Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

It was interesting reading through the Trump v Anderson transcript in depth because at least some of it paralleled my own argument, which was Griffin's case ruled that the Section 3 was not self executing, in response Congress passed the Enforcement Act of 1870, which became the exclusive process to enforce Section 3, and then in 1948 the Act of 1870 was replaced by a criminal statute 18 USC 2383, which is now the exclusive remedy for enforcement of Section 3.

Of course I was corrected repeatedly, many times, over and over again. But I never quite grasped why I was wrong, other than I must be slow, which was suggested a few times.

So I was gratified to see Justice Kagan must be just as slow as I am as she prompted Trump's lawyer to offer a very similar theory. Of course Kagan didn't have the benefit of a bevy of such patient tutors in the VC as I did like NG, DN, and JC, so she has a lot more of an excuse than I did for getting such an obvious point wrong.

JUSTICE KAGAN: So, Mr. Mitchell, if I may interrupt just to clarify, I mean, this sounds like your reply brief, where it sounds like you're not making a constitutional argument, you're really making a statutory preemption argument. And --

MR. MITCHELL: Right.

JUSTICE KAGAN: -- is that -- is that what you're doing here? You're not saying that the Constitution gives you this rule. It's the kind of combination of Griffin's Case plus the way Congress acted after Griffin's Case --

MR. MITCHELL: Yes.

JUSTICE KAGAN: -- that gives you the rule?

MR. MITCHELL: That's exactly right, Justice Kagan, because we have implementing legislation, Congress took up the invitation provided by Griffin's Case and established writs of quo warranto in the 1870 Enforcement Act, later repealed them.The only enforcement legislation that's currently on the books is the insurrection criminal statute, Section 2383. And when Congress made all of these decisions, the initial enactment of the Enforcement Act in 1870, the repeal of the quo warranto provisions in 1948, all of those were made with Griffin's Case as the backdrop. The under --

JUSTICE KAGAN: I -- please.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, the understanding was that these congressionally established remedies would be exclusive of state court remedies. So there's not an express statement of preemption in these statutes, but there didn't need to be because Griffin's Case provided the backdrop.

Of course Kagan could have just been setting Mitchell up so she could spring a trap when the court rules. Maybe that will finally give me a chance to come to comprehend the why Section 3 must be a self executing civil remedy. But that seems unlikely after Kagan asked Murray later on:

"JUSTICE KAGAN: But maybe put most boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. "

My theory, and I guess Mitchell deserves a little credit for it too (although I haven't read his reply brief that Kagan cites), provides not only a solid basis in the law, but addresses Kagan's policy concerns too.

[Commenter_XY]

If I ever have a case before the Court, I want Jonathan Mitchell arguing it.

BTW, you're plenty smart. 😉

[Kazinski]

I've seen some criticisms of him for being too cautious, but it certainly looks like he will get the win.

[Josh R]

I thought the argument we criticized was “Congress shall have [the] power” was a grant of exclusive authority. I didn’t see any justice make that point. To the contrary, there might be a consensus that the states have the power to enforce 14.3 against candidates running for state and local office.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course they do. Because they'd have the power to do it even without section 3; They're state offices, after all, they don't need the US constitution to allow them to make such determinations.

The only question there is if Section 3 forced them to do it.

[Michael P]

Technically, states wouldn’t be enforcing 14.3 under those circumstances, they would be enforcing their own analogues of 14.3. But as you say, they surely have that authority with respect to offices and elected positions that they create.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, well I did write the brief that way, but I certainly opened with the fact that Congress had passed 2383 and that was the exclusive remedy.

But the only reason I wrote.the brief, which was good mental exercise, was I noticed that the 14th and 15th amendment had different wording in “The Congress shall have THE power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” And ran with that difference in wording. Turned out it was different because of a.scriveners error in 1996 when the National Archives digitalized the Constitution. Then someone noticed and told the National Archives and the updated the online version week after I wrote my paper. And I wanted to base almost my entire argument on the text of the constitution so I could get away with no footnotes, although Griffin's case made it stronger. If I had seen anyone else making that argument I wouldn’t have bother writing it up, but then came the correction a week later which undercut it significantly.

Then I also became aware of the Enforcement Act of 1870, which had been repealed in 1948. Baude had mentioned it, but had downplayed its import because it undercut his theses of self execution. Landmark Legal foundation and Ted Cruz’s both brought it’s significance to my attention.

So for about the last two weeks I focused on the Griffin’s case, the subsequent enforcement acts, and 18 USC 2383 as the mechanism of enforcement. I wish I had known about Sea Clammers preemption Which Mitchell brought up later in his argument, that makes it stronger coupled with Griffin.

[Michael P]

Slight correction: Section 2383 comes from the Confiscation Act of 1862. The Enforcement Act of 1870 enacted a quo warranto process to enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment in civil court, rather than in criminal court as for the Second Confiscation Act.

[Kazinski]

Except the 1870 act also had a criminal provision in Section 15, that gave prison sentences not for insurrection, but holding an office when disqualified.

Then the 1862 act was updated and modernized in the same 1948 act which repealed the enforcement act of 1870. Most significantly it removed confiscation of ones slaves as penalty for insurrectionists.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Except the 1870 act also had a criminal provision in Section 15, that gave prison sentences not for insurrection, but holding an office when disqualified."

I suppose as an element of the crime, they'd then have to prove during the trial that you WERE disqualified.

[Kazinski]

Yes, that's true and it would have to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

I suppose the Quo Waranto proceeding could remove someone based the lower civil standard, but fail on the criminal prosecution because of reasonable doubt and mens rea.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What an interesting point, Brett. It’s almost like Congress thought the disqualification didn’t require a conviction for insurrection, to the point where they were comfortable criminalizing a failure to self-disqualify!

[Kazinski]

Well if you are paying attention to Kagan it means Congress thought they could do whatever they wanted, as long as they passed the legislation.

Kagan: "it sounds like you’re not making a constitutional argument, you’re really making a statutory preemption argument....You’re not saying that the Constitution gives you this rule. It’s the kind of combination of Griffin’s Case plus the way Congress acted after Griffin’s Case... that gives you the rule?"

Yes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You do realize that quote is Kagan asking Mitchell to clarify what his position is, not her endorsing it, right?

[Kazinski]

Sure I do.

But she already seems to understand his point quite well. It appears she wanted to make sure it got enough attention.

As I said above: Of course Kagan could have just been setting Mitchell up so she could spring a trap..."

But where she fed an excellent summation of his argument to Mitchell, Murray got a question so tough as to be unanswerable (see above).

But by all means mock me in a week or so if I turn out to be wrong, I'll have it coming.

[Armchair]

It's far easier to insult someone than actually need to have coherent explanations why your position is correct.

[Kazinski]

That's one reason I don't go much in for insults, although throwing in a few digs, subtle or not is ok.

Its actually much more gratifying, to me at least, to get insulted repeatedly for not agreeing with their vociferously held, but poorly supported position, and not concede anything not earned, and be proved right at least by the arguments, that my position was sound all along.

The self executing civil procedure got no traction whatsoever, Sotomayor made a tepid effort near the beginning to cast some shade on Griffin, but Kagan swooped in to give Mitchell some seeming support and that was it.

[Frank Drackman]

Too many "I"s. It's not all about you.

[OtisAH]

“So I was gratified to see Justice Kagan must be just as slow as I am as she prompted Trump’s lawyer to offer a very similar theory.”

Seems his legal cosplay has metastasized. What a treat.

[Kazinski]

Law wouldn’t have been a bad vocation for me if I could have just started on the supreme court. But being an actual attorney never had any attraction to me, although I guess you’d get occasional compliments from your neighbors about your latest whiplash billboard on the freeway.

IT consulting was definitely my cup of tea career wise, good money with minimum hustle, I could go weeks without having to deal with bosses/clients.

Lawyering is hard work, there is also.accountability to clients and judges, and lots externally set deadlines, definitely not for me.

If it hadn't have been programming it would have been economics, that's where my real intellectual interests lie, but too much math.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been happy as a mechanical engineer, personally, but I kind of wish I'd gone with my first impulse, genetics; Never met a biology course I didn't ace.

How was I to know that "genetic engineering" would actually become a thing about the time I would have been graduating?

[Krayt]

“JUSTICE KAGAN: But maybe put most boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. ”

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

[tylertusta]

Of course I was corrected repeatedly, many times, over and over again. But I never quite grasped why I was wrong, other than I must be slow, which was suggested a few times.

Its actually much more gratifying, to me at least, to get insulted repeatedly for not agreeing with their vociferously held, but poorly supported position, and not concede anything not earned, and be proved right at least by the arguments, that my position was sound all along.

I’ve had a similar experience. Notice how they are either silent here, or at least are more respectful with their replies.

I’ve certainly noticed. Some of those whose first impulse was to insult others (Martinned, that’s you) are either silent or falling back on a “the Court is just gonna make it up!” argument.

Others here are a lot more respectful. I hold NOVA Lawyer in the highest regard as we carried through on a very nice conversation over multiple days.

Also, how do you format blockquotes? I start with
(blockquote) but am unable to exit. (replace () for )

[Magister]

Use <blockquote>text in blockquote</blockquote>
Don't start a comment with a blockquote or it swallows the whole comment.

[tylertusta]

That must have been it. I put it at the front of my comment and it was doing that.

Thank you!

[Life of Brian]

I put it at the front of my comment and it was doing that.

A not bad workaround is to start a comment with a zero-dimension element (e.g., an empty anchor tag – <​a​>​</a​>), then follow with the blockquote. That’s enough to keep the bug at bay

[Noscitur a sociis]

While I can't claim that an encyclopedic knowledge of the responses to your comments, I don't recall anyone insulting you for the section 2383 argument (and I'll charitably choose to believe you're being facetious by pretending to have originated it). Rather, they were just explaining why the argument was wrong. As Profs. Baude and Paulsen did exhaustively (though obviously not in response to you specifically) not long ago: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/05/the-objection-but-he-hasnt-been-convicted-of-anything/

[Kazinski]

I'm not going to call anyone out individually, they might stop calling me stupid.

There is nothing I enjoy more than being called stupid when I am very sure I'm right.

Well of course Baude and Paulson tried to make the case against 2383, but Kavanaugh even got Murray to agree that 2383 could be used to disqualify Trump. Mitchell agreed too, reserving the immunity and officers argument. Baude and Paulson might get one vote, when SCOTUS rules, so I was right to be skeptical of their reasoning.

[Krenn]

I'm trying to figure out the odds that SCOTUS actually does provide a useful path to disqualifying Trump after all. For example, by saying that a federal court can hear the case instead, or by asserting that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, or by saying that Colorado can do what it did, but that it isn't binding in any way on other states.

How often does SCOTUS do a complete turn-around from how it sounds like they're going to go in oral arguments? one time in a hundred? one time in five hundred?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it would particularly be a turn around if the Court ruled that it's Section 2383 or nothing. Or are you thinking that's not a useful path to disqualifying Trump?

[John F. Carr]

I see no principled way for the Supreme Court to rule that some court can bar Trump but this particular Colorado court can not. State courts are bound by federal law and can enforce federal law unless Congress has given some other entity exclusive jurisdiction. Because the claimed disqualification comes from federal law applied to one set of facts, the verdict should be uniform nationwide.

If the decision to bar Trump is upheld then in the next election cycle political activists will be headed to the friendliest county judge in the state with the most partisan Supreme Court and the best offensive nonmutual estoppel rules. The court will want to avoid setting up this scenario. Ruling that there is no implied private right of action to enforce the insurrection clause would avoid it. The whole trial is out of order!

The court could also duck the question by ruling that he President is not an officer of the United States or the facts alleged do not establish insurrection as a matter of law. The court could rule that more process was due, sending the case back to the trial court to repeat its factual findings after a longer trial and setting up a remach.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why do we keep seeing people announce failures of the imagination as though they told us something about the law?

It's perfectly principled for the Court to say, "18 USC 2383 or nothing". And state courts can't prosecute you for federal crimes.

[bernard11]

Because the claimed disqualification comes from federal law applied to one set of facts, the verdict should be uniform nationwide.

I agree. But isn't there a similar potential problem with the fact that legislatures can choose electors any way they like?

[Kazinski]

They are not going to rule that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction.
They probably will rule that 2383 is the exclusive remedy by adopting Griffin, Kagan really likes precedent, the originialists really like contemporary precedents, and all of them like when Congress passes laws to settle a matter.

There may also be the votes to rule based either on the "of our under" officers question, but perhaps they won't formally hold on the question, but I'd expect them to at least cast serious doubt on whether Section 3 actually disqualifies Trump to the point no one wants to challenge their dare.

However there are by my count at least 5 votes for Trump on the officers question. Jackson and Goresuch of course, but Roberts also wrote a majority decision in 2010 ruling that "Officers of the United States" referred exclusively to appointed offices, joined by Thomas and Alito (and Scalia and Kennedy), so that's 5 without counting Kavanaugh or Barrett or Kagan who might also go for it.

[Kazinski]

The NY Times had a story Saturday who's headline and sub headline told most of.the story:

"Why the Age Issue Is Hurting Biden So Much More Than Trump

Both Donald J. Trump and President Biden are over 75. But voters are much less likely to worry that Mr. Trump is too old to serve."

I don't have anything to add, I just posted so somebody can explain why its wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/10/us/politics/biden-trump-aging.html

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, this is really quite simple. It is differenT! 🙂

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Part of the reason people wrongly think that Biden’s age will be a greater impairment than Trump’s age would be, is probably that Biden tends to talk (and think) in a more subtle way about more complicated questions. It’s easier for cognitively-impaired-by-age Trump to say something like “the South American governments are sending rapists and drug dealers, who are bad people so let’s build a wall and keep them out” than for also-cognitively-impaired-by-age Biden to say something like “increasing the debt is not such a bad thing, if you use the money to fund more basic science (the long-term type of science, which cannot easily be funded by companies selling stock, because the science itself doesn’t bring profit; it only lays the foundation by discovering and clarifying natural laws and phenomena, some of which will be useful in order to invent profitable inventions, some time in the future.)”

[Brett Bellmore]

Three reasons people correctly think Biden's age is a greater impairment than Trump's age:

1: Biden is OLDER than Trump. Geeze, that one was obvious.
2: Biden has a history of brain bleeds, he starts out already somewhat impaired.
3: They both have glitches, but Biden's seem more characteristic of serious impairment. Policy disagreements such as you cited, of course, are not a sign of impairment, though I could be persuaded only somebody who was impaired would brag about Milton Friedman not calling the shots anymore, and then claim to be shocked inflation was back.

[bernard11]

When did Milton Friedman call the shots?

[David Nieporent]

1) Three years is not meaningful. And you people were making these claims about Biden four years ago, when Biden was younger than Trump is now.
2) Oh my god stop with your fucking bullshit. You're not a doctor, and even if you were, you've never examined him, so you're doubly unqualified to say this. I thought you had learned your lesson when you were humiliated by Fetterman's recovery, but apparently not. Biden had an aneurysm in fucking 1988. There have been none since, and you are pulling entirely from your ass your pretense that this has anything to do with anything.
3) False. Trump is far more seriously impaired, as is obvious to anyone who has ever listened to him. Remember, the MAGA defense of Trump is that he was/is so far mentally gone that he actually believed he had won the 2020 election.

[Commenter_XY]

David, are you saying that POTUS Trump is more cognitively challenged than POTUS Biden? Meaning, he would have even greater recall challenges for specific dates. Are you really saying that?

[Nige]

I’d be more interested in specific general knowledge pertinent to being president, such as economic policy, foreign policy, health care etc. How do you think he does with that?

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea whether Trump is good or bad at the specific task of remembering dates. (As others have pointed out, Trump was plenty forgetful when investigated by Mueller.) I absolutely think Trump is more cognitively challenged than Biden. I'm not saying Biden hasn't lost a step or two. I'm saying that Trump started many steps behind Biden, and has lost a step or five.

[Kenneth Almquist]

On March 11, 2020, Trump addressed the nation from the Oval Office and claimed that, “we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days” and said that this would go into effect on Friday at midnight. During the next two days, every flight from Europe to the United States was booked solid as Americans in Europe attempted to get back to the United States while they still could, resulting in huge lines at New York airports struggling to processes the influx of passengers, creating the perfect conditions for a superspreader event.

The executive order which Trump signed before giving the speech placed no restrictions on travel by United States citizens and permanent residents. I don't know whether Trump didn't understand what he was signing, couldn't remember what he was signing, decided to lie about what he had signed to make it sound more tough, or decided to lie about what he had signed because he enjoys chaos. Asking which candidate is better able to remember dates is kind of beside the point. The question is whether the candidate has a cognitive deficit, or perhaps a moral deficit, that compromises his ability to lead the country. Trump demonstrated that he did on March 11, 2020. I don't think you can point to a similar failing by Biden.

[bernard11]

It's pretty clear that Trump is an ignorant fool.

[Joe_dallas]

DN - most of the maga people agree that Trump is showing signs of being irrational at this point.

However your defense of Biden , pretending that he is not suffering from serious mental impairment is inane. You are simply denying the obvious for partisan purposes.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you captured President Biden's problem well. Listen to him you can see he understands the topic and his knowledge comes through. He is however at the age where details are not at the tip of your tong, and you have to search. Trump has the advantage because he doesn't understand anything, and he make a lot of stuff up on the way. The thing is Trump followers don't care and reality doesn't matter.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, Intelligent and Moderation: that is the nub of it. Biden is interested in being coherent and expressing non-simple ideas. Trump never worries about that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Biden tends to talk (and think) in a more subtle way about more complicated questions"

Speaking of cognitively-impaired. You are referring to Joe Biden?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kaz, can you imagine Biden surviving half of the crap that Trump has been subjected to? THAT's the difference.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

It's equally difficult to imagine Biden doing anything to bring the bad crap on himself that Trump has brought on himself.

Don't roll the dice if you can't pay the price.

[Nige]

Yes, it is hard to believe Democratic voters supporting a rapist and mutliple indictee who tried to illegally overturn an election.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is more evidence of Bidden being a rapist than Trump, and the indictments are political.

Notwithstanding that, Biden could not have survived a legal fuselage of the type Trump has.

[Nige]

Only in the Trumpian sense of 'evidence that isn't real.'

'Biden could not have survived a legal fuselage of the type Trump has.'

He doesn't have to because he hasn't done crimes.

[Moderation4ever]

It is unlikely that any politician could survive the evidence and indictments that Trump has against him. He is less like an American politician and more like a authoritarian foreign leaders. These leaders get away with things because no one dares challenge them. Trump can be challenged by the media, the people, even Republicans not running for office, but not by Republicans that still want an elected office. Those Republicans dare not challenge him. Mike Gallagher, Wisconsin 8th, has dropped out of running again after refusing to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas. Mike step out of line and MAGAs don't accept that.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot's memory erased of all mention of Bill Clinton

[Nige]

But why would it be right? Is it because the (oh so liberal) NY Times keeps pushing the idea? Their idea of levelling the playing field? Biden's age versus Trump's multiple criminal indictments. And being found liable for sexual assault. And regular utterly bizarre pronouncements. Oh, and age. So, more people JUST worry Biden's too old to serve, as opposed to all the baggage Trump has, and being too old.

[bernard11]

Yes.

The NYT is giving Biden's age the full Hillary's emails treatment.

Meanwhile, Trump encouraging Putin to attack NATO countries is less important to them.

href = "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/opinion/neuroscientist-on-biden-age-memory.html">Here is some information from someone who actually knows something about all this.

[Josh R]

Biden is four years older. Trump is starting to mess up the way Biden did four years ago while Biden appears worse. Biden will have to look good in a debate or interview (as he did in the debates in 2020) to convince people.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s an opinion piece, Kaz. Explaining why it’s wrong is as easy as saying ‘on the other hand, they could be wrong.’

[DaveM]

Exactly. Even here on the VC the bulk of comments are “just somebody’s opinion, man”. https://thedudesthreads.com/collections/leb-2024

[Sarcastr0]

To be fair, some such opinions include some logic and argument, rather than just bare ipse dixit.

But more and more it's just 'the world like this, and if you think I'm wrong it's because you are bad.'

[Commenter_XY]

After reading Special Counsel Hur's report, I am heartsick. I commemorate the yahrzeits of several family members, I know how deteriorated I would be if I ever forgot the date my Mom died, or my son died. So I have to ask.

If a Prosecutor, exercising his discretion, states that a legal case cannot be brought, in part because POTUS Biden is an elderly man with a poor memory, how is it that the White House physician has determined POTUS Biden is fit to hold office?

Is this not what the 25th amendment is for? This is a serious question.

Or is POTUS Biden an 'edge case' (not too far gone enough), and you need to wait for a stroke to turn POTUS Biden into a vegetable before removing him for office.

Or, is this just (D)ifferenT.

[Nige]

'in part because POTUS Biden is an elderly man with a poor memory,'

He didnlt say that. He merely anticipated it being used in an entirely imaginary defence. So, as usual, Biden's being held responsible for things that didn't happen.

'Or, is this just (D)ifferenT.'

Go back and check how many times Trump said 'I don't recall' during the Mueller investigation. And the charges Mueller decided not to pursue purely because Trump was president at the time. So as usual the (D)ifference is that Trump did far worse, and gets a pass.

[Brett Bellmore]

"He merely anticipated it being used in an entirely imaginary defence. So, as usual, Biden’s being held responsible for things that didn’t happen."

Technically, he anticipated it being used in an imaginary defense, so that, as usual, Biden wouldn't be held responsible for things that DID happen.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden will not be the nominee. Who will be? That is the question.

[Nige]

According to Brett, Harris has been POTUS since the middle of 2020, so I can't wait to hear his answer.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd be hard put to demonstrate anywhere I said anything of the sort. They're not letting Harris exercise any kind of power.

If he's a puppet, maybe Obama is the puppeteer. I'd need to see evidence of it, beyond him having said that he'd be open to that role, though.

[Nige]

Oh it goes back a way, understandable someone your age wouldn't remember.

[Brett Bellmore]

Notice you didn't actually provide any evidence of your fantasy, as usual.

[Nige]

Wow you have forgotten that you predicted Harris would take over before the year was out.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If Biden is still alive, he will be the nominee, and you’re delusional if you think otherwise.

[David Nieporent]

I wouldn't go quite that far. He could actually be incapacitated, and need to be replaced, even without dying. But it's not going to be because he has made some gaffes here and there.

[Nige]

'so that,'

Technically, the things that DID happen didn't amount to indictable offences, which is unfair, Biden should do crimes the way Trump does crimes, for balance.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, of course they did. He could have been indicted easily enough for blabbing to his biographer, for instance.

[Nige]

Why? They co-operated with the investigation and it was concluded that no charges had to be brought. Meanwhile Trump was showing off clasified documetna to randomers at Mar A Lago.

[Kazinski]

Doesn't take a stroke to put him irretrievably over the edge, maybe just one more year, say about Jan 21 next year.

[Nige]

Wow - 'Biden will be replaced by the VP after elected,' redux.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, where does the line get drawn, though? The SC released the report and it says what it says. The press conferences are painful to watch. The physical decline is evident.

What is the bright line. To me, I think we just crossed it with the report and the disastrous press conference performance afterward. Couple those with a refusal to be interviewed by CBS (we are talking CBS, a softball interview) during the Super Bowl (what politician in his right mind declines a chance to talk to 160MM+ voters???).

What is the line. What is the threat to America. Oh, and the Defense Secretary is out of commission now.

[Bwaaah]

We have no more of a legal determination that Biden is unfit for office than one that Trump is guilty of insurrection.

There is at least a criminal trial procedure for determining guilt. But a procedure for determining mental fitness to serve office? A bright line? (Mental fitness standards for politicians? lol)

We're way beyond any clear standard of fitness for being an elected official. It's not just a political decision, but one steeped in a culture of humanity that hates to talk openly about grandpa's disabilities, lest the conversation be expanded to include our own.

Like many of the ways that we are, this is another case of Big Stupid. (The DNC probably can't even produce somebody willing to lead the discussion.)

[Martinned]

We have no more of a legal determination that Biden is unfit for office than one that Trump is guilty of insurrection.

We don't? https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

[Bwaaah]

Oh. Yeah. The Colorado Trump decision. That's where the line is drawn on insurrection.

Oops. Looks like not everybody sees it that way, Martinned. (The clarity needs to exist beyond the inside of your head.)

And though Trump-as-an-insurrectionist-or-not may become clearer with subsequent court decisions, Biden as mentally suitable to be President will gain clarity like an infected pustule.

[Kazinski]

That decision is stayed right now, and on life support.

At least we an agreed process in the 25th amendment, if not a clear standard.

[bernard11]

The SC released the report and it says what it says.

And Hur's evaluation of Biden's mental fitness is worthless.

He's a lawyer, not a psychologist. He was asking Biden questions about events years earlier, at a time when Biden had more than the usual on his plate. Go look at the NYT link I posted above, for some valid information from someone who understands this stuff. Here it is again, correctly formatted.

