezbollah (another Iranian-backed terrorist group) conflict from 1985, the first Palestinian Intifada from 1987, and the second Palestinian Intifada from 2000. In addition, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel from Gaza and Hezbollah has done the same (although with much less frequency) from southern Lebanon.

That doesn't mean Israel is justified in occupying the West Bank and Gaza, nor for their slow-walking a two-state solution for years.

But it isn't as simple as "Israel should end the blocade and the occupation". There are myriad reasons why that isn't a reasonable solution, not least that Hamas has no legitimacy as a government due to its unambiguous support for terrorism in Gaza.

So what legitimate government would Israel negotiate with? What assurances could be given to Israel that could be trusted?

[bernard11]

And what will be the status of the Palestinian residents in this expanded Israel? Will they be expelled, be ordinary citizens, hold some sort of second-class status?

What do you think?

[Commenter_XY]

This is a fair question. Post-war, there are three groups of palestinians to address: The Dead-enders, The Emigres, and Israeli citizens.

The Dead-enders will die violently. The IDF will kill them. These are the palestinians who will carry out Judeocidal acts until they are dead. Hamas is one example. There are others: PIJ, IJ, etc. There is no future for this group.

The Emigres are palestinians who cannot bear the thought of living under Israeli sovereignty, hate Jews, don't want to be around Jews, but are not interested in a ride on the one-way train to paradise. This group is fairly large; easily 2 million, more likely 3MM. This group can be offered generous relocation grants to emigrate to countries in the region (or outside) who will take them. Israel can self-finance the cost over a 10-year period.

The last group of palestinians are new Israeli citizens (after a brief provisional period). This group will be thoroughly investigated before becoming Israeli citizens (the transitional period). Welcome to Israel! Your life will be materially better than it ever was previously.

We need to acknowledge that population transfer (in my example, voluntary) actually works. Sometimes, the only solution is to separate.

[Nelson]

So why should the Palestinians be expected to surrender the territory they were allowed to keep when Israel was created (out of Palestinian land) in 1948?

I don't see "surrender the rest of the land that we didn't get the first time your land was taken" as a reasonable position.

The problem isn't coming from Palestiniams in the West Bank, despite the violent terrorism from the ultra-Orthodox residents of the illegal Jewish settlements they endure. Gaza, on the other hand, is a cesspit of terrorism. The West Bank has a legitimate case to make for being an independent state for Palestinians. Gaza can't make the same arguments that the West Bank can make.

Granted, Israel would have to compensate the settlers that they have been embedding in the West Bank for decades. But they were the ones who created the false expectations for the settlers, so it's their problem to solve.

[Commenter_XY]

Nelson, you need to repeat the following mantra: Two states is dead, Disengagement is dead. Conflict Management is dead.

Think of it like the Israeli version of the Three No's. Israel will never go back to that. The disputed territories (which is the phrase I believe applies) will become Israel. The dispute is over; Israel won the dispute. That will be the legal position of Israel vis a vis intl law, I think. If Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt have a problem with it, take it up with Israel (they will bray like asses, sit in the sand, and do nothing - like asses).

The palestinians in Judea and Samaria were handing out candies on October 7 in the streets, with PA leadership. There is no peace partner. There will be a victor (that is Israel), and there will be the vanquished (palestinians). Judea and Samaria will become Israel. The dead-enders will die; it will take some time, but they will die violently, unlamented and forgotten.

This will play out over ~10 years. Maybe less (I doubt it).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you contemplate majority rule in this expanded Israel?

[Commenter_XY]

We will see, Arthur. No one truly knows what the future holds.

[Nelson]

"Two states is dead, Disengagement is dead. Conflict Management is dead."

Then the only relevant questions are "will Israel use nuclear weapons in their next regional war" and "will the war Israel causes become a global conflict".

"Israel will never go back to that."

Then they are choosing to start a war. You can't take most of someone's land to establish your country, then take the rest of it because you're strong enough to do so, and expect no response.

The West Bank isn't Israel's land. Annexing it is no more valid than Putin annexing Crimea. Actually, it's less since the West Bank wasn't Israeli land when Israel was created.

"The dispute is over; Israel won the dispute."

Only in the mind of Israelis. Everyone else understands that putting illegal settlements in land that isn't yours doesn't suddenly make it yours. Might doesn't make right.

"The palestinians in Judea and Samaria were handing out candies on October 7 in the streets, with PA leadership."

No, there were individuals doing that. No PA leadership was involved. In fact, the PA leadership put out statements that laid put their positions on the West Bank, but in no way lauded the terrorist acts of Hamas or called for additional violence. They specifically urged Palestinians in the West Bank to be vigilant and prepare to defend themselves against settler groups, which they declined to even label as the terrorists that they are.

They refrained from escalating the situation, calmly stated their position on the West Bank, made no statement supporting Hamas or their atricities, and made no statement about joining in the violence. That is absolutely demonstrating that the PA is a valid peace partner. What they did is exactly what a legitimate diplomatic partner would be expected to do: refrain from inflammatory rhetoric and calls for violence while urging calm and caution.

The fact that everyday Palestinians in the West Bank hate Israel isn't confusing, given the cruelty and oppression they have lived with under the Israeli occupation. And yet their political leaders urge calm. Even the Jewish News Service couldn't find fault with the PA's response, which is telling.

"There will be a victor (that is Israel), and there will be the vanquished (palestinians)."

So might makes right? How (literally) medieval of you.

"The dead-enders will die; it will take some time, but they will die violently, unlamented and forgotten."

Assuming that "dead-enders" is your way of saying "terrorist", this is the only part I can agree with. Gaza needs to be freed of Hamas and all terrorists need to die. There is no justification for targeting civilians and those that do are incapable of living in a just society.

"This will play out over ~10 years. Maybe less (I doubt it)."

If Israel walks away from their international commitments, it will take much less than that. There will be a regional war as soon as Israel claims the West Bank and kicks out the Palestinians.

I dearly hope that radical positions like yours and Hamas' get ignored and rational people are the ones making decisions. The marginalization of Bibi and his wingnut coalition of religious fanatics is a step in the right direction. If a new government of moderates takes over for the present coalition, things are much more likely to move in a positive direction.

[Commenter_XY]

The social media footage doesn't lie = PA leadership handing out candies to glorify the great Hamas victory.

They are no peace partner. They're done.

You would actually find my position to be rather moderate in Israel.

[Nelson]

“The social media footage doesn’t lie”

You can’t possibly be serious. Social media is the definition of untrustworthy sources.

“You would actually find my position to be rather moderate in Israel.”

And Heritage Foundation positions seem moderate at a Three Percenter rally. What’s your point?

“They are no peace partner.”

Then war is inevitable.

Hopefully Israel is more reasonable than you. It’ll be a lot more likely if Bibi, the hardliners, and the ultra-Orthodox zealots get kicked out of power.

Actually, most things would get better if that happens, from a liberty and sanity perspective.

[Don Nico]

"you can’t take most of someone’s land to establish your country"
The West bank was Jordan's land. The people there were Jordanians. That land never belongs to the Palestinian Authority. So return it (sans Jerusalem) and the people on it to Jordan.

As for the residents of Gaza, there is lots of empty land in Jordan or if some want to move to Lebanon, they can talk to their brothers in Hezbollah.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
I now think that One State is the only practical solution.
1) However, tolerance of terrorism by ultra-Orthodox is not acceptable. It needs to stop now.
2) One State implies that the Basic Law of preferential status for Jews would have to go. If Palestinians are to be equal citizens, they cannot have second class status.
Is there another solution give the West Bank (sans jerusalem) back to Jordan and settle Palestinians there.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, the Basic Law stays. That is foundational to Israel. I am personally not happy with it, since I am 'conservative' and not 'orthodox'. It is what it is.

Agree on rights of citizens. You're either a citizen, or not. There will be a transitional period, spanning some years.

There is no option to 'give back' Judea and Samaria to Jordan: that will never happen. Israel will never give up the Western Wall.

Price Tag attacks, Revenge attacks...That is in the eye of the beholder, Don Nico. The days of Israelis restraining themselves are over. Palestinians who attack Israelis (or their possessions) will get a very determined, and potentially lethal, response.

[David Nieporent]

There is no option to ‘give back’ Judea and Samaria to Jordan: that will never happen. Israel will never give up the Western Wall.

More importantly, Jordan doesn't want it. (And "give back" is rather misleading; although Jordan occupied (1948-1967) and/or claimed sovereignty of the West Bank (1948-1988) for decades, it renounced all such claims.

[Nelson]

"Israel (which btw, will eventually include Gaza, Judea, and Samaria)."

Only if Israel reneges on its agreement to a two-state solution. Israel annexing the West Bank is a surefire way to lose international support, which is the thing that keeps Israel safe as much as the Iron Dome.

Israel should not annex the West Bank, which they refer to as Judea and Samaria. It would be as unjustified and illegal as Russia annexing Crimea in 2014.

If the goal is a region-wide hot war that could easily escalate, denying a Palestinian state and annexing their land is the easiest way to do it.

[Don Nico]

"Only if Israel reneges on its agreement to a two-state solution."
Agreement with whom? At this point in time, Israel's option need to be open

[Nelson]

Israel has agreed to the two state solution multiple times in the past.

Is that something that has lost popularity as Israel slow-walked their obligations and built hundreds of illegal West Bank settlements populated by ultra-Orthodox Jews that frequently created terrorist groups that attacked and killed Palestinians? I'd be astonished if it didn't.

Trust between the parties is low, but there isn't an option other than a regional war between Israel and surrounding countries. The idea that Israel could steal the rest of the Palestinians' land without triggering a response is a fantasy.

So what will it take to resolve things? In my mind it starts with the elimination of Hamas and the adoption of a different government. It means that Israel has to be allowed to empty out the hundreds of kilometers of tunnels in Gaza and collapse them all. The rocket attacks that were a daily occurance have to be stopped.

But Israel has to restrain itself. It has the moral high ground right now. They can't squander it by overreaching or overreacting.

Do you agree?

[Don Nico]

I agree with you that Israel cannot permit settlers in the west Bank to terrorize its Arab inhabitants. Remember that Jordan lost the West Bank in the 6-day War. No one told Jordan that it had to attack Israel. So I disagree that annexing the West Bank is similar to Russia annexing Crimea.
Still, Israel need not keep all of the West Bank. most can be returned to Jordanian control. The so-called Palestinians in the West Bank are just are Jordanians and their descendants.
As for Jerusalem; that the the price for going to war against Israel.
I realize that this idea will be opposed by the Haredim settlers. But that is the price of peace.

[damikesc]

"Why don't you not demonize the Palestinians as being less than human? Also, Netanyahu just wants to slaughter people"

Modern progressivism.

[Nelson]

No, just bog-standard ignorance. The wingnuts on the left are as deluded as the wingnuts on the right, just much less numerous.

[Nelson]

"Have to say I do wonder about Biden’s unequivocal support for Likud and Netanyahu"

Have to say I'm baffled as to why you would think such an insane thing. Biden supports Israel. He's been pretty clear about his opposition to Bibi.

"Press for a ceasefire"

Apparently you don't understand the distinction between a humanitarian pause and a ceasefire.

One allows for humanitarian aid and evacuation of civilians. The other requires both sides to stop fighting and come to a political agreement.

Hamas is a terrorist group that targets civilians and children for killing. Exactly why would you expect terrorists to stop killing innocent people and create, never mind honor, a political agreement with Israel?

It doesn't matter how hard Biden pushes for a ceasefire, it will never happen. Ceasefires only happen when there is trust between the two sides and Hamas has shown no signs they are trustworthy. Biden can do nothing to change that.

[Don Nico]

"Apparently you don’t understand the distinction between a humanitarian pause and a ceasefire. "
Any pause must have a declared time that it ends. Otherwise it will become a de facto ceasefire

[Nelson]

Correct. They are usually 48 or 72 hours, but the situation would be factored in. Gaza is small, so 72 hours would give enough time for people who wanted out to collect some belongings and get across the Egyptian border. That assumes Hamas doesn't try to impede them, which isn't a given. Hamas benefits from hiding behind civilians, so they may resist their human shields leaving.

[Don Nico]

Israel's answer to Blinken was clear.
Release the hostages, get a pause.

[Nelson]

Making humanitarian aid contingent on unilateral actions by Hamas is obviously a poison pill. Letting innocent civilians escape the war zone is as unobjectionable as it gets. Israel needs to stop playing games.

[David Nieporent]

Have to say I do wonder about Biden’s unequivocal support for Likud and Netanyahu,

Setting aside your conflation of Israel and Netanyahu, you see things very superficially. Because Biden has been willing to so strongly support Israel here, that gives him leverage to moderate its behavior. Israel is rightly not going to listen to its enemies like Aunt Teefah when they suggest that mass murder by its enemies should go unanswered (or even rewarded!), but when its friends urge it to be careful and not to go too far, it listens.

Press for a ceasefire, and people will call you stupid and naive if not anti-semitic. Just as a "ceasefire" in Ukraine is the call of pro-Putin people, a ceasefire is for the benefit of Hamas. There are no timeouts in the middle of a war.

[Kazinski]

Sure not all those people are angels, but the money is going to kill Hamas terrorists, so they're doing gods work.

[Commenter_XY]

Israel should not confine the 'Hamas Hunt' to Gaza only. It must be a worldwide war against Hamas. None of them anywhere can be safe. Hamas is Amalek.

[Nelson]

Dial it back. The challenges of proving Hamas membership and gaining extradition rights, never mind the right to extrajudicial killings in a foreign country, are many and difficult.

