Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Joe Biden had a rather bizarre interview on CNN last week where he made the eye opening claim that inflation was 9% when he took over.

“No president has had the run we’ve had in terms of creating jobs and bringing down inflation, It was 9% when I came to office — 9%,” Biden told CNN’s Erin Burnett in a rare interview.”. (Video at the link)
https://nypost.com/2024/05/08/us-news/biden-claims-inflation-was-9-when-he-came-into-office-when-it-actually-was-1-4/

The question I have is :
a) was Biden intentionally lying hoping to get away with it?
or b) absolutely clueless about what inflation was when he got into office?

I’m going with ‘b’, He actually has no idea. He probably just remembers a meeting in the Whitehouse spiralling on how to blame Trump for 9% inflation (where it peaked Y-Y July 2022).

The actual inflation by CPI for 2020 the full year (and month) Trump was in office was 1.2% it took Joe more than a full year of hard work to get inflation up to 8% for 2022.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1913-

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, swill down a quart of bleach, and tell us whether that makes you feel better off now than you were 4 years ago.

[Don Nico]

You've sunk to a new low.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't sell Lathrop short, he has the potential to go much lower and with much longer comments.

[Kazinski]

That's not even the question I'm asking. The question is does Biden even have the mental competence to evaluate the basic economic conditions and the best course for the country.

Thinking the inflation rate was 7x higher when he took office than it actually wasclearly answers the question: he's lost it, and the angry old man thing he's doing now just underscores it.

Angry old man is one thing, Bernie comes to mind or even Trump. But angry old man without a clue just can't be allowed.

[Frank Drackman]

The question is does Biden even have the mental competence to evaluate the basic economic conditions and the best course for the country.
No

Frank

[Drewski]

You imply that you believe Trump says accurate things, which is kind of hilarious.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What would be hilarious, were it not so sad, is the fact that you and a few others lack the cognitive abilities to grasp the difference between "what he's saying isn't true" and "he doesn't even know what's true and what isn't".

[Sarcastr0]

Listened to any Trump ralleys?

Trump, regularly confuses the names of world leaders as well as pretty normal English words, as he stumbles and slurs.

Or here he is no missle defense: "ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. They’ve only got 17 seconds to figure this whole thing out. Boom. OK. Missile launch. Whoosh. Boom.”

Or, “If you have illegal aliens invading your home, we will deport you,” What??!

The double standard you hold out between Trump and Biden is evident for all to see, and shows you to be the tool that anyone who reads your comments and sees they are 90% empty insults aimed at non MAGA posters has already gathered.

[Sarcastr0]

Somebody said he looks great in a bathing suit, right? And you know, when he was in the sand and he was having a hard time lifting his feet through the sand, because you know sand is heavy, they figured three solid ounces per foot, but sand is a little heavy, and he’s sitting in a bathing suit. Look, at 81, do you remember Cary Grant? How good was Cary Grant, right? I don’t think Cary Grant, he was good. I don’t know what happened to movie stars today. We used to have Cary Grant and Clark Gable and all these people. Today we have, I won’t say names, because I don’t need enemies. I don’t need enemies. I got enough enemies. But Cary Grant was, like – Michael Jackson once told me, ‘The most handsome man, Trump, in the world.’ ‘Who?’ ‘Cary Grant.’ Well, we don’t have that any more, but Cary Grant at 81 or 82, going on 100. This guy, he’s 81, going on 100. Cary Grant wouldn’t look too good in a bathing suit, either. And he was pretty good-looking, right?

[Kazinski]

Yeah, I don't think that proves what you think it does. Its not great oratory but its classic Trump, and it hasn't changed in years.

Its an example of someone going out and speaking without notes or teleprompter for an hour in front of 100,000 people and knowing they're so happy to be there they don't care what he says. Sure he is meandering, and has never spoken standard English, and to his audiences its "perfect".

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying Trump isn't with it, I'm saying the level of evidence you find dispositive for Biden is suddenly normal stuff when it comes to Trump.

[Kazinski]

https://youtu.be/IG13xZGtx8w?feature=shared

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, foregrouding tendentious shit like that is exactly what I'm talking about.