(When did Trump sit down for five hours with Jack Smith, BTW, or does nobody want to talk about that?)

Hur had no business putting that in his report, but I guess he wanted to throw the cultists a bone. And there is no reason for you or anyone else to rely on it.

[David Nieporent]

Couple those with a refusal to be interviewed by CBS (we are talking CBS, a softball interview) during the Super Bowl (what politician in his right mind declines a chance to talk to 160MM+ voters???).

He did the same last year.

[myself]

After reading Special Counsel Hur’s report, I am heartsick. I commemorate the yahrzeits of several family members, I know how deteriorated I would be if I ever forgot the date my Mom died, or my son died. So I have to ask.

Of course you remember, if I read the tradition properly you specifically rehearse the date every year. Most people, don't do that. For some folks the calendar date is of critical emotional importance, for others it isn't.

I remember a ton of things about my fathers death, but the main reason I recall the year is by referencing it to other major events that happened at the same time. I don't find it that unlikely that Biden forgot or mixed up those years regardless of memory, especially since the son died of cancer meaning the date of the passing was more of an inevitability than a shock.

If a Prosecutor, exercising his discretion, states that a legal case cannot be brought, in part because POTUS Biden is an elderly man with a poor memory, how is it that the White House physician has determined POTUS Biden is fit to hold office?

Because the Prosecutor isn't a doctor and in fact sounds a like a partisan abusing their position to give their party some political fodder.

Trump just mixed up Obama and Biden in a speech again, why aren't you showing the same great concern about his faculties?

[Commenter_XY]

myself, that is true = Yahrzeit. It is a very important tradition.

I have to tell you: Your child dying, you don't forget. Ever. That did it for me.

[Bwaaah]

"Your child dying, you don’t forget. Ever. That did it for me."

I never much thought or understood this. Then, one day, a person I knew shared his experience of being a father, and of having lost his young child, slowly. (He functions ably now, but he is inescapably and essentially destroyed for life.)

There are very few things that I feel a need to block out of my head. Losing your child...that's one of them. (I can't think of any others right now.)

A corollary to that harshest of realities is the problem of being a non-political resident in a war zone. And then, your bystander child gets killed. And then what? (I just don't know how to find a limit to the scale of that loss.)

I hope you've been able to find a box for that. (Even if you have, it probably has holes in it.)

[Commenter_XY]

I would say it this way. A part of you is just dead. Like, just gone. You know when you sever a nerve...it is just dead. You're touching it, but it has no feeling, no use. No cauterization, just dead. And you know that something very important to your life was there, but it is dead, and gone. There is a little person running around in your head, screaming and wailing inconsolably. BTW, that part will never end. Ever. You learn to cope.

Or you don't.

It helps to have something to live for, like a DW or other children.

[Bwaaah]

That deadening makes sense to me. That's as healthy a response as I've heard. It sounds like it would sort of work.

Except for the little person running around in your head, screaming and wailing inconsolably.

The battle for life was too much for his marriage to withstand. He remarried, and had a healthy daughter who just graduated college. His wife and daughter are his reasons to remain engaged in life. He obscures the visions with alcohol. Death seems to be the only thing that will absolve him of his helplessness. He doesn't say that or talk about it, but I know it's true.

All power to you in coping with that.

[Commenter_XY]

That is why when I read that POTUS Biden could not tell SC Hur the date of his son Beau's death within several years; I knew. There is no way a parent can forget that. No way.

I have great compassion for POTUS Biden, but this man is simply not cognitively fit to be POTUS.

It is not a Democrat thing. It is not a Republican thing. It is an American thing. We have a very serious problem here.

[Nige]

Oh no Biden lost XYs vote.

[bernard11]

Bwaah and XY,

While I understand what you are saying, I think different people react to traumas of that sort in different ways. So just because Biden doesn't react the way you think he should, is no proof of anything.

I don't think it is uncommon to recall the events surrounding some incident, without remembering the actual date.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have never experienced a tragedy like losing my son in the way Biden lost his, and I hope I never do. So if he were to say that things affected him in a way where he can’t immediately recall the time and date, I’m open to believing him.

But instead, he responded by saying that he does remember everything about his son’s death, and that it’s outrageous that anyone would suggest otherwise. So what do we do with that?

[myself]

But instead, he responded by saying that he does remember everything about his son’s death, and that it’s outrageous that anyone would suggest otherwise. So what do we do with that?

Take it as what it is. The statement of a grieving parent who is outraged that someone would abuse a position of trust (federal prosecutor) to take a political shot at someone through the death of their child.

If you want to nitpick he remembers the things that matter, the specific numbers of the calendar aren't something that he thinks matters.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, to both points. The challengers look like opportunistic jerks reaching too far into a personal detail of life. He should have let those challenges stand, weak as they are. But instead, he does a tit-for-tat, invoking the "How dare they!" declarative, and, "Yes, I can jump through those very important hoops!"

I understand the hurting dad. But where was the thick skin of a President?

ouch.

[myself]

No one is claiming he forgot the death of his child.

The issue is the date on the calendar. You care about the date because that's tied into a tradition. Me? I remember the surrounding days and weeks in great detail, what I was working on, how I interacted with him, countless different moments from the period.

But the year? I don't give a damn about the year.

The only reason I remember the year of my father's death is it was close to a major world event (first invasion of Ukraine) that he would have cared about (being of Ukrainian heritage). If you asked me the year without that reference I might have to go looking for some documents or something.

I guess that's the reason I'm not that concerned about Biden's lapses. He definitely mixes up names and dates, but those are just labels. It's become more frequent meaning there's some decline, but he's always had that issue even at his peak.

I still haven't seen evidence that he's confusing underlying concepts, which is the thing that really matters. That doesn't mean he'll hold up for another 4 years, but I think his faculties are still generally working fine.

[Commenter_XY]

myself, you are right about the tradition part and me. Yes, it is intimately tied to my religious tradition. 100%, no debate. I will simply say that not remembering the year of your own child's death is unthinkable....religious tradition or no religious tradition. Sorry, that experience is too vivid and life-altering to ever forget.

You don't lose a child, and forget the date/year. No way. That is what did it for me, personally. There is just no fucking way you forget the year your kid died. If you do, you're cognitively impaired.

I do see your point about confusing the underlying concepts.

[Nige]

'You don’t lose a child, and forget the date/year.'

You don't speak for everyone who has lost a child. You just don't.

[Sarcastr0]

That's offensive enough, but about where Commenter is these days.

Remember, Commenter is the drip drip drip guy who thought Biden was on his way to resigning in disgrace any day now.

He also wants Employment Division v. Smith overturned. Over Covid restrictions.

Don't mistake him for disinterested; his 'more in sorrow than anger' shtick is reaching an outcome he's been into for a while.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"To be fair, some such opinions include some logic and argument, rather than just bare ipse dixit.

But more and more it’s just ‘the world like this, and if you think I’m wrong it’s because you are bad.’"

[myself]

I don't know your experiences, but a cancer death is different from an unexpected death. There's no shock, just the end of a long awful process where the person might not even be conscious at the end. The date just isn't that critical in that process. My memory around my father first getting sick is clearer than his eventual death. In both cases I can't really attach them to much else that was going on unless there was a specific link. The invasion of Ukraine, that connection I remember. What I was doing at work or school? I can't reference off that because they had zero connection to the important aspect of my father being sick.

I understand why those dates would be important to you. Can you understand why the date as a fact might not matter to others the same way? I can think of a few reasons why he might not recall the year off hand, a big one is it was devastating and he probably doesn't like dwelling on the details.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I totally understand = Can you understand why the date as a fact might not matter to others the same way? I can think of a few reasons why he might not recall the year off hand, a big one is it was devastating and he probably doesn’t like dwelling on the details.

It is psychological trauma like no other. That is the truth.

[myself]

Can't a reaction to that trauma be that he tries to avoid thinking about it?

I just don't understand why you're holding to this idea that he must be cognitively impaired to not recall the year when you're heard from multiple other people who also didn't really remember the year that loved ones died.

[bernard11]

That is similar to my experience. I remember the date my father died because it was the day before a holiday I was looking forward to.

I can't tell you the exact date my mother died, but I recall the surrounding events well - the phone call, the early morning flight, the hospital, etc. Does that mean my cognitive abilities are terrible? I don't think so.

And XY, just curious, does yahrzeit remind you the day of your father's death on the Gregorian calendar, or just the Hebrew?

[Commenter_XY]

I know this may sound strange considering the community; I observe by Gregorian date.

It was POTUS Biden not knowing the year of his son's death that really did it for me, bernard11. That was the tipping point (for me). Take away everything else, that remains for me. Other people have other things that stand out for them. That is fine. They can all argue that. That was the one.

That is when I just said: Whoa.

[bernard11]

Then you're a fool.

As I said elsewhere, people react to trauma in different ways. The death of a child is a tremendous blow, and different people will have different reactions.

It is wildly unreasonable for you to interpret his forgetting the date as saying anything about his mental faculties.

Stop watching Fox and OAN. You'll be better off.

[myself]

If you did lose a child you have my profound sympathies. A close friend of mine lost a child a few years back and simply remembering that conversation still haunts me. I can't imagine the effect it has on them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, likewise: I care a lot about both my father and my mother's deaths, but I'd have to work out exactly when they happened, for all that I still vividly remember them. THAT they died has enormous significance to me, the manner of their deaths, too. The calendar date has none at all.

[Bwaaah]

That “You-don’t-remember-the-date” angle is a really annoying gotcha. I don’t remember the dates. I never noted them in the first place. But the experiences are vivid in my head.

There’s a cruel insensitivity to that accusation about Joe forgetting that date. It’s nothing but a tricky way to capitalize on a tragic moment for totally unrelated purposes. It’s a low blow.

(Oops. It’s in reference to a POTUS. There is no blow that's too low.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Aha! You can't recall the date your son died! You must be too far gone to try for this offense!" isn't exactly an accusation.

Call it an insensitive excuse not to prosecute, from an independent counsel who knew he wasn't going to recommend prosecution, but was groping around for an excuse given all the evidence one was merited.

[bernard11]

If a Prosecutor, exercising his discretion, states that a legal case cannot be brought, in part because POTUS Biden is an elderly man with a poor memory, how is it that the White House physician has determined POTUS Biden is fit to hold office?

How is it? Easy. One guy is a lawyer with no relevant expertise iwhile the other is an actual physician.

[darkknight9]

Just a friendly reminder that one week from today is a fed holiday and in one of Gary Bettman's odder ideas* (which I fully admit worked, the crow was tasty) that means daytime hockey!
If you've ever wanted to go to or watch a game but are an early to bed, early to rise type person, The 19th might be your ticket.
Anaheim @ Buffalo 12:30 PM EST
Dallas @ Boston 1:00 PM EST
Toronto @ St Louis 1:00 PM EST
Vancouver @ Minnesota 2:00 PM EST
Detroit @ Seattle 3:30 PM EST
Edmonton @ Arizona 4:00 PM EST
Winnipeg @ Calgary 4:00 PM EST
Vegas @ San Jose 4:00 PM EST
Chicago @ Carolina 7:00 PM EST
Ottawa @ Tampa Bay 7:00 PM EST

*its my understanding that the first few years of this scheduling policy the league wanted to schedule games in areas with high concentrations of fed employees (ie no canuckleheads) but more teams wanted in on it.

[Frank Drackman]

Almost forgot, “(Slave Owning) President’s Day”!!

as usual, the Knee-Grows have to work, just another example of the Man keeping a Brutha down

Oh wait, those are Hockey teams, how many "Peoples of Color" currently on NHL starting, umm, what do you call them, "Lines"?
Last Black guy I remember playing Hockey was Bo Jackson on that Nike Commercial with Bo Didley

Frank “I’ll be working too”

[Bwaaah]

Another disparity, another injustice.

Or are we done with that dumbass inference rule? Yet?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What kind of sick person would want to wast w a perfectly good day off watching an NHL game?

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators, The Big Game was....really something. Congrats to the Chiefs. As a result of their game winning drive, I will now be collecting some winnings later this week. I have profited.

Wasabi aioli...I had not had that before. Tried with wings, and then fish. Anyone else have something totally out of the box, foodwise, for The Big Game that was memorable?

[Martinned]

You could really tell that the Deep State was starting to worry at halftime. But they still managed to turn it around.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm rather surprised that you haven't bloviated about the name Chiefs being demeaning and therefore must be changed, or some similar nonsense.

[Martinned]

I think those naming complaints are stupid. I think the Washington Redskins should have been able to keep their name too. But the market decided differently.

More generally, some of you keep forgetting: I'm not actually a leftie. I'm just to the left of many people on this blog.

[Michael P]

The market didn't decide to change the Redskins' name, a small group of elites did.

[Martinned]

Presumably because those elites like selling lots of merchandising and advertising. Every corporate decision is made by "a small group of elites". Usually those "elites" are referred to as "the board" or "the CEO". That doesn't change the fact that it's capitalism in action.

[Michael P]

A large majority of the public liked the old name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_opinion_polls

Now the team is a bottom-tier brand: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commanders-redskins-name-controversy-again/

[Martinned]

Opinion polls are what we in the economics profession call a method for eliciting "stated preferences". They are the opposite of "revealed preferences", which is the Jerry Maguire approach. If you're trying to sell your wares, those revealed preferences are what you ultimately care about. That's why there are still so many budget airlines that offer crap quality at low prices.

Of course, it's also possible that the Redskins made a mistake. Companies take stupid decisions all the time. That, too, is a problem that will be solved by capitalism. (In this case: the market for corporate control.)

[bernard11]

You are confusing what the general public thinks with what likely customers think.

The Redskins/Commanders don't actually give much of a shit what some people who are never going to buy a ticket, or merchandise, and will only watch the game as a last resort, think.

[Stephen Lathrop]

How much of, "capitalism in action," has to be embodied in government policy to justify putting the, "-ism," on, "capital?"

Or, alternatively, if government were acknowledged to have no small "c" constitutional economic valence, but instead was held to be responsive to whatever economic systemic preferences the sovereign People preferred, why would this nation's economic system still be counted capitalist?

[Martinned]

I'm not sure how you got to that from the discussion before, but I've always thought that the sharp distinction that some thinkers make between the capitalism that we have and economic systems in the past and elsewhere is artificial.

The ancient Romans had capitalism. Heck, so did the ancient Sumerians. Even most communist countries had a degree of capitalism most of the time. There are only a few cases of countries implementing unqualified communism. Russia in the 1920s, Cambodia under Pol Pot, maybe Mao's China for a while. That's about it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned, am I justified to question whether you give a different understanding to the, "-ism," when you see it applied to, "communism," than when you apply it to putative Sumerian capitalism? Might the former encompass a notion of a tighter link to government policy than the latter?

[Martinned]

I think capitalism is what happens when the government doesn't have a "policy" to the contrary. Absent positive government steps (introducing and safeguarding a form of currency, enforcing contracts through the courts, etc.) that capitalism might well by pretty simple, but hunter-gatherers bartering with each other is also capitalism in my view. (Even though hunter-gatherers presumably don't have any "capital", in the form of long-lived assets. I don't think that is essential at all.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned, so should I take the, "-ism," suffix to have an unstable meaning—implying a government enforced system in some cases of communism, but nothing to do with government in all cases of capitalism?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Also, Martinned, do you recognize the commonly-asserted notion that hunter-gatherers tend toward socialistic economic practices, however unsophisticated the economics? If so, and assuming you suppose maybe hunter-gatherers also bartered, why would that warrant conclusion that hunter gatherers were part-capitalist, and not instead conclusion that primitive capitalists who bartered were part-socialist?

The more I reflect, the more I wonder whether your idea is ideological that capitalism is what results in the absence of government.

[Martinned]

@Stephen: That depends on whether you think the absence of a policy to do X is the same thing as a policy to do "not X".

In any event, capitalism as it actually exists involves lots of government interventions, which result in capitalism working better or worse. That even includes things like the welfare state. As conservatives have understood since Bismarck, a generous welfare state is how you pay the losers of the economic system, in return for them not burning the place down.

[Don Nico]

SL,
-ism generally implies a structured political ideology. That has nothing to do with your idea of linguistic instability.
However, Martin explains capitalism quite appropriately.

in other contexts -ism is used in a much cruder sense, such as in Trumpism.

[Brett Bellmore]

The primary difference is that, prior to the industrial revolution, there was only so much "capital" could do. Excess productivity was so low that there was very little you could defer for investment, and not a lot you could invest it in that would increase productivity.

The industrial revolution really changed things in that regard.

Capitalism is one of those human advances like writing or agriculture, that once made, become irreversibly universal. There's no going back from it.

But it might, like agriculture, eventually become so productive that only a small fraction of the population have to be doing it...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, have you considered that many of the virtues and accomplishments commonly attributed to capitalism might more accurately be understood as accomplishments of coincidentally occurring industrialism? American capitalism became vastly more efficient after industrialization. So did Soviet communism.

[Martinned]

For the record, I use "capitalism" to refer to any economic system that relies on free exchange of goods and services. So feudalism isn't capitalist to the extent that it requires the peasants to be peasants and pay rent whether they want to or not, but peasants trading amongst themselves is capitalism, and so is lords buying and selling estates. And if the peasants are free to leave and move to another lord's estate, that moves the system a lot closer to capitalism too.

[Brett Bellmore]

I use it to refer to the practice of deferring enjoyment of gains, but instead investing some of the gains into things that will increase future gains.

So you can have a free market without capitalism, if it's a market in goods that are incapable of being produced using deferred income. Trading existing works of art back and forth, for example. While communism IS a form of capitalism, it's just state rather than private capitalism.

[bernard11]

I don't think that's accurate, Brett.

I mean, at some point way back when, people started generating food surpluses. It was no longer necessary for everyone to work at food production, so people could undertake other tasks. Often, those were military, sort of, but not always.

Is it hard to imagine someone saying, "Throg over there has been fooling around with axes, and thinks he can make them stronger and sharper. Why don't we let him work on that, since we don' really need him for the hunting party. Besides, he's a lousy hunter anyway."

That's investment, as is managing a herd so it can grow. In a few millennia you've got armies, and cathedrals and priests and cabinetmakers and who knows what. Sure, it was slow, but it happened.

[Noscitur a sociis]

More generally, some of you keep forgetting: I’m not actually a leftie.

What's that saying about fish and water?

[Kazinski]

My wife insisted on betting $50 on the game, she took.Taylor Swift's team, and the Taylor Swift shots were the only thing that held her attention.

God help me.

I grew up a 49ers fan during the Brodie years, and I still have some fondness, but many years in a Seattle and the division rivalry has created some emotional distance. And there are some family considerations, my kids will put up with me being a conservative republican, but being a 49er fan might drive a wedge in our relationships.

[Commenter_XY]

You have any good food during The Big Game, Kaz?

[Kazinski]

Oh, made nachos and bean queso dip. But wasn't having a party and my household aren't really heavy eaters.

[Bwaaah]

Wasabi aioli. With wings, and then fish.

What'd you think? How was it?

[Commenter_XY]

It was good! I mean, I generally have wasabi when I have sushi. Every once in a while, I grab it from Wegman's (it got expensive!). So, some wasabi with sushi, pretty good.

Think ranch dressing appearance, but a little thicker....and a seriously nice kick if you are into spice. I will be getting that recipe. In this instance, it was organic homemade mayo as the starting base, to which wasabi and other spices was added.

Fish....think fish sticks, but seriously amped. Nothing special.

The BK whatchamacallit....is on my list. I will be traveling soon. Might have to hit it and try it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Real wasabi, or green dyed horse radish? I think I've had real wasabi once in my life, it was absolutely superior to the horseradish.

I've tried growing it, but it's a tricky plant to grow.

[Commenter_XY]

It was the real, but green. From Japan.

[Brett Bellmore]

The real IS green, that's why they dye the horseradish green, to look like it.

[Bwaaah]

The thought of the kick of the wasabi (like the spice in the spicy chicken) makes me have to shut my mouth lest I should start to drool. But my salivary glands do go wild.

Sounds like good dipping flavor for all kinds of things.

[Commenter_XY]

You can adjust it, too. That is what amazed me. It is incredibly versatile.

[theobromophile]

Nothing special - burrata with tomatoes and basil for an app, vegetarian chili as a main dish. Husband piled the chili on a hotdog; son contemplated having a hot dog. Cat asked for pets and treats. Cocktails were a Gold Rush (good) and a Horsefeather (meh).

[Commenter_XY]

Well, enjoy your caffeinated beverage (your screen name), and thanks for the response.

What went wrong with the Horsefeather?

[Martinned]

Finland has elected ex-Prime Minister Alexander Stubb president. Pekka Haavisto, his opponent, has already conceded.

[NOVA Lawyer]

He conceded?!? Who does that anymore? Didn't he get the memo about whining and blaming all personal failures on the Deep State?

[Martinned]

However much I'd planned to spend less time here talking about Trump, since that clearly doesn't lead to productive conversation, I thought I'd nonetheless give people the opportunity to explain why Trump was right to invite Russia to invade Poland and Estonia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65en3SHr6nU

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think he was trying to impress on Poland & Estonia the need to invest in national defense.

[Martinned]

You mean the Poland that spends more (as a % of GDP) than the US does? And the Estonia that also spends well above the 2% norm? https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

Poland Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2024 2.3% in 2020. Trending up substantially since Trump talked to them.

U.S. Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2024 3.72% in 2020.

There appears to be some disagreement here with your source.

But, you know, Poland is a much poorer country than the US, and happens to border on a really bad neighborhood, so, yeah, you'd kind of expect them to have higher defense spending relative to their economy than we do; They have greater need of it!

[Nige]

And now they're a poorer country that happens to border on a bad neighborhood with an ally potentially soon to be lead by a guy who promised to encourage the bad neighborhood to invade.

[Martinned]

My source was for after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It may surprise you to learn that Poland substantially increased its defense spending in recent years.

[Zarniwoop]

Poland Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2024 2.3% in 2020. Trending up substantially since Trump talked to them.

I think you misattribute why Poland might have increased spending.

1) "Because of what Russia is doing" is a far better explanation than "Trump talked to them" for increases that occurred after Trump left office. If it's because of Trump, why weren't the increases in 2018, 2019, 2020?

2) If your thesis that it's the President that's responsible is correct ... Poland increased their spending while Biden is POTUS, not Trump.

FFS, the world doesn't revolve around Trump's blatherings.

[Martinned]

Well, sort of. I think you can reliably predict that if the US elects a dangerous lunatic for president again, European defence spending will go up. But I don't think that's a development that would serve any US interest.

[Zarniwoop]

Oh I absolutely agree with both the likelihood of increased spending, and that the dangerous lunatic will torpedo US interests through some toxic mixture of isolationism, hubris, and flat-out ignorance about foreign relations.

I just disagree with Brett giving Trump credit for increases that happened after he left office while ignoring the big red bear in the room as a cause, because of some handwavy "Trending up substantially since Trump talked to them" foolishness.

[Brett Bellmore]

I linked to a graph of Poland's defense spending, which certainly looks like an upward trend while Trump was in office. From $9.16B in 2016, to $13.72B in 2020.

Yeah, I doubt Poland needed a talking to. Unlike, say, Germany...

[Martinned]

So basically what you're telling me is that Poland, a country that is generally the most pro-US country in Europe apart from the UK, thinking it can no longer rely on the US honouring its obligations under the NATO treaty is somehow a good thing?

If you don't believe that Poland is an important US ally in Europe, that it may not want to offend, look at their response to the US attack on Yemen:

Officials from U.S. allies Britain and Poland issued statements in support of the U.S. actions, citing Washington's right to respond to attacks and warning that Iran proxies were "playing with fire."
(...)
Another NATO ally, Poland, also condemned Iran and the groups it allegedly sponsors.

"Iran's proxies have played with fire for months and years," Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said as he arrived for an EU meeting in Brussels, "and it's now burning them."

https://www.rferl.org/a/us-strikes-iran-targets-syria-iraq-/32803839.html

[Krayt]

So basically what you’re telling me is that Poland, a country that is generally the most pro-US country in Europe apart from the UK

And the Netherlands. These are not devotions the US should abuse.

[Martinned]

Yes, the Netherlands too. But our most recent elections gave a plurality of the votes to a guy who is subsidised by the Kremlin, so you may not want to rely on the Netherlands too much.

[Michael P]

2023 was a one-year anomaly in Poland's spending, probably related to buying lots of goodies for Ukraine. See Table 3 of that report.

[Martinned]

That still doesn't explain why Trump was trying to shake them down for more protection money.

[Armchair]

Who do you think is protecting who?

You really think Poland's going to start stationing soldiers on US soil to protect the US?

[Martinned]

"That's a lovely country you've got there. It would be a pity if something happened to it."

[Armchair]

I know it sounds good in your head, but the truth is closer to something like "You should really invest in your own personal security"

Remember, the US isn't getting any money out of the deal.

[Nige]

No, that is not what he said. It's not remotely what he said. He's shitting on US allies.

[bernard11]

Let Putin reconstitute the Soviet Union.