And covert worldwide extrajudicial death squads are a terrible idea. Becoming like MBS and Vladimir Putin is not where Israel wants to be.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If you're going to repost someone else's writing, you should give the other person credit. I, for one, would be interested to know who wrote that.

I met Meir Kahane in New York City when I was a young kid, maybe 10. He was mesmerizing. I suppose many evil people are.

[not guilty]

Today the Supreme Court of Minnesota will hold a hearing in a lawsuit, filed as an original action in that Court, seeking to exclude Donald Trump from that state’s ballot in primary and general elections. The Court will address certain preliminary matters regarding threshold and potentially dispositive legal issues of justiciability and the legal construction of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/A23-1354/Order-BriefingScheduling.pdf

The Court ordered the parties to brief the following legal issues: (1) justiciability, including standing and ripeness; and (2) the legal construction of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, including but not limited to (a) whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing; (b) whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment operates to preclude a person from being President of the United States; and (c) whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to a person who has previously taken an oath as President of the United States.

If the case proceeds beyond these threshold matters, the Court will appoint a referee to hold an evidentiary hearing and submit findings of fact regarding Trump’s eligibility.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't hold your breath.

[Martinned]

filed as an original action in that Court

How did that happen?

[not guilty]

That is what the authorizing statute provides for in the case of an election for state or federal office. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/204B.44

[SRG2]

Judge "Loose" Cannon is apparently thinking of delaying Trump's stolen documents trial.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-maralago-justice-department-0668fb54089f1f9b551e09d00d5009b3

I wonder whether her idea is to continue to delay it until after a possible election victory and then dismiss the case (without prejudice - assuming she even knows the phrase) on the grounds that he needs to be impeached first before any criminal trial. I do not believe we can presume her good faith.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the multiple cases against Trump, why would that be unreasonable?

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Because, as with jury nullification, an actual vote for or against Trump in the actual election is the marker of whether we the people think he should be elected. RIGHT ???

[Nelson]

And when he loses again? What then?

[bernard11]

an actual vote for or against Trump in the actual election is the marker of whether we the people think he should be elected. RIGHT ???

Wrong. According to the best evidence we have, "We the people" thought Clinton should be elected in 2016. Only the EC stupidity elected Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

The same EC "stupidity" that has been in use since the founding of the republic?

[Nelson]

A few more elections with the will of the people being overpowered by an electoral college that gives a constant advantage to the Republican party will cause a reassessment for many Americans.

The easiest way to reform the EC is to make each state's electoral college votes equal to the number of US Representatives for each state. Right now every state gets at least 3 EC delegates, providing outsized influence to voters in smaller states. One person, one vote becomes one person, less-than-one vote for large states and one person, more-than-one vote for small states.

That would still preserve federalism in that it would still be winner-take-all by state (or whatever method the state chooses), but the weight of each voter would be exactly the same. It would still be possible that a President could be elected by a minority of voters, but it would be much less likely and much closer to a majority than the present system.

[David Nieporent]

A few more elections with the will of the people being overpowered by an electoral college that gives a constant advantage to the Republican party will cause a reassessment for many Americans.

Not enough to amend the constitution.

[Martinned]

The same EC “stupidity” that has been in use since the founding of the republic?

Are you somehow under the impression that there aren't any parts of the original constitution still in force that are wildly stupid?

Let me offer you the - hopefully non-controversial - example of forcing people to sue the office holder by name rather than the office, because of the nonsense of sovereign immunity. That used to be harmlessly stupid, but since Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson we know that this rule isn't just stupid, but actively dangerous for civil liberties.

[Mr. Bumble]

There may be "wildly stupid" parts of the Constitution and there is a mechanism to change them.

[David Nieporent]

Um, that wasn't the issue with WWH v. Jackson. The issue was that there wasn't an office to sue, not that you had to sue the officeholder individually. No office enforced the "bounty" rule.

[loki13]

After her prior benchslap from the 11th Cir.*, I would think that her priority is to drag this out as long as possible, while appearing not to do so.

I would love to be surprised and proven wrong. But past is prologue.

*Again, for those keeping track at home, Judge Cannon's ... "jurisprudence" (and I use the term loosely) was so egregiously bad that a panel consisting of Judges Pryor, Grant, and Brasher unanimously destroyed her. You literally could not pick a more conservative and "pro-Trump" panel, and even they couldn't stomach her nonsense.

[OtisAH]

I think she learned last time and will not reach farther than she can grasp this time out. She will work every procedural move within her power to stretch it out as long as possible.

Of course, let’s remember what that trial is about: Turnip’s theft of national security documents, his refusal to return them, and, possibly, what he did with them. These are the most severe charges of the 91 indictments but a trial that is treated far less seriously than even the Stormy business, which is in part due to Cannon spacing everything out so much The Media looks elsewhere for headlines.

[tylertusta]

Apparently a delay is being contemplated because the Special Counsel's office is delaying production of discovery in the intel case.

I've seen some folks smarter than me say that the SCO is doing it deliberately in order to put the Trump's DC trial in May.

We'll know for sure if the Florida case gets delayed, the New York case gets rescheduled (it's in conflict as well), and then the DC case takes over the May slot.

[John F. Carr]

I was going to suggest a big conference call, but there are too many people to have a good working meeting. Four clerks, four prosecutors, four defense attorneys minimum.

[jb]

"Apparently a delay is being contemplated because the Special Counsel’s office is delaying production of discovery in the intel case."

That's Trump's claim anyway. The Special Counsel claims that they are producing documents and Trump is either (a) not reviewing them in a timely manner, or (b) asking for the exact same documents again.

It doesn't seem like any of us are in a position to evaluate the merits of either claim but given that it's a little silly to just credulously parrot one side's argument.

[John F. Carr]

The classified material in this case ought to be simple to process. There is a particular set of documents which are tangible evidence. Almost a MacGuffin because the words on the documents are hardly important. Trump's lawyers need to be able to determine whether the documents to be presented at trial are what the indictment says they are and consult with their client about how to convince a jury that he didn't have them or didn't hide them.

A complex case would have a defendant going on a fishing expedition to learn about nuclear secrets or rendition flights or something open ended.

Or if Trump were charged with blabbing about things he ought not to blab about, then the case might involve related classified evidence to prove potential injury to the United States. (In addition to a ban on disclosing tangible classified documents, there is a catch-all ban on disclosing "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation". This would apply to oral disclosure. He may have done this. He is not charged with doing it.)

[Don Nico]

" Almost a MacGuffin because the words on the documents are hardly important."
Indeed. The trial ought not to be about whether the documents were properly classified. The only question is whether they match the documents listed in the charges. That does not even require security clearances for anyone but the judge (and perhaps a special master).
This case ought to move along immediately so that Mr Trump can enjoy his jail cell as soon as possible

[Brett Bellmore]

The DOJ seems pretty adamant that no special master be permitted to review the documents.

Appeals Court Scraps Special Master Review in Trump Documents Case

[Sarcastr0]

What the government can read to investigate based on subpoenaed docs not what you use a special master for.

This was made clear in the article you linked.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the purpose of the damned special master is to assure that the government isn't LYING about what the documents were.

This of it as a species of spoliation: If the government insists that nobody can look at the evidence, it's appropriate to assume the government is lying about the evidence. We are long past the point where we should assume the government is being honest with us, if that ever was a reasonable assumption.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
There is no good reason why the judge cannot ascertain the correspondence between a stack of documents and the list on the charges.
Oh, he should open the cover to be sure there are classification marked pages with text.
At least some of the documents has control markings that are in themselves classified; the judge does not even have to open the cover on those.
So, all that is need is a sworn civil servant with a pre-existing clearance. If you'd like the judge can ask for five of these.

[Voize]

DOJ objected to judicial interference with their investigation, in particular the injunction forbidding them to use seized material until the special master review completed, and the 11th Circuit agreed that Cannon was without jurisdiction to order that relief.

In other words, you have it completely backwards. The DOJ's complaint was that they were improperly restrained from using the documents, not that the special master could see them.

[David Nieporent]

That does not even require security clearances for anyone but the judge (and perhaps a special master).

That's not how criminal trials work. You don't get to tell the defendant and/or the jury, "Trust us; it's classified. The judge agrees with us."

That having been said, both you and John F. Carr are incorrect, in that classification isn't the issue at all. The issue is whether the documents contain National Defense Information, not whether they're classified.

[Don Nico]

"That’s not how criminal trials work. You don’t get to tell the defendant and/or the jury, “Trust us; it’s classified. The judge agrees with us.”
One is not asking the jury to "trust us."
There is no reason at all to review the contents of the documents. None. This is not a trial about improper classification.
The judge can determine whether the documents in the box are those listed. That is all that is needed. Give the defence lawyers a 1-day clearance so that they can watch the judge look at the documents.
All the rest is trying to delay what should be a slam-dunk conviction.

[David Nieporent]

The judge can determine whether the documents in the box are those listed.

I don't think you quite understand the role of a jury in a criminal case. Judges do not get to determine facts.

[Don Nico]

"the issue is whether the documents contain National Defense Information"
David, you are wrong. Your statement means that you question that the documents are properly classified. That is the meaning of their being national defense information under 18 U.S. Code § 793.
The material in the documents is either National Security Information (the proper name) classified by executive Order or Restricted Data classified under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, which no one claims that it is and which no marking on the documents show.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, all of that is wrong. The actual term is National Defense Information. You can see that right in the indictment.

("COUNTS 1-32
Willful Retention of National Defense Information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))")

(You know what word isn't in 18 U.S.C. § 793? "Classified." (Or any variation thereof, such as "classification."))

To be sure, the subpoena that Trump defied demanded all documents with classification markings, and so some of the other counts do turn on whether documents had such markings. (And thus not whether they were properly classified.) But the bulk of the counts in the indictment do not.

[not guilty]

Team Trump may run afoul of the maxim about being careful what one asks for. If the May 20, 2024 trial date in the Southern District of Florida gets bumped, that will enable the District Attorney in the Fulton County, Georgia prosecution to request a jury trial setting in that time frame.

[Krayt]

We can also presume lack of good faith in concerns about not delaying the trial because of the political need to hurt an enemy as much as possible before the election.

“But he wants to delay until after!”

Yes. So? And? Prosecution should put 0 weight on this concern.

[hobie]

I see that Aileen Cannon was the last of five judges appointed by Trump to the Southern District of Florida in 2020. I suppose where she got assigned in the district is not under his purview, but I bet he knew by then he was moving permanently to Mar a Lago and needed an ace in the hole there. Does anyone think she was a run-of-the-mill appointment?

[Nelson]

He appointed a lot of unqualified judges. I think it's more a numbers game than a strategy.

[loki13]

I agree that it's just a numbers game, and that there was no "4D Chess" going on with the appointment of Aileen Cannon.

I do want to add one thing, especially because I am so hard on Judge Cannon and some other judges (particularly some on the 5th Cir.). Not all of Trump's judges, or most, are unqualified, or bad. Many of them are excellent jurists- yes, even the ones I disagree with.

It's just that there are a LARGE number of partisan bomb throwers who, to put it kindly, don't have a judicial temperament that were elevated to the bench. That's the problem.

[Nelson]

"don’t have a judicial temperament"

As I understand it, many of them have more judicial temperament than legal knowledge and understanding. But admittedly, it's a very low bar.

[Commenter_XY]

That was a gracious observation, Loki13 = Not all of Trump’s judges, or most, are unqualified, or bad. Many of them are excellent jurists- yes, even the ones I disagree with.

[Kazinski]

They haven't even had all the Jan 6th trials.

Federal courts can move at a glacial pace, and prosecutors aren't guaranteed the right of a speedy trial.

[not guilty]

The prosecution is not constitutionally guaranteed a speedy trial right, but the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., recognizes both the interests of the public and of the defendant in a speedy trial.

[Nelson]

"They haven’t even had all the Jan 6th trials."

If you believe that, you haven't been paying attention. It would come as an immense surprise to those spending the next few months or years of their lives serving their sentences.

[Josh R]

Why does Biden remain unpopular? The unemployment rate is at a fifty year low. The economy continues to grow at a decent rate even though many have predicted a recession. inflation has fallen from its highs, though it remains higher than before the pandemic. The pandemic is over. Two major wars rage, but the US is taking a lead role in keeping the West unified while keeping our troops out of the line of fire.

I would think some of those things would reflect positively on Biden’s approval ratings. But, they don’t. Why not? Is it:

1) Inflation is still too high and people still feel their paychecks don’t buy as much.

2) The border mess.

3) Crime.

4) Cultural issues such as transgender rights (but, what about abortion rights).

5) Biden’s age.

6) A deeply polarized nation that can’t give any credit to the other side.

[loki13]

It's number 6. I read a report recently (source amnesia) the recounted how opinions flipped on the economy immediately after the 2016 election on partisan lines, despite there not being any actual change in the economy.

There a larger number of polarized and partisan voters than ever before who filter all information through that lens, and the number of "gettable" or "persuadable" voters is relatively small. In other words, candidates for both parties will have relatively high floors and low ceilings that will be comparable to each other. No matter how terrible or good the quality of the candidate.

[Commenter_XY]

There is an aspect of #6, Loki13. No doubt. We are polarized.

I have to tell you, the Moms that work for me are universally talking about inflation and how expensive everything is. Especially when it comes to school supplies and clothes and gas. I see a significant component of #1 (inflation), and it is not over yet.

[Sarcastr0]

https://jabberwocking.com/americans-dont-think-the-economy-is-bad-republicans-do/

"Roughly similar percentages of Democrats and Republicans agree that their personal financial situation is good. However, only 5% of Republicans say the national economy is good."