Maybe you can do a 4 second clip next, and slow it down so he's drunk!

Get ahold of yourself, man, your confirmation bias is out of control.

[jb]

Since apparently every questionable "fact" Biden utters is proof of his senility or something, it's worth noting that Cary Grant died when he was 82.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Biden's dumb statements prove he's senile."

"Trump's dumb statements are just who he is."

:rolleyes:

[jb]

Ah, so you're voting for the guy you know is actively lying. That definitely seems better.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Ah, so you’re voting for the guy you know is actively lying. That definitely seems better.

I guess your consistently demonstrated inability to understand what you're reading largely explains your abject stupidity.

[bernard11]

Do you think Trump fans have a clue whether anything he says is true, or care, or have the ability to find out?

That's laughable.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"But, but....Trump!!!!"

[Kazinski]

I agree Trump by all lights disqualified himself from serious consideration of the presidency by
1) his temperament
2) his actions after he lost in 2020
3) he's too old.

And I think Joe by any rational measure is also disqualified, not only is he too old, but he's really showing it, and he's a crook.

So I'm left with a choice of two candidates I consider disqualified, and a third party candidate just as bad.

So I'm going to vote for the disqualified candidate who's policies and philosophy I am closer.aligned to, not perfectly, but much closer than Joe.

And I really hope he picks someone competent as VP, with a better temperament this time too, which is another thing Trump did a much better job than Joe did first time around.

Next time give me better choices so I can make a better choice.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're going to vote for the antisocial right-wing bigot, Kazinski. It's your misfit nature and downscale destiny.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, you plan to vote for the guy who attempted a coup, and is still at it. What does that make you? Please ask that question seriously.

[Brett Bellmore]

There was no attempted coup. The word has a meaning, I suggest you look it up.

He was attempting to persuade members of Congress, using political pressure, to exercise discretion they didn't rightfully have, (But try getting Congress to ever admit it lacks discretion about something.) by miscounting the EC votes.

That's not good, but it's not a "coup". The break in at the Capitol actually terminated his efforts, not advanced them.

[Nige]

'He was attempting to persuade members of Congress, using political pressure'

The things you will tolerate from and apologise for on behalf of this man are astonishing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Didn't notice the "not good"? I personally think that he should have hung it up when the EC voted. I'm not approving of what he did, I'm urging that it be accurately characterized. It was NOT a "coup".

Will I likely end up holding my nose and voting for Trump? Yeah, probably; Biden is pretty awful. But I really regret that he's getting the nomination, I was much more happy to be voting for him in 2020.

[Nige]

Oh what a strong condemnation from someone who claims to value freedom and democracy and the rule of law. He still claims he won.

[David Nieporent]

I’m urging that it be accurately characterized. It was NOT a “coup”.

Of course not. It was a coup attempt.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He was attempting to persuade members of Congress,

He sent a mob, as planned, to the Capitol. That mob broke into the Capitol and chased the assembled members of Congress from the place at which they were to participate in the orderly transition of power. The violence that mob directed toward the building and law enforcement was amply recorded.

You are this blog's target audience, Mr. Bellmore. A bigoted, antisocial, disaffected, disingenuous conservative culture war casualty.

[Frank Drackman]

You're slipping, Revolting, you forgot the part about how Ashli Babbit was murdered. Only bad thing about hanging 90% of our current Congress is it's too good for them, and that includes Mitch the Turtle and the current Eunuch of the House.

Frank

[Krayt]

Or...he was shining you on

[bernard11]

Brett,

There was no attempted coup. The word has a meaning, I suggest you look it up.

I did. Here is Merriam-Webster:

a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

This is precisely what your gang of thugs attempted.

[Trump] was attempting to persuade members of Congress, using political pressure, to exercise discretion they didn’t rightfully have, (But try getting Congress to ever admit it lacks discretion about something.) by miscounting the EC votes.

This one goes in the Bellmore Hall of Fame of utterly psychotic comments. Trump fully supported the attackers (until it was clear they would fail), and they were violent, and were trying to overturn, illegally and by force, the election results.

For the billionth time - a failed coup is still an attempted coup. Nobody just decided to stroll in and admire the paintings, not matter what delusion you have sold yourself.