No skin off our nose. Right, Armchair?

[Sarcastr0]

World events have an effect on the United States, even if they are below an actual war with us.

[Armchair]

Encouraging countries to pay for their own national defense is in the interests of the United States.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll disagree with QA a bit here - collective security has proven a much more effective way to prevent conflict than individualized national defense postures.

Moreover, being the big spender in NATO gives us a lot of pull as to what it does. This is absolutely helpful in getting our foreign policy goals met.

Pericles or one of those ancient Greek guys said something to the effect of 'we didn't seek an empire, but now that we got it we can't throw it away or betwee spite and greed we will be conquered and picked clean.'
I'm not a huge fan of the bloated Pentagon budget, but advocating for a policy of isolation is ignorant of one of the most common historical lessons.

[Martinned]

That might have been the rationale for Athens invading Sicily during the First Peloponnesian War, after Pericles had already died. But yes.

Also yes, part of the context here is that the US is arguably overspending on defence, meaning that asking others to spend the same percentage of % would be unreasonable. (Equally arguably the US is spending about the right amount on defence, but much of that spending serves other purposes than defence, such as allowing the US to tell other countries what to do.)

[Martinned]

@QA: No, but (as with the Delian League) the dispute is about what a "fair share" is.

[Sarcastr0]

There is some middle ground between parity with US GDP proportion to defense, and the current commitments of NATO countries.

I wouldn't mind a bit more ownership of a nation's committment to security, even as I think shitting on NATO for being somehow unfair to the US is insane.

[Michael P]

"[...] asking others to spend the same percentage of % would be unreasonable."

The US is not asking other NATO members to spend the same fraction of GDP that the US does -- but only what they committed to (slightly more than half of what we do).

[Martinned]

@Michael: No, that's why I used a form of phrasing ("would") that indicates that I was talking about a hypothetical situation.

[David Nieporent]

Only to an extent. The U.S. has never wanted NATO countries to be self-sufficient; it has viewed that as a threat to its own dominance in the organization. And with Germany in particular — as you reference below — one of the points of NATO was to discourage them from re-arming after two World Wars.

(The old quip when NATO formed was that the organization's function was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.)

[Absaroka]

Ismay said that in 1952. That was a time when strategic thinking was swinging pretty fast because, inter alia, the USSR went thermonuclear in 1953.

West Germany didn't join NATO until 1955. By the late 50's anyway, my sense was we viewed a strong Bundeswehr as crucial to European defense. This was the era when US troops in Germany were only considered a speedbump ensuring US nukes would be in play, but I think everyone hoped the Red Army could somehow be stopped short of nukes, and that wasn't going to happen without a strong Bundeswehr. Neither the US nor Brits had enough conventional strength to stop the Soviets without the Germans.

[Michael P]

Defense spending is not what normal English speakers mean when they say "shake down for protection money".

And as was just explained to you, Poland has nasty neighbors and should be expected to pitch in for their own defense.

[Martinned]

Defense spending isn't, but what Trump was doing is.

[Michael P]

No, it wasn't. He used tough rhetoric to convince them to come closer to meeting the commitments they made. None of that was dependent on them giving money to the US or any foreigner.

[Martinned]

Tough rhetoric like "'No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.'"?

[Michael P]

Yes. That's what normal English speakers mean when they say "tough rhetoric".

[Nige]

No, that's what English speakers call 'pro-Putin' rhetoric.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If Biden had said what Trump did, you'd be lubing up your rifle and donning your camo cosplay to assassinate him yourself.

Fuck off with your disingenuous bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, this is just the usual "Anything Trump does must be crooked!" bloviating.

What do you claim he was doing? And prove it.

[Nige]

Does Trump even know what he's doing?

[bernard11]

What do you claim he was doing? And prove it.

I claim he was saying he would encourage Russia to attack NATO countries and do whatever they want, if those countries didn't increase their defense spending.

He also said "You have to pay your bills," which is absolutely laughable coming a giant deadbeat.

My proof is his words.

What do you think he was doing?

[Armchair]

From the context, he's encouraging NATO countries to invest in their national defense.

NATO countries (aside from the US and 1-2 outliers) have very low rates of contribution to their national defense. Most don't hit the guideline of 2% of GDP. Which really, is a bare minimum. It's especially notable in the big countries...Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Canada.

Now, from their perspective, it is far more "effective" for the US to pay for the NATO countries national defense. They can cut defense spending to the bone, then rely on the US to come save them when Russia comes knocking. I mean, why spend tens to hundreds of billions of dollars a year on National Defense, if you have the US as an ally. They'll just come in and act as a deterrent or save you. And you can spend all that defense money on something else, like lower taxes.

From the US's perspective...it's an abuse of the alliance. And perhaps some tough love is needed to kick these countries into shape. There are historic stories of German Soldiers training with broomsticks instead of guns, because of defense cutbacks.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1414714/ursula-von-der-leyen-news-eu-ban-exports-vaccines-defence-army-germany-spt

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, Trump was so open about this being the goal that it's just disingenuous to pretend he was encouraging a Russian invasion.

[Nige]

He literally said he would encourage an invasion.

[Armchair]

Only if you take everything out of context.

[Nige]

It's literally what he said. It wasn't even a brain fart or a slip.

[apedad]

How the fuck do you take "invasion" out of context?!?

[Armchair]

By removing all the conditionals.

[Nige]

There are no conditionals that make encouraging an ally to be invaded by an enemy not a massive foreign policy blunder.

[Zarniwoop]

If I parentally disapprove of clothing my kid is wearing, encouraging bad people to rape them is not a proper response.

[Sarcastr0]

Explain the context, then.

[Armchair]

From the context.. he’s encouraging NATO countries to invest in their national defense.

NATO countries (aside from the US and 1-2 outliers) have very low rates of contribution to their national defense. Most don’t hit the guideline of 2% of GDP. Which really, is a bare minimum. It’s especially notable in the big countries…Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Canada.

Now, from their perspective, it is far more “effective” for the US to pay for the NATO countries national defense. They can cut defense spending to the bone, then rely on the US to come save them when Russia comes knocking. I mean, why spend tens to hundreds of billions of dollars a year on National Defense, if you have the US as an ally. They’ll just come in and act as a deterrent or save you. And you can spend all that defense money on something else, like lower taxes.

From the US’s perspective…it’s an abuse of the alliance. And perhaps some tough love is needed to kick these countries into shape. There are historic stories of German Soldiers training with broomsticks instead of guns, because of defense cutbacks.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1414714/ursula-von-der-leyen-news-eu-ban-exports-vaccines-defence-army-germany-spt

[Martinned]

From the context.. he’s encouraging NATO countries to invest in their national defense. NATO countries (aside from the US and 1-2 outliers) have very low rates of contribution to their national defense.

So your theory is that Trump said that he would hand over Poland to the Russians because Poland only spends [checks notes] 3.8% of its GDP on defense, and Trump thinks it should spend more?

Like I said upthread, acting like a deranged lunatic is a great way to get lots of countries to spend more money on military hardware, but it's also a great way to get countries to tell the US to fuck off the next time the US wants help going after the Chinese, or protecting its war criminal friends in the Middle East.

[Armchair]

Where does Trump say Poland? In particular?

As I repeatedly noted, there were "1-2 outliers". Poland is currently an outlier

[Martinned]

You're right, Russia could be invading Finland as well. But you may want to look at a map and check how many NATO countries border Russia and/or Belarus. Because that certainly isn't Germany (anymore).

[Armchair]

1. So, Trump never actually says Poland....
2. You don't necessarily need a land border to invade a country.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair, it’s become clear you have absolutely no self respect. Listen to QueenA. Follow CommenterXY’s example. What he said was dangerously stupid.

If anything, your arguments have just highlighted that fact.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not the context! That's not what Trump was saying at all!

You're writing an entire essay that Trump didn't say so you can provide 'context.'

That's not context, that's fiction.

And, because you wrote it, it's ignorant of anything regarding actual NATO policies and effects on the world.
It's just RT talking points.

[Armchair]

"That’s not context, that’s fiction."

You can believe what you want, but the facts of the situation are clear. "NATO countries (aside from the US and 1-2 outliers) have very low rates of contribution to their national defense. Most don’t hit the guideline of 2% of GDP."

But if you insist on considering facts like these fiction, well...

[Sarcastr0]

So context usually means there is something else in that is being said that makes it not look as bad as it does.

It doesn't mean look over here at a completely different statement on the subject lets argue about that.

As to your 'facts'? They are a mix of facts and opinionl, and you are unable to tall the difference, I guess.
"Very low" is not a fact. It's an opinion.
Apart from not being a fact 'very low' or not is immaterial to whether the US is getting utility out of NATO for what we put in.

You would need to be very stupid to think an appropriate solution is 'encourage Russia to invade.' But IIRC your idea is American isolationism wherein we leave NATO in a snit, which is almost as dumb.

[Armchair]

I'm done with you and your avoidance. I put percentages right below it to quantify.

If you don't want to engage, then don't.

[Sarcastr0]

The bare percentages tell us what?

You're appealing to some sense of fairness like we're splitting the cost of a meal.

As I already said, you complain about things that are "immaterial to whether the US is getting utility out of NATO for what we put in."

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair, You have probably noticed that Sarcastr0 deals in transfacts. These transfacts are his opinions that identify as facts in his mind. And then he shares these transfacts with Readership. ????

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You posted that same bullshit already.

We were hoping for something resembling honesty. A futile hope, given your track record of blatant lies, but hope nonetheless.

Anyone who supports what Trump said is an enemy of the United States and should be treated accordingly. You're literally excusing Trump's intent to abandon our international obligations, violate our treaties, encourage a belligerent enemy of ours to destroy our allies, and subsequently become a stronger, bigger enemy.

Biden should be bringing back the Obama drone strikes immediately.

[Armchair]

"Anyone who supports what Trump said is an enemy of the United States and should be treated accordingly." "Biden should be bringing back the Obama drone strikes immediately."

Is that a death threat? Did you just say that Biden should order an assassination strike against me?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Oh look, it's the pathological liar who can't bring himself to admit, let alone apologize for his blatant dishonesty. I thought that with you having run off like a bitch several times to avoid your lies, that you must have muted me, since no real man would have been such a coward.

Allow me to complete the quotation that you omitted:

"You’re literally excusing Trump’s intent to abandon our international obligations, violate our treaties, encourage a belligerent enemy of ours to destroy our allies, and subsequently become a stronger, bigger enemy."

No, that wasn't a death threat you fucking tool. That attitude is an existential threat to the very existence of the US and the free world. If you choose to act like an enemy of this country then the government should absolutely treat you like one, including drone strikes.

Biden would never do it, so you have nothing to worry about, except the previously-mentioned consequences. Since those don't seem to bother you either, you can just continue your little cult project and treasonously support America's enemies.

Lucky you!

[Armchair]

Flagged, muting for advocating for the assassination of posters here.

Close enough to a death threat in my book

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Oh noes!

The guy obsessed with 'aid and comfort to the enemy' suddenly cries foul when his willingness to support someone hell-bent on WW3 and the destruction of our allies gets called out for what it is.

Why would Biden have to use a drone against you when he could just eliminate Trump and deal with the root of the problem? You're just a treasonous nobody.

[Nige]

Can you point to the part where he discussed military spending relative to GPD in allied countries?

[SimonP]

I don't know how many times, or how many different ways, that Trump needs to signal that he won't respond to an attack on a NATO ally, for you cucks to get the message.

"He just wants member nations to contribute more to the collective defense," sure, but you don't do that by threatening to scrap the alliance if they don't. That's not "tough love." That's extortion. That's saying, "The strength of this alliance depends entirely upon whether you give me what I want," and today that might be hitting a GDP percentage, and tomorrow it might be "a favor" targeting a political opponent or an outright transfer of cash to an overseas slush fund of his choosing.

And publicly signaling your intentions to Russia is boneheaded in the extreme. Like, you chucklefucks don't stop to think about how Trump's actions now - designed to weaken Biden's standing and promote chaos during the campaign - ultimately put Trump in a worse negotiating position to pursue whatever policy he might like, after being elected. He's done that on Ukraine - since Putin knows that Trump will cave on everything relating to Ukraine, Putin doesn't have to face a "forever war" in Ukraine and can wait out the election. And now he's doing it on NATO, pushing NATO to price in an American failure to follow through on its obligations and encouraging Putin to take a more aggressive stance on Moldova, Kaliningrad, and the Baltics.

So Trump gets in and - what? He now has to negotiate disengagement from Ukraine from a position of weakness and will either try to negotiate with a NATO that has already moved away from the US or try to reach a "grand bargain" with Putin while the alliance is splintered.

None of you idiots get it. You're just like Trump, carrying his water like you're unpaid shills trying to win the news cycle. But everything that Trump is doing now makes what he claims to want do during a second term later much harder and more costly for American interests. He's giving up negotiating leverage before he even has a seat at the table, and attacking a president who is trying to maintain that leverage.

At some point, you'll need to answer for why he's doing that.

[DaveM]

Your curses and insults blunted every hard point you tried to make. They made you sound overly emotional, which is very distracting, and raised questions in my mind about what to believe, your argument or your passion.

[Martinned]

Emotional seems like exactly the right response to the end of the American Republic as we know it.

[SimonP]

Cute. Tone policing.

What this kind of remark takes for granted is this idea that I am somehow worse-off, or not getting what I want, by dissuading people from responding with my rhetoric. But I actually don't give a shit!

If one of you knobheads wants to try to spackle together a response that I can then pick apart for its easily anticipated strawmen, red herrings, non sequiturs, and so on, you can feel free. But I don't care whether you do or not. You're not doing me a favor by responding. My argument remains correct regardless of whether it attracts a substantive response from the peanut gallery, and it remains correct regardless of whether some self-lobotomized fuckwit feels it necessary to chastise over my rhetoric.

You can stop being a whiny bitch who will declare internet "victory" just because I'm not civil, or you can be a retarded troll. It doesn't matter much to me. I know what to expect of the VC commentariat.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, you’re just making an excuse for yourself.

And you can’t even be honest about that.

"I would stand against Trump threatening to encourage our enemies to attack our allies, but your words made my feelz hurt!"

Fuck off.

[Zarniwoop]

Trump's policy vis-a-vis Russia can be summed up as giving them what they want, hoping to get "peace for our time".

[Krayt]

And lack of red tape for skyscrapers?

[OtisAH]

Turnip thinks NATO is a U.S.-led protection racket wherein the euros pay use to defend them. Turnip is an extremely dangerous idiot. The folks who will chime in to agree NATO *is* a U.S.-led protection racket are also idiots, just far less dangerous on an individual basis. But collectively? Oh man.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I thought I’d nonetheless give people the opportunity to explain why Trump was right to invite Russia to invade Poland and Estonia."

The obvious answer is that he didn't.

He said that if they didn't bother paying for their own defense, THEN he might.

[Martinned]

How exactly does that make it better?

[Brett Bellmore]

What's the difference between saying to your room mate, "I'm going to throw you out into the blizzard." and saying, "I'm going to throw you out into the blizzard if you don't start paying your share of the rent, you freeloader."?

I think there's a pretty big difference between the two.

[Martinned]

The notion of killing your roommate is pretty, euh, chilling regardless. In both cases I think the outcome would be that your roommate moves out as soon as possible, because they don't want to live with a homicidal maniac. If that's your objective, I guess: succes?

[SimonP]

Though offered only in bad faith, Brett's analogy usefully illustrates why Trump's gambit is so stupid.

Because you're right that the non-paying roommate might just move out and find a place they can afford on their own. That leaves the Trump roommate paying all of the rent for the apartment they hadn't initially expected to be renting alone.

And all at a time when rent pressures are increasing, not decreasing.

Pushing NATO to become primarily a Europe-only alliance - which is where Trump's gambit most likely gets us - means wrecking the military alliance at precisely the same time that China is planning a takeover of Taiwan and global conditions are rising for a resurgence of international terrorism - to say nothing of Ukraine, Gaza, or unrest across Africa. Trump's strategy will leave - is already leaving - America in a weaker position while the globe is moving towards a multipolar geopolitics. And while MAGA may not think this directly affects them, it will, as kleptocratic governments insinuate them more and more deeply into domestic politics.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That leaves the Trump roommate paying all of the rent for the apartment they hadn’t initially expected to be renting alone."

Well, that's a silly take on it. About the only circumstance under which we're going to be directly under attack for reasons other than defending somebody else, is a global war. We created NATO in the first place because the other nations MORE at threat from Russia were too poor at the time to defend themselves.

So we entered into a mutual defense pact to spare their feelings, never actually expecting them to be of any use if WE ever got attacked.

Well, gee, plenty of the current members of NATO have bigger GDPs than Russia. Even Italy is within spitting distance of their GDP! So it's not like they actually NEED us to defend them now. They're just leaching off us.

NATO has really outlived its original purpose, or at least our purpose in forming it.

[Martinned]

They’re just leaching off us.

And so the sane, rational response is to "encourage" Russia to start World War III?

[SimonP]

Well, that’s a silly take on it. About the only circumstance under which we’re going to be directly under attack for reasons other than defending somebody else, is a global war.

What's silly is watching you flail about on geopolitics even worse than you do when commenting on domestic policy.

When NATO was established, an attack on the territory of the US was a real fear. Do you remember the Cold War?

The US also has its own interests in maintaining peace in Europe. Again, do the World Wars ring any bells for you?

Never mind that NATO has provided a security framework for addressing other security threats that do implicate American interests, whether it's global terrorism, Afghanistan, China and North Korea, and so on.

You, like Trump, somehow think that America's invulnerability emanates from the purported "strength" of its president. But an America without allies is an America that will come under attack.

[Nige]

'They’re just leaching off us.'

No. They're not. They're not even leeching off the US.

[SimonP]

What’s the difference between saying to your room mate, “I’m going to throw you out into the blizzard.” and saying, “I’m going to throw you out into the blizzard if you don’t start paying your share of the rent, you freeloader.”?

What's useful about this analogy is that it helpfully illustrates why Trump's threat is still wrong and self-destructive, even as caveated.

In what circumstances does a roommate have the right to summarily toss out the other roommate, for non-payment of the rent?

If the landlord is looking for any opportunity to evict both roommates, how does one roommate making this threat to the other help to forestall that outcome?

[bernard11]

How about, “I’m going to throw you out in the street and tell some of the neighborhood thugs I’m doing it, so they can mug you?"

[Nige]

Do you actually think he knows how much those countries spend on defence? Or cares? He made up a NATO subscription service that doesn't exist. Now all his supporters claim NATO allies aren't paying their subs, and it's true, given that there are no subs. Some of you are rattling about defence spending. Trump doesn't know shit about defence spending in those countries.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An interesting case going to the 1st circuit -- another school t shirt case: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/02/09/two-genders-t-shirt-case-goes-in-front-of-federal-appeals-court/?p1=hp_featurebox

With a twist: "...the potential mental health impacts for LGBTQ+ students..."

This is the ultimate of bullying -- preventing free speech because others will commit suicide if exposed to it. If they are that fragile, they should be locked up in the nuthouse.

[Martinned]

I have many doubts about the idea that an 8th grader has an (informed) opinion about gender, but I think most of these cases where schools regulate unpopular views on T-shirts etc. are bullshit. Let the kid wear his shirt.

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, isn't their having an informed opinion about gender actually the point of schools starting in talking about that stuff as early as possible? If it's not working we should stop it.

Ed has a point, I think. We've all been through K-12, I assume. If you're fragile enough that seeing a t-shirt with a message you don't like would drive you to suicide, you've got no business being in a normal school with normal kids, you should probably be spending your time in some special sheltered environment.

[VinniUSMC]

I have many doubts about the idea that an 8th grader has an (informed) opinion about gender

Uh-oh, watch out, you might get labeled a RWNJ for espousing such radical views.

[Krayt]

It's trying! "Look at this brain scan! Damage! Therefore government can shut you up!"

It's trying to escape into the wild!

[theobromophile]

It's a lame attempt to meet a compelling state interest for having a content-based speech restriction. But they don't see the flip side of that: if you cannot stand seeing a t-shirt like that, you need help, not to shut down speech.

[Nige]

You're right. The t-shirt is a sign of bigotry, but isn't much of a threat. Checking the genitals of young people playing sport. Now that's a threat. Accusing random young people of being trans as if they were some sort of horrific evil. That's a threat.

[Martinned]

Big judgment in the Court of Appeals in The Hague this morning, in Oxfam Novib v. The Netherlands. (Because in the Netherlands there is no sovereign immunity nonsense that stops people litigating directly against the government.)

The Netherlands has to stop the export of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel
(...)
The court finds that there is a clear risk that Israel’s F-35 fighter jets might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law. Israel does not take sufficient account of the consequences of its attacks for the civilian population. Israel’s attacks on Gaza have resulted in a disproportionate number of civilian casualties, including thousands of children. The Netherlands is a party to several international regulations which stipulate that if a clear risk of serious violations of international humanitarian law exists, the Netherlands has the obligation to prevent the export of military equipment. This means that the export of F-35 parts from the Netherlands to Israel has to be stopped. By deciding that the export license for deliveries of F-35 parts to Israel should not be revoked, the Minister has failed to comply with this international obligation of the Netherlands. The court orders the State to stop the export of F-35 parts to Israel within 7 days.

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/The-Netherlands-has-to-stop-the-export-of-F-35-fighter-jet-parts-to-Israel.aspx

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the US then ends export of F-35 parts to the Netherlands.

[Martinned]

Unlikely. A Biden White House wouldn't be so short sighted, and a Trump White House only cares about the Benjamins, and will sell stuff to whoever is paying.

But yes, there's definitely a good case to be made for the Dutch armed forces to source more of its material in Europe instead of the US. It's pretty outrageous that we didn't sign up for the Eurofighter programme, for example.

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

[Frank Drackman]

Actually agree with you, the Eurofighter is a fine piece of kit. Did I just use the word "kit". Same with the Airbus, despite the Boeing's supposedly being more "hand's on" "Pilot's" Airplanes, funny how many US ex-fighter pilot Airline pilots prefer the Airbus, and not just because they have a nifty slide out drawer for their in-flight meal. Has a cool side stick like an F-16 instead of the same clunky control wheel out of a Cessna 150. My oldest daughter's a confirmed Boeing girl though, first FA-18's and now the 737-800 and 900, not the Max (underrated Jerry Lewis movie, "Boeing-Boeing"(1965, Paramount)

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Wow. Not a single pejorative term. And just Frank? Not even Frank "Happened to Give it a Rest" Drackman?

[Krayt]

A bigger question, what is a government doing putting both military and foreign policy under control of the judicial branch?

[Martinned]

I can see how the rule of law would be a confusing concept to you.

As in most countries, in the Netherlands the export of military equipment requires a licence from the government. That licence can only be granted if the military equipment is not going to be used for war crimes. The first instance court held that, a licence having been given in 2016, the government had wide latitude to decide whether to revoke that licence now. But the court of appeals decided that was wrong. The government was required to decide, based on the same criteria, whether to revoke the licence, and in this case the court held that the criteria for maintaining the licence were not met.

The most important underlying legislation is EU Common Position 2008/944, defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment:

Article 2(2)
Having assessed the recipient country’s attitude towards relevant principles established by instruments of international humanitarian law, Member States shall:
(c) deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the military technology or equipment to be exported might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law.

(emphasis added)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32008E0944

[DaveM]

"Israel’s attacks on Gaza have resulted in a disproportionate number of civilian casualties, including thousands of children."

I hear and read something similar to this all the time in the mainstream press, and it always raises so many questions in my mind:

1. Who is collecting, verifying, and distributing these statistics on war casualties? One hopes these claims aren't coming from just one side in the conflict, but from an independent source.
2. What would be a "proportionate" number of civilian casualties, and who would get to define it?
3. It is well known that Hamas stockpiles the bulk of its weapons, war material, and fighters among civilians. That would seem to be a pertinent fact, why is it not mentioned?

[Martinned]

1. The UN, NGOs, and whoever else is allowed access to Gaza by Israel.
2. You don't put a number on it, the question is the other way around: Is this number proportionate? And the people who decide that are the courts, like the Court of Appeals in the Hague today. (See elsewhere in this comments section.)
3. Because that is not, legally, a relevant fact. The crimes of one side of the conflict do not justify any crimes of the other side.

[Commenter_XY]

1. You mean Hamas provides the numbers.
2. Yep...much hinges on proportionality to the military objective of that specific mission.
3. That is relevant. That covert stockpiling of weaponry becomes a relevant military consideration in determining how much force and how many casualties are appropriate.

You purvey transfacts; personal opinions that masquerade and try to identify as objective facts.

[Nige]

1. No, he does not mean that.
2. Proportionality is a bit of a sick joke. How many dead children is it now?
3. The IDF definitely want you to think that every civilian killed was standing in front of a Hamas stockpile.

[Bob from Ohio]

The Dutch are very experienced in betraying Jews [ask the Frank family if you can find any], so this decision is in keeping with history.