[Commenter_XY]

Tell it to the Moms that work for me, Ok? Do you know how much I hear about it during 1:1 meetings?

You have no idea.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are those women poorly educated, roundly bigoted, superstitious culture war losers?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably, they're who would be serving you food, cleaning your house, taking care of your kids, defending your ass, flying your airliners if your weren't safely ensconced at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

No, wickedly smart, with graduate degrees. Really good at math, Arthur. No joke. The peeps that report in to me are really something special (but I freely admit I am biased; I love them to death - we have all gone through a lot together).

[Sarcastr0]

Stats and anecdotes don’t always agree.

Picking anecdote as the one you double down on is not the usual way to deal with that.

[Michael P]

The trends do say the Biden economy is getting worse: https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_trends_usos65.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

Been hearing that for years now. Looks like wishcasting at this point.

Pretty bad form to wish for bad things because you don’t like the President.

[Frank Drackman]

You been to a store lately? I mean besides the Gay Sex-Toys shop. Gas is still expensive, and that’s after Parkinsonian Joe got rid of 1/2 our “Strategic Reserve” OK, I guess his shitty poll numbers qualifies as a “National Emergency” It’s not so bad, being almost Winter, but wonder what the Pubic (those who can’t afford Tesla’s or $95,000 Electic F-150’s) will think of $8/gallon gas??

Frank

[Nelson]

Polls said people were certain we were going to have another recession. Many thought it would be a really bad one. We're still waiting.

[Josh R]

That makes sense, but Biden is stuck at his floor. I would think he might be able to get closer to a ceiling of 45-50%.

[loki13]

Popularity polls are not the same as choosing who to vote for.

A lot of Democrats, for example, are fine expressing unhappiness with Biden (for various reasons- some for supporting Israel too much, some too little (I know!), some for being too centrist, etc.), but that doesn't mean that they are likely to vote GOP.

Just look at the last election- Trump's incredible unpopularity didn't translate to vast numbers of the GOP electorate abandoning him. It was still a close election.

At most, it's a minor signal.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Trump’s incredible unpopularity"

Biden has been running neck and neck with Trump on popularity for better than a year now, so I hope you're prepared to say that Biden is incredibly unpopular, too.

That said, I tend to agree with your point. Biden didn't get elected by being more popular than Trump, he got elected by not BEING Trump.

He's still not Trump.

More of a threat from his perspective is that he's losing support among minorities relative to Trump.

[Nelson]

"Biden has been running neck and neck with Trump on popularity"

True, but like every other President except Trump, he has had an approval rate of 50%+ before. Trump's ceiling is probably 49%, since I can't imagine may people suddenly discovering that they like him.

[Josh R]

I believe the incumbent's approval rating on election day has a high correlation with the outcome.. To be sure, the threshold of what it takes to be reelected has gone down. But, Trump's 44.6% approval rating in 2020, coupled with Biden's current 39-40% ought to be troubling to the Biden campaign and it would greatly help if those numbers tick up.

On the other hand, Trump's current favorability rating is comparable to Biden's. and they are tied in the national polls. This election might not end up to be a referendum on the current incumbent.

[loki13]

"I believe the incumbent’s approval rating on election day has a high correlation with the outcome.."

Yes, on election day. Because as election day nears, people are no longer asking the popularity question in the abstract, but in the concrete (popular compared to the person they are running against).

I'm not saying that popularity a year prior to an election is completely meaningless, but (1) it's also not completely meaningful, or Bush Sr. would be a two-termer (approximate 60% at Nov. 1 1991), and (2) I would argue that the last decade or so has been seeing it increasingly decoupled from actual events.

[Josh R]

I totally agree about the ratings right now. The concern is Biden may need to get those ratings up over the next year in order to win.

[loki13]

I don't disagree with you on that.

I think that there is a perception problem. Obviously, he can't win over the partisan members of the GOP. But there is a disconnect between how things are, and what people believe them to be.

Usually, there's a lag effect, which may be part of the issue ... but it might just be an incurable problem. I don't know that there anyone was every particularly excited for Biden.

Trump's unpopularity with so many may be enough, but at least he will always have a passionate base. I have never, in my life, met anyone who is passionate about Joe Biden.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden's problem, essentially, is that he beat Trump while hiding in his basement, and with the media cooperating. Generic Democrats generally out-poll real Democrats, and the media cooperating with his "hide in the basement" campaign enabled him to remain a generic Democrat right through the election.

Now he's been President for about 3 years, and he's no longer polling as a generic Democrat. He's polling as Joe Biden.

And Joe Biden just isn't that popular.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Not even true by your own reasoning!! First of all, how do you get to inhabit the l;ofty heights above all those normal people you look down on? You say no change in the economy. But the change is huge. I would say prices at the supermarket over last 2 years up 25% in many cases.
I only point out the major flaw in your reasoning. MANY voted for Trump who disliked him intensely but who loathed what Hillary was doing. He was at least honest about what he would do. She was daily a bigger and bigger liar.
People like you are Beto O'Rourke supporters and just feel that if you disagree with their Pollyanna view of how to make things better...well, you must be part of the problem

This is your guy
NY Times’ Paul Krugman says ‘inflation is over’ — if you exclude food, gas and rent

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not enough bigoted, superstition-addled, disaffected right-wing losers left in America to re-elect Trump. Millions of his cranky old voters have died in recent years and those misfits were replaced by better, younger Americans who are not downscale rural white bigots. A less rural, less religious, less bigoted, less backward electorate dooms Trump. If Republicans choose a better candidate they might have a chance in a national election — for another few years.

[Frank Drackman]

So how come you're still alive? You've turned "Cranky" into a Lifestyle.
Speaking of Lifestyles, did you at least use some "Protection" when you were giving your players "Special Instruction"??

Frank

[Nige]

Crime is way down, too, though.

It’s almost as if the librul meeja are downplaying Biden’s positives!

I would say, however, that his support for the bombing of Gaza has the potential to really damage him.

[Josh R]

I'm pretty sure polling shows Americans are still clearly with Israel. On the other hand, younger more progressive voters are not and perhaps they will abandon Biden in greater numbers than he picks up from those who support Israel (because the issue is of greater importance to the former group). And yet, Biden and his team (Blinken, Austin, Kirby) continue to caution Israel about not going too far. As with Ukraine, I am impressed how Biden has handled the situation, acting like an adult (especially compared to you know who).

[Nige]

'With Israel' and 'supporting Natanyahu's mass-killing' aren't the same thing.

[Josh R]

As I understand it, Americans believe Hamas is more responsible for the violence.

[Nelson]

How weird. They think the terrorists who kidnapped and killed hundreds of innocent civilians in a brutal terrorist raid triggered a violent response? Who could have possibly imagined such a thing?

[Nige]

I've no trouble heaping all the blame on Hamas. It's what follows that's the problem.

[Nelson]

What, the counterattack against an intractable, evil terrorist organization and the government of Gaza that supports and enables them? That's not a problem. That's a reasonable reaction to atrocity.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Atrocity for atrocity seems a prescription for a world without Israel.

[Nige]

No, the massacre of civilians, that's the problem.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

He is a fool, always has been. I've followed his career for over 35 years. And true to form , Nige, for your posts on here, you mention positives and give NONE

[Nige]

You;re a bright ray of sunshine. How's that for positive?

[myself]

5. A lot of Democrats and Independents are probably concerned about his age.

6. Polarization. Look back at Obama, zero real scandals, competent, no real disasters, about as good as one could expect for a "your side" President. And still, he was around 45% near the end. If 45% is the ceiling then I'm not shocked to see Biden hovering around 40%.

[Josh R]

Per my link above, Obama was just below 50% in 2012 and Trump below 45% in 2020. The current 40% for Biden might be enough, but it doesn't strike me as good.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, scandals don't cease to exist just because you deny they were "real", not for Obama, or for Biden.

This might interest you. Particularly This particular graph.

Ford and Carter had roughly similar approval ratings from Democrats and Republicans; About a 25-30% difference, but you can't expect the opposing party's members to REALLY like you.

After that, polarization really set in.
Reagan had an average 52% gap.
Bush the Elder an average 38% gap. (Last President to clear 50% among the opposition party...)
Clinton an average 53% gap.
Bush the Younger an average 58% gap
Obama an average 67% gap.
Trump an average 80% gap.
And Biden has had an average 76% gap. On account of Democrats increasingly agreeing that he sucks, not from winning over Republicans...

I think that, at current levels of polarization, it's basically impossible for a President to get over 50% support, because the opposing party is going to hate him regardless.

[Nige]

The arugula scandal? The tan suit scandal? Can't believe they got memory-holed. How many in his administration ended up in jail? Compared to W Bush and Trump?

[M L]

Obama got us involved in a lot of wars, for one thing. Big war guy. Maybe 5, 10 wars?

'"Mr. President, we've been at war throughout your tenure," said Gen. Joesph Dunford, chosen by Obama in 2015 to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "That's a period longer than any other American president."

That's right: Obama is the first president to serve eight years and preside over American wars during every single day of his tenure. '

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/01/18/510447582/after-8-years-of-unbroken-war-obama-hands-over-conflicts-to-trump

How many of those were constitutionally authorized by Congress?

I'm not a big "politics guy" so I don't remember much, but I know those who are will be able to tick off a long list of (what they claim to be) Obama scandals. One thing I remember is that there seemed to be a fair number, even including Obama voters, who were a turned off toward the end by what they saw as Obama saying/doing some really racially divisive things. Some of that just had to do with events and developments that had nothing to do with Obama really, but just how he reacted to it.

[Nelson]

"That’s right: Obama is the first president to serve eight years and preside over American wars during every single day of his tenure. ‘"

To be fair, they were George W Bush's wars that he inherited.

And I notice that you made sure to say "to serve 8 years" so you didn't have to acknowledge that we were at war for every single day of Trump's Presidency as well.

We were at war from the early 2000s until Biden pulled us out of the Afghanistan clusterfuck we had been mired in for a couple decades.

"One thing I remember is that there seemed to be a fair number, even including Obama voters, who were a turned off toward the end by what they saw as Obama saying/doing some really racially divisive things."

Weird that you remember that, since it isn't something that happened. It may be what you wanted to happen and the reasons you wanted it to have happened, but it didn't actually occur the way you pretend it did.

[M L]

“they were George W Bush’s wars that he inherited.”

No, they weren’t. Some were, but we got a lot of new ones under Obama too.

“you made sure to say”

I didn’t say that, NPR did, that’s why it’s in quotes before the link. And this was in 2017, so Trump is not why they said it that way. They said it that way because it’s a historically momentous thing in all of American history, notwithstanding 4 year terms.

“we were at war for every single day of Trump’s Presidency as well”

Trump’s big achievement was that he avoided starting any new wars. First President since Carter to do that.

“Biden pulled us out of the Afghanistan”

And I give him credit for doing that. I give him credit rather than dogging the maybe botched execution like many do, but there's may be valid criticism there. To be fair, though, I think Trump sort of tied his hands by making a deal to withdraw. I’m not sure this would have happened without that, and without the political pressure resulting from Trump being an antiwar politician in general, in rhetoric and in deed, which was somewhat of a turn for the Republican party it seems.

“it isn’t something that happened”

It is.

[Nige]

Of course the reason Obama got involved in other conflicts is because George W Bush's adventurism destabilised the entire Middle East and North Africa and unleashed Isis on the world. That was the height of the US right's infatuation with Putin, too because he could fuck around with other countries all he wanted and supposedly made Obama look weak.

[Nelson]

"No, they weren’t. Some were, but we got a lot of new ones under Obama too."

Really? The only wars we have been in since the turn of the century were in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've had military action throughout the world in that time, but no large-scale deployments that could reasonably be called a "war".

"Trump’s big achievement was that he avoided starting any new wars. First President since Carter to do that."

That's demonstrably untrue, unless you stretch the meaning of "war" to a ridiculous, overbroad definition.

"rather than dogging the maybe botched execution like many do"

It was completely botched. The right decision, but a level of poor execution (some would say incompetence) that is almost unmatched in history.

"I’m not sure this would have happened without that"

I would disagree with you on this point. Biden was advocating for withdrawal from Afghanistan during the Obama administration. He was even more convinced after Osama bin Laden was killed. Of all the things I'm certain he was determined to do as President, getting out of Afghanistan was at the very top. The Trump withdrawal agreement tied his hands, but the withdrawal would have happened anyhow.

"It is."

Obama's popularity dropped at the end of his Presidency, but it wasn't attributable in any way to "saying/doing some really racially divisive things". Conservatives believe that, but they were the only ones. It was just an echo chamber talking point with no actual confirmation data from the larger electorate. Not surprising, since Obama was a broadly successful and popular President, but conservatives hated him with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns.

[Nige]

Are those wars scandals? Is that what we mean by scandals now? But if Obama turned voters against him, it was the wars that did it, not bullshit about supposedly racially divisive statements.

[M L]

In my mind, unconstitutional wars are scandals. Maybe the worst sort of scandal. Here's some more.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency#

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-perils-of-president-obamas-latest-undeclared-war/413566/

[Nige]

That's just procedural. Wars started on false pretences based on fake intelligence are a scandal.

[grb]

Don't forget the shocking Dijon Mustard Scandal, which rocked Obama's presidency. We should thank Brett for being too delicate to raise such heinous behavoir in this open forum.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wikipedia conveniently lists them as "controversies", since Obama having scandals isn't admissible.

There was, for instance, the gun running scandal, where he had the BATF enabling straw purchases headed towards Mexico, in order to back up his claim that American gun stores were arming the cartels. Supposedly they were going to track the guns, but they didn't bother with that part of the scheme.

And the IRS targeting scandal, where they were slow walking conservative groups' applications for tax exemptions.

Yeah, he had scandals.

[grb]

No, Brett, he didn’t. Let’s do the IRS farago first :

In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny, blunting claims that the issue had been an Obama-era partisan scandal. The 115-page report confirmed the findings of the prior 2013 report that some conservative organizations had been unfairly targeted, but also found that the pattern of misconduct had been ongoing since 2004 and was non-partisan in nature.

The IRS did highlight words such as “Tea Party” or “Patriots”, but also used “progressive,” “occupy,” “Israel,” “open source software,” “medical marijuana” and “occupied territory advocacy.” All this was established fact a zillion years ago, and shows your desperation to find anything from Obama's time to match the all-pervasive corruption of the Trump Administration.

As does your second example, which is even weaker. A sting operation a hundered levels below the president does not count as a presidential scandal no matter how bad a fubar.

Of course you know this, which is why you try and tart it up with some Bellmore conspiracy-mongering gibberish, but no one is fooled by that. Hell, I don’t even think you believe your own bullshit (which you may take as a complement).

[Brett Bellmore]

"In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny,"

Yes, they did. But, what they did when they found the keywords was very different.

Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives: How the IRS and Congressional Democrats Misled America about Disparate Treatment

[bernard11]

Darrell Issa.

[Nelson]

Who's a congenital liar and inveterate scam artist?

We're playing Jeopardy, right?

[Nige]

'where he had the BATF'

You try hard, I'll give you that.

The IRS thing was bullshit too.

[grb]

Yeah. Cute, isn't it? I like how Brett managed to "connect" a midlevel ATF operation with Obama by saying it was "to back up his claim that American gun stores were arming the cartels."

But, as typical with Brett's bullshit, problems abound:

1. There's no question 70-90% of cartel guns come from the U.S, so I'm not sure why Obama had to launch this operation to prove the obvious.

2. And when did Obama make this blazingly obvious "claim" anyway? It would be nice to see a cite on that.

Incidently, the ATF operation failed because the agents were such nitwits they implanted completely ineffective GPS monitors in the weapons. Must failed within days. Those that didn't couldn't be read if the guns were in a trunk or likewise obstructed. It was a massive snafu, I'll grant that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Obama claims 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico come from U.S.

[Nelson]

“There was, for instance, the gun running scandal, where he had the BATF enabling straw purchases headed towards Mexico, in order to back up his claim that American gun stores were arming the cartels.”

Jesus, Brett. That is one of the most indefensible conspiracy theories about Fast and Furious I’ve ever heard. The gunwalking program, part of Project Gunrunner and the foundation of Fast and Furious, was started in 2006. So it couldn’t have been created by Obama unless he had a time machine.

It was a plan was to allow legal firearms dealers to sell to straw purchasers and track the guns back to cartel leaders so they could be arrested. It had nothing to do with Obama’s political positions. That would have been hard, since the gunwalking program predated his Presidency by three years.

It was a completely fucked-up program and it baffles me how anyone could have thought it was a good idea.

“And the IRS targeting scandal, where they were slow walking conservative groups’ applications for tax exemptions.”

This is one of the few “scandals” (along with the coverup of Fast and Furious) from the Obama administration that was purely awful.

As an example of hiw weak the “scandal” claims were, Benghazi wasn’t a scandal, it was a terrorist attack that was politicized by partisans like Jim Jordan, who worked to manipulate the facts about the death of Americans in a cynical attempt to score political points. There’s a lot of strong competition, but it was probably the most disgusting thing Jim Jordan has ever done.

But I agree, there were some scandals under Obama.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Allowing his wrestlers to get sexually abused and pretending that he knew nothing about it is far more disgusting.

[bernard11]

Right.

Jordan is slime. That the Republicans nominated him for Speaker, and most voted for him, is shameful.

[myself]

Look, scandals don’t cease to exist just because you deny they were “real”, not for Obama, or for Biden.

No, they're just not remotely as large as those experienced by Trump or even Bush.

Ford and Carter had roughly similar approval ratings from Democrats and Republicans; About a 25-30% difference, but you can’t expect the opposing party’s members to REALLY like you.

After that, polarization really set in.

There's fewer data points, but the real change was Johnson. Why? The Civil Rights Act. Pre-CRA you had segregationist Southern Democrats. This divided both Democrats and Republicans and created a lot of room for legislators and voters.

Post-CRA the parties sorted around views on racial policy and the change you see is just the pre-CRA voters switching sides or dying off.

[M L]

"they’re just not remotely as large as those experienced by Trump"

Yeah, it's kind of like a heckler's veto. How big are your scandals? Well, it depends in part on how insane your opponents are and how hysterical they are willing to become.

So for example, you can just have one massive delusional conspiracy theory pushed by the media and bolstered by the FBI, and that becomes one big scandal that engulfs pretty much your entire presidency. And then on top of that, you can have people hair-on-fire pants-shitting crazy about something new nearly every single day.

[Nige]

Still in denial, huh? Imagine, a REPUBLICAN presidential candidate being supported by Russia with disinformation and other online shenanigans, and he knew about it, welcomed it, oh and most of the staff in his campaign and administration were indicted and/or went to jail. Such patriotism. Dijon mustard, though.

[Nelson]

"Well, it depends in part on how insane your opponents are and how hysterical they are willing to become."

Which is why the "Biden is corrupt and was bribed" narrative is still so prevalent on the right. It's the worst bundle of speculation, assumed guilt, baseless accusations, and unwillingness to accept any dissent since "the 2020 election was stolen". And the Rs are insane and hysterical enough to actually push an impeachment.

I look forward to the way that particular red-meat strategy will boomerang back on the lunatic fringe of the GOP.

[M L]

The thing about the Biden stuff is that it has a thousand times more meat on the bone than the Trump Russia hysteria. Take yourself back to the throes of that hysteria, and imagine for a moment it came out that Don Jr had received payments from Russia. That would have been the biggest development in the whole saga, real smoke and not just mirrors, a watershed moment that very probably may have ended the presidency early.

So I agree that a lot of the Biden stuff is wild and thinly supported and overhyped, but that just underscores how lunatic the Trump stuff was. And I find it pretty easy to ignore the Biden stuff and not follow closely since it’s being downplayed by the mainstream media rather than breathlessly hyped 24/7.

[Nelson]

“The thing about the Biden stuff is that it has a thousand times more meat on the bone than the Trump Russia hysteria.”

There is exactly zero credible evidence that Biden ever took a bribe. Even other Republicans think there’s nothing there. There is literally no meat on that bone.

The Trump campaign and political orbit was riddled with Russian connections. Convictions for being a Russian agent for his campaign manager, dozens of connections with Russian agents and intelligence, Michael Flynn, Michael Caputo, Rick Gates, Roger Stone … the list goes on.

Even assuming that Russians, with their myriad agents in and around Trump, never spoke directly to him it would take willful ignorance to assume there was no contact or coordination. My personal belief is that it wasn’t criminal or actionable, but there was much more meat than the Biden hallucinations.

And the Biden stuff isn't being breathlessly followed by the mainstream media because there isn't anything there. If something new pops up, that may change. But as of now, there's nothing there and it's an obvious snipe hunt by Jim Jordan and the GOP wingnuts.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

ALmost everything you say is wrong.
It is only with jimmeed changes to counting labor that he was able to make that claim. As for your claim about prices, food is up almost 25% in some staples. You have been quoting Paul Krugman but do see his retraction of his stupid statement.
Pandemic was worsened by Biden. As to wars, we begged for tyrants worldwide to step out after Afghanistan and all that wasted billions going to the Ukraine.
You see that Biden is unpopular but you seek to undermine your own eyes, That is just your haughty hubris.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

America becomes less religious, less rural, less bigoted, and less backward every day. That trajectory will continue.

Clingers hardest hit.

[Frank Drackman]

I know you've been "Indisposed" for a while Jerry, but the fans of Representatives Mullah Omar, Priapism Slap-a-Jap, Kareem the Bad Dream Jefferson, Rashit-a Hijabe, Andre the Giant (A-Hole) Carson (he's the one challenging his fellow DemoKKKrat Josh Gottheimer to a fistfight, my money's on the Jew)
are certainly not "Less Religious"(for all it's bullshit/violence, Is-lamb is a "Religion") "Less Bigoted" or "Less Backward"
You really need to get S-S-S-S-S t-t-t-t-tuttering John Fetterman working on your commutation, maybe he can do it while his aides tie his Big-Boy shoes.

Frank

[hobie]

Like Nige said, crime is down everywhere across the nation. Only violent crime has risen somewhat in red states.

It's the price of groceries and gas. Even I hate them. They're too high. But I don't blame anyone for that. You cannot. I worked in the petrochemical industry for 20 years. You think the price of gas is the result of policy, or a government, or even the entire world? Hell...no. Market forces dictate when things go up or down. How do you correct the course of that leviathan? You don't.

Also, let me tell you why gas prices are still so high. You remember when the price for a barrel of oil went effectively negative in 2020? Well, ton's of companies went bankrupt because of it. Instantly. Entire fleets of drill ships were scrapped across the world. Yes, scrapped. Oil and shale wells were capped. Drill baby drill! With what, motherfu*kers? It will take a decade to get back from that. And there's not a thing Trump or Biden can do about it

[damikesc]

When you decide to not prosecute crime, shockingly, crime goes down officially.

Not seeing a lot of those mass looting problems outside of Democrat run areas. Not seeing all that many people just randomly assaulting other people outside of Dem run areas.

[hobie]

https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-have-the-least-and-most-crime/

Five states with the highest violent crime rates in the US
Violent crimes per 100K people in 43 states for which statistically reliable data was available, 2021
State Violent crime rate
Arkansas 709
Tennessee 675
Louisiana 661
Alabama 596
Alaska 551

Five states with the lowest violent crime rates in the US
Violent crimes per 100K people in 43 states for which statistically reliable data was available, 2021
State Violent crime rate
Vermont 186
Connecticut 162
New Hampshire 137
Maine 113
New York 102

[Frank Drackman]

You do realize there's a certain Demographic umm "Trait" applicable to most of those states

[M L]

It’s a neat trick for some cities, they just tell the police to stand down during all the burning and looting and murdering. That way most of it doesn’t get included in crime stats.

[hobie]

All ten states above have cities. Why the red five worse?

[Frank Drackman]

Same reason Africa is "worst" at everything (OK, I'll give them cannibalism and head shrinking)

[Nige]

Look, America is a crime-ridden hellhole, I don't care what the numbers say!

[M L]

That's not what I'm saying, I believe crime levels are middling to decent right now depending on your frame of reference. But the summer of 2020 and the way blue cities ignored burn loot & murder was a doozy, that's not helping.

[Nige]

'Ignored.' Right.

[damikesc]

5 states that you could lose the vast majority of the population in a snowstorm.

And where in those red states is the violence done? It's not universal in those states, It is largely in the cities.

Not run by Republicans.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is nothing worth stealing in most of the clingerverse.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know about that. You stole your victims innocence.

[Armchair]

1) This is a big part of it. Polls are showing at least 50% of workers say their wages aren't keeping up with inflation. Economic data backs that up.

2,3) A smaller, but decent part of it. This drives long term Democrats away, given the damage in Democratic cities.

4) A smaller part of it, but not because of what you think. It's Biden's support for Israel that loses him supporters

5) Age...lack of leadership...corruption. 2 in 3 voters think Biden is an untrustworthy, weak leader. Hard to blame them.

6) Less that you would think. Republicans never really approved of Biden, he's been at 5-11% approval from GOP most of his presidency. The big drops have come from independents (down from 61% to 35%) and Democrats (down from 98% to 75%)

[M L]

I mean, this is bread and butter politics stuff, it reads like you are writing campaign ads or brainstorming campaign strategy. But unemployment rate is partly hidden by labor force participation. And inflation is partly hidden by government downplaying it in their metrics – which is something they have a million very good incentives to do, I don’t even blame them. But the point is, people are feeling the pain of those grocery bills, healthcare bills, housing cost, etc. Health care continues to soar, health insurance for a family is now around $25,000 for a year! It’s totally insane and is caused by government policy.

And although the pandemic is “over” the heinous acts of those in charge in connection with that have yet to be accounted for. Unfortunately that’s how things go, but there’s a lot of justified anger over actions that were never justifiable – killing countless small businesses and livelihoods, outlawing work, printing trillions of extra dollars, closing schools, forced vaccines, etc, and then perhaps most of all the staggering amount of brazen lies in connection with all of this and the incredibly censorious and authoritarian attitude. This social media post gives a flavor: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cy6y5JdNWqd/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D

Of course Trump is rightly to blame for plenty of things as well, but the public doesn’t necessarily think rightly.

But the real root problem tells us that Biden isn’t unique, and the new normal going forward is broad disapproval of Congress and DC, rising partisanship and partisan disapproval of anything and everything. That’s because the root problem is the centralization of too much government power over too great a diverse geographic area, an ongoing inversion of the founding principles.

[Sarcastr0]

Once again, Republicans say *they* are doing well, but still peg the economy doing horribly.

It's not real, ML. It's all politics.

[bernard11]

But unemployment rate is partly hidden by labor force participation. And inflation is partly hidden by government downplaying it in their metrics

WTF? Now you sound like Brett.

[Michael P]

And they're right. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/consumerpriceindex.asp

[Life of Brian]

The unemployment rate is at a fifty year low.

Do you actually believe this? Reality is a 4 year low and climbing. And that's without even getting into the workforce participation rate that is still half a point off pre-COVID levels.