[Martinned]

You get that the Dutch government was the defendant here right? Meaning that they are/were trying very hard to keep selling weapons to the IDF. And the government may well take this case to the supreme court, given that the court of appeals disagreed with the first instance court, and given the broader importance of these issues.

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm talking about the judges.

[Martinned]

No you're not. That's not how the English language works.

[Bob from Ohio]

Did I not criticize "this decision"

The judges made this decision, not the government.

[Martinned]

Did I not criticize “this decision”

No, you didn't. You said:

The Dutch are very experienced in betraying Jews [ask the Frank family if you can find any], so this decision is in keeping with history.

[Martinned]

In other foreign news, the President of Hungary has resigned over the weekend, as has the Minister for Justice and a couple of other senior officials.

Hungary's president resigns over child sexual abuse scandal
Hungary's president has resigned amid controversy over her pardoning of a man convicted in a child sexual abuse case.

President Katalin Novak faced days of growing pressure to resign because she decided to pardon a man who was convicted of covering up crimes committed by a sexual predator at a children’s home.
(...)
Her resignation is a rare episode of turmoil for the right-wing party, which under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been accused of dismantling democratic institutions and rigging the media in its favour.

Novak, a key ally of Orbán, has been an outspoken advocate of traditional family values and the protection of children.
(...)
The man whom Novak pardoned was sentenced to more than three years in prison in 2018 for pressuring victims to retract their claims of sexual abuse in a state-run children's home by its director, who was sentenced to eight years for abusing at least 10 children between 2004 and 2016.
(...)
Also implicated in the pardon was Judit Varga, another key Fidesz figure, who endorsed the pardon as Hungary’s then Justice Minister.

https://www.euronews.com/2024/02/10/hungarys-president-resigns-over-child-sexual-abuse-scandal

[Michael P]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/2849076/denver-mayor-reduction-services-offset-migrants/

I was assured that immigrants were hard working people who weren't eligible for welfare so we didn't need to worry about them consuming public money.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/02/09/migrants-eligible-for-30000-housing-assistance-boost/

[ThePublius]

Similarly, if, as according to many on the left, (illegal) immigrants make our country stronger, why didn't they make their own countries stronger?

[Nige]

Why indeed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Countries like Honduras are actually really strong, they're sort of muscle bound, actually. Too much of a good thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

El Salvador appears to be cleaning up its act.

[Martinned]

Ed supports human rights violations. That may well be the least surprising thing yet in today's open thread.

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

[Frank Drackman]

What? hey, that actually makes sense, sort of like how no A-rab country is taking Palestinian "Refugees"

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing says patriotism like declaring America not an exceptional land of opportunity.

[ThePublius]

I didn't say that, Sarcastr0! I was putting down the lie that all of these illegal immigrants make us strong, contribute more than they cost, and so on. The truth is that this huge wave of illegal immigration is costing us - the U.S. taxpayers - a fortune!

[Michael P]

S_0 loves him a straw man.

[Sarcastr0]

That is in fact required by your assuming an equivalence between their strengthening where they come from compared to their and strengthening of America.

No one said *all* illegal immigrants make us strong, and that's not what you originally argued against. Switching your goalposts to a strawman is quite a retreat!

[Krayt]

They, like anyone else, cannot make much headway in their corrupt home countries, with unending kickbacks and need to keep your head down. This is why their economies are largely crap.

Welcome, immigrants. Come here and live (relatively) free from corruption and make a better life for yourself.

[Martinned]

Well, freer from corruption than Mexico anyway.

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023

[Commenter_XY]

Kudos to Israel for rescuing two hostages, alive.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-rescues-2-hostages-from-south-gazas-rafah-in-daring-nighttime-operation/

Let's remember there are American hostages, too. Bring them home.

[Martinned]

Yes, and kudos for not shooting them this time.

[ThePublius]

Why do you always have to find the dark side of everything? You must be a blast at parties. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

Don't wake up to tell Sleepy Joe, I heard they went "Over the top"(underrated Stallone Movie) and killed some Terrorists.

[John F. Carr]

I want to know who the dead Palestinians are before saying good job. Hamas militants? Innocent bystanders? All we have is a range of body counts sourced from local officials.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a fair point John F Carr = Military objective of mission was met (hostage recovery) but was there disproportionate civilian casualties to achieve it.

I would want to know that too. If anything, to help the IDF going forward.

[Nige]

I think if the IDF wanted that kind of help they'd have had it by now.

[Blackstone]

The key will be who Trump has as a running mate. I have no doubt that Trump will be on the ballot in November. If he loses, mootness resolves everything and the republic survives. If he wins, the 14th, sec C will prevent him from taking office. (You all, every single one of you, know that trying to stop the counting of the electoral vote in Congress was a plain attempt to retain the office of President. If you are OK with that then you are a simple accomplice. An honest man, Joe Biden, will be in the same position as Trump was in 2020. His term will expire at noon on inauguration day. Period. Thus the vacancy will be filled in the normal line of succession. After that a wise new President would resign from the Republican party and form a new conservative oriented party. She might then offer pardons to any persons who join the new party, and take an highly articulated oath to the constitution. Notice: if Trump is ineligible under Sec. 3, then all his actions subseqent to 1 p.m. on Jan.6, 2021 will automatically be null and void. Think of all those medicare fraud pardons!

I can't think of any other way for us to get out of this pickle. Can you?

[ThePublius]

From oral arguments:
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Okay. Second question,
21 some of the rhetoric of your position -- I don't
22 think it is your position, but some of the rhetoric
23 of your position seems to suggest, unless the states
24 can do this, no one can prevent insurrectionists from
25 holding federal office. But, obviously, Congress has

113
Official - Subject to Final Review
1 enacted statutes, including one still in effect.
2 Section 2383 of Title 18 prohibits insurrection.
3 It's a federal criminal statute. And if you're
4 convicted of that, you are -- it says, "shall be
5 disqualified" from holding any office.
6 And so there is a federal statute on the
7 books, but President Trump has not been charged with
8 that. So what -- what are we to make of that?

So, 14.3 won't prevent him from taking office, since he hasn't been charged and convicted.

Why do people think that anyone can just declare him guilty?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sure there is another way. SCOTUS can withhold for months any opinion on Trump v. Anderson, and also deny immediately a stay of the J6 prosecution. That prosecution can proceed promptly and turn up by criminal due process irrefutable evidence that Trump plotted a coup, and supported violence at the Capitol, for which Trump is convicted.

SCOTUS can then announce a hearing to determine whether Trump v. Anderson can properly take notice of Trump's conviction, and of the evidence supporting it. Deciding that it can take notice, SCOTUS can then issue an opinion, probably as soon as mid-summer or earlier, that Trump is disqualified under Section 3.

Thus, Trump will not be on the ballot in November. The GOP will have to scramble to assemble a new ticket, but will have an excellent chance to prevail over Biden with a candidate regularly elected in November.

SCOTUS thus escapes the taint of deciding the election itself, while sparing the nation a constitutional crisis, and also minimizing civil unrest, at least compared to almost every other alternative.

[ThePublius]

Stephen, why are you so convinced that "(t)hat prosecution can proceed promptly and turn up by criminal due process irrefutable evidence that Trump plotted a coup, and supported violence at the Capitol, for which Trump is convicted."

Do you believe there's irrefutable evidence to that effect? Especially a coup? I think quite the opposite.

And, why do you think that such a prosecution wouldn't take years?

And, until he's convicted he can assume the office, no?

I think you are engaging in magical thinking.

[Krayt]

Sneaky words to deny a candidate is the constitutional crisis.

Unlike the Civil War, where things were obvious.

And there are gigatons of evidence this is just the latest in a long line of motivated initiatives to use the power of government to get a political opponent, which started long before Jan. 6.

"No! These are all disinterested concern for rule of law! Except impeachment, where we giddily were allowed to admit impeachment is political and we have the honor of using it to get a political opponent."

[Sarcastr0]

gigatons of evidence

In your heart, this may be true.

[Krayt]

Many initiatives to use the power of government against a political opponent, most long before Jan. 6, is the gigatons of evidence.

There's plenty for historians to bitch about for Trump. You just don't see the massive git 'im effort because you choose not to. It's a grotesque violation of the spirit of the Constitution, a good chunk of which tries to stop tyrant kings from doing exactly that.

Oh boy! Workarounds! Mainly feigning disinerested concern for rule of law.

[Sarcastr0]

As I said, this is all very heartfelt, but long on rhetoric short on anything else.

Maybe if you hit the thesaurus harder, you'll hit the magic word that counts as evidence.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, why ignore that I called for Supreme Court action on the basis of a criminal conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, or by implication, alternatively, inaction on the basis of an acquittal?

[Brett Bellmore]

"That prosecution can proceed promptly and turn up by criminal due process irrefutable evidence that Trump plotted a coup, and supported violence at the Capitol, for which Trump is convicted."

Your problem, and why he ignored it, is that Trump isn't charged with insurrection, so even if his current prosecutions end in conviction, they wouldn't have any constitutional relevance to whether he could hold office.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not my problem, Bellmore. If the Supreme Court does it promptly, and it works better for the nation than any alternative, it isn't anyone's problem. Except maybe for Trump and some hangers-on expecting pardons. Any disgruntled others will get over it fast, and without lasting damage or animus.

Also, no right to office, so no injustice for Trump from disqualification. With Trump found guilty of a coup attempt proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt, plus fomenting violence by thousands to accomplish the coup, Trump is constructively an insurrectionist. A Supreme Court precedent to establish that would be an ornament to the 14th amendment.

And do not forget, Trump could be acquitted, which would also help the nation get over the crisis, but only if the acquittal happens soon enough. There needs to be a decent interval of campaigning to separate from the result any widespread presumption that a court case delivered the result. Reprise of Bush v. Gore is what will not go down well.

[DaveM]

Putting on my magic cap that lets me read minds [apparently that's now a legit legal practice], I "know" why Trump was never charged with criminal insurrection: the government is afraid of revealing the extent of its infiltration of the J6 crowd. Hard to imagine a jury convicting Trump of engaging in an insurrection when there were 200+ government agents making sure a riot took place.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If he wins, the 14th, sec C will prevent him from taking office. "

Automagically: A force field will form around the White House!

[Blackstone]

Automagically is not a word I am familiar with. I would expect that a number of lawsuits will be filed post haste, if he wins. I expect that SCOTUS will seek to rule in such a way as to negate the probability of massive political and social upheaval across the land, especially since it has already been determined in a circuit trial that Trump engaged in an insurrection. Do you think the Chief Justice is going to stand on the steps of the Capitol and take a second oath of office from this man who reneged on it the last time? John Roberts is a straight arrow if nothing else. He's not going to be eager to share his legacy with Roger Taney. Trump will not become president again in 2024. The job at hand is how we as a republic get past this time of troubles in one piece. It would be nice if you would lend a hand in that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Automagically is not a word I am familiar with."

That's because I was being sarcastic. The 14th amendment can't do diddly squat, you need some mechanism.

Lawsuits would be a mechanism, if there were actually some way for them to succeed. Once the Court has ruled on the present case we'll have a better idea of what such a mechanism would look like.

"I expect that SCOTUS will seek to rule in such a way as to negate the probability of massive political and social upheaval across the land, especially since it has already been determined in a circuit trial that Trump engaged in an insurrection."

Ah, so you think only people opposed to Trump can generate upheaval, so that blocking Trump from being able to take office is a sure way of averting, rather than causing, upheaval. That's cute, especially in somebody who thinks January 6th was an insurrection.

You also think everybody has to take the CO court's findings as binding. Oh, really?

"Do you think the Chief Justice is going to stand on the steps of the Capitol and take a second oath of office from this man who reneged on it the last time?"

Sure, why not? He's as aware as everyone else that most Presidents are perjuring themselves when they take that oath. Didn't stop him from taking Biden's oath.

[Bwaaah]

As an engineer, I made systems with functions that I sometimes described as performing “automagically.” But in some measure, I always said it with tongue in cheek. Because if it really did precisely what it was supposed to do, I would have described it as having been automatic.

But even the business people liked and understood the term “automagic.” It was understood to mean “pretty close to the desired behavior, but not necessarily for the reasons you may think.”

It still gives me a chuckle every time I hear it. (And I still make stuff that works automagically.)

[Blackstone]

No,I do not think only people opposed to Trump can generate upheaval. However, I do know for a fact that people in support of Trump can generate upheaval and probable bloody civil violence. I was trying to demonstrate a pathway where SCOTUS could help avoid such an inevitability, and where the current threat to the republic could be defanged, so that our arguments could resume being a part of self-government instead of self-destruction. I suspect you do not share this sentiment.

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (USCA Art. IV, Sec. 1). You are right, they are not binding. But you can't just ignore them either.

In argument, you like to use "Ah, so you think..." a lot. What follows is never a serious rebuttal, because you interpret other's words to reflect your own thinking. Please stop.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, maybe you've forgotten, but the left rioted at Trump's inauguration, at a time when they were much less hysterical about him than they are today. They're sure as hell not going to take him winning a second time peacefully.

If the right will riot if he loses, then riots are baked in no matter what happens, so there's no reason for the Court to take them into account.

[Bwaaah]

In argument, you like to use “Ah, so you think…” a lot. What follows is never a serious rebuttal, because you interpret other’s words to reflect your own thinking. Please stop.

While many people share your conceptual narrative of what’s going on here, I think it’s a simplistic, unattached one in any practical sense. You may be right that Trump won’t be allowed to take office. You’ve mapped out a way that might happen. But there are so many ways this can play out, and your simple certainty seems to be based only in an emotional sense of justice.

You are surrounded by alligators and all you seem to see are some stepping stones between them. Your belief in “the republic,” “the full faith and credit…,” “an honest man like Joe,” and “straight as an arrow Roberts” borders on being cartoonish.

I think Brett is attempting to reframe your argument so as to place it within the actual political framework on the ground. If you’re not going to place it there, there’s not a much to seriously discuss. If you’re right, you’re right. Good luck with that.

[Frank Drackman]

The Second Amendment might have something to say about that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, let's nullify all of Obama's actions on the grounds he was actually born in Kenya. There is more credibility for that one.

As far as I am concerned, January 6th forever established the precedent that Congress does NOTHING but COUNT the electoral votes.

I don't care if some state legislature has a seance and has the Ghost of FDR helping them decide who their slate of electors are -- Congress can't deal with it.

[Krayt]

I think the downstream implications of a lot of the in-the-moment utilitarian interpretations on this issue haven't fully been thought through, by which I mean when power eventually switches sides again.

We saw this with the Republican responses to Clinton vs. Trump impeachments.

Then, unending fishing expeditions by special prosecutors, and process crimes were cool. Now, not so much.

[Sarcastr0]

People being like 'this opens the door for the GOP to behave in bad faith!' both don't understand where the GOP is these days.

They live in owning the libs; they don't need a door to make it happen.

[Martinned]

Can I just check what my American friends think about the concept of issuing an injunction against "persons unknown". In the UK this is perfectly fine, subject to certain conditions, but from my Dutch POV this is really weird. Not only are you issuing an injunction against a non-party, but it's not even clear how they're supposed to know about the injunction. On the other hand, you can see why in some cases an injunction against persons unknown would be the only way to safeguard the claimant's rights.

I would think that to American eyes this (also) looks like a due process violation. But because this is an area of law that would be handled by the states, I'm not sure I'd have enough visibility to be sure. Thoughts?

[Martinned]

This came up because I saw a blog post about the Supreme Court's judgment in Wolverhampton City Council and others v. London Gypsies and Travellers and others, from November last year.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2022-0046-judgment.pdf

[Bored Lawyer]

The general rule in the US is that a court may only enjoin the parties before it.

There are two rules that expand that, somewhat. Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that injunctions bind:

(A) the parties;
(B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and
(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).

Court have made clear that (B) and (C) only apply insofar as the person is acting as a party's agent or in active concert and participation with them. If someone acts independent of a party, the injunction does not bind them.

The other rule (which is really part of (B) above) is that an injunctions directed to corporations and other legal entities are commands to the corporation's officers, but again, only in their officer capacity.

This is more than a matter of due process, it's a matter of jurisdiction. Courts don't have jurisdiction over the world, they have it over parties before them, and other parties with some connection to the parties before the court.

[Martinned]

Thanks, that's what I thought.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about "John Does"?

Or "the seven unidentified agents of the FBI" from back in the 1960s?

[Noscitur a sociis]

How about them?

[David Nieporent]

Or “the seven unidentified agents of the FBI” from back in the 1960s?

It was six, it wasn't the FBI, and it wasn't the 1960s.

[John F. Carr]

Within the last few decades American prosecutors started to obtain indictments against DNA profiles insead of persons. The purpose was to avoid the statute of limitations. Am I under indictment right now for a crime committed decades ago? Nobody can say.

[Martinned]

Ouch, that doesn't seem like something that should be allowed. (Or at least it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should restart the limitation period.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why not?

For reference, here's the federal statute on point:

(1) In general.--In any indictment for an offense under chapter 109A [i.e. sexual abuse offenses] for which the identity of the accused is unknown, it shall be sufficient to describe the accused as an individual whose name is unknown, but who has a particular DNA profile.
(2) Exception.--Any indictment described under paragraph (1), which is found not later than 5 years after the offense under chapter 109A is committed, shall not be subject to--

(A) the limitations period described under subsection (a); and
(B) the provisions of chapter 208 [i.e. speedy trial provisions] until the individual is arrested or served with a summons in connection with the charges contained in the indictment.

18 U.S.C. § 3282(b).

[Bored Lawyer]

Has anyone tried to actually prosecute someone based on such an indictment? After the statute would have expired?

Until it's litigated, hard to tell where it will come out. But it will certainly be scrutinized.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld the practice in 2010 in the case of Commonwealth v. Dixon.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hmmm....
The purpose of the statute of limitations is to allow the defendant to find witnesses before they disappear and evidence before it is destroyed.

(What do you do with a witness who then dies, as people sometimes do?) But in general, it is a whole lot easier to mount a defense within a couple of years than decades later. Where were YOU at 1PM on February 12, 1994? -- I have absolutely no idea...

But isn't there some requirement to tell the person that he/she/it has been indicted. I believe the Feds send a letter -- what do states do?

[Noscitur a sociis]

But isn’t there some requirement to tell the person that he/she/it has been indicted.

There is not.

I believe the Feds send a letter — what do states do?

Predictibly, you believe wrong.

[Zarniwoop]

Grampa Ed proclaims his ignorance to the world once again:

But isn’t there some requirement to tell the person that he/she/it has been indicted. I believe the Feds send a letter

There is no such requirement. Google "sealed indictment" and learn something.

[John F. Carr]

White collar criminals may get pre-indictment "target letters" from the Justice Department. Trump or his organization was offered a last minute chance to convince New York not to indict.

In federal practice indictments are often sealed if only out of habit. One of the criminal cases against Trump started with a sealed indictment. He knew he was going to be charged. Why not file the indictment initially unsealed?

An ordinary person is likely to have been arrested during the investigation. If you haven't been arrested yet you can present yourself to a suitable law enforcement agency, ask if there are warrants out for your arrest, and see if they handcuff you. Possibly for each jurisdiction. I don't know if a sealed federal indictment results in a warrant visible to state law enforcement.

[Mr. Bumble]

On this date in history:
Abraham Lincoln, America's 16th President, was born on February 12, 1809 in Hodgenville, Kentucy.
Never a Federal holiday his birthday is still celebrated in a handful of states and many localities.

[DaveM]

I visited Mr. Lincoln's birthplace in Hodgenville a couple of weeks ago (was passing through on a geology road trip to Mammoth Cave.) They reconstructed a log cabin from parts of two possible contenders for the original, and then completely encased it within a marble monument complete with a broad, sweeping marble stairway leading up to the site. A very 1920s thing to do.

[Bwaaah]

New York City suspends its alternate-side-of-the-street parking regulations for today, Lincoln's birthday, as it did last Friday for the "Lunar New Year."

Lincoln's birthday. Lunar New Year. Compare and contrast. Discuss among yourselves.

lol

[Martinned]

Nobody cares about Lincoln's birthday, not even people in Illinois, but about 2 billion people celebrate Lunar New Year? Is that what you had in mind?

[Sarcastr0]

Another from the twitter thread on academic papers that are so brilliantly and so accessibly written and so universal in scope that they transcend disciplines and stand as timeless testaments to both great thinking and great writing.

Freeman Dyson’s detailed analysis of how life can survive through thermodynamic optimization in an expanding universe: this paper literally defines the words “audacious” and “creative”, and it’s not just speculation – Dyson brings hard numbers to the table https://panspermia.org/revmodphys.51.447.pdf

[1979. 14 pages. How our universe will end. Coming up with stuff, and then upper bounding it based on physics a the time. Does a great job reasoning around some theoretical gaps in black hole physics at the time. Then he starts to try and nail down the physical constraints of consciousness…It’s a pretty bravura performance.

Also: “Since I could not find [equation defining an upper bound on the power that can be radiated by a material radiator] in the textbooks, I give a quick proof” Doesn’t every aspiring scientist dream of the causal mastery to be able to toss off a line like that?]

[John F. Carr]

I read an anthology of stories about life around the heat death of the universe. In some cosmologies there is a finite amount of consciousness even theoretically possible. Too bad I can't tell you the title ~20 years later.

[John F. Carr]

Likely Beford's Far Futures. If so not all the stories were set in the heat death of the universe.

When the "Big Crunch" was in fashion we had James Blish's Cities in Flight and Ben Bova's "Stars, Won't You Hide Me" which ran up to the end of the finite universe.

[David Nieporent]

Asimov's The Last Question is a short story on the subject.

[Stephen Lathrop]

"Politics." Americans are accustomed to use that word as an epithet. So used, it stands for little more than a user's cynicism and despair.

That style of use paradoxically wins social credit. Such a user discovers plentiful like-minded company, who share the cynicism, but flatter themselves as serious and realistic about the limits of . . . practically everything—most especially including the limits of political virtue.

Thus, ordinary attempts to discuss public affairs among citizens routinely get brutally truncated. Faced with discourse about policy and government, the first participant anxious to establish for himself realistic bona fides jumps in to disparage and suppress everyone's will to continue—by denouncing, "politics." A denunciation to which others meekly nod assent. That is a sorry contrast to the treatment of public discourse which gave rise to this nation's founding.

Candidates for office understand that cynical dynamic, take it up, and legitimize it with their own repetitions. Make it a point to notice, the candidates who denounce, "politics," most tend to be demagogues, who stand to profit by the inattention public discouragement engenders.

With an eye to how commonplace that word, "politics"—and the corrosive attitudes which accompany it—have been among both ordinary people, and political actors, Merrick Garland has blundered. It has been a consequential blunder. Garland has since his appointment shrunk from taking on the challenge of delivering justice to Donald Trump, and to his numerous co-conspirators in and out of government.

To prosecute the least consequential among recent insurrectionists has not fazed Garland. But because Garland has been frightened lest he be accused by both the powerful and by ordinary cynics of politicizing the Justice Department, Garland dawdled, delayed, and even accommodated ongoing attacks on the process of justice.

Those attacks have been so severe they demoralized the two government institutions which must remain the most highly resistant to cynicism—the judicial branch, and Garland's own Justice Department. Those institutions proceed, but with conspicuous want of energy, and little sign of devotion to the largest principles they are charged to defend. Under pressure, they show they prefer to dissipate public focus by conspicuous displays of process—which are of course, whatever their virtues, also the routine tools of legal dissimulation at all times.

The nation thus confronts now what appears to be a deciding question: will that want of focus, principle, and energy on the People's behalf extend all the way to the top, to their Supreme Court itself? Will it too quail from the challenge to deliver prompt justice to the coup plotter Donald Trump, and to the others who abetted him?

Donald Trump has been more astute than Garland. At every opportunity he has baselessly and ridiculously charged that the pusillanimous Garland has politicized justice. And not only Garland, but President Biden as well. Among Trump's relentlessly cynical base, those nonsensical charges have resonated.

Thus, Garland has acceded to a fundamentally corrupt notion of politics, while Trump has emphasized it relentlessly. They are alike in that both expect public cynicism about politics to dominate public response to everything connected to efforts to deliver justice to Trump. Trump sees political cynicism accurately as an advantage. Garland sees it mistakenly as a dangerous pitfall to be avoided. The actual danger lies in shrinking from challenging the cynicism.

The founders' notion of politics was different than the one which burdens public discourse today. Their philosophy and efforts were directed to elevate politics as an ideal, and to forge it into the principal means by which the nation governs its public affairs.

The founders also understood a key related insight which Garland overlooks, and which Trump fears—that to make politics the means of government necessarily implies existence of political crimes. To attempt prosecution of political crimes, while shirking to assert openly that such prosecution is inevitably political, and politically justified, and indispensable for defense of government processes managed by politics, falls short. To do it is to disarm not only the processes prescribed by the founders to manage government and public affairs, but also to disarm the processes of justice itself.