[Nelson]

Why do conservatives think that the workforce participation rate says ... I'm not sure what you fools think it says, but it's never relevant to unemployment. That's because, follow me here, the WPR measures the sum of employed AND UNEMPLOYED divided by the total noninstitutionalize working-age (16 and over) population. The biggest thing it measures is the number of retired people.

[Life of Brian]

the WPR measures the sum of employed AND UNEMPLOYED divided by the total noninstitutionalize working-age (16 and over) population.

Setting aside the all-caps yelling, you either don't understand the meaning of "unemployed" in that definition or... you do and hope nobody else does. BLS puts a finer point on it: "The labor force participation rate represents the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population. In other words, the participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively looking for work."

To be more clear than hopefully is necessary, the discouraged unemployed who haven't been able to find a job and thus are currently not even bothering to look magically melt away from the U3 headline unemployment rate (yay, victory!). The WPR is thus a more accurate short-haul metric of how robust the job market really is.

but it’s never relevant to unemployment

Never, huh? Fascinating. See above, and gather around the campfire for Nelson's next tall tale.

The biggest thing it measures is the number of retired people.

That fanciful notion is belied by simply looking at the metric and rubbing enough synapses together to recognize that the number of retired people doesn't violently oscillate over the short term. What does violently oscillate over the short term is people who can't find a job and thus stop looking.

[Voize]

The WPR is thus a more accurate short-haul metric of how robust the job market really is.

Doesn't it also drive up the WPR if inflation is high and the stock market is tanking, so retirement age workers can't afford to retire? Maybe some post-retirement even find they have to return to the workforce. That doesn't seem to indicate anything to do with a robust job market.

[Life of Brian]

If retirement age workers can't afford to retire and the younger workers who would normally replace them are still actively looking for other jobs but can't find them, that would create a concurrent spike in the U3. If they've given up looking, then they fall out of both the U3 and WPR.

Over the past year or so both U3 and WPR have been on an uptrend, so there could be some retirement holdover reflected in that. But at the beginning of that uptrend (i.e. when U3 was signaling "full employment, yay!"), WPR was still way off its pre-COVID baseline 3 years back -- and still hasn't returned to that baseline despite ~2 years of U3 in its pre-COVID range. The head-and-shoulders most obvious explanation for all that is a large pocket of discouraged workers.

[Nelson]

"The head-and-shoulders most obvious explanation for all that is a large pocket of discouraged workers."

With the available jobs out there, what would cause such massive discouragement? Riddle me that, Batman.

The reason you want it to be the most obvious explanation (and not American demographics) is that you want it to be.

I would love to hear what's discouraging about a job market with openings throughout the spectrum of positions, from minimum-wage to white collar professional.

[Life of Brian]

With the available jobs out there, what would cause such massive discouragement?

How many available jobs, and in what areas? How do those areas compare to the experience of people who want to work? Jobs are largely non-fungible -- just because "a job" is available doesn't mean someone who needs "a job" can fill it. Again, hardly something I should have to spell out.

[Nelson]

"either working or actively looking for work."

Yes, that's my point every time someone who hates that the job market is fantasic tries to say, "well, that isn't the *real* unemployment rate. Just look at the workforce participation rate". Which is idiocy, since the unemployment rate is literally part of the equation for the workforce participation rate.

"the discouraged unemployed who haven’t been able to find a job"

When we're roughly a point and a half under what economists refer to as "full employment", the only discouraged workers are those who overvalue themselves, those who are looking for jobs that don't exist in their area, or those who don't actually want a job. Under full employment, a discouraged worker is a lazy worker. The number of good, high-paying, white collar jobs out there are legion. Companies are desperate for workers at all levels. So just stop with the bullshit about there being any sizeable cohort of discouraged workers in the Biden economy.

"The WPR is thus a more accurate short-haul metric of how robust the job market really is."

Look at the WPR over time. It grew continuously from 1962 to 2000, when the first earliest Boomer retirees stopped working. Then it shrank continuously through today.

The only time the general job market made a noticeable impact on that curve was the pandemic. No other job market between 1962 and 2000 did more than pause the upward trend and no job market since then did more than pause the downward trend.

When the discouraged workers of a bad job market can't stop an upward trend and a scorching job market can't stop a downward trend, it is pretty obvious that discouraged workers/ full employment don't have a very large effect on the WPR. Don't believe me? Here's the graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART/

FYI, the vertical grey lines on the graph are recessions.

Finally, to quote the Fed: "[D]emographic changes such as the aging of population can lead to a secular increase of exits from the labor force, shrinking the labor force and decreasing the labor force participation rate."

Like, perhaps, the largest demographic cohort in American history retiring. So please, just stop with the WPR gaslighting. The job market is strong and has been for years.

"Never, huh? Fascinating. See above, and gather around the campfire for Nelson’s next tall tale."

Would you prefer "never independently relevant to unemployment, since unemployment is included in the equation"? Or would you like to tell your lie about how the WPR say something it doesn't?

"That fanciful notion is belied by simply looking at the metric and rubbing enough synapses together to recognize that the number of retired people doesn’t violently oscillate over the short term."

Or you can stop cherry-picking data and look at the historical graph, which Iblinked above, that shows a direct relationship between the Baby Boom in the labor force and the WPR. There is no such corrolation between the strength (or lack thereof) of the labor market over time and the WPR.

Because the important part is how many people over 16 aren't in (and/or aren't trying to be in) the workforce. And as the Baby Boom has retired, that number has continuously increased because it is a huge cohort and they aren't dying as young as earlier generations. Alive, over 16, and retired is a massive cohort. Alive, over 16, and discouraged about finding a job in a fantastic job market is a miniscule cohort.

"What does violently oscillate over the short term is people who can’t find a job and thus stop looking."

Tell me, genius. What would cause someone to be discouraged about finding a job in such a great job market?

[Life of Brian]

Again, I have to wonder if you're just such a poor reader that your eyes glazed over the words "short-haul metric" in my post, or if you know it full well and think that by posting a screen and a half of caterwauling about long-term measurements people might somehow think I had said something in opposition to that.

Of course your precious Boomers had a long-term effect on the WPR. But, of course, since more than retirees drop out of the numerator, retirees aren't the sole cause of changes in the WPR, particularly short-term perturbations. It's not at all uncommon for a series of data to have both short-term and long-term signals, and the WPR is no different. Why in the world you've chosen to die on the hill that it's only affected by retirees is beyond me, but it's a really... unintelligent choice IMESHO since it's so readily debunked by what you call "cherry picked" data (which I can only gather means I didn't smooth the data to the point where all short-term signals disappear -- which is sorta circular, don'tcha know). But you do you.

Alive, over 16, and discouraged about finding a job in a fantastic job market is a miniscule cohort.

The age 16+ population that BLS with blissful cognitive dissonance declares to be "not in labor force" while quietly acknowledging they actually want a job is approaching 5.5 million as we speak, which is about 1 in every 20 people not working and is good for 2+ points on the WPR, which is about as much downward drop as we've seen since the Boomers started retiring in earnest. But I guess when you're desperately defending the indefensible, calling that "minuscule" makes as much sense as anything else you've said.

[Bwaaah]

1) Inflation is still too high and people still feel their paychecks don’t buy as much.
Is that the problem? That they "feel' their paychecks don't buy as much? Or is it, perhaps, that their paychecks DON'T buy as much.

2) The border mess.
Is it a "border mess?" Or is it an orderly system designed to administratively obliterate any notion of it being illegal to cross our border?

3) Crime.
Is it just the fact of crime, or is it that crime is up dramatically over 4 years ago, including murder up by 30%?

4) Cultural issues such as transgender rights (but, what about abortion rights).
Is that what it is? It's our transgender, abortionist culture?

5) Biden’s age.
I don't even know his age. I just think he seems a bit feeble.

6) A deeply polarized nation that can’t give any credit to the other side.
It's disingenuous both-sidesism like that, in which people suggest *any* credit is due Republicans, that really gets me.

[Mr. Bumble]

Open thread so:
Has anyone been able to find out how to disable auto start/stop without having to do so each time you start your vehicle or by buying an aftermarket device for $100.00?

[John F. Carr]

I have a car with a mechanical switch to disable auto stop. You'll need to ask about a particular model and year rather than a general question.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, I too can disable it each time I start the car, but it defaults to on after the vehicle is shut off.
My understanding is that this is universal with all such systems.
The wear and tear on the starter and battery are not worth the minuscule savings of fuel.

[John F. Carr]

The switch setting is persistent. It's a mechanical switch that is up or down. I don't need to reset it each time I start the car.

[jb]

There's not a universal answer to this question. Every car has a different mechanism. It's probably not possible in some cases. (I have a similar problem--my car has an "Eco" mode that uses considerably less gas without any noticeable effects in performance, and there's no way to make it the default so I have to switch back to it every time I start the car.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Last time I was in Germany the rental had that feature, and I was rather jet lagged. Took me a while to figure out what was going on, I thought they'd given me a lemon.

Wasn't too bad once I realized what was going on, though.

[bernard11]

Is that the business where the engine stops every time you stop the car? (I have an old car.)

I've had rentals that did that and it's a giant PITA, to me, anyway. Does it actually accomplish anything?

[jb]

Yes, that's the thing.

AAA thinks it is pretty useful in terms of saving gas:

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2014/07/aaas-tests-reveal-real-world-benefits-automatic-stop-start-technology/

[Mr. Bumble]

Not withstanding AAA, the amount it saves is minuscule and not enough to offset the wear and tear on the starter and battery.
Best real life experience when I let it run for a full tank was a savings of 2/10ths of a gallon.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Does it actually accomplish anything?"

How many MPG do you get while your car isn't moving? Yes, it saves gas.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it would save a significant amount if you were in the habit of leaving your car running for long periods while standing still. Like maybe when you're in the store grocery shopping?

Cars consume absurdly little gas per hour while idling.

[apedad]

But how many idling-car instances are there in one day in the US?

In one year?

I dunno . . hundreds of millions?

So in the aggregate it would make an appreciable difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

If it doesn't make financial sense in one case, doing it ten million times doesn't make it make financial sense; You're multiplying the cost as well as the savings, by the exact same factor.

Fact #861 February 23, 2015 Idle Fuel Consumption for Selected Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles

You're probably looking at about 75 cents an hour worth of fuel consumption. Just guestimating, (If the mod costs $200.) you'd need to idle the car for 2-300 hours to pay for the modification. I'd say I might spend 5 minutes a day idling, so I'd save enough gas to pay for it in, what, 15 years?

Assuming no interest costs, of course. At any realistic rate of interest, I'd never pay for the feature.

That's the general problem with a lot of the fuel economy modifications you're seeing in recent years, in various industries. Most of them make no actual economic sense in terms of present value, they're being driven by regulatory demands.

In fact, the whole EV industry is was regulated into existence by government fiat. During the Obama administration CAFE standards were promulgated that required the manufacture of a certain number of EVs in order for the car companies to be permitted to sell the cars people actually wanted. While Trump put that on hold, Biden is restoring it, only vastly expanded.

Overview of Federal EV Policy | Policy Brief

Literally, everybody who buys an internal combustion engine car is being forced to pay a major surcharge on the cost of the car so that the auto companies can build enough unwanted EVs to comply with regulations.

[Don Nico]

I agree. I have disabled it on our car.

[Bored Lawyer]

Just saw a brilliant short video.

https://www.tiktok.com/@drormor/video/7296756585911684385

There is lots of ignorance out there.

[Commenter_XY]

Priceless. Nice find.

[Bored Lawyer]

My aunt sent it to me. But, yeah, it's very good. The people on the left supporting Hamas for the most part have no clue what they are supporting. A Hamas-run state makes The Handmaid's Tale look like Spring Break.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Would you also get a chuckle out of a similar video depicting the bigotry and ignorance of Republican white supremacists, superstitious gay-bashers, conservative transphobes, right-wing immigrant-haters, chanting conservative antisemites, Republican misogynists, evolution-disdaining clingers, etc.?

If not . . . why not?

[Bored Lawyer]

Denial is a river in Egypt.

Deflection is the resort of the desperate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That video showed that some people aren't familiar with Hamas but recoil when some of Hamas' bigotry, ignorance, and belligerence is described.

The difference with clingers is that they embrace the bigotry, the ignorance, and the belligerence.

That is part of why right-wing political preferences have been rejected by the modern American mainstream -- especially among educated, successful, younger, better Americans -- for decades.

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will provide guidance with respect to how long and how far, though, and you will continue to comply with the preferences of the culture war's winners. You get to whine about it as much as you like, of course.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, I thought it showed an awful lot of young people are ignoramuses. The reactions of the ignoramuses were hilarious when they read the petition (outlining specific Hamas beliefs, covenants) they were going to sign. Truly priceless.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Always the clueless hater. Sure, Rev, no Black Republicans, no gay Republicans. no Dems who hate women, all non-right-wingers love immigrants...The people I respect think you are a moron. Good post to solidify that . 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republicans and conservatives do not have a monopoly on bigotry, ignorance, or silly superstition . . . but that have cornered those market.

[hobie]

RAK, you forget to mention democracy. They're against democracy now. Proudly so. I think their new jingle is that we are actually a 'constitutional republic'. I think by that it means that as long as we have a constitution of some kind we can support autocracy

[Aunt Teefah]

Woah, you're telling me that Hamas is not woke? I'm just hearing this for the first time.

In that case, by all means, please continue to target ambulances, bakeries, and refugee camps, and massacre children by the thousands.

[Bored Lawyer]

Another leftist lie. Israel targets Hamas military installations, which they cynically place near civilian targets so that useful idiots like you can claim Israel “targets” them. So you approve of Hamas war crimes. Nice.

And your description of Hama as “not woke” is risible. Death penalty for homosexuals is well beyond, “not woke.”

But keep exposing yourself as the useful idiot you are.

[Nige]

'Death penalty for homosexuals is well beyond, “not woke.”'

What a relief to know you'll draw the line somewhere.

[hobie]

I know, right?

[Aunt Teefah]

If you want to continue to bury your head in the sand and claim that Israel's pattern of bombing ambulances and bakeries + killing thousands of civilians every week is just a series of unfortunate oppsie-woopsies, be my guest. But the number of people in the real world buying that bullshit is dwindling by the day. Especially as members of the Israeli government continue to say that Gazan civilians are legitimate targets, that they are "human animals", "amaleks", and the like.

[Bored Lawyer]

Nice. Lied again.
It's not a "a series of unfortunate oppsie-woopsies." It's result of the war crimes of Hamas of situating military targets next to, or on top of, civilian and civilian facilities. War crimes which you are affirming by your posts.

[Aunt Teefah]

Why don't you show me on a map where in Gaza they should have their military targets that ISN'T near civilians? It's more than 2 million people packed into a 25-mile strip. It is the most densely-populated place on earth.

Still, I suppose it's possible Israel might have a shred of plausible deniability, if their government was not constantly stating that they are intending to kill civilians.. But unfortunately for you, they do continue to say so, at every opportunity they get. A fact that you continue to try to elide.

[Bored Lawyer]

So you admit that Hamas commits war crimes, and that your agree with that. Good.

And there are areas in south Gaza that are not populated. To which some Gazans managed to flee when warned by Israel.

Face it, you are an enabler of terrorist war criminals. Who, if they came to power here, would either execute you or force you to stay home in a burka.

Useful idiot, indeed.

[Aunt Teefah]

Of course Hamas commits war crimes! Who has argued otherwise?

Israel also commits war crimes. And it announces its scienter on a daily basis.

I do not agree with either. I repeat, I am against war crimes by both sides of this conflict, and indeed by everyone. The person defending war criminals is you.

[Life of Brian]

It’s more than 2 million people packed into a 25-mile strip. It is the most densely-populated place on earth.

Not even close. 2.2 million people in 141 square miles is about 15,600/sq mi.

This list of the most densely populated cities starts at 111,500/sq mi and 84 cities later is only down to 36,800/sq mi.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

NPR is reporting that Israel not only is sending multiple bombs toward a refugee camp but also has bombed several other areas a few days after distributing leaflets directing civilians toward those areas.

Israel is welcome to do as it wishes, but a predictable consequence of its current conduct will be the loss of American support. Those who expect the American mainstream to continue to subsidize Israel's right-wing belligerence seem destined to be surprised by how quickly America ditches a right-wing, violent, abusive Israel.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Get an education, clinger.

Deplorable, destined-for-replacement right-wingers just might be my favorite culture war casualties.

[Frank Drackman]

Isn't that what you told your recruits, I mean Victims at Penn State?That they'd get an "Education"
Oh they did, they did.

Frank

[VinniUSMC]

Hamas doesn't need, or want, your permission. They will gladly continue to be terrorists while you cry that Israel won't sit back and let them.

Nazi/Antifa scum. Too stupid to even see the problem.

[Nelson]

"In that case, by all means, please continue to target ambulances, bakeries, and refugee camps, and massacre children by the thousands."

Apparently you don't understand the difference between "target" and "damage". When you target one thing and damage another, the first thing is the target.

If you are striking a rocket launcher, that's the target. If a nearby building is damaged, that is not the target.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Nige]

Unless there's no rocket launcher. Or you hit something and claim you thought there was a rocket launcher.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What responsibility should the US Army have for the Lewiston shooter? And has the Army gone soft?

Fact: The perp was still an active member of that unit.
Fact: He still had his stripes (Sergeant).

He had neither been busted nor cashiered, which he would have been 20 years ago.

And then let's say that he really *wasn't* hearing voices, that people actually were calling him a child molester for taking his girlfriend's daughters to supper at that resturaunt (and possibly bowling). The witch hunt mentality of the 1980s never left Maine, and all men are suspect.

So some DHHS (child protective) feminazi comes over to his home to investigate, maybe bullies his girlfriend into breaking up with him (standard tactic) and *that* pushes him over the edge.

The State of Maine can legally do no wrong, but ethically & morally?

[apedad]

Due process is a thing in the civilized world.

Obviously not in your world.

And I was an AFOSI Special Agent over twenty years ago and can confirm that your "he would have been 20 years ago" comment is garbage.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Twenty years ago was when Clinton's "peace dividends" were starting to bite and people started to realize that we could no longer fight the "two concurrent wars" that we had always been prepared to fight. So the "20 years ago" may not be accurate -- but THIRTY years ago *is*!

When you look at what people were getting bounced out for -- including PT tests -- I think it's quite reasonable to believe that he would not have been still there with his stripes after the incident in NY.

[loki13]

I mean, maybe the guy wasn't CRAZY, but instead was just rationally reacting to ... A FEMINAZI bullying his girlfriend into breaking up with him???!!!!

It would be irresponsible NOT to speculate, amirite?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is where the clingers really miss Rush Limbaugh. The Conspirators try to follow his footsteps, but they are pale facsimiles.

[Frank Drackman]

You must have listened to him alot, unless you're just making stupid ignorant comments, oh wait, it's Jerry Sandusky, what was I thinking??
I came to the Rush Revolution rather late, for years I thought he was "Rush Limbo"

Frank

[Nige]

Mental health is going to be the judas goat of shootings, as well as lots of things the right doesn't like, and it won't lead to better access to mental health care, just lots of people locked up in prisons for severe depression and schizophrenia.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Nige, such poor writing. Really! There are no mentally ill people. Really !! I was around when people like you demanded Cuba send us the people Castro didn't want (murderers, deviants, Soviet agents) then people llike you forced the release of thousands of people who could not take care of themself, onto the street , and then you said 'great, it's their right to be free". Sorry, Nige, you don't appeal to experience because you have none.

[Nige]

'There are no mentally ill people.'

That's... new.

'then people llike you forced the release of thousands of people who could not take care of themself, onto the street , and then you said ‘great, it’s their right to be free”.'

Are you proud of the fact that America doesn't provide mental health care for the people who need it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

While racism didn't cause the Port Chicago explosion, it sure contributed to it....

[John F. Carr]

A federal judge has granted Texas’ request for a temporary restraining order prohibiting DHS from cutting or removing concertina wire placed on private property next to the Rio Grande to deter illegal immigration. Arguments for a preliminary injunction will be heard next week. The legal situation is quite different from the river barrier that has been ordered removed.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67909144/state-of-texas-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/

[Brett Bellmore]

I understand the administration's response is that they'll lift the wire without cutting it, so the illegal aliens can pass underneath.

They're really not putting a lot of effort into pretending they're trying to secure the border, at this point. I think they're just trying to pack in as many illegals as they can before they lose the White House, counting on being able to stop any effort to subsequently deport them.

[Martinned]

I'm starting to notice a lot of overlap between people who seem to be OK with killing (possibly) illegal immigrants at the US border and people who seem to be OK with killing civilians in Gaza. I wonder what Gazans and immigrants at the US southern border have in common...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Both deserve to die.

[VinniUSMC]

No. Would you stop? Seriously. No, as a general rule, neither illegal immigrants nor Gazan civilians deserve to die.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

What can that possibly mean: "as a general rule"
I mean as a general rule who does deserve to die. Do you read whay you write 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, according to Hamas anyone who is a Jew.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I mean as a general rule who does deserve to die."

Gazans who participated in the massacre? Illegal immigrants who are trafficking sex slaves?

[Sarcastr0]

Does your shitty debate club contrarianism mean you don’t know what a general rule means?

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? The purpose of razor wire is NOT to cut you up. It's to stop you from crossing a fence because YOU don't want to be cut up. I don't want illegals dead, just somewhere else.

I've posted the border numbers over and over.

Here are the comparable numbers for Trump.

For one month, one solitary month, Trump's worst number was slightly higher than Biden's very best. Within a couple months of Biden taking office, illegal crossings at our Southern border shot sky high, and never went down again. That sort of persistent step change in illegal immigration doesn't happen by accident, it's a result of policy.

I think it is perfectly rational to look at the numbers, look at what he has the border patrol actually doing, aiding illegal immigrants in crossing into the US, and conclude that he actively wants illegal immigration.

Even if he doesn't dare come out and say so.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's probably not surprising that an antisocial, on-the-spectrum, disaffected, conspiracy theorizing, bigoted right-winger is a big fan of razor wire in civilian settings -- that barbed wire in the river must hav sent quite a shiver down Mr. Bellmore's leg. Maybe enough to take his mind off the search for Obama's Kenyan Muslim communist birth certificate!

[Idihax]

Why do you think every third world mestizo deserves to enter the United States?

[Frank Drackman]

Because when Jerry molests them they (usually) won't go to the Police.

[Sarcastr0]

Why not a mine field?

And you were dragged for getting the border patrol story wrong 3 weeks ago.

Guess it didn’t take.

[John F. Carr]

The lifting incident, which Texas said caused damage, precedes the TRO. Now DHS is prohibited from tampering with the wire. The legal theory includes trespass to chattels, which is legalese for "he's messing with my stuff."

[Nelson]

"before they lose the White House"

If Rs don't get off the Trump Train and choose a better candidate, that won't be a relevant issue after he loses again.

[Longtobefree]

I thought the standard was to back up wire installations with MA2.

[not guilty]

The Colorado trial regarding Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on that state’s ballot continues apace. The defense has begun calling witnesses. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/01/us/politics/trump-14th-amendment-case.html

Trump has the opportunity to testify and explain his actions and inactions regarding January 6, 2021. If he does not do so in this civil proceeding, the judge as trier of fact will be entitled to infer that such testimony would be unfavorable to the defense. SCOTUS explained in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319 (1976), quoting United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975), that the “failure to contest an assertion . . . is considered evidence of acquiescence . . . if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.” The Baxter Court elaborated in a footnote:

The Court [in Hale based its statement on 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1042 (Chadbourn rev. 1970), which reads as follows:

“Silence, omissions, or negative statements, as inconsistent: (1) Silence, etc., as constituting the impeaching statement. A failure to assert a fact, when it would have been natural to assert it, amounts in effect to an assertion of the non-existence of the fact. This is conceded as a general principle of evidence (§ 1071 infra). There may be explanations, indicating that the person had in truth no belief of that tenor; but the conduct is `prima facie’ an inconsistency.

“There are several common classes of cases:

“(1) Omissions in legal proceedings to assert what would naturally have been asserted under the circumstances.

“(2) Omissions to assert anything, or to speak with such detail or positiveness, when formerly narrating, on the stand or elsewhere, the matter now dealt with.

“(3) Failure to take the stand at all, when it would have been natural to do so.

“In all of these much depends on the individual circumstances, and in all of them the underlying test is, would it have been natural for the person to make the assertion in question?” (Emphasis in original.) (Footnotes omitted.)

425 U.S. at 319-20, fn.3

[not guilty]

If the court in Colorado finds that Donald Trump did in fact engage in insurrection or rebellion in regard to the Capitol riot, he may be precluded from relitigating that factual issue in other fora. Under the judicially developed doctrine of collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision is conclusive in a subsequent suit based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation.

Offensive use of collateral estoppel occurs when the plaintiff seeks to foreclose the defendant from litigating an issue the defendant has previously litigated unsuccessfully in an action with another party. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.4 (1979). In the federal courts the use of nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel may be available, but trial courts are granted broad discretion to determine when it should be applied. "The general rule should be that in cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where, either for the reasons discussed above or for other reasons, the application of offensive estoppel would be unfair to a defendant, a trial judge should not allow the use of offensive collateral estoppel." Id., at 331.

When a federal court considers the collateral estoppel effect of a prior state court judgment, the full faith and credit provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1738 requires the federal court to give the state court judgment the same preclusive effect as the state rendering the judgment would give. Under Colorado law, collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue if:

(1) The issue precluded is identical to an issue actually litigated and necessarily adjudicated in the prior proceeding; (2) The party against whom estoppel was sought was a party to or was in privity with a party to the prior proceeding; (3) There was a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; (4) The party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding.

Bebo Constr. Co. v. Mattox O'Brien, P.C.,990 P.2d 78, 84-85 (Colo. 1999); Michaelson v. Michaelson, 884 P.2d 695, 700-01 (Colo. 1994).

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's good to read a scholarly, intelligent comment around here. Thanks!

[Kazinski]

Its very likely that the Supreme Court will rule that Congress thru section 5 of the 14th amendment has required a conviction on the charge of insurrection to disqualify a Federal candidate from the ballot.

Chief Justice Chase ruled that in Re-Griffen.

An Arizona Court ruled a conviction was necessary in 2022 to keep two congressmen and a state candidate off.the ballot in 2022, and was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court.

And that doesn't settle the question of whether the President is an office "under the United States" either.

The question is not going to come down to fact finding by a judge in a civil trial in Colorado, its most likely going to be settled by a higher court ruling on the law, and if the case does ultimately come down to facts, then they will be decided by a jury.

But by all means the judge should proceed post haste, lets get this up to the 10th circuit and on to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Hopefully they'll put this on the Rocket Docket.

[not guilty]

The question is not going to come down to fact finding by a judge in a civil trial in Colorado, its most likely going to be settled by a higher court ruling on the law, and if the case does ultimately come down to facts, then they will be decided by a jury.