There exists now an emergency need to get rid of that shirking fear of cynicism, and to assert instead that direct attacks on vital American politics will be met with forthrightly political prosecutions. This nation must show resolve to proclaim its actual ideals and principles, and those must include forthright and energetic defense of politics as a cherished means to accomplish just government. If that does not happen, then the nation risks collapse at the hands of opportunistic cynics like Trump.

Trump and all his like-minded political minions have lunged for the most corrosive means to power—which is to chant in unison that every attempt to stop them is just, "politics." The American People—if they are jealous of their power as they should be—must demand the contrary.

Engagement of politics in the process of justice is the proper remedy against existential threat to the People's power. Cautious attempts to have it otherwise have been tried, and they have failed. It takes avowedly political prosecutions to punish and deter political crimes. As we have seen, any other approach tends to disarm prosecution altogether.

[DaveM]

“Engagement of politics in the process of justice is the proper remedy against existential threat to the People’s power.”

Yeah, who needs voting, federalism, the rule of law and all that nonsense. All we really need is a politically-charged judiciary. The French had their Committee of Public Safety and its super-efficient Reign of Terror, there’s no reason we couldn’t institute that one all over again. /s

[Stephen Lathrop]

You cite an unjust government as evidence that just sovereigns should permit their own overthrow for want of energy to defend them? Or do you merely assume that any sovereign which energetically defends itself is thereby proved unjust?

Many Americans would point to Lincoln's constitutional circumventions as evidence to critique your remark. But some do side with you, and against Lincoln. I number myself more in the former group. I think it was lucky for the nation, and for justice, that Lincoln exercised the will to act energetically on behalf of the American People during an existential crisis for the nation.

[DaveM]

You aren’t talking about just vs. unjust, you are talking about weak vs. strong. It would be helpful to everyone to remove the fig leaves and be honest with what you are proposing:

Might makes Right.

And calling it the "People's power" is just plain insulting. We've seen this movie before.

[Stephen Lathrop]

DaveM, do you think the North's victory in the Civil War was an unjust result?

More generally, can you understand that a government regime tailored principally to respond to existential crises which occur far less than 1% of the time might have to be too repressive for the other 99%+ of the time? If you want to enjoy minimally repressive government, the best way to get it is to optimize for peace and prosperity, but to build in flexibility to adjust for crisis.

Almost everyone would hate to live under a government optimized only to master crises. Almost no one would want a government doomed to collapse if any crisis arose. A stubbornly inflexible model of government power—whether it be stubbornly weak, or stubbornly strong—cannot deliver flexibility necessary to optimize either liberty or safety.

[Bwaaah]

Posited:
The U.S. has an aging population with a declining birth rate. Social Security obligations will be increasing, and must be funded through either taxation, borrowing, or cuts to SS benefits, none of which seem desirable to anybody. There's also a shortage of capable, willing labor.

Resolved: A steady stream of immigrants, at least a few million per year, is the least painful way for the U.S. to address its forthcoming economic needs for increased labor and increased taxable wages. The U.S. should bulk up its border protection, increase its immigration screening infrastructure, and permit, by way of immigration infrastructure, substantially increased legal immigration through a pre-entry screening process. (That screening process may include a requirement for rudimentary English language skills.)

Totally wrong? Not totally wrong? What should the role of immigration be in the U.S.?

[Mr. Bumble]

First, stop conflating legal immigration with the uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe pair that influx of immigrants with a virus that preferentially kills the elderly, and I'd say problem solved. I know...way out there.

The US should immediately institute the following:
- close the southern and northern borders, with walls and troops
- increase immigration to 10MM annually for a decade
- be very choosy about who gets in; STEM preferred
- means testing of immigrants, and investigate sponsorships

We need the best and brightest people in the world to keep America alive, and vibrant. And look at what we have to offer! There is no place like this anywhere else (leaving aside the fact that we are screwing it up royally right now). People want to come here....tell them: Yes, if you meet certain criteria and you come here legally, under our laws.

[Nige]

Yeah, means testing and STEM requirements are going to solve the problem of the poorest people on the planet migrating from climate disaster, war, poverty, opression and societal breakdown.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm all for expanding out STEM talent pool. But lets not pretend we don't see how tight the labor market is for restaurant servers, retail workers, and caregivers.

Immigration should also not be purely used as a way to fill current labor supply needs. That's penny-wise, pound-foolish.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, silly, that's what the walls and troops are for.

[Frank Drackman]

You forgot the vats of boiling tar and moats full of Sharks with Laser beams strapped on their friggin heads. Good idea actually.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, laser beams don't propagate well in turbid water. Electric eels!

[Commenter_XY]

No, POTUS Obama was helpful here. He suggested a moat with alligators. That would work for me, because damn it, alligators have to be fed. They're poor, defenseless reptiles just looking for a better life in the Rio Grande.

I like the minefield with 'toe poppers' idea, myself. Want in? Are you prepared to lose your foot, maybe more? Have at it. You make it through, you're in.

/sarc

[Nige]

But that's what you do when you're building a fascist society.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ten million? Screw that! Under 4 million die per year, and our own population is still producing quite a few babies. We could achieve steady state at current birthrates with a fraction of that immigration rate, even the current immigration rate is driving our population up unreasonably fast.

You really want all those parks turned into farmland to feed the masses, do you?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes Brett, 10 million annually for 10 years. I am dead-ass serious. I want that door wide open to the best and brightest people on the Planet Earth to come here and keep the American experiment going into the future. We need them. And they need us.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm dead ass serious that we don't need that many immigrants, if we just stopped allowing in unskilled illiterates, a fraction that many educated people are about all we could absorb.

10 million a year would cause enormous social disruptions, as well as likely extinguishing anything distinctive about US culture.

[Commenter_XY]

America has absorbed large numbers in our past. We are still here, talking about it. We need the very best and brightest for the next few hundred years.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've looked at the numbers, and, NO, America has never absorbed that large a percentage of our existing population per year in the form of immigration. We're already at immigrant percentage numbers that are unprecedented, and the last time we even approached the current percentage of foreign born, we reacted by slamming the doors shut for a couple generations.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, I will make a very crude analogy. Do you want the worlds trash or the worlds treasure? I vote treasure.

We need them for the America of tomorrow, Brett. We can stack the deck in America's favor for the next millennium by skimming the best of the entire world now, for a decade. Think of those possibilities. Think of the genetic diversity.

This is about the America of 2724 and 2924, our tomorrow; not 2024.

[ThePublius]

I think you guys, Brett and XY, are talking past each other. XY is talking future. Brett is talking past.

I'm in favor of legal immigration, even lots of it. I don't however, support any of this illegal immigration. We need the 21st century analogue of Ellis Island. Screen for disease, criminal history, self-sufficiency, and other factors, including affiliation with terrorist or America-hating organizations, foreign spouse and child care obligations, English language proficiency, literacy, and so on. But given that, let them come!

This business of letting all of these people in with little or no screening is insane.

Also, U.S. citizens should be subject to no more scrutiny re-entering the country than immigrants.

[Brett Bellmore]

I like treasure as much as anyone, but there's a difference between storing up treasure, and being a hoarder. An extra 100 million Americans in a single decade?

That's pathological.

[Commenter_XY]

We have the space, and the resource, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

We do, in the sense that with enough work, you could support a half billion people in the continental US.

We'd have to build a lot more housing stock and roads. We'd need more farms, which would mean less wild land. It would be possible, but it would have major negative effects on quality of life and standard of living.

It would also largely destroy any remaining cultural identity the US has managed to retain, but I suppose a lot of people in government would view that as a plus.

It's possible to do a lot of things we shouldn't do.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, I have a sense of the practical and logistical challenges in absorbing large foreign-born populations. It can be done, it has been successfully done. Recent case: Absorption of Russian immigrants (north of 2MM+) into Israel in less than a 10 year period. This was equivalent to ~30% of their entire national population.

You cannot credibly tell me it cannot be done. It can.

Your point: SHOULD it be done? You say no. It would destroy our culture, and cost too much national treasure to do. If you are uncomfortable with 10MM over 10 years, is 5MM for 20 years more acceptable?

[Frank Drackman]

and the Blacks need suckers to rob/steal from

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

be very choosy about who gets in; STEM preferred

Should we screen for gullibility and ignorance (dumb enough to believe that fairy tales are true, gullible enough to prefer silly, childish superstition to reason), emphasizing residents of the reality-based world?

[Frank Drackman]

Legal Immigration is already 'at least a few million per year' you know, to do all those jobs Amurican's won't, like Nephrologist and Neurosurgery.

[Brett Bellmore]

Last I looked it was only about 1 million a year. (Am I looking at the wrong statistics?) It's the illegal immigration that's several million a year.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, that's the problem, I just pulled it out of my ass.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, as illegal immigration is currently running in excess of 3M a year, several times higher than legal immigration, I suppose that in principle we COULD increase legal immigration if we shut down illegal immigration. And I’ve long been in favor of a “cream skimming” immigration policy: Way too many people want to come here, why shouldn’t we exploit that?

But…

Why do we treat the declining birth rate as inevitable? We have to do something about it eventually, it’s world wide, we either stop it or go extinct. Raiding the rest of the world for people is just a way of buying time, and comes at high cost, either to us if we take in the wrong people, or to the source nations if we take in the right people. It’s not free, and it’s not sustainable.

The longer we put off solving this problem, the harder it is going to be to muster the will to solve it; As things stand, there are still plenty of people around who remember life in a society above replacement, and the lingering remnants of the institutions that enabled that.

But if we wait too long, there really won’t be anybody around who doesn’t see humanity dying out as just the way things have always been, and solving the problem will require radical changes, not just restoring some previous state. How are you going to provide, for instance, the level of essentially subsidies necessary to make educated, productive people take the time out to reproduce, once reproducing has come to be seen as just an expensive hobby?

No, as much as I favor cream skimming, it’s not a solution, it’s just a way of buying time. And even if we do it right, it’s going to have dire consequences for the countries we skim that cream from.

***

I should note here that current levels of legal+illegal immigration are significantly higher than necessary to achieve a steady state population. We don't need to TRY to become crowded!

[Nige]

'Why do we treat the declining birth rate as inevitable?'

It comes with education, health-care and bodily autonomy for women and economic security. It also comes with a generation not able to afford rent and probably never owning a house and working multiple jobs to make ends meet and astronomical child care and health care costs. The only way to put the genie back in the bottle is an authoritarian religious takeover by extremists who essentially force women to have children.

'We have to do something about it eventually, it’s world wide, we either stop it or go extinct'

Birth rates could decline a whole lot more before extinction becomes a worry.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Switzerland has the right approach -- you must bring a certain amount of capitol into the country and/or be able to prove that you will be earning an upper middle class wage with your employer guaranteeing that.

[John F. Carr]

The United States has a weaker form of the policy you describe. If you invest a million dollars in a job-creating business you can get an EB-5 visa. The H-1B visa allows 85,000 workers who will be earning upper middle class wages.

In Russia you can get a residence permit by buying a house for cash and living in it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And if Trump gets re-elected, you will shortly be able to move from Russia to Poland, and take your pick of recently-vacated real estate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump threatens Germany that we won't defend them if they don't do their treaty obligations, and it gets reported as him threatening Poland, which out-performs their treaty obligations.

Political talking points are so stupid sometimes.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore,

1. How is it defense of Trump to insist he really threatened Germany instead of Poland?

2. What would happen if someone asked Trump about the trouble on the Belarus–German border?

[bernard11]

their treaty obligations,

Just a reminder that:

1. Increased defense spending is in fact not a treaty obligation.

2. Trump complaining about someone not “paying their bills” is beyond absurd.

[Martinned]

Since I know that some commenters here have strong views about euthanasia, I thought I'd mention the death of former Dutch prime minister (1977-1982) Dries van Agt and his wife last Monday. They died by euthanasia together, a rare but not unheard of phenomenon.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/10/duo-euthanasia-former-dutch-prime-minister-dies-wife-dries-eugenie-van-agt

[Frank Drackman]

He was a fucking Nazi sympathizer, trying to release 3 Nazi War Criminals in 1972, yeah, 1972, should have been on Avner Kaufman's list.

[Kazinski]

Well I think there is nothing socialized medicine does better than euthanasia. You would expect it to be a core competency.

[Martinned]

What makes you think that the Netherlands has socialised medicine?

[Kazinski]

I thought with tax rates close to 40% for the working class, and 50% for the middle class you'd get something for your money.

[Martinned]

Yes, things like a functioning welfare state, roads and bridges that don't crumble, a public transport system that normal people can actually use to go to work etc., a criminal justice system that has sensible recidivism rates and doesn't lock people up in crime infested hellholes, etc.

[Frank Drackman]

We have those rates in this country

[Frank Drackman]

Remember that SNL bit where "Dr. Death/Kavorkian" was trying to euthanize somebody, the IV didn't work, the gas didn't work, the electric shock didn't work, so he ended up trying to smother the guy with a pillow, and finally ended up shooting him, funny stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was living in Michigan at the time, and following his antics. The guy had a martyr complex, he WANTED to go to jail.

He started out with a technique that made it utterly unambiguous that the victim was committing suicide, and while they tried to prosecute him, the combination of that proof and the carefully selected sympathetic victims resulted in the juries acquitting him.

So he started cutting corners and finding less sympathetic subjects. And finally found somebody who wasn't really terminal, (IIRC) and did the job for them. THAT they could convict him for, and easily.

[Brett Bellmore]

Looked it up. His last victim was a guy who was totally paralyzed from ALS, and Jack just outright killed him, rather than merely assisting in a suicide the victim had to act to complete. And carefully videoed the murder in order to convict himself.

In today's Canada, the government would probably have hired Jack, instead, and kept him busy.

[Kazinski]

There is another turn in the Fani Willis saga.

Its now claimed in a new filing that there is a witness who will testify that Wade filed a false affidavit in claiming his relationship with Willis didn't start until 2022:

“Bradley has non-privileged, personal knowledge that the romantic relationship between Wade and Willis began prior to Willis being sworn as the district attorney for Fulton County, Georgia in January 2021,” the filing said. “Thus, Bradley can confirm that Willis contracted with Wade after Wade and Willis began a romantic relationship, thus rebutting Wade’s claim in his affidavit that they did not start dating until 2022.”

Bradley worked in Wades office and was actually his divorce attorney, but the information is non privileged presumably because he was aware of the relationship before he became Ward's attorney.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-co-defendant-alleges-prosecutors-georgia-case-lied-relationship-rcna138197

The morass is getting deeper. How sunk is Wade? Suspended sunk, or disbarred sunk.

I don't know if Willis filed anything before the court that can be contradicted, but probably if he's sunk, then she is out too, although less likely to face sanctions, but certainly the auditors investigation of financial malfeasance has more traction.

Is the Georgia Trump prosecution in hospice, or just needs major reconstructive surgery?

[John F. Carr]

"Suspended sunk, or disbarred sunk."

If we look to Massachusetts' progressive prosecutor, Rachel Rollins, we can add "resign without further punishment" to the list. It is possible that discipline is coming. None has been reported nine months later.

[Commenter_XY]

I see the Governor of MA made an interesting appointment. I had to laugh when I read more about it.

[Commenter_XY]

I had to try a block quote test

()this is a test()

Did it work?

[Commenter_XY]

It did not, sigh. I will never learn.

[Bwaaah]

Weird stuff happens with blockquote. I think it causes some kind of unremovable blockquote meta-attribute to be applied to your post, and after that, there's not turning back. I tried once recently, and that's my ambiguous recall of the experience. DOH!

[Zarniwoop]

I have no problem getting

blockquotes

to work

[Zarniwoop]

and there's a solution for the first line blockquote problem,

too.

[Zarniwoop]

in the examples below, replace [ and ] with

this blockquote is produced by an initial [blockquote] and a final [/blockquote]

to make a first line blockquote, use
[a] [/a][blockquote]insert text here[/blockquote]

there's a single space between the [a] and the [/a]. that's sufficient to fix the (still unsolved!) bug where starting a post with a [blockquote] as the very first item doesn't work properly.

[Life of Brian]

Yup, you don't even need the space in between.

[Voize]

You can save three more keystrokes with <a/> instead of <a></a>

[Bwaaah]

Nice application of formal HTM syntax! (Due to my pedantic inclinations, I still sometimes do my <hr> as <hr/>)

[Bwaaah]

T

Hello world

It must have been the first line problem that got me.

Replace [ and ] with < and > (lol)

[Michael P]

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2024/02/there-is-forgetting-and-there-is.html makes a interesting suggestion: Is Joe Biden faking mental difficulties? One of his defenders earlier suggested that his answers during his interviews with Hur's team were confused-seeming on advice of counsel.

[Frank Drackman]

The Reverend Sandusky is strangely silent (pleasant, isn't it?), must be in lockdown.

[Bob from Ohio]

There was a shooting at a church in Houston.

"The shooter used an AR-15 that had “Free Palestine” written on it, according to a federal law enforcement source" CNN

[Martinned]

Has anyone considered some actual gun control legislation yet? Because that seems like the obvious lesson to me, but no one seems to have thought of that after the previous 10,000-odd mass shooting incidents in the US.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe make First Degree Murder Ill-legal?? (everywhere, not just at Bushwood)

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would you think the answer to somebody breaking a law, was to pass a law?

And doesn't even bother you a tiny bit that for every guilty person inconvenienced, you'll be pushing around about 10,000 innocent people?

[Martinned]

And doesn’t even bother you a tiny bit that for every guilty person inconvenienced, you’ll be pushing around about 10,000 innocent people?

I don't think "pushing around" means what you think it means. Not being able to own a nice big penis replacement to pose with on Instagram is hardly even an inconvenience.

[Brett Bellmore]

The irony here is that you'd probably be pretty outraged if they DID ban penis replacements...

Your attitude is basically, "If it's not something I would personally want to do, it's no big deal if other people are prevented from doing it." That's a pretty shitty attitude to take in a free society.

My attitude is that if your owning a penis replacement doesn't harm anybody else, I don't give a damn that one owner in 10,000 might use it to rape somebody. You don't forbid people to do innocent things because rare individuals might do them wrongly.

[Kazinski]

Lets try getting rid of the 4th and 8th amendments first, and let the police summarily imprison suspected criminals for up to 5 years.

If we are just going to get rid of our constitutional rights, then let's go with the solutions that are likely to be the most effective rather than tinkering around the edges.

[Martinned]

That's circular. The 2nd amendment is a constitutional right because it's in the constitution. Prohibition was stupid, so America got rid of it. Gun ownership is at least as stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that America got rid of Prohibition because Americans decided it was stupid. Americans haven't decided that the 2nd amendment is stupid, if anything the trend has been in the opposite direction for decades now.

[Harvey Mosley]

California has all the gun grabber laws the hoplophobes want and we still have monsters murdering people with guns. What would you suggest as a law that would actually prevent any of these evil, murdering bastards from murdering innocent people?

[Martinned]

Section 1: Nobody gets to own a gun.

[Commenter_XY]

The obvious lesson to the rest of the thinking American public: Glad someone was carrying and plugged that bastard before he killed anyone.

Some additional context here. It was another Tranny Terror Incident. Think of Audrey Hale, but in reverse. He (Jeffrey Moreno Carranza) was psychologically disturbed, then decided (with help from a shrink) that switching genders was the answer to all his problems, and she (Genesse Ivonne Moreno) voila! decided to go kill Christians.

Gun control is the problem? What a Moyshe kapoyer.

[Martinned]

Glad someone was carrying and plugged that bastard before he killed anyone.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I speculate that Hobbes was influential in the American founding north of what became the Mason-Dixon Line; and Locke was likewise influential south of it.

I insist those are more contrasting influences than many suppose. Much of America was mis-taught about Locke in K-12, and never paid attention afterward. Of the two, Hobbes (almost never taught in K-12) was the more modern thinker, although he wrote earlier. Locke was more a trailing exemplar of pre-reformation thought, mumbo-jumbled into a supposed contractual system based on a necessarily unresponsive Godly vindicator.

It was the thinking of Hobbes which opened the way toward joint popular sovereignty—an opening which Locke's South Carolina charter (among other indicators) showed Locke would slam shut if he could.

[Frank Drackman]

Very unwoke of you to use the Singular "Shooter"
word is it was either a Chick with a Dick or a Dude who used to have a Dick, or maybe a Dude who still has his Twig & Berries but takes Estrogen, or...
anyway, it was "They" or "Shooters"

get it right!

good news is the Po-Po killed "Them"

Frank

[OtisAH]

Aww, how sad. Piece of shit is lonely. Well, no one to blame but yourself, piece of shit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Another article about the leftist bias of academia

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/study-shows-prevalence-of-liberal-college-professors-is-not-accidental-and-we-see-the-consequences/

[Martinned]

Feel free to set up your own universities. That's what GMU, Bingham Young, etc. are, aren't they? Why not throw a bit of competition in the mix?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The clingers have plenty of schools. They don't get much attention, because they have unaccomplished faculties, downscale students, scant endowments, shabby reputations, lousy policies, and a pronounced taste for censorship, superstition, nonsense, dogma, and ignorance. Plenty of schools with Baptist, Faith, Condordia, Bible, and Christian in the names and fairy tales in the curricula.

The mainstream's mistake was recognizing degrees awarded by conservative-controlled campuses. Accreditation of nonsense-teaching "schools" should be, in time, another casualty of the culture war.

[Martinned]

"recognising" for what? Presumably employers make up their own minds?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Accreditation.

[Ed Grinberg]

Shut down all public colleges & universities. End all public subsidies for higher education. Let the remaining (private) schools be as leftist as they like. I won't complain.

[Krayt]

Public universities are everyone's universities.

[Martinned]

Don't red states have public universities that they can stuff full of conservative goodies? Isn't that how we ended up with Josh Blackman?

[Frank Drackman]

At Auburn they only taught useful subjects, like Engineering and Poultry Science (my "Pre-Med" Degree. hey, there's more to it than White Meat/Dark Meat) only Professor I can remember who was halfway liberal was some old cunt, I mean "Spinster" who taught World History and thought Ronaldus Maximus was Satan in Carnate.

Frank

[Martinned]

Today in "Elon Musk is terrible at business":

Elon Musk must testify as part of the US Security and Exchange Commission’s investigation into potential stock violations related to Musk’s 2022 purchase of Twitter, US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruled. Beeler gave the parties a week to confer on a date and location for the testimony.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, the regime is going after another political opponent.

[Martinned]

Are you on crack? "Don't pick a fight with the SEC" is like the No. 1 rule of running a public company.

[Frank Drackman]

What does College Foo-bawl have to do with running a company?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but what happens if the SEC picks a fight with you, instead?

[Frank Drackman]

You lose.

[Martinned]

You pay $2bn in fines because your employees used mobile phones.

https://www.leapxpert.com/hedge-funds-beware-sec-demands-mobile-phones-in-messaging-compliance-probe/

[Nige]

Crooks veer right because they get this kind of ridiculous devoton.

[MoreCurious]

I practiced law for more than 40 years. And even though we called ourselves litigators, almost all of our cases settled before trial. And a quick Google search indicates that fewer than 5% of all criminal and civil cases go to trial. Which brings me to my question: could the Trump legal matters be resolved by some sort of global settlement?

The first thing I wonder about is whether Trump has any real friends. Not hangers-on and obsequious twits like Lindsey and Rudy, but respected people of stature whom Trump respects enough to listen to. Let's use James Baker as an example. Could someone like Baker (1) convince Trump that he might be better off trying to get out of all his legal problems in exchange for agreeing to drop out of the presidential race and (2) convince the various federal, state, and private litigants to dismiss all the actions.

The second thing I wonder about, of course, is whether the various prosecutors would be willing to give up their 15 minutes of fame to bring an end to our national nightmare. (Wouldn't it be nice to never again have to think about Fani Willis or Alvin Bragg?)

The third thing I wonder about is whether Judge Engoron, E. Jean Carroll, and others would be willing to accept significantly less than the money damages that Trump might otherwise be on the hook for.

The fourth thing I wonder about is whether President Biden -- assuming that one of his main goals in running for reelection is to try to keep Trump out of the Oval Office -- might be encouraged to retire after one term if Trump is out of the picture.

[Commenter_XY]

The time for 'A Grand Bargain' was late 2021. I like where you're going (try to get America out of the current divisive mess); I really wish that could happen.

It has gone too far now. There is no going back.

[Moderation4ever]

The simple fact is that Trump doesn't really listen to anyone except those people telling him what he wants to hear. So, the rest of your questions are merely academic exercises. Had he ignored Jean Carroll, retired to Mar a Lago, given the documents back when asked he probably not be facing the legal problems he has today. Now he is stuck, and the only way out is to win the Presidency and use the powers of the office to clear away the problems.

[Martinned]

A deal like that would kill the American Republic as we know it stone dead just as much as a second Trump presidency would. Criminal prosecutions cannot be bargained away by people who have power and/or money. (At least, the rule of law depends on everyone pretending that is true.)

[Krayt]

Government gets to ladle charges on a politician until they agree not to run.

Not so keen on the idea, though I seem to recall other cases.

In any case, since his defense against some of this seems to mean he must believe it, charges seem to be having the opposite effect, forcing another run, because that helps the defense, oddly.

[Martinned]

Politician runs so that he has a stronger bargaining position with the DOJ.

[Brett Bellmore]

At the very least, if he wins he can shut down all federal charges against himself, and has the SS to defend him against state efforts to take him into custody.

[John F. Carr]

If he wins, the state convictions will not be final and he can ask the courts to keep him out of prison until the end of his term. Precedent says the President can be forced to turn over physical evidence or attend a deposition. Being locked up interferes with presidential duties much more than those acts.

[John F. Carr]

We can call the procedural device to get him physically into the Oval Office a writ of habeas corpus ad imperandum. Will the Supreme Court go along? What if Trump's VP makes Trump look normal? Do state court judges have second thoughts about locking him up? Does the Supreme Court bow to the needs of the moment?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, but why is Trump running

[OtisAH]

Is this another version of “If Turnip promises to quit the campaign can we drop the charges” thing?

Regardless, wrt whether we can “bundle” Turnip’s coup and theft of national security documents cases my vote is “no.” If he wants to plead guilty and cooperate for reduced sentencing, that’s fine I suppose. But admitting guilt and the truth are not sticks he has in his golf bag so it’s very unlikely he would.

[Bwaaah]

“The first thing I wonder about is whether Trump has any real friends. Not hangers-on and obsequious twits like Lindsey and Rudy, but respected people of stature whom Trump respects enough to listen to.”

I knew a narcissist. His wife said to me one day, “Most people think a narcissist sees himself as the most important person in his world. But what they miss is that it’s not a judgement call like that. For a narcissist, there are no other people in the world. They are just characters in his world.”

I think Trump is a narcissist. And, though he may know people whom he calls “friends,” they are all just characters, bit players if you will, in the life of I, Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've pointed this out before: The percentage of conservatives in academia started dropping rapidly beginning in the late 90's, at a rate that was consistent with most institutions simply having altogether ceased hiring any new conservatives, with the old conservatives aging out and being replaced with left-wingers.

My theory is that the left had been glad to view conservative colleagues as harmless eccentrics, until the '94 election proved that conservatives could actually win elections and end up in control. At which point they switched to viewing them as dangerous, and began a purge.

Mostly a purge by attrition, but still a purge.

[bernard11]

’94 election proved that conservatives could actually win elections and end up in control.

I guess Reagan didn't prove that. Or was he a CINO?

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean, obviously, the above was intended to go elsewhere.

Yes, Trump is a narcissist. It's a common problem in politicians. Who else would look in the mirror and think, "I'm the best guy in the entire country to be President!"?

[Bwaaah]

Who else would look in the mirror and think, “I’m the best guy in the entire country to be President!”?

Not me. And I'm the most important person in the world! LOL

And to your point about conservatives in academia, left-leaning people don't view the right as an alternative political perspective, but as an evil perspective. Conservatives are therefore not to be addressed in argument, but to be purged from communities. Whatever debate there may have been long ago is no longer even appropriate. That would be like listening to Nazis.

And for the left, "conservative" is now synonymous, by way of simple partisan shorthand, with right-winger, Trump lover, Republican, MAGA, Christian Right, fascist, Federalist Society, anti-female, insurrectionist, Proud Boys, Marjorie Taylor Greene, vulgar gutter scum.

The semi-passive purge is as real as their dismissiveness. Forgive me for using this term, but it's the only one that aptly describes how they feel about the political right in the U.S.: you're all a bunch of dumb useless niggers, and you're ruining life for everyone else (like niggers always do).

It's kind of that simple, and that venomous.

(P.S. Nothing in this remark is in any way about black people.)

[Nige]

'but as an evil perspective.'

It's like all of US history and right wing attitudes to the left have been completely erased from your brain.

This supposed purge is equaly explained by conservatives not being interested in academia.

'And for the left, “conservative” is now synonymous, by way of simple partisan shorthand, with right-winger, Trump lover, Republican, MAGA, Christian Right, fascist, Federalist Society, anti-female, insurrectionist, Proud Boys, Marjorie Taylor Greene, vulgar gutter scum.'

You're blaming THE LEFT for this? You really have internalised this whole 'the right has no moral or personal responsibility for what it is and what it does' thing.

'(P.S. Nothing in this remark is in any way about black people.)'

Oh it is most definitely about black people. Slavery, Jim Crow, the fight for civil rights, a million little hangovers such as getting pulled over by cops for being black - none of that compares to white people having your politics *criticised.*

[Bwaaah]

I'm kind of disappointed in you, Nige. You usually try to understand what other people are trying to say.

But yes, Nige. I'm just a dumb nigger.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you have him confused with some other "Nige"???

[Bwaaah]

You got stuck on the "you usually try to understand" part, eh?

LOL

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaah, I think you and your wife got this one right about how a narcissist sees humans. One exception: I think his children matter very, very much to him. They are not characters. He is very close to his children and it is not playacting.

[Bwaaah]

Interesting. I'm not sure how to understand what's going on there.

It's very hard to sell your story when your children say you're a shit. I could imagine that they're the only players in his life that he needs affirmation from. But whatever the reason, there does appear to be a special relationship there, a concern, that he exhibits with no others.

[Kazinski]

The big problem with your solution is it admits the cases are all designed to get Trump, not the impartial administration of justice.

To be sure it acknowledges what most people already believe, but still a very damaging admission.

[dwb68]

I am revising my opinion, I think Trump will win the election. Unless Biden withdraws. Trump seems to be running Biden's 2020 hide in the basement strategy and stay out of the limelight strategy**, and it works for him.

** well, except for all the prosecutions etc. But beating them makes him look stronger, not weaker. And he will. Its the most epic fuck up ever by the Democrat party, lol.

[dwb68]

He still has a problem with suburban women and independents, but Biden has a bigger problem on immigration and foreign policy. I don’t see Noem, Scott, or Stefanik as VP choices that help him the election. He needs someone who can balance his “Let Russia attack Europe” dumbfuck rhetoric. Of course, Trump has a long history of blowing himself up so anything goes.

[Ed Grinberg]

"He still has a problem with suburban women and independents, but Biden has a bigger problem on immigration and foreign policy."
I wonder: Are suburban women and "independents" not aware of what's happening with immigration and foreign policy? Do they like what's happening and want more of it?!

[dwb68]

People are not one-issue voters. There is a tension between immigration and foreign policy, vs his grab-a-pussy degradation of women plus Dobbs pushback because the GOP is awful and extreme on abortion. I am oversimplifying, somewhat. Kitchen table issues are also at play. But, the economy will be much better by November with the Fed on hold, so the economy is likely a wash or a point in Biden's favor.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Trump seems to be running Biden’s 2020 hide in the basement strategy and stay out of the limelight strategy**"

Ah, I think you've got "hiding" and "media avoiding reporting on you" confused. Trump is holding plenty of events, they're just mostly not getting covered.

[dwb68]

Fair enough. But if Trump gives a speech in the forest, and its not reported, did it happen?

Donald “inject beach” Trump is his own worst enemy. Less is more.

If he manages to stay out of the headlines, we get the best version of Trump: the policy without the perceived chaos.

People will choose between these two dimwit elderly fools based on their VP choice.

Trump should debate Haley, not because she'll win the nomination, but because it will make her look like she can take over.

[Frank Drackman]

Most Cancer Chemotherapy drugs are more caustic than Bleach and given Intravenously. Not nearly as stupid or dishonest as Parkinsonian Joe claiming Bo died in Iraq instead of Bethesda MD(admittedly, areas of Montgomery County MD are more dangerous than Iraq)

Frank

[dwb68]

Wow, someone who actually defends that dumb ass remark. comment long enough on the internet and you'll see everything.

[Frank Drackman]

Sorry you couldn’t get into Med School or you’d know it wasn’t a dumb ass remark, dummass.

[dwb68]

My middle finger knows more about biochemistry than you do. Please, go ahead, inject bleach and let us know how it goes. I am very libertarian, put whatever you want in your body. I am also a strong believer in science, experimental evidence, and the strong form of Darwinian evolution.

[Frank Drackman]

Your Middle Finger? Man, I bet your mom misses it.
Doxorubicin is way more damaging than Bleach, and there is this concept called "Dilution" dummass.

[dwb68]

So put your money where your internet mouth is: inject yourself, show us the result as a tik tok, or instagram reel, or whatever.

[Frank Drackman]

don't need to, haven't had the Vid', no jabs, no Ivermectin, just a functioning Immune System

[dwb68]

@Frank Drackman
The odds of you of not having any covid antibodies are very low, < 5%. You did have it; likely it was very mild. Or the bleach worked. Or you are lying (most likely to yourself though, because your case was mild.)

[Nige]

'Trump is holding plenty of events, they’re just mostly not getting covered.'

Which is probably the biggest favour the media is doing for Trump right now.

[DaveM]

He is uncharacteristically muted in his media appearances because of the lawsuits. Ironically, that makes him stronger politically. It feeds his image as the Suffering Servant of Democracy.

Speaking for myself, he doesn't fool me for a moment. He wouldn't be as bad as whatever group of puppet masters and pharmacists have been dragging poor Mr. Biden around the world stage have been, but he'd still be a disaster-in-waiting.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, right-wing blog
with a scant, misappropriated
academic veneer has operated
for no more than

ZERO

days without publishing
at least one racial slur;
it has published vile
racial slurs on at least

SEVEN (7)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least seven discussions
that have included a racial slur,
not just seven racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs,)

This blog is exceeding its
deplorable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published disgusting, vile
racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers probably miss
some of the racial slurs
this blog regularly publishes;
it would be unreasonable to
expect to catch all of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
Islamophobic, racist, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, and immigrant-hating slurs
(and other bigoted content) published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the 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, ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile. (The reason you couldn't play along with early Green Day was that Billie and Mike did not use tuners -- they tuned against each other, period -- and were often a half-step down. Much as guitarists in garages and bedrooms could not emulate the Stones because Keith had ditched one string and was open-tuned.)

This is an all-America favorite.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones rarities, by request:

First, Keith emulates Super Bowl LVIII's first-half offenses, experiencing a bit of difficulty starting up.

Next, Keith didn't write this one, but he learned it well enough to fill one of his nightly spots.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, Jerry, know you've been what do they call it?
"In Stir" for quite awhile
but there is this AlGore Invention called the Internets, and on this Invention you can watch/listen to almost any thing you ever wanted to, and even more you didn't want to.
We don't really need your daily "Deep Cuts" so we can run down to the record store.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some people welcome curation.

They tend not to be awkward, disaffected misfits, though.

[Frank Drackman]

I welcome your continued Incar-curation.
And I like the Stones to, but C'mon (Man!) just
come out of the friggin closet already!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Keep yapping, Mr. Drackman. Maybe you'll talk another Volokh Conspirator or two off a legitimate law faculty.

[grb]

Someone made an effort to collect this and that should be recognized :

“By contrast, we’ve heard an endless stream of personal reports about Donald Trump’s behavior when he was in office, and they were also all the same: he watches a lot of TV, can’t be bothered to do any reading, flies off the handle routinely, and lacks understanding of even simple issues.

This comes from Republican loyalists who worked directly with him. Adjectives include: unhinged, idiot, off the rails (John Kelly), has the understanding of a fifth grader (Jim Mattis); racist, misogynist and bigot (Omarosa Manigault Newman); dumb as shit (Gary Cohn); dope, intelligence of a kindergartner (H.R. McMaster); wholly unfit to be in office, the most divisive president in history (Cassidy Hutchinson); idiot (Steve Mnuchin and Reince Priebus); like an 11-year-old-child (Steve Bannon); moron (Rex Tillerson); detached from reality, shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office (Bill Barr); fucking liar (John Dowd); threatens our democracy (Mark Esper); laughing fool (John Bolton); failed at being the president (Mick Mulvaney); utter disgrace (Tom Bossert); racist, conman, cheat (Michael Cohen); wholly unfit to hold office ever again (Sarah Matthews); has never cared about America, its citizens, its future or anything but himself (Ty Cobb); shown time and time again that he’s willing to put his political ambitions ahead of what’s best for the country (Alyssa Farah Griffin); doing great and irreparable harm to my country (Gen. Mark Milley); undermine[d] a peaceful transition in accordance with our Constitution (Gen. Joseph Dunford); threat to democracy (Miles Taylor); very little understanding of what it means to be in the military (Richard Spencer); off the rails, crazy, nihilistic (Anthony Scaramucci); cares about no one but himself (Stephanie Grisham); absolutely failed (Elizabeth Neumann); flat-out disregard for human life (Olivia Troye); has no principles. None. None. (Maryanne Berry Trump); fucking maniac (Mary Trump)”

[DaveM]

In other words, a certain breed of CEO. I’m not kidding. I worked with those kinds of people my entire professional career. Here’s the thing: for all their flaws, they get results. My Trumpian friends would look at this list and say, “yes, but look at his nominations for the Supreme Court; we wouldn’t have the abortion issue placed back into the political sphere if it weren’t for Trump.” And they would be right.

My response to them is that giving voters a choice of eating two different flavors of the same cr*p sandwich is no way to run a country. We can do better, and even large movements must start small.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It probably strained Trump’s attention span to sign those nominations of people whose names were already researched by others and whose nominations were a sure thing. At no point did that take any competency or actual work on his part.

Grb is correct in that no president has had a lack of intelligence, maturity and competence testified to by the people who worked with him.

[Brett Bellmore]

But it did take being willing to do that. Any previous Republican President could have said, "I'll just nominate from a list provided by the Federalist Society."

But none ever did. And so until Trump we never got a Supreme court that would erase Roe v Wade.

Essentially, Republicans didn't pick Trump on the basis of being good at the job. They picked him on the basis of being willing to do the job they wanted done, instead of something else.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

No, the Federalist Society took time to grow and McConnell had to realize he needed to assert himself in picking justices. McConnell prevented Bush from appointing Miers and he stopped Garland and McConnell picked all of Trump’s judicial appointments. In fact Trump wanted to pull Kavanaugh’s nomination but Bush and McConnell got Kavanaugh over the line.

[Frank Drackman]

Well your Big Brain Clean Articulate Knee-Grow Barry Hussein Osama nominated Merrick Garland, so who's really the dummass??

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush nominated Roberts. Tee hee

[Frank Drackman]

You're making my point, "W" wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed either, he did appoint Sammy "The Knife" Alito though.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

McConnell gets credit for that….remember Harriet Miers??

[Brett Bellmore]

Empirically, can we do better? With the current systems in place?

I think we can't. The current system requires somebody who either is famous and wealthy for reasons unrelated to office holding, or whose chief qualification is fund raising. And neither are relevant to actually doing the job.

Honestly, I think we'd be better served by randomly promoting a state Governor every four years.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We should elect Democratic governors of red states or Republican governors of blue states. Republican governors too often behave like Bobby Jindal and govern in order to win a Republican presidential primary and don’t govern best for their state.

[Kazinski]

I agree with all of those characterizations.

Which is why I was so mystified that his administration was so much better on policy than any since the Reagan Administration, although not so great on execution, but hardly an outlier.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Because he didn’t invade Iraq and the fracking revolution happened under Obama.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it was because your typical Republican President since Reagan, (The Bushes, IOW.) had ideological reasons to prefer policies that most Republicans hated. They'd adopt them even if it hurt them politically, once in the White house.

While Trump had little in the way of ideology, so he had nothing driving him to piss off his voting base.

[mydisplayname]

I'm amazed at the number of retailers who sell bacon-wrapped Kosher hot dogs. Even more interesting, the majority of such retailers are located near law offices.

[DaveM]

To some, "Kosher" just means kuality.

[Krayt]

Just for the heck of it I looked up kosher bacon. Success!

But it's beef bacon.

[Frank Drackman]

50% Hebrew myself (The good half) but love me some Pig on occasion, thanks to the "Conspiracy" for always having some Surpreme Court "Occasion" I can celebrate. What J-Hovah doesn't know won't hurt him, it's all made up Superstition anyway.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

I hear some Jews drive German cars too. My Wife and mom for two (Yes Queenie, they both had sex with the entire Atlanta Falcons roster) I stick to the Amurican cars myself, 08' ZO6, even if it is a scandal you can't get a Vette with a stick shift anymore

[Martinned]

Here's an interesting one, courtesy of MLex so I'll just quote the summary:

Brown, Columbia, Duke, Emory and Yale universities received preliminary approval from a US federal judge today for settlements resolving claims that the schools illegally engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy designed to reduce or eliminate financial aid for prospective students.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

ON MY MIND: I had not heard the Black national anthem "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" before. Here's my first reaction:

THE GOOD: The melody is haunting, and the words are inspiring.

BUT: The piece is rangy and very difficult even for a trained singer to sing - the melody is fraught with difficult intervals (major and minor sixths!). and the chord progression is way too complicated for a national anthem. A national anthem shouldn’t be much more complicated than One– five –one.

(The difficult range is also a problem with the "Star-Spangled Banner", but the chord progression in the "Star-Spangled Banner" is much easier to understand. Not surprising, considering the original song was a British drinking-song! See, for instance, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-eZvRVywrA

UPDATE: the melody of "Star-Spangled Banner" does, however, include one downward minor sixth - from "flag" to "was:" in "... that our flag was still there".)

And do we really need it to invoke one particular God? Seems awfully exclusive for the 21st Century!

[Frank Drackman]

The total Solar Eclipse of April 8 isn't getting alot of publicity, it'll have about twice the length of totality of the 2017 one, if you haven't made your travel arrangements you're already too late, and no, my Lear Jet is fully booked.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I was telling my wife a year ago that we should go see it, and at that time it was already almost too late. She took the position that the 2017 one had passed right over our house, we didn't need to see another one.

Besides, she wanted to visit the Philippines this year to see her family for the first time in 10 years. Hard to argue with that.

Think Musk will make a point of launching something during the eclipse just to que up a spectacular photo? He seems the sort of guy to do just that.

[Frank Drackman]

Who assumes room temperature first, Sleepy Joe or Merrick the Elephant Man Garland? Sleepy's will be natural, but I see a Vince Foster scenario with our AG.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Hillary is so badass!! 0070 with a license to kill!!

[Frank Drackman]

You cross her at your own peril

[Armchair]

Are Democrats running the "Generic Democrat" candidate strategy for the 2024 Presidential Election?

Here's my thought process. Biden is not a great choice now. His polling numbers are in the dirt. He's having "elderly moments" fairly often. The groundwork is being set to oust him at the convention. But why so late? Why now? I think it comes down to visibility.

Running for president is super visible. All the minor flaws, all the little imperfections, they all come out when running for President. Any tiny story can be found and exploited. Someone who looks good initially, when exposed to 12-18 months of blistering media attention...suddenly doesn't look so hot. Miscues occur. Old exploits are found.

But, COVID was great for Biden in 2020. He could hide in his basement, didn't have to make lots of public appearances, and so on. He could be "generic Democrat." Not seen, everyone can assume the best about him. It worked out pretty well. But...you're not going to get another COVID. So...what's the next best option?

You reduce the visibility time. The DNC is in late August. You swap out for the chosen candidate then. Early voting starts in October. That means instead of 12-18 months of publicity, you can limit it to just two months for whoever is new. FOIA requests...those won't get done in 2 months. Hell, with absentee ballots, you may be even able to get down to a single month of visibility. You'll get the initial boost of a "new" person without the extended media time.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've commented myself that the chief reason Biden won is that hiding in his basement allowed him to remain a generic Democrat. I think there's something to your theory.

And we'd have no idea who, because anybody visible enough to look likely wouldn't qualify as generic.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It’s about negatives—the right wing echo chamber excels at jacking up negatives of Democratic candidates. So focus on your own candidates and policies divide…but jacking up negatives of Democrats unites. So for a Democrat candidate the best thing to be is to be UNDERESTIMATED because the right wing echo chamber isn’t focused on you and jacking up your negatives.

[Armchair]

Even if they're visible (Think Newsom or Whitmer), most people outside of politics haven't REALLY formed an opinion on them. Gavin looks real pretty. Sure, he got butchered in the debate against DeSantis. But most people didn't pay attention to that.

Newsom has enough flaws that in a long contest, they'd may doom him. But short, just a month? With a friendly media/social media? He could survive that scrutiny.

[ducksalad]

Under this theory (and it's a good theory), what's the decisive moment:

- delegates violate their first ballot commitment to Biden, or
- Harris twenty-fives him right before the convention, or
- Biden's in on it, and will step down on his own right before the convention?

[Armchair]

I think choice 3, mostly. Biden will be "convinced" to step down right before the convention.

[John F. Carr]

A few years ago an elected official in Massachusetts announced his retirement days before the deadline for turning in nomination papers for the next election. He tipped off his chosen successor who was able to get the paperwork in order.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't a theory, it's just fan fiction.

We don't live in a political thriller.

[Longtobefree]

Just to belabor the obvious, there are no Biden policies, just the policies of the democrat party.
Whoever they run, the policies are the same. Sad.

[edbeau99]

Still waiting for any comment anywhere on the Reason website regarding the biggest overturning of the right to free speech in the past century - the jury verdict in the Michael Mann - Mark Steyn lawsuit just decided in DC. Criticize a known bully climate alarmist and you get hit with $1,000,000 in punitive damages.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think people are generally assuming that punitive damages ruling will be overturned on appeal.

[Martinned]

Did you not read this website at all last week?

[ThePublius]

Reading this blog is not everyone's full time occupation.

[Martinned]

That's what RSS is for.

[Nige]

So much of the shit you guys believe fails to stand up in court, when actul evidence has to be presented. You'd think some doubt would creep in.

[Joe_dallas]

Edbuau99 - misapplication of the standard set forth in Harte-Hanks

[Armchair]

In other news...Democrats want to cut taxes on the rich.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/02/the-daily-chart-why-do-dems-want-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.php

Yeah...it's pretty clear who the party of the rich is these days.

[Sarcastr0]

For those who don't want to click on a bare link with a contentless smug rejoinder, it's about the SALT deduction.

Which is more a middle class thing than a rich thing, and which is hardly generalizable to tax policy writ large.

[Kazinski]

Maybe upper middle class.

[Armchair]

I mean the chart's pretty clear about the benefit.

The top 1%: $35,000+ average tax cut
90th to 99th percentile: $2480 average tax cut
Everyone else: <$500 average tax cut.

If that's not a tax cut for the rich, I don't know what is.

[Longtobefree]

"If that's not a tax cut for the rich, I don't know what is."

Anything the republicans do?

[Don Nico]

"more a middle class thing than a rich thing,"
S_0,
If you read the usual progressive blurbs (think Warren and Sanders) you see that people with a family AGI of 100 -200 k$ are called rich.
Those people would get a huge benefit with the restoration of the previous SALT deduction.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm neither Warren nor Sanders, you provided no sources, and I personally think it depends on where you live.

Maybe take it up with Armchair.

[Harvey Mosley]

Hmm, must be something wrong with my computer because I don't see your sources.

[Armchair]

It wouldn't be Sarcastr0 if he had sources.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair enough - I did say that SALT was more a middle class thing.

I'll withdraw that, because there seems plenty of quibbling over what counts as middle class.

And because the more damming argument is the clause right after: "which is hardly generalizable to tax policy writ large."

Powerline, is taking a marginal policy and pretending it's the total. Armchair is too dumb to realize, but most of you folks should see what actually drives tax rates, and how SALT is not the dominant element.

[Armchair]

Why don't you tell us what income levels you believe are "middle class" Sarcastr0. Use whatever area of the country you want, just be sure to give us firm income ranges.

The results will be enlightening.

[Sarcastr0]

If you could read a few comments up you would see I already did.

But you don’t want to engage on how you are magnifying this one thing as though it were all of tax policy, eh?

[Armchair]

Avoiding the question again I see.

[Sarcastr0]

"If you could read a few comments up you would see I already did."

Try it out and see what you find!

[Armchair]

Actually Don, those people ($100 - $200K) aren't even in the top 10% . They don't do that well, saving ~$360

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/

It's those making over $200K who rake in the bucks from removing the SALT deduction.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, just to avoid the pain, agony and time suck of documentation compilation of having to itemize, I will live without SALT. I went from days and weeks to just a day (do not need to itemize). That time savings is very substantial.

[Joe_dallas]

Don - FWIW - the loss of the salt deduction is grossly overhyped. Individuals with large salt deductions were typically paying AMT, The large increase in the AMT exemption resulted in a significant decrease in those with large salt deductions from being subject to AMT, the end result for most of those taxpayers was a very small decrease in tax liability, often in the range $200-$500.

Several commentators will claim they pay considerably more with the loss of the SALT deduction. Though contrary to what is often posted, compare any post 2017 tax years income tax liability with what the liability would be using 2017 tax law. The difference will usually be within a few hundred dollars.

[David Nieporent]

The difference will usually be within a few hundred dollars.

This is not even close to accurate, though "not even close to accurate" is better than your usual.

[ducksalad]

Nothing to do with rich, poor, or middle class.