But by all means the judge should proceed post haste, lets get this up to the 10th circuit and on to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Hopefully they’ll put this on the Rocket Docket.

Uh, no. The enabling statute, Colorado Revised Statutes § 1-1-113, does not provide for a jury determination of any issue(s). Under subsection (3) of that statute, the trial judge’s judgment is appealable as of right to the Supreme Court of Colorado within three days. That Court in its discretion, may decline jurisdiction of the case. If the supreme court declines to review the proceedings, the decision of the district court shall be final and not subject to further appellate review. https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_1-1-113

When the state court judgment becomes final, the losing party may seek review in the U. S. Supreme Court by writ of certiorari pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). The inferior federal courts (including the Tenth Circuit) have no role in the matter.

[not guilty]

Issues regarding the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 will be decided in the first instance by the Colorado District Court in Denver. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/Cases%20of%20Interest/10_18_2023%20Topics%20for%20the%20October%2030%2C%202023%20Hearing.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

Is that legal strategy, to sue under a statute that effectively nullifies the federal appellate court? Do good lawyers take that into consideration? = When the state court judgment becomes final, the losing party may seek review in the U. S. Supreme Court by writ of certiorari pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). The inferior federal courts (including the Tenth Circuit) have no role in the matter.

Just curious about that. Was CO (and it's legal statutes) chosen as a venue for a specific reason to bring this specific case.

[Voize]

No state court judgment in any state can be appealed to an inferior federal court. The only path forward is a petition to SCOTUS, and only concerning issues of federal law, and only after exhausting the state judicial system.

If your question is "why didn't they file in a US District Court in the first place", when Trump attempted to remove the case petitioners conceded in a filing that they would not have Article III standing to sustain the action in federal court.

[Commenter_XY]

Hey, thx for the response. I find the legal back and forth fascinating.

[Nelson]

Agreed. Because I'm not a lawyer, it's like a watching a good tennis match.

[Martinned]

That made me wonder: Could Congress amend the Judiciary Act to allow appeals from a state supreme court to a federal court of appeal or district court?

[not guilty]

Yes, Congress could do that.

[Voize]

Trump tried to move the Colorado case to federal court but did not succeed, so appeals will go through the state system rather than to the 10th Circuit. There are circumstances when a District Court judgment can be appealed directly to the state Supreme Court, bypassing the state Court of Appeal, but I don't know if any of them apply here. If not then there are two levels of appeal before a SCOTUS petition can be filed.

[not guilty]

The only vehicle for SCOTUS to review a state court judgment is via a petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). The granting or denial of cert is purely discretionary.

When the state trial court rules, a party can apply to the Colorado supreme court within three days after the district court proceedings are terminated. That court may grant review or it may, in its discretion, decline jurisdiction of the case. If the Colorado supreme court declines to review the proceedings, the decision of the district court shall be final and not subject to further appellate review. C.R.S. § 1-1-113(3).

No court of the United States other than SCOTUS has jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify the state court judgment for errors. The jurisdiction possessed by the U. S. District Courts is strictly original. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923).

[Kazinski]

Kind of weird, I don't remember that being the path of Bush v Gore to get to the Supreme Court when the case was still before the Florida Supreme Court.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court reviewed two separate judgments of the Florida Supreme Court, in rapid succession. The jurisdictional statute in each case was 28 U.S.C. 1257.

[not guilty]

"Its very likely that the Supreme Court will rule that Congress thru section 5 of the 14th amendment has required a conviction on the charge of insurrection to disqualify a Federal candidate from the ballot."

Under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress is authorized to make a criminal conviction of insurrection a prerequiisite to disqualification from office under § 3. The Congress has not done so, however.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruling in Thomas Hansen et al. v. Mark Finchem et al., No. CV-22-0099-AP/EL (May 9, 2022), held only that A.R.S. § 16-351(B), which authorizes an elector to challenge a candidate “for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency,
professional requirements or failure to fully pay fines . . . ,” is not the proper proceeding to initiate a Disqualification Clause challenge." https://cases.justia.com/arizona/supreme-court/2022-cv-22-0099-ap-el.pdf?ts=1655488245 (slip op. p. 2.) That opinion included a fleeting mention of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 5, but the Court expressly declined to decide that issue, among others. Ibid. Distinguishing between an appellate court's holding and obiter dictum is first semester law school stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress is authorized to make a criminal conviction of insurrection a prerequiisite to disqualification from office under § 3. The Congress has not done so, however."

They've made a criminal conviction of insurrection carry a penalty of disqualification from office. That sure looks like enabling legislation.

Did they ever get around to passing a statute saying you could be disqualified without being convicted? No. So they've only enabled one route to it.

[not guilty]

In the wake of the Civil War, Congress voted to remove § 3 disabilities from many former Confederates who had not been convicted of any crime. Insurrection had been a federal crime since 1807. Congress passed another insurrection act in 1862. If criminal conviction were a prerequisite for disqualification under § 3, the subsequent removal of disabilities from those who had not been criminally convicted was superflous.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-11-03/trump-ballot-2024-insurrection-legal-case#:~:text=Congress%20also%20passed%20a%20law%20in%201862,making%20insurrection%20a%20crime%20that%20used%20different%20language.

The current federal insurrection statute is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2383. Among other penalties, it provides that someone convicted thereunder shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. If that disqualification were imposed by an Article III federal judge as part of a criminal judgment of conviction, it would not be subject to removal by Congress.

[Bob from Ohio]

106th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration which led to Israeli independence.

[hobie]

Oh? From what or whom did Palestine need liberation back in 1917?

[Longtobefree]

The Ottoman Empire.

[hobie]

Oh? Did the Palestinian population at the time ask for this? Or mayhaps the Brittish in conjunction with the Palestinian population ask for this? Or did Britain just demand it unilaterally?

[John F. Carr]

The people of the Levant suffered mass starvation during the war. I can't say how many Palestinians in particular suffered. What I read about was mainly to the north of Palestine in the modern sense.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Did the Palestinian population at the time ask for this?"

Yes, the Jewish portion.

[Martinned]

I don't think Lord Rothschild lived in Palestine at the time...

[Jerry B.]

The Ottoman Empire.

[Nige]

Always nice to be reminded it's all the fault of the British.

[M L]

Bridgeport, CT election overturned after video of Democrats stuffing ballot boxes is leaked

Video: https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/17m57gp/bridgeport_ct_election_overturned_after_video_of/

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/judge-orders-new-bridgeport-mayoral-primary-after-surveillance-videos-show-possible-ballot-stuffing/3138308/

[Ben_]

"No evidence" though. Because anyone can just say "no evidence" regardless of how much evidence there is.

[Nige]

Really? Looks like if you have evidence and bring it to court, the election gets overturned. Funny you lot never managed to do that with all the evidence you said you had.

[M L]

Do you think we need to make sure we have cameras at every ballot drop box then to make sure that nobody is dropping off more than one ballot? Seems like it would be simpler to just do regular in person voting.

[Nige]

Would that make you happy?

[M L]

Does this mean that, for any ballot box where a camera wasn't present or video footage was never reviewed, ballot stuffing could have occurred there undetected?

[Nige]

Is that what you think?

[Brett Bellmore]

Cameras are dirt cheap at this point, so, why not?

[jb]

I can't find anyone saying "no evidence" in that article.

Seems like there's evidence of fraud in this case, and maybe significant enough to alter the results of the election so they're doing it over.

When people say "no evidence" it relates to specific claims, like "no evidence of widespread fraud in the Presidential election" or "no evidence of secret suitcases full of ballots at such and such location".

[Michael P]

You guys get a lot of exercise adding qualifications.

"There is no fraud."
"There is no evidence of fraud."
"There is no evidence of widespread fraud."
"There is no evidence of enough widespread fraud to change the results."
"There is no evidence of enough widespread fraud to change the results of a presidential election."

[Nige]

The people who were saying there was no evidence were the people who didn't bring any to court in any of the presidential election cases.

[M L]

The people who were saying there was no evidence were the people who were denying that sworn testimony is evidence.

[Nige]

What sworn testimony?

[Sarcastr0]

There was no fraud.

This is a different election, where it seems there was fraud.

You see how that works?

[Commenter_XY]

Indeed Sarcastr0, we are finding out how that works. 🙂

[Nelson]

“There is no fraud.”

This has never been true for any election, ever. It's slightly likely that there have been no elections with intentional fraud, but the requirements to regain the right to vote after losing it is often confusing and mistakes are inevitably made.

“There is no evidence of fraud.”

This would functionally be the same as the first statement. As much as the deniers hate it, an accusation has to have evidence to support it. And if there's no evidence for something, but evidence against it, it isn't true.

“There is no evidence of widespread fraud.”

This is true in almost every election. It's rare that a case like this one or the North Carolina 9th back in 2018.

There's never been any cases of widespread individual voter fraud, as far as I know.

“There is no evidence of enough widespread fraud to change the results.”

This is basically a restatement of the one above it.

"“There is no evidence of enough widespread fraud to change the results of a presidential election.”"

Yet another restatement of the plain "no evidence of widespread fraud" statement. Withput widespread fraud, adding "to change the results" or "to change the results of a presidential election" doesn't make the slightest difference.

The reality is that, with very few exceptions (and the 2020 Presidential election wasn't one of them), there is rarely enough fraud, intentional or unintentional, to change the results of an election. Which is why cases like this one ot the NC 9th get such attention.

[bernard11]

Once again, you are full of shit.

First, this was a Democratic primary, not a general election.

Second, it apparently involved one individual, not "Democrats" in general.

[NellieBly]

No sooner did the judge in the federal case against Trump in DC rebuff the ACLU's advocacy for refining the gag order than did a wave of concern erupt about the New York Executive Law.
Wonder if the Conspiracy will weigh in on this.
Hard to keep up with the number of people and the number of edicts demanding that some one or another should shut up and stay that way.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-first-amendment-threat-in-the-trump-civil-case-af615def?st=hyf1x15entea7qr&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[Ben_]

Does Biden want RFK Jr. to be assassinated?

https://nypost.com/2023/10/26/news/rfk-jr-begs-biden-admin-for-secret-service-protection-after-intruder-arrested-at-his-home/amp/

Having one election opponent arrested and the another killed is an innovative new reelection strategy.

[Longtobefree]

As they say; "crude, but effective".

[Nige]

Biden sent the intruder? If the intruder had hit RFKjr with a hammer would you have made jokes about it?

[Armchair]

More Chinese Money to Joe Biden!

GOP investigators have found more "Loan repayments" to Joe Biden, this time from China's banks

Watch the money flow....Hunter threatens China with Joe sitting next to him. China pays Hunter's Company. Hunter pays James Biden's company. James Biden's wife takes money from James Biden company. Then writes a nice $40,000 check out to Joe Biden.

I wonder how many more "Loan repayments" are out there?

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/11/attention-must-be-repaid.php

[M L]

Loan repayments. They had to repay loans, what do you expect? China banks were a little hard up for cash. Daddy Joe helped provide liquidity.

[Armchair]

Exactly. Hunter liked to get "loans" from his companies. Nice 0% interest loans. With no repayment terms. Just so it wouldn't be income.

Looks even better if it's just marked "Loan repayment".

"No sir, that's not income. That's just repayment for a loan I gave them. Sorry, seem to have lost the paperwork on the loan. But really, it was one".

[Nige]

'Sorry, seem to have lost the paperwork on the loan.'

Adding bits to make the narrative fit, are we?

[jb]

As long as they're actual loans (e.g., Joe gave money to James or Hunter that later gets repaid) who cares?

[Kazinski]

Actually that doesn't matter much, if at all.

Say you are a city official in Detroit, I borrowed 200k from you in a private trans, but I can't pay it back, you then call up the city garbage hauler and tell them if they want their contract renewed they have to hire me as a consultant and pay a 400k retainer. I use a portion of the funds to repay the loan to you.

All perfectly legal and above board right?

[jb]

Too bad for your narrative that Joe Biden was a private citizen at the time. Also too bad for your theory that there's no evidence Joe was involved in getting the Chinese to hire anyone. But other than all of the details that make it sketchy, good analogy.

[bernard11]

Powerline. 'nuff said.

You're making shit up.

[Kazinski]

Funny, a post on powerline was enough to get Dan Rather fired.

Somebody must take it seriously.

[bernard11]

Hunter threatens China with Joe sitting next to him.

Laughable. Hunter threatens China. With what, exactly? I'm sure Xi was shaking in his boots at your hypothetical threat from Hunter Biden.

What a fucking joke.

[Kazinski]

Well here is an exact quote of the threat. Please note that this is not from Hunters laptop, it was obtained via subpoena in 2020 from the IRS to Whatsapp.

"I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,"

“Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight, And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.”

And he was too threatening a Chinese company that was doing business in the US, a company with CCP ties to be sure, but not the Chinese government.

[bernard11]

Hardly clear what that was about, or if Joe was in fact sitting next to him. Or if he had a legitimate complaint.

In any case, he wasn't "threatening China," as Armchair claimed. He was threatening some Chinese company.

[Brett Bellmore]

You think that, under China's planned economy, there's actually a meaningful difference there?

[Sarcastr0]

Famously yes.

China’s hybrid economy is not a pure command economy, and companies are not organs of the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reformThe second stage of reform, in the late 1980s and 1990s, involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry. The 1985 lifting of price controls was a major reform, and the lifting of protectionist policies and regulations soon followed, although state monopolies in the commanding heights of the economy such as banking and petroleum remained.

And before you say banking means this company was PRC: “Harvest Fund Management Co. Ltd. is a privately owned investment manager. The firm provides asset management and retirement management services to pension and profit sharing plans, insurance companies, and enterprises. HFM invests in the public equity and fixed income markets of China. Harvest Fund Management was founded in March 1999 and is based in Beijing, China.”