Seems straightforward: the SALT is a transfer of money collected through federal taxes; taken from low tax states and given to high tax states. Since (generally speaking) low tax states tend to be Republican, while high tax states trend Democrat, the Democrats favor SALT and Republicans are against it.

[Armchair]

I mean the chart’s pretty clear about the benefit.

The top 1%: $35,000+ average tax cut
90th to 99th percentile: $2480 average tax cut
Everyone else: <$500 average tax cut.

If that's not a tax cut for the rich, I don't know what is...

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yes: If you analyze it without looking at the impact of state tax levels, you're not going to see any state level impact...

The SALT deduction cushions the impact of high state taxes, in order to push states toward the high tax, high services model, instead of the low tax, low service model preferred by Republicans. With the SALT deduction, you get much less advantage from living in a low tax jurisdiction, so the low tax/service model is mostly pain, not gain.

[Armchair]

But even with the state level impact, the primary benefit is going to the richest people in those states...

[Brett Bellmore]

That's obviously going to be the case for almost any tax cut, because the richest people are paying the most taxes to begin with.

[Armchair]

I mean, there are ones that don’t.

The Child Tax Credit comes to mind. The excise tax on gasoline is another. The excise tax on tobacco is a third.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hence "almost".

SALT is clearly not that sort of tax cut, but instead the sort that scales with income.

[Armchair]

Because of how deductions work, it scales fairly dramatically with the tax code.

[PaulS]

If Merrick Garland were nominated to the Supreme court - How many votes for approval would he get in the Senate?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Garland was put in a bad situation because Democrats made such a big deal about Barr getting ahold of the Mueller Report and burying it. Democrats need to remember—Bush Republicans slaughtered innocent Muslims and anyone that was a College Republican will do anything in their power to help the GOP.

[ducksalad]

Garland *should* have been in a bad position because his judicial record already showed a petty authoritarian streak, not unusual by any means but certainly disqualifying.

Garland was actually in bad position because the Republicans in the senate predicted (correctly, it turns out) that they would control both POTUS and Senate after the next election, and could fill the position with whoever they wanted by waiting. This was perfectly constitutional, whether it was nice or violated some kind of already badly weakened norm is debatable. IMO he should have gotten a floor vote, and that vote should have been Hell No.

Garland’s later behavior proved that his authoritarian streak was even worse than thought, and that Mitch McConnell did a good thing for every American regardless of party, even if they don’t understand what’s good for them.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This was perfectly constitutional, whether it was nice or violated some kind of already badly weakened norm is debatable."

Not so much violating a weakened norm, as a norm which had yet to fully coalesce. What happened to Garland is perfectly consistent with the long stretch of treatment of Supreme court nominees, even if recent nominations were a bit of an outlier from that. Not a durable outlier, it turned out.

"IMO he should have gotten a floor vote, and that vote should have been Hell No."

Yeah, I think so, too. I think what was going on was that the Republican Senators were hedging their bets; They thought that if they didn't vote on Garland, his nomination would remain in some kind of limbo, and if things went badly they could hold a snap vote confirming him, to fill the seat before Hillary could nominate worse.

That's just speculation on my part, though. Just glad he was kept off the Court.

[tylertusta]

Garland was actually in bad position because the Republicans in the senate predicted (correctly, it turns out) that they would control both POTUS and Senate after the next election, and could fill the position with whoever they wanted by waiting

I don't think it was a prediction so much as a gamble. On the day that Scalia passed away, Trump was well ahead of the pack, and every reputable poll said that Clinton would trounce him. McConnell knew that if he blockaded Garland's nomination until the election then he might end up with someone worse, or someone better.

However, the cost to not taking up that gamble would have been ruinous to the party: the replacement of Scalia by any Obama nominee would put the Court's liberal wing firmly in control. If Senate Republicans just rolled over and accepted it, Republican voters would revolt against their own elected officials.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You left out the part where Republicans had explicitly named Garland as a nominee they would be able to accept.

McConnell blocked a vote because he knew Garland's nomination would succeed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where some Republicans so named him, you mean?

But, yeah, one of McConnell's reasons for blocking a vote was undoubtedly that Garland would get at least a few Republican votes, possibly enough to be confirmed.

It's not the confirmation that McConnell would have been worried about. It's that the vote would be held too close to an election for Republican voters to forget they'd done that before going into the voting booth.

While Republicans had held the House, McConnell had turned the Senate into a killing ground for conservative legislation, just to avoid exposing a handful of RINOs who'd have voted against it. One of his key legislative priorities for years now has been helping RINOs avoid exposure, as that might lead to Republican voters terminating their careers.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know who is the party of the rich these days.

The GOP dive into cult of personality 'only I can fix it' authoritarianism, social issues populism, negative partisanship, and attacking outgroups is an approach that appeals to assholes up and down the socioeconomic continuum.

Heck, I read most of the J6 insurrectionists were not rich or poor but upper middle class. Like real estate broker types, Should be comfortable with the status quo, but got brain worms about immigrants and whatnot from FOX News.

The legacy chamber of commerce policies that remain seem an awkward fit in the GOP of today:
Anti-union, and pushing the utterly debunked trickle down voodoo.

The other pro-business policies are all gone - business is woke now, you see. We'll see how long those stick around - they seem to have staying power based on the blind adherence by otherwise more purely populist people around here.

But while the Chamber is persona non grata, I'm sure the GOP can count on their vote still; business ghouls can't be choosy in these dark times of taxes that could possibly be a bit lower and no new deregulation in years.

[ducksalad]

So what you’ve presented here is classic Marxist class analysis.

1. Start by assuming that people’s politics should align with their economic status (“party of the rich”).
2. Second, attribute any deviation from (1) to false consciousness, or what you call “brain worms”.
3. Third, state that it is historically inevitable (“we’ll see how long…”) that this situation will be corrected through some kind of massive social change.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think that politics should align with politics. Assuming you see it as an unsaid axiom, where is that load bearing in my analysis above?

I think you are seeing a false consciousness argument I’m not making. Sometimes brain works are just brain worms.

Sociological trends are not economic trends, so it’s not that kind of Marxism. Though I have seen any distinction from the great man theory called Marxist so you could be right, albeit in a really anodyne way.

[ducksalad]

Well, OK. What do you mean by "should be comfortable with the status quo but"?

Specifically that word "should" - maybe you were just stating conventional wisdom, but I read it as normative.

[Sarcastr0]

Aren't real estate brokers doing pretty well? Not just socioeconomically, but generally?

And don't sleep on what they are arising out of their comfort for - they were extra well represented among those that got it in their head Biden was stealing the election.
That's not 'something other than $$ is important to them, how awful' that's brain worms.

Why are these comfortably living people more vulnerable to brain worms per capita? That gets into sociology.

[Absaroka]

"Why are these comfortably living people more vulnerable to brain worms per capita?"

It's hardly a new phenomenon. By and large the Weathermen weren't down-n-out folks trying to figure out where their next meal was coming from.

[Sarcastr0]

Absolutely true. See also Occupy Wallstreet. Not quite brain worms but inchoate radicalism.

The why is a bit of a mystery. Seeking fulfillment in an alienating existence? Have the time to take the trouble to go crazy?

[Absaroka]

"Have the time to take the trouble to go crazy?"

Pretty far out of my lane, but that's kind of my take. Plotting a revolution is a luxury good out of reach of folks who are working two jobs to keep the kids fed.

There is an exception, I think, when times are so desperate that working two jobs won't feed the kids, but the 60's or now aren't those times.

"inchoate radicalism"

A couple of years ago an old college roommate asked if we could put up a ?22? year old relative who was traveling through, bound for Seattle. We said sure and she visited for a couple of days. We asked why she was heading for Seattle, expecting an answer like job prospects or something. Instead she said "join the protest scene". Oh, nice ... what cause are you protesting? "Oh, whatever, just protesting in general".

Didn't know what to say to that. I get the folks who did voter drives in the Jim Crow era, I take my hat off to them. Or Save the Whales - even if I don't agree with the cause, I salute people who have one. But she just wanted to protest for the sake of protesting. I don't get that.

[Michael P]

"End-stage capitalism" is always a popular fallback excuse to protest.

[SimonP]

The wealthy are split.

There's one group who believes in using state power to shut down competitors, using bribes to shift official policy and attract government contracts, and shutting down democratic accountability when it gets in the way of profits. They're the kleptocratic group, and they're modeling themselves after the oligarchs of Russia, China, Hungary, and others. The GOP is for them.

The other group, the "fair play" rich, still basically believe in government. They just want regulations to be minimal, taxes to be reduced, economic management to be rational. They're not natural Democrats, but insofar as they're unwilling to go in for full corruption with the GOP, they have no other place to go - and the Democratic establishment seems pretty happy to accommodate them.

On a personal level - all of my wealthy friends seem to be Republicans who have learned to talk like Democrats. Their primary concern is taxes and the further accumulation of wealth, but it's impolite to say so. I don't know how they actually vote.

[Sarcastr0]

President, you say? Yeah, I'd do the job.
I'm no narcissist, but I do have a healthy confidence in my competence, partially due to my humility as to my correctness!

[Brett Bellmore]

Over at Balkinization:

“Liberal Originalism,” Rest in Peace

"But for the moment, the melodrama is worth pondering not for what might have been, but for what was. The Section 3 episode was an astonishing example of how a group of enthusiastic liberals coaxed themselves into believing in legal possibility — indeed, interpretive near-inevitability — only to find the great expectations of the Supreme Court adopting their views collapse immediately and spectacularly.

“The opinion won’t write,” Gerard Magliocca insisted hopefully of the allegedly great difficulty of overturning the Colorado ruling the other day. It is being written right now."

He correctly identifies that liberal and NeverTrump legal scholars were furiously wishcasting an inevitable Trump defeat on disqualification, in part in the hope that the Court would get sucked into their collective fantasy.

I do have to fault him on the claim that the conservative justices had to abandon originalism to favor Trump. That's just him caught up in the fantasy, too. He took 'liberal originalism' too seriously as real originalism.

Still, he ends on the right note:

"The Section 3 episode will be forgotten, a footnote to the 2024 election. But for all its brevity, there is a lot to ponder in it. “The nation is talking about little else,” I read on Amar’s website a couple of weeks ago, amid the wall-to-wall legal coverage of Section 3. Soon people will talk about other things. But in doing so, they might miss the chance to learn about the limits of liberal originalism as a strategy. For better or worse, I am sure we will have many other occasions to ask ourselves whether the entire project of pursuing our best political future through the constitutional politics of asking high court judges to take our side — as opposed to democratic political struggle to achieve our goals — is either credible or practical."

Any time a liberal gives up on the notion of using the judiciary to force liberalism on an unwilling public, it's a victory.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

More important, every time a cranky old conservative takes his or her stale, ugly thinking to the grave and is replaced in our society and electorate by a younger, better, more diverse American, it's another welcome step toward victory for the liberal-libertarian mainstream in the glorious American culture war. It's beautiful, it's important, and it just happens every day.

[tylertusta]

Any time a liberal gives up on the notion of using the judiciary to force liberalism on an unwilling public, it’s a victory.

Amen.

The sooner that people acknowledge that the ends don't justify the means, the better off we'll all be.

[Dr. Ed 2]

FUCK JOE BIDEN FUCK JOE BIDEN FUCK JOE BIDEN FUCK JOE BIDEN FUCK JOE BIDEN FUCK JOE BIDEN FUCK JOE BIDEN FUCK JOE BIDEN

Actually, fuck his mind dead pathological cult supporters, one of whom I had to deal with today. Walmart will offer good on-line deals on stuff they want to get rid of, and last spring it was perfectly good sweatshirts which just happen to be blaze orange or puke green for $4 each -- I took several in blaze orange.

I had to share a ride with a twit who somehow presumed that because I was wearing my orange sweatshirt I was a Trump supporter. Or maybe she presumed that anyone wearing Orange was an evil Protestant and Biden a Catholic. Or something.

So I'm now a threat to public safety for wearing an orange sweatshirt. This is bullshyte....

[Noscitur a sociis]

Thus concluding yet another exciting episode of Shit That Didn’t Happen, written, directed, and produced by Dr. Ed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh it did. And then she tried to accuse me of domestic violence for disagreeing with her. Fortunately I had witnesses and she didn't.

But this is bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

You've proven to be willing to lie, and to love tales of personal partisan drama.

And you've been on a tear today especially.

On balance, my guess is you wanted to type fuck Joe Biden a lot and then made an excuse both petty and unbelievable.

You're not a very closed book, Ed.

[MoreCurious]

Don’t be mean to Dr. Ed. He’s clearly suffering from PTSD due to having to deal with the Walmart crowds, buy a couple of cheap shirts, share a ride with a stranger, and fear for his safety — all on the same day! (Reminds me of the time that a guy with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker parked beside me at the supermarket. I wasn’t sure I’d survive crossing paths with this person.) Maybe it’s time for the VC to establish a daily award for the person who survived the most harrowing public encounter. Hang in there, Dr. Ed! You’re an inspiration to us all.

[OtisAH]

Oh yeah, because Americans are so well-versed in the Brits’ “orange means Protestant.” First thing most folks think about in fact. Fucking sadlarious.

[Magister]

It's unclear what form the presumption of Trump support took, and what reasons were inferred by which Dr. Ed 2 would be considered a menace to public safety. But Dr. Ed 2 is a Trump supporter, and he probably should be considered a menace to public safety from his advocacy of running people over with snow plows that he claims to be qualified to drive. So, perceptive work, fictional ride sharer!

[Armchair]

And in other news, Sure TikTok is banned on all federal government devices. The FBI has repeatedly issued security warnings. TikTok is banned in most states on government devices. And Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Brendan Carr has said the app should be completely banned. You know...because it may be giving information to the Chinese Government.

But Biden says "Sure, time for my campaign to join TikTok!"

https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/biden-campaign-joins-tiktok-despite-national-security-warnings

Well, I suppose if China's already paying off your son, what's another security risk.

[Sarcastr0]

Lord you are silly.

[David Nieporent]

Armchair is armchairing again. What exactly does he think is the security risk of posting campaign messages on TikTok?

[Armchair]

Here's John F. Plumb, assistant secretary of defense for space policy and principal cyber advisor to the secretary of defense. "TikTok is a "potential threat vector" to the United States"

Just maybe, he knows what he's talking about. And maybe the President of the United States should not be encouraging the use of TikTok by having his campaign join it...let alone the potential danger of China having direct access to the campaign of the POTUS.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes the security risk is potential threat vector.

You seem to think Tik Tok is magic?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we seem to think it's malware controlled by a strategic adversary. For instance, it includes a keylogger capable of recording your logins at any site you visit while using it, credit card information, you name it.

This move by Biden would be a bad idea even if the Chinese government didn't have effective control over the platform.

[Sarcastr0]

It campaign messages, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it will be used for campaign messages, giving China a convenient window into our politics.

What part of "malware controlled by a strategic adversary" are you having trouble with?

[Sarcastr0]

You really do think it's magic.

[Brett Bellmore]

What part of "it has a keylogger in it" is a reference to magic?

[Bwaaah]

"You really do think it’s magic."

There's no indication whatsoever that he does. Thank you, Mr. Dismissive.

[Sarcastr0]

Y'all somehow think that posting Biden memes will give China the inside scoop on American policy.

When pressed, everyone just says it's malign Chinese software, and doesn't really get into what information it's going to be privy to.

Yeah, that's magical thinking.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Y’all somehow think that posting Biden memes will give China the inside scoop on American policy."

Where did I say that? I mean, it's not entirely impossible if some highly placed idiots in his administration ignore security concerns and access classified information on devices that they've installed Tiktok on, but that's not my primary concern.

My primary concern is that our brain dead President is encouraging people to use malware controlled by a hostile foreign state, that is KNOWN to have a keylogger built into it.

Maybe while he's at it he can endorse Chinese manufactured routers that have backdoors built into the firmware. Just to be thorough.

[Bwaaah]

The New York Times talks "magic":

TikTok Browser Can Track Users’ Keystrokes, According to New Research (New York Times 2022-08-19)

[Sarcastr0]

Next time Biden's foreign policy team logs onto his campaign's Tik Tok account, let me know.

[Bwaaah]

nah nah back at you.

[Zarniwoop]

Trump's application for a stay dropped:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A745/300410/20240212154110541_2024-02-12%20-%20US%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Application%20to%20S.%20Ct.%20for%20Stay%20of%20D.C.%20Circuit%20Mandate%20-%20Final%20With%20Tables%20and%20Appendix.pdf

[ReaderY]

It’s a classic attempt to run out the clock. Trump is asking for a stay to give him time to either file a petition for a writ of certiarari or to request en banc review with the court of appeals. You know jolly well which one he’ll do first. (Hint: What would make things take the longest?)

If I were the Supreme Court I would do one of two things, and do it tomorrow:

(1) Deny the stay application with prejudice and direct that the matter be returned to the district court for trial.

(2) Give Trump 24 hours to convert his petition for a stay to a petition for writ of certiarari, and direct that if the deadline is not met, the case should be remanded to district court for trial.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, this must be one of those days where we DON'T want Trump to be treated like any other litigant. I keep losing track of whether that happens on even days, odd days, prime days, or if I should just ask the mob every morning....

[Sarcastr0]

We don't let other *defendants* (not litigant) interminably run out the clock either, though.

Delay for it's own sake as a long solved problem in criminal trial practice.

[Life of Brian]

I know, right? Just ask any death row inmate.

But seriously, just stop. There are default time spans in appellate practice, left undisturbed with nary a thought in 99.999% of cases, which the DC Circuit affirmatively and gleefully short-circuited here because they're so desperate to cram this down before the election cycle.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, if there is a factual reason to expedite, courts have done that as well.

But bullshit requests for an extension based on nothing seem something a court could dispose of quickly and legitimately. Insisting that pretext must be taken seriously is you treating Trump like he's special.

Honestly, claiming the special pleading here is against Trump is quite ironic.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, it's a sad world you occupy where simply trying to restore the same normal appellate process afforded to any other party -- again, arbitrarily stripped by the DC Circuit for no reason other than to beat the election clock -- is "requesting a bullshit extension."

Can't wait to see what you come up with for your next cutesy avoidance technique!

[Bwaaah]

"Ah, this must be one of those days where we DON’T want Trump to be treated like any other litigant."

(LOL) I was sitting across the table, eating, with some left-leaning friends. We were having a lovely non-political conversation. And then one started: "Do you believe that Trump has the audacity to argue in a court that [...]???!!!"

I admit to having been momentarily confused by the question. (The only arguments before courts that I consider to be audacious are contemptuous ones.) But it only took a moment to realize the operative word in the question was "Trump."

Most people who suffer from TDS don't know what it is, or how it affects them. It's a real blind spot.

[Sarcastr0]

And that Donald Trump was Albert Einstein, and everyone stood and clapped.

[Bwaaah]

In what world? For you? Whuuuhhhh?

But there you are. TDS. Some shit about something "Trump."

[David Nieporent]

Gotta love incompetent lawyering. From the brief:

The reasons to do so are compelling. President Trump’s claim that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts presents a novel complex, and momentous question that warrants careful consideration on appeal. The panel opinion below, like the district court, concludes that Presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts does not exist at all. This is a stunning breach of precedent and historical norms.

Um, which is it? Is the question novel, or is there precedent?

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, look: Somebody finally noticed what I've been harping on for months:

The Case for Removing Trump From the Ballot Has a Fatal Originalist Flaw: There were no state ballots to speak of when the 14th Amendment was drafted.

[Bwaaah]

Well then there's no originalist case for putting him on the ballot now, is there?

nyahh! (lol)

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the originalist argument is actually that, once somebody has the right to vote, who they vote for is entirely up to them. Freely picking who gets your vote is part of the right to vote, as originally understood.

If they chose to vote for somebody who doesn't qualify for the office, they're wasting their vote, but, really, no more so than if they chose to vote for somebody who's obviously going to lose. It's their vote to waste.

It's only very recently that states began exercising any control at all over who you could vote for; Even if they didn't put somebody on the ballot, they were understood to have to allow you to write the name in.

In fact, it wasn't until the 1993 case of Burdick v Takushi that the Supreme court finally decided that it was constitutional to refuse to allow write in votes. I find the dissent quite persuasive.

Hawaii's system was particularly egregious, as independent candidates in Hawaii have to get on the ballot via the state's primary election, and any voter who casts a vote for an independent in that election can not vote in any party primary, so that independent candidates can only make it on the ballot in the first place if they're so monsterously popular that a large fraction of the electorate will sacrifice their opportunity to pick candidates for every other office, in order to put them on the general election ballot.

It's a system specifically designed to make independent candidacies impossible as a practical matter, the ban on write in votes was just to complete the job of confining voters to only picking major party candidates.

What is it with Democrat dominated states and election rules designed to deprive minority voters of any choice in the general election?

[Bwaaah]

That decision is surprising to me. Per the majority opinion:

Hawaii’s asserted interests in avoiding the possibility of unrestrained factionalism at the general election and in guarding against “party raiding” during the primaries are legitimate and are sufficient to outweigh the limited burden that the write-in voting ban imposes upon voters.

"Factionalism" would only be a problem in write-ins if there were so many as to affect the outcome. In such a case, it seems wrong to characterize the popular voters as being a "faction," or their will expressed therein to be "factionalism."

At the same time, spoiler games, especially by organized opposing parties, are potentially real and viable. We are always genuinely at risk of the passions of people and the politics of the moment. Partisans, unrestrained by rules, have little affinity to ethics. I do not know how big a problem that is, but I suspect it is much worse than I imagine.

I admit to finding some security in a lumbering system as it is. For example, I find the two party system to be a great limit on individual expression and association and the notion of democratic choice, and yet, the alternative, in practice, looks less effective for other reasons.

FYI: Nine states prohibit write-ins per wikipedia: Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota. Interestingly, nine states don't require registration of candidates in order to qualify for a write-in.

[Brett Bellmore]

And all pretty recently, would be my point. For most of the history of this country, if you could vote at all, you could vote for anybody you pleased, the government had no say at all in who you could vote for.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, if you want to be pedantic, the government still has no say in who you can vote for. You can take a ballot in Hawaii and scribble Mickey Mouse on it if you want. It just wouldn't be counted.

[Bwaaah]

[Brett Bellmore]

But, seriously, if you can't hack seeing messages you don't like, you can't hack being in a normal environment.

We can't deprive everybody of their normal rights just so people with psychiatric problems are comfortable.

[theobromophile]

Bari Weiss didn't complain about "mean messages" in any sense that is comparable to a t-shirt stating "there are only two genders." Here is what she said in her public resignation letter:

"My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are."

In law and in common sense, there is a difference between stating an opinion that other people do not hold and directly harassing people. The former is legally protected from government censure, and the latter is often legally prohibited, even when done by private individuals.

"There are only two genders" is hardly equivalent to a death wish.

[Kazinski]

Exactly, nothing smooth about Trumps speaking style, his sentence structure, his obvious errors and exaggerations, but the key is he seems the same as he ever was (although I admit I don't watch him much).

Biden is noticeably declining.

[Nige]

Brett fills his house with messages and slogans he hates, just to show how tough he is.

[Commenter_XY]

You know, I was ready to just dismiss what SC Hur wrote. All that stuff about POTUS Biden being unable to remember the year his son died, or when he was in office as VP - I figured it was just crap.

Then he did the press conference. The one where he dyslexed Sisi (Egypt) and Obrador (Mexico). Now, if you look that these men side by side....tough to confuse them. There was more.

POTUS Biden came across very badly. And I understand his defensiveness, completely. He sounded like Grandpa when you're having the discussion about diminishing ability with age. It was not a good look.

I don't think 70%+ of the country is wrong when they say there are very serious concerns with POTUS Biden and cognition (latest polling, fwiw). It is very obvious. It is why I asked about 25A.

[Brett Bellmore]

The innocent explanation essentially being that he's sometimes in a fugue state, and has no idea what he's doing? That the secret document fairies moved the stuff around when he wasn't looking?

Come on now, this is too clever by half. This is what it looks like when you're reaching for an excuse.

[DaveM]

“The report finds that the evidence of a knowing, willful violation of the criminal laws is wanting.”

So, all the possible legit reasons why he didn’t know he was committing a crime are:

1. He didn’t know because the law is confusing and unclear, and he just made an “honest” mistake.
2. He didn’t know because he didn’t remember, he just plain forgot, the “elderly old man” defense.
3. He didn’t know because he wasn’t aware that the documents were classified, he didn’t take care.

With all due respect, none of those “good” reasons do him any favors, they just make him look worse. And we haven’t even touched on the possible “bad” reasons.

All these good intentions are just digging his hole deeper.

[Bob from Ohio]

"knowing, willful violation of the criminal laws"

He gave classified info to his ghostwriter. David Howell Petraeus did the same, he pled guilty to a crime.

[Frank Drackman]

Notice how Parkinsonian Joe didn’t say when it was that Bo died, of course he didn’t remember where he died either, so it’s not surprising. Good thing is it did get Brain Cancer put on the list of Presumptive Burn Pit conditions for PACT Act Vets

[Nige]

Sounds more like sour grapes when you can't prove a guy did a crime.