[Brett Bellmore]

You actually think that, if the PRC government tells one of these private companies to jump, they don't ask "How high?" Seriously? You're appealing to laws they passed thirty eight years ago? When Xi was a provincial officer, not President for Life?

Are you kidding me here?

[Sarcastr0]

Absent evidence of anyone being told to jump, that doesn't matter!

I should dig in more to China's economy. They saved themselves from the pitfalls of Communism, while retaining a lot of the crappiness.

Though they do seem to be in a helluva slump now.

[Nelson]

Well, it's certainly more convincing than a reference to Joe Biden by Hunter Biden in a dispute about ... something.

The "It doesn't seem to be this way, based on evidence, but you know how those people are. Do you really believe that the Chinese economy is really that way, even if it has operated that way for almost 40 years?" approach seems a bit desperate, no? If we're supposed to assume everything based on no evidence, can we believe that unicorns and pixies are real, too?

[M L]

That sounds pretty bad. Certainly meriting an investigation at least.

[grb]

Another two works of architecture (linked below) by the Vietnamese firm of VTN Architects.

A few years back, interesting Vietnamese architecture began appearing in magazines and internet forums. At first, it was a specific and unique type of house design found in the country’s cities. These were razor-thin residences extending back deep into their lots and often a full 4-5 stories high. This height was further subdivided into a plethora of mezzanines and half-levels, often creating two-story spaces that interlocked moving vertical thru the house. And landscaping was always woven throughout these spaces.

The two projects below are by Võ Trọng Nghĩa, the most well-known architect of the country. One project is a house, similar but different to type described above. It occupies an open corner, but creates the same weave of vertical layers by a winding circulation path around the residence’s perimeter between inner & outer shells. This interstitial space is filled with extensive landscaping which brings nature inside. The two shells (inner & outer) are cut with overlapping openings – a device that creates the effect of both privacy and openness.

The second project is another aspect of Trong Nghia’s work which is pretty awe-inspiring. He creates cathedral-like spaces built entirely out of bamboo. Apparently it’s the perfect building material, because the man makes it do anything.

https://www.dezeen.com/2020/05/02/ha-long-villa-house-trees-vo-trong-nghia-architects/

https://www.dezeen.com/2022/03/29/vo-trong-nghia-architects-bamboo-welcome-centre-grand-world-phu-quoc-vietnam-architecture/

[M L]

Biden Threatens To Veto GOP Spending Bill That Would 'Cut' Amtrak Funding to Double Pre-Pandemic Levels

Amtrak has historically received $2 billion in federal subsidies each year. Under Republicans' "draconian" cuts, they'd receive over $5 billion next year.

https://reason.com/2023/11/02/biden-threatens-to-veto-gop-spending-bill-that-would-cut-amtrak-funding-to-double-pre-pandemic-levels/

Democrats aren't serious people.

[Nige]

You make it sound like the GOP are really bad at cutting things.

[M L]

They are. They're not serious either.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like you linked to a pointless article then.

[M L]

Right, because in order to have a point one must argue for one or the other side of the duopoly. Criticizing both sides does not compute.

[Nige]

But that's what you were trying to do. You're just as bad as the GOP at doing things.

[M L]

Me: Democrats aren't serious, opposing even a tiny cutback on massive spending increases and calling it "draconian."

You [whatabouting] ... And also, Republicans are bad at cutting spending!

Me: Yes.

What's difficult to understand here?

[Nige]

How can it be whatabouting when it was literally right there in you initial comment?

[M L]

Libs are now going to rename species of birds throughout North America en masse. New frontiers in PC thought.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/01/1209660753/these-american-birds-and-dozens-more-will-be-renamed-to-remove-human-monikers

Get ready to say goodbye to a lot of familiar bird names, like Anna’s Hummingbird, Gambel’s Quail, Lewis’s Woodpecker, Bewick’s Wren, Bullock’s Oriole, and more.

That’s because the American Ornithological Society has vowed to change the English names of all bird species currently named after people, along with any other bird names deemed offensive or exclusionary.

[Sarcastr0]

No one cares.

[BrotherMovesOn]

No one cares Sarcastr0?
Imagine Anna’s Hummingbird, a thing of the past!

[M L]

A lot of people like satire. This reads like a good satire, something from The Onion or The Babylon Bee.

"One notable exception came in 2000, however, when the society renamed a bird that's now called the Long-tailed Duck because of concerns that its previous name was derogatory to Native Americans.

"That was the first that I'd ever really recognized or heard of a name that was offensive," says Handel, who says at that point in time, concerns about injustice wasn't a traditionally accepted reason for changing bird names.

That really started to change in 2020, when police officers killed George Floyd in Minneapolis. On that same day, a white woman in Central Park called the police on black birder Christian Cooper, claiming he was threatening her.

Less than a month later, a group called Bird Names for Birds wrote to the leadership of the society, pointing out the potential problems that come with eponymous honors and demanding change."

[Kazinski]

Here are electricity prices by state. There are only 4 red states in the top 25, and only 4 blue states in the bottom 25:

Rank State Average Retail Price of Electricity to Residential Sector, cents/kWh
1 HI 41.74
2 CT 31.8
3 CA 31.22
4 NH 29.78
5 ME 27.63
6 MA 27.12
7 RI 26.04
8 AK 24.72
9 NY 21.63
10 VT 21
11 MI 19.26
12 PA 18.38
13 NJ 18.24
14 NV 17.39
15 WI 17.06
16 MD 16.99
17 DC 16.54
18 OH 16.42
19 DE 16
20 MN 15.54
21 FL 15.36
22 VA 15.21
23 IL 15.13
24 IA 15
25 IN 14.67
25 CO 14.67
27 AL 14.63
28 GA 14.62
29 WV 14.47
30 AZ 14.28
30 MO 14.28
32 TX 14.2
33 SC 14.17
34 NM 13.89
35 KS 13.54
36 MS 13.46
37 SD 13.19
37 MT 13.19
39 OR 13.08
40 NC 12.9
41 OK 12.63
42 WY 12.62
43 KY 12.49
44 AR 12.44
45 TN 12.42
46 ND 12.3
47 NE 12.06
48 ID 11.78
49 UT 11.45
50 LA 11.23
51 WA 11.21

Now to ensure that this enormous disparity was more related to political leadership than regional realities I ran a correlation coefficient on red or blue state and the correlation was weak but significant at .504.

I ran another correlation on region splitting the country into 4 regions, and there wasn't any significant correlation at .38.

Now obviously there are some regional differences such as Alaska and Hawaii have geographical constraints that make their prices higher. Oregon and Washington are blue states but they have enormous cheap hydroelectric resources not available in most other states, but it wasn't enough to overcome the political preference of Blue State governments to have high energy prices for the consumer.

[Sarcastr0]

Correlate with urban population.

[Kazinski]

Go ahead. But that makes no sense anyway, HI has a relatively low urban population, same with Alaska, and very high electric rates. Washington has about 60% of it's population in the Seattle metropolitan region, and the lowest utility rates in the country.

[Sarcastr0]

You just named the four states you called out above as outliers for one reason or another!

Those were horrible anecdotes to pick as counterexamples!

[Don Nico]

Really, why does that drive the CA PUC to charge customers more? And no slippery “Supply and demand.” Why does the PUC make the state less desirable to power generators and suppliers? That is government policy we would like you to explain.

[Martinned]

The most expensive customers to serve are customers who live in very densely populated areas, where all public works cost a fortune, and customers who live in very sparsely populated areas where you need to lay 100 miles of cable to supply electricity to some household that lives in the middle of nowhere.

So I would imagine (not having investigated this specific case) that electricity costs a lot in California for the same reason that they can't seem to be able to build a train line between LA and San Francisco for less than it cost to put a man on the moon: planning laws, property rights, the cost of causing congestion, etc.

[Don Nico]

"same reason that they can’t seem to be able to build a train line between LA and San Francisco"
That is because the entire idea is a loser from the word go (there is no demand) , and the options are to go over a long mountain pass or through highly expensive coastal real estate.
Transmission in CA to SF, LA , and SD should not be expensive, except that the PUC makes it so.

[Straight Shootr]

The only reason that Washington State has power rates that low is because of the forethought of several counties in Eastern Washington, that back in the 1920’s and 30s, formed Public Utility Districts, and eventually built several hydro dams on the Columbia river, along with the Feds building Grand Coulee, Chief Joe, Bonneville, and a few on the Snake.

In North Central Washington basic domestic energy charges are: Chelan 0.028 per kWh Douglas 0.023 Grant is 0.045

[Straight Shootr]

I forgot to add: This isn't a complete list of hydro on the Columbia, and didn't mention the Canadians building hydro that is part of the power distribution / sharing that goes on between the US and Canada as well..

[Nelson]

Did you corrolate it with the cost of labor in each state? Since the cost of labor is higher in states with a large number of alternate employment opportunities (mostly blue states, given their superior economies), the operating costs in those states would be higher. Especially since labor costs are usually one of, if not the number one, largest operating costs for a company.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

That the people are the primary determiners of whether a potential president or vice president is disqualified under Section 3 would have been an unremarkable thing to say back in the day. They were overwhelmingly both popular constitutionalist and populist. Consideration of the latter indicates that the people adopted the provision with antisectional rather than antidemocratic intentions. Sectionalism isn't a concern when it comes to POTUS/VP. Consideration of the former shows that, even if the rule conveyed in the text legally includes the president, they would not have though it odd at all for the people to determine eligibility themselves.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If they were so confident in democracy and "the people," they wouldn't have bothered amending the constitution.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

They were amending it to deal with disloyal subsets of the people, not the whole people. Prior to the 14th, the nation as a whole couldn't do anything about an insurrectionist governor, for instance.

[David Welker]

Nate Silver reports on a FIRE survey that seems to suggest that 1) we have a “free speech problem” in that college-aged students seem to want to shutdown speech they disagree with and 2) the problem exists on both sides, but is more pronounced on the left than the right.

https://t.co/N7zLAAQSi2

[bernard11]

SBF guilty on all counts.

[BrotherMovesOn]

He chose poorly.
Should've stayed in that Harvard Square coffee shop. Once he left ...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He chose to gamble with a jury after several codefendants accepted accountability and agreed to testify. He likely will pay a steep price for that decision. Might be a lesson in there for those in similar circumstances.

[BrotherMovesOn]

SBF guilty on all counts. Tragic.
He should've never left that Harvard Square coffee house.
It was all bad decisions from them on.
Just take a left on Brattle St. instead of a right and it could have been so different.
I don't have confidence that he will retain his sanity for decades of imprisonment. People who lost money due to his acts may reasonably argue against any kind of leniency, or any mitigation arguments (not sure I see any).

[Sarcastr0]

This verdict is due to the brave declarations by conservatives that Brandon would let him get away free because he donated to Dems (as well as Republicans but shhh).

[Brett Bellmore]

I suspect he didn't help his case with the Democrats by hedging his bets, and donating a tiny fraction of his political spending to Republicans.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus Christ, Brett. There's always some bullshit detail you use as an out.

There is not fucking case to make with 'the Democrats' that would make there be no prosecution.

This is a counterexample to that entire bullshit narrative.

We don't live in a political thriller. Institutions are what they say they are, including the DoJ.
Money buys good lawyers, who can get you good pleas. That's the extent of it.

You were wrong. Along with many conservatives. Fucking deal with it.

[Nelson]

"SBF guilty on all counts."

Excellent. What a shameless douchebag. He makes Martin Shkreli look like ... well, Shkreli still is the biggest douchebag. But SBF is a distant second.

[Commenter_XY]

His parents are next. There will be charges.

[mydisplayname]

UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding; however, they are an indicator of public opinion. The most recent UN General Assembly resolution -- calling for the US to end its trade embargo against Cuba -- passed with a vote of 187 to 2; that is, an end to the embargo is favored by every country in the world except for the United States and Israel (Ukraine abstained).

[Michael P]

That isn't remotely recent. https://www.un.org/en/ga/77/resolutions.shtml

And what makes you call that "public" opinion? How many citizens were polled?

[Martinned]

Are you suggesting that public opinion might not support having 21 December as World Basketball Day?

https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N23/256/73/PDF/N2325673.pdf?OpenElement

[Idihax]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/politics/ivanka-trump-testimony-appeal-school-week/index.html

This judge is so clearly biased, I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim otherwise.

[SRG2]

Alternatively, the judge might reasonably conclude that this is merely another Trumpian delaying tactic as it is unlikely that there is no-one who can look after the children during a day or two of testimony.

[Nelson]

Yes, the hardship on one of the two wealthy parents, who can afford additional childcare help at any time, and their three nannies. Please.

[Idihax]

The depiction of the prophet by the most revered Muslim sources reveals behavior that is immoral, criminal, and violent. The five oldest and most trusted Islamic sources don't portray Muhammad as a great and godly man. They confirm that he was a thief, liar, assassin, mass murderer, terrorist, warmonger, and an unrestrained sexual pervert engaged in pedophilia, incest, and rape. He authorized deception, assassinations, torture, slavery, and genocide. He was a pirate, not a prophet.

[Frank Drackman]

and he smelled bad too, but hey, it was the 7th Century, not like he could just freshen up with a shower whenever he wanted to.
So why can't the 21st Century Muhammed's not smell like a Goat Farm??

Frank

[Nelson]

Well that seems to be a pretty efficient way to do it. The Bible spreads those things throughout their heroes, but the Muslims just went one-and-done. One dirtbag instead of many? Well played.