[Martinned]

Makes you wonder whether Trump even hears the words that are coming out of his mouth. But other Republicans certainly do: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/marco-rubio-backs-trumps-anti-nato-pro-russia-remarks_n_65c926d0e4b01f4a8b012335

[Brett Bellmore]

"We’re talking about a very small minority group that already stands out a lot socio-politically,"

We're talking about a very small minority group defined by having serious psychiatric problems.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, he said that if they can't be bothered to spend for their own defense, screw them.

I'm cool with that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're an unprincipled piece of shit. Of course you'd be ok with Trump announcing he wouldn't honor our ratified treaties and would in fact encourage a belligerent enemy of the US to attack our allies.

You people don't deserve to live in our country.

[Commenter_XY]

Encourage more sex within marriage? That ain't so bad. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe stop killing hundreds of thousands of mostly minority babies? We're trying that in Georgia

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the primary problem, you see this all across the developed world, which may be why you see fertility declines all across the developed world, is government old age pensions.

Children used to be the original old age pensions. You had them, you raised them, and then they took care of you when you needed it.

Old age pensions create the illusion that you don't need to have children to have a comfortable old age. It's an illusion because all that they do is make those children a common resource by taxing them to pay the pensions. The children are still needed, but production of them isn't rewarded.

So they get under produced, like any socialized product.

The fundamental biological problem, though, is that we don't have an instinct to reproduce, we have an instinct to have sex, and we have an instinct to care for the children once they're born, and the bit in between didn't formerly need any instinct, as it was biological inevitability.

It isn't inevitable anymore.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Triple the income tax of unmarried women and use that to fund handouts to families with children. Encourage women to stay home with young children, like we used to.

[John F. Carr]

The Boston Globe had an interesting story related to fertility:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/02/06/magazine/the-elusive-promise-of-egg-freezing/

In the past few decades women have been freezing their eggs waiting for the right time. They think they will have kids when it is convenient to take a break from work, maybe in their 40s when their unfrozen eggs are going bad. Down the road they discover the real problem was not just work. They changed their mind about having kids. They still haven't found a suitable man to settle down with. Most women who freeze eggs don't use them. (The women who don't want a man, lesbian couples and single moms, don't seem to be numerous enough to matter.)

The process of extracting, freezing, thawing, fertilizing, and implanting eggs costs tens of thousands of dollars. In some circumstances this is paid by insurance.

[SimonP]

It’s not surprising that the resident MAGA loons have no response to this other than to invoke the 50s.

The basic problem in developed and developing countries right now is that young adults are entering a workforce facing increased economic insecurity, escalating house prices, unflagging inflation, and stagnant wage growth. At the same time, state support for working parents is minimal, childcare and schooling costs is increasing rapidly, and against all of this people have tools unlike they’ve ever had before to prevent and delay pregnancy at will.

But people want kids. They want to settle down, buy a house, grow a family. That fundamental desire has not gone away.

What’s needed is just – investment. We need to unleash housing development so that communities aren’t trapped in the single-family development patterns and housing supply can meet demand. We need stronger labor rights so that workforces can organize and negotiate better wages and benefits for themselves. We need to fund and maintain our public schools in a way that isn’t closely tied to intergenerational poverty and more parental involvement in schooling (which we can hopefully get if we improve their economic standing in the workforce).

We can do that without a lot of direct government involvement or spending. But if we were to consider other policy tools, things like paid parental leave, public funding of daycares, guaranteed minimum incomes, and other mandates/programs can put families on firmer footing and make them more confident that they can afford the children they’d like to have.

[Brett Bellmore]

First accept that there's an actual, genuinely serious problem, and immigration is just a delaying tactic, not a solution. You can't solve ANY problem if you can't admit it's a problem.

[Martinned]

That depends on how they do it.

[Bwaaah]

Yes. There’s a feebleness to Biden now. His steps are shorter and his gait unsteady. His sentences ramble into paragraphs. His gaze looks like a diminishing battle to stay focused. His voice is weakening.

It's not his age that's a problem. It's the evident advance of the ageing process that reveals a blurring of capability.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, I think Trump is showing his age, too. Just not in the same way. He's becoming less subtle, and demonstrating a failure to learn from events.

That's not as bad as thinking Gaza borders on Mexico, but it's still not something you want in a President. I sure hope he makes a good VP pick.

[Frank Drackman]

I know, but they're really trying with Trump

[Martinned]

Thank you for illustrating the point I made in response to Commenter_XY above.

[John F. Carr]

[ ] Married filing separately. If checked, see tax table A for tax rate.
[ ] Married filing jointly. If checked, see tax table B for tax rate.
[ ] Single man. See instructions to determine gender. See tax table C for tax rate.
[ ] Single woman. See instructions to determine gender. Tax rate is 100%.

The Supreme Court might object to this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Triple the income tax of unmarried women and use that to fund handouts to families with children. Encourage women to stay home with young children, like we used to.

When you have a white, male blog operated by and for socially inept, on-the-spectrum, disaffected, antisocial misfits, this is the type of comment readers can expect (and that the proprietors desire).

Carry on, clingers.

[Martinned]

More importantly, so would (hopefully) a lot of voters.

[Commenter_XY]

This was well done. 🙂

[SimonP]

Brett's solution is: more poverty and economic insecurity, and less reproductive freedom.

Agricultural subsistence societies have figured this out! Why can't we follow their lead!?

[Kazinski]

Well I disagree there is no instinct to reproduce, a lot of women desperately want babies, however there are competing wants.

It is interesting noting the societal differences in normal cultures with a lot more children, being around children more is very rewarding.

Since I retired almost 6 years ago I've spent about 25% of my time overseas in countries with much higher birthrates. The difference is notable. And we aren't the better for it.

[Nige]

No, you fool, it's access to contraception. Plenty of Protestants raised small families who went on to look after them in old age while Catholics with huge broods were kept in a state of near-constant poverty by the demands of their large families

[Commenter_XY]

I just want to know...who is actually running the country? 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

it’s “Race-ist” thank you very little, and you’re the one supporting killing the future Barry Hussein Osama’s/Patrick My-Homes, not me. besides, I’ll most likely be dead by the time they’re out murdering people, and they tend to murder their own kind anyway.

Frank

[DaveM]

The Black population would be 50% higher today were it not for abortion. That statistic comes from the abortion industry, not from those of us who oppose the practice. Abortion is massively disproportionate by race. Those of us against abortion have always been perplexed that this obviously unjust imbalance isn't recognized as at least being a sign that something is wrong, if not outright evil.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps the guy who said this?

"If I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front man or front woman, and they had an earpiece in and I was just in my basement in my sweats looking through the stuff, and then I could sort of deliver the lines, but somebody else was doing all the talking and ceremony, I'd be fine with that."

He IS the only ex-President to keep living in DC since Woodrow Wilson.

[Bwaaah]

I keep picturing some over-confident white chick who just graduated college with a degree in “communications.”

[Bwaaah]

I admit to being numb to his oratory. I don't think he finishes any substantial point without some measure of appalling.

Somebody said to me recently that beauty can only be found (sometimes) in life when it's viewed through one eye, squinting. I don't think I can squint enough to find beauty in Trump's rhetoric. But if I squint hard enough, I'm left with what I think is his [only real] point, which is that he will be fearless in seeking material support of NATO countries.

[Martinned]

I don’t think he finishes any substantial point without some measure of appalling.

That definitely sounds like someone you'd want to vote for.

[Nige]

‘which is that he will be fearless in seeking material support of NATO countries.’

That’s the opposite of what he said. He’s looking for a pretext to leave NATO and give Russia a free hand in Europe.

[Reallynotbob]

Aid and comfort to enemies...

[Brett Bellmore]

That was the "screw them" part, and it was conditional on them not bothering to shift their part of the load.

[myself]

That was the “screw them” part, and it was conditional on them not bothering to shift their part of the load.

Leaving out the critical bit until people confront you with it doesn't encourage people to take you seriously.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree that "conditional on them not bothering to shift their part of the load" was the critical bit they're leaving out.

[myself]

No the important bit was 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'

It reframes NATO as a protection racket. That is not the kind of conditional a defensive alliance is supposed to run on.

[Frank Drackman]

I understand there's this procedure, where pregnant women can, umm, what's the term? "Abort" their pregnancy? Can't imagine there'd be enough women that cruel for it to put much of a dent in the birth rate though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

the societal differences in normal cultures

Observations about "normal" from an antisocial, disaffected, bigoted, neurodiverse, right-wing misfit who lives in an off-the-grid hermit shack and is a Ted Kaczynski fan are always a treat.

These obsolete malcontents can't die off -- and be replaced by better, younger Americans in our society and electorate -- fast enough.

[Sarcastr0]

The difference is notable. And we aren’t the better for it.

This is some creepy pseudo-eugenics.

Went out of style with Teddy Roosevelt. Like, literally; his daughter Alice gave him what for about his 'breed for America' jingoism.

[Martinned]

Apart from all the other reasons why that is very stupid, I don't think Biden and Obama liked each other that much when Obama was president. They certainly disagreed about some pretty big things. For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-obama-divide-closely-support-israel-rcna127107

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not hostility to notice that they've got psychiatric problems. It's accuracy.

"I mean, you’ve said you suffer from a psychiatric problem (autism). What would you think about people wearing anti-autistic messages to schools?"

Setting aside that basically everybody who actually HAS Aspergers, or is related to somebody who does, is pissed off about them up and deciding to lump it in with autism... I wouldn't give a damn. Not giving a damn about things like that goes with the territory...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These pathetic conservative gape-jaws hate modern America.

Probably because they're so far onto the spectrum (or otherwise socially inept) that they can't develop meaningful interpersonal relationships, but they can't accept that their problems are self-inflicted so they (1) pine for illusory "good old days," (2) embrace bigotry because it provides someone to blame; and (3) want everyone else to be miserable, too.

[Armchair]

Well... if they've made a deal with you for mutual defense.
But then, they aren't keeping up their end of the deal...
What's the point?

German GDP is ~15% of US GDP. At that rate, they should be able to afford at least 1 Supercarrier group. (The US has more than 10). Germany has...zero.

If China attacks the US in the Pacific, what military support is Germany going to provide? Any? If Russia attacks Germany, the US is going to provide tons of support.

Perhaps strongly verbally reminding them of the consequences if they fail to actually live up to their treaty obligations, they'll pay notice. Perhaps not. But if this isn't going to actually be a "mutual" defense treaty, maybe the terms of the treaty need to change. Perhaps Germany should just provide Euros to the US for US protection, if that's what it really is.

[Armchair]

Let's talk more about Germany. Because by and large, that's who this is aimed at (with Italy, and potentially Spain as well).

Germany pledges to send a single light brigade to Lithuania. 5000 soldiers. Useful as a tripwire, in case of Russian attack. But...it's proving to be too much. The Germans just don't fund their army. Only 60% of the army is sufficiently equipped...

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2023-12-27/germany-army-lithuania-brigade-12478191.html

Forget the US for a second. What about Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia? Is Germany ignoring their treaty obligations to these countries, by not properly funding their army? If Russia takes the Baltic states, and Germany does...nothing, what should the US response be to a Russian invasion of Germany?

[Martinned]

So your argument is that Estonia should be punished because Germany doesn't spend enough on defence? And that's what you're saying to *advocate* for Trump?

[Armchair]

Martinned...

No, I'm saying Estonia (and Latvia, and Lithuania) are currently being punished by Germany, for a failure to keep up their treaty obligations.

You get that, right? That Germany (and the Netherlands) are near worthless in terms of keeping up their mutual defense obligations. Both countries are utterly failing in keeping up actual capabilities for their treaty commitments.

And maybe, they should just pay the US to defend them instead.

[Martinned]

You just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole.

[Armchair]

Martinned...

If Russia invades Latvia, are the Netherlands going to uphold their treaty obligations to defend Latvia? How exactly are they going to do that? Be specific. Troop numbers, deployments, equipment. Is there any evidence they can actually deploy those troops effectively?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair, you've lost. It has been embarrassing to watch you try to defend this.

You are defending Trump saying he would encourage Putin to invade Latvia if Germany doesn't increase their military spending.

Your defense of that ignores that fact.

Alternatively, are you suggesting it is sound U.S. policy to encourage Putin to invade Germany?

Just admit what Trump said was indefensible. Yes, it was a fake story (no foreign leader called him "Sir" and then asked a hypothetical). But his repeated public pronouncements that he doesn't think much of NATO and is, at best, wobbly with respect to our mutual defense obligations does have a real world effect. And not a good one.

[Bwaaah]

I have a lot of trust in our lumbering bureaucratic systems, their relatively assured minimal competence, and their significant inability to do anything much different next year than this.

I didn't choose either of these people to be POTUS. But I am convinced that neither either largely controls or accounts for the actions of government, which as the sum of individual actions, first and foremost seek to preserve the status quo.

Neither an overly-aggressive business person nor a semi-sentient being will change the individual instincts of the actual people, the employees, who animate our government. Their want for safety and security, for themselves and those they care about, won't be significantly moved by mere decree.

[Sarcastr0]

There are a ton of examples in this country and others of institutional breakdown.

Your faith seems more a convenient excuse for making your politics an easy a la carte affair in a complicated world.

[Magister]

There are reasons not depending on Biden's memory.

The best case for charges would rely on Mr. Biden's possession of the Afghanistan documents in his Virginia home in February 2017. when he was a private citizen and when he told his ghostwriter he had just found classified material.

while the evidence provides clues classified Afghanistan documents were stored in the Virginia home, there is no definitive evidence putting them there

We do not know why, how, or by whom the [Afghanistan] documents were placed in the box [in the Delaware garage].

the "Afganastan" folder alone is not a strong basis upon which to prosecute Mr. Biden for willfully retaining national defense information. And if Mr. Biden saw only the "Afganastan" folder and not the "Facts First" folder, which did contain national defense information, he did not willfully retain such national defense information.

"Some of this may be classified, so be careful ... I'm not sure. It isn't marked classified, but..."

Mr. Biden told Zwonitzer he was "not sure" the notebook passage he read was classified. That is enough to create reasonable doubt about whether Mr. Biden acted willfully.

the evidence does not establish that Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information to [his ghostwriter] Zwonitzer

[Nige]

Those are not the 'possible' reasons, the reasons were given on the report. He co-operated, and nothing he did would result in a succesful prosecution.

[Frank Drackman]

and my Dad, unlike you, I know who mine is

[Frank Drackman]

50% higher? how many more Backward Baseball Cap Wearing Hoodlums (BBCWH, an actual Law Enforcement term) could they have squeezed on the field last night? Maybe "Choice" (to kill your baby) isn't so bad after all.

[Nige]

What's unjust about black women having control of their own bodies?

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry! late start I see, drink a little too much of the "Prison Hooch" last night? I shudder to think what you had to do to get a few blasts.

Frank

[SimonP]

I'm guessing it's primarily cultures that don't punish international sex tourists.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was being somewhat facetious, that's the way out conspiracy theory making the circles at the moment, I gather. Well, it's got that quote going for it, more basis than a lot of conspiracy theories.

But if Biden were seriously incapacitated, such that he was just a puppet, would it matter if he didn't get along with Obama? Obama would be issuing commands to Biden's staff, who'd be the 'strings'.

I could see that happening by way of his staff, alarmed at Biden's condition, contacting Obama for advice, and it just snowballing.

But that's just storytelling for fun, for all I can tell Biden is still in charge, to the extent anybody is. For all I don't like Obama, the White house would be a lot more organized if he were calling the shots.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, raping is one thing they do well.

[Bwaaah]

There are a ton of examples of institutional breakdown of government in the U.S.? Where the government, in large measure, ceased or changed its behavior quickly?

I'm interested. Examples?

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't quite get "not giving a damn", do you? I don't like it, I don't not like it. It's a fact, why should I have feelings about it? It would be like being unhappy if you observed that I was bald, or have freckles. Oh, you said the sun rises in the East, I'm so upset! [/sarc]

I was physically bullied as a child, that was pretty traumatic. Being upset about somebody making a factual observation concerning me? The concept doesn't eve make any sense!

But you think it does; People are weird.

[Sarcastr0]

We had a Civil War, Bwaah. It was in all the history books. The New Deal was a huge internal change.

I've got a huge status quo bias, but that doesn't mean I use it for false comfort and rest on my laurels.

Things stay the same until they change.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Even taking your assumption that it has never happened in the U.S., it's a logically fallacious argument that, therefore, it can't happen. Relevant facts include that one of Trump's stated goals is to dismantle the guardrails in which you have so much faith. And it's pretty clear he won't be tapping the sort of people who acted as responsible guardrails to his more dangerous antics, but will instead choose people who won't stop him from doing crazy things because they are utterly spineless sycophants who see that (rather than talent or accomplishment) as the way to acquire power and privilege for themselves.

If you believe in bureaucratic guardrails, I suggest you vote Biden. If you're worried about his age, etc., he's not dismantling the lumbering bureaucratic system and he'll keep dedicated professionals who aren't mere sycophants in the important positions.

[David Nieporent]

That’s not as bad as thinking Gaza borders on Mexico, but it’s still not something you want in a President. I sure hope he makes a good VP pick.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that Hungary and Russia share a border. (He previously claimed that India and China do not.)

I say this not to excuse Biden's error, but to address the topic of this thread, which is why one person's errors are being treated as the sign of a mental decline and the other's are not, even though the other makes far more.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But people want kids. They want to settle down, buy a house, grow a family."

They just want other things more. So that every time a trade off comes up, they do something else.

I mean, I settled down, bought a house, have a family. I'll never own that Corvette I always wanted, I take big vacations one a decade, not year, it's a small house in an old neighborhood, but I'm happy in a way I wouldn't be if I were single with toys.

[Bwaaah]

You could call the Civil War an example of institutional breakdown. Alternatively, it could be seen as an example of institutional self-preservation, in the typical fashion of steamrolling government under the threat of those who would dare to defy its order.

I see it as the latter.

And the New Deal doesn't look like institutional breakdown to me either.

[Sarcastr0]

Alternatively, it could be seen as an example of institutional self-preservation, in the typical fashion of steamrolling government under the threat of those who would dare to defy its order.

If you don't think black people are humans, sure.

[Bwaaah]

Dumb. Really dumb.

[bernard11]

His source is his ass.

[SimonP]

Brett, you belong to a generation that was born into economic prosperity, at a time when heavy economic subsidies, combined with a head start on other global economies recovering from the Second World War and a strong labor movement, provided for a broad, healthy middle class (at least among white people). That same generation went on to dismantle much of what made that earlier prosperity possible, and is now trying to convince younger generations that the decline in American prosperity is somehow our fault.

The personal choices we make are made within the social and economic circumstances we create for them. My parents bought their first home together in the 70s, raised all of their kids in that house mostly on a single parent’s income, and are now entering their retirement years with a mix of pensions, personal savings, and welfare programs. Of the kids, half of us are struggling financially even as we enter middle age and only one of us has had kids. I myself spent my prime “child-bearing” years either living paycheck-to-paycheck or getting a degree so I wouldn’t have to, and paid off my student loans only a few years ago. I could probably afford a home in my chosen city now, but I am reluctant to buy at high prices in a coastal city, given climate change and job insecurity that traces back to the Great Recession. So having a child isn’t something I’m eager to do, either.

This isn’t about vacations, and it isn’t about avocado toast. Gen Z and younger Millennials are delaying or avoiding having children not because they want other things more, but because they are looking out at a world that you fucked up, and remain invested in fucking up, and they’re not prepared to invest in it themselves. They either can’t or don’t see the point. They won’t have kids as a retirement plan because (i) that’s a stupid investment anyway and (ii) none of these kids expect to retire in the first place. That is an outcome whose feasibility is so remote now, again in the world you have created and are actively engaged in perpetuating, as to be fantastical.

[Nige]

Yeah, we heard it all before. It's been non-stop since 2019 and before. He's never not been gaffe-prone. The double standard is that Biden is obliged to make sense, Trump is not.

[Nige]

Guess you'd have to read the report to get the differences.

[David Nieporent]

He gave classified info to his ghostwriter. David Howell Petraeus did the same, he pled guilty to a crime.

Petraeus said, "This is classified. Here, take a look at it." Biden did not.

[Commenter_XY]

The language was appalling and potentially dangerous.

I personally don't think that POTUS Trump is actually inviting Russia to do whatever the hell they want with deadbeat NATO allies, given his track record with Russia while he was in office. That just would not make sense, logically.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This

[David Nieporent]

The worst part is that Trump's actual words are appalling, but the "context" makes it worse, not better. The context is that Trump doesn't want to be in NATO at all, and the "not paying their bills" — besides being a lie — is insincere. He doesn't want them to "pay their bills." He's using this as an excuse for getting the U.S. out of NATO.

(You don't have to believe me; John Bolton, the guy's National Security Advisor, says so.)

[Nige]

Immigration isn't really a problem, though.

[Kazinski]

Well Hungary does border the former Soviet Union, and was invaded by Russian troops in 1848, 1944, and 1956, so its not that big of an error.

I was in Budapest shortly after the 50th anniversary of the '56 invasion, they still had a lot of public exhibits up that were very educational.

[Commenter_XY]

Nige, we already know that it is (D)ifferent. 🙂

[Nige]

'given his track record with Russia while he was in office.'

Hahahahaha

'That just would not make sense, logically.'

HAHAHAHAHA

[bernard11]

His track record with Russia is that of a Putin stooge.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Was it the agreeing with Putin that Crimea basically belonged to Russia anyway?

Was it the wanting to invite Russia back in to the G7 (to make it the G8 again), which was an attempt to reverse one of the consequences of Putin’s unlawfully invasion of Crimea?

Or was it how he took Putin’s side over the CIA, FBI, NSA, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (with a Republican majority), and every other U.S. committee and agency to address the issue?

Or his actual pressuring of Ukraine via withholding defense money in exchange for a personal favor?

Or, you know, this: "In the days around a tumultuous NATO summit meeting last summer, they said, Mr. Trump told his top national security officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance, which he presented as a drain on the United States."? That surely has Russia shaking in their boots. They would hate to see NATO dissolve...oh, wait....

[David Nieporent]

Who is "POTUS Trump"?

[Nige]

Exactly, you (D)on't nee(D) to rea(D) actual (D)etails.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Jesus Christ. Vote for the guy if you have to, but have a little self-respect.

[Absaroka]

"Well Hungary does border the former Soviet Union, and was invaded by Russian troops in 1848, 1944, and 1956, so its not that big of an error."

It's been three decades since the USSR dissolved. I would prefer that my president be a little more up to date than that.

Neither Biden nor Trump seems intellectually qualified for the presidency. I hope against hope one or both conventions nominates someone else. If either party does so and puts forth a semi-centrist, the election will be theirs.

[Bwaaah]

You stand well enough on your own that you don't have to bridge Nieporent with Trump through a twisted historical retrospective.

Sorry, man. Noscitur a sociis is right. You're better than that.

[Bwaaah]

LOL.

[Kazinski]

Well I’ve been to Hungary, Serbia, and Bulgaria, and I had to look on the map and check, I thought it might border Moldova, which would have been close enough, but it was Romania and Ukraine.

If I don’t know, who else could possibly be expected to know?

And actually I'm voting for Haley in the primary, gag.

[Theendoftheleft]

Vindicated by history, then.

You realize that the whole world thinks your ideology is dog shit, right, tankie?

[Theendoftheleft]

'Carry on, clingers'.

Literally. Via breeding.

Demography is destiny.

You and your values are doomed, AIDS. 🙂

[Theendoftheleft]

America doesn't meet replacement rate. That's a problem. America floods the country with unskilled illiterate labour. That, too, is a problem. Claims about immigrants leading to $1T in economic growth are not only BS, but mask the costs to the system of net takers from a system. You are fundamentally upon outsiders to prop up your system; if you didn't have millions of people (a) willing to come to America and (b) breed, then your system would collapse much sooner.

Your ideology is dumb. We in the rest of the world are basically united in thinking so.

[Theendoftheleft]

*fundamentally reliant upon

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned, how about by economic policies to make families far more prosperous. I think lack of money is most of what currently restrains the vital instincts of the younger generations.

[OtisAH]

Little surprise to me none of these assclowns have watched Monty Python. Like their cult leader there’s no joy in any of them.

[David Nieporent]

In 2008, during the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden said, confidently, that the U.S. had gotten together with France and thrown Hezbollah out of Lebanon. (Ask me why I remember this. Or don't; it's not really a very interesting story. But I do.) Now, that never happened. (But Palin had never heard of three of those four things, so she couldn't capitalize on this blunder.) It wasn't because Biden was 80 years old, though. It was just that he sometimes says stuff that doesn't match reality.

[David Nieporent]

You're mistaken. There is an inverse relationship between birthrate and wealth.

[David Nieporent]

You realize that you speak for Vladimir Putin and nobody else when you pretend to talk about "the whole world," right?