[Bwaaah]

Calling it a “coup attempt” is like “genocide in Gaza,” and the “earth is going to burn” in climate change, and “racism is why black people can’t get jobs.” and “inflation is cause by corporate greed.”

The only people who buy that malarkey are the people who manufacture it.

[Sarcastr0]

Sir sir, this isn't argument, it's just denial!

[Nige]

See also: gravity, the wetness of water and the ineffable nature of God's plan for the universe: all malarkey!

[Riva]

No Sarcastro, a protest is not an insurrection. And denial is your defense of that corrupt reptile serially child sniffer who apparently liked to take odd showers with certain family members. But you run with him and his record.

[Kazinski]

If there was any evidence Trump attempted a coup then Jack Smith would have charged him with insurrection, whether failed or not.

If you think it was a coup attempt fine, but we do have a way to resolve these questions beyond a reasonable doubt, where the evidence, if found sufficient by a judge, is submitted to 12 people to decide the facts.

Until then its just your opinion, which I don't find convincing.

[not guilty]

"If there was any evidence Trump attempted a coup then Jack Smith would have charged him with insurrection, whether failed or not."

Not necessarily. Donald Trump is charged in D.C. with offenses carrying penalties as harsh or harsher than insurrection, each of which is more straightforward and easily understood by jurors. The pending charges do not depend on Trump's vicarious liability for the breach of the Capitol. Trump is 77 years old and unlikely to serve the full duration of any prison sentence upon conviction of the charged offenses. Why should Jack Smith want to complicate the trial by charging insurrection?

[Brett Bellmore]

Prosecutors are supposed to charge you with the offense you actually committed, Not Guilty.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Brett, we all know you're very sure Trump is innocent based on your unique understanding of the law and inability to make the barest inference on the facts when Trump is involved.

[Kazinski]

I have never seen any evidence he attempted a coup.

All the evidence I've seen said he attempted to get the House and the Senate to postpone finalizing the results and send back the results to the states for investigation and recertification.

That's not regular, but its also not what a coup is.

[Brett Bellmore]

He was pursuing multiple alternate pathways, that was one of them. But all of them were reliant on persuading a majority of Congress to exercise discretion in his favor, using political pressure.

Such violence as actually happened that day definitively ended his efforts to contest the election, and that it would was entirely predictable.

[Nige]

Pathways to overthrow a democratic election based on an obvious lie and fraud. The bend-over-backwards-apologism is extraordinary.

[Kleppe]

It's so quaint when Europeans think what they have to say matters.

[Nige]

You don’t want people throwing peanuts, don’t put on a circus.

[Josh R]

Even if you buy into the BS Trump's efforts were merely political persuasion (*), he did nothing for hours while the riot raged because he was watching TV rooting for the rioters.

(*) Calling for the DOJ to falsely declare there was substantial fraud is not political persuasion. Nor is knowingly putting forth crap (in testimony and phone calls with state officials) about dead voters, suitcases of ballots being snuck in and ballots being put through counting machines multiple times. Nor is calling for the VP to unilaterally declare votes invalid. It is appalling that you cannot recognize the stark difference between 2000 and 2020.

[bernard11]

I have never seen any evidence he attempted a coup.

That’s because you close your eyes tight when ever anyone tries to show you some.

You guys are frighteningly blind to what Trump is and was trying to do.

[Kazinski]

Nobody had even tried to show it in a court of law.

They are trying to show “conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding."

[Nige]

Why would they need to? His actions spoke for themselves.

[Kenneth Almquist]

In Anderson v. Griswald (Colorado, 2023), plaintiffs tried to, and did, prove that Trump had engaged in insurrection. Ultimately, Trump was allowed to remain on the ballot, but not because he didn’t engage in insurrection.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

who attempted a coup, and is still at it

What color is the sky in your world?

[bernard11]

and he’s a crook.

Another fucking joke from a deluded cultist.

I note you don't list "He's a crook" as one of the things you don't lie about Trump, even though there is about about 10,000 times as much evidence of Trump's dishonesty as of Biden's.

[BadLib]

Many join you in your quandary and it is those in your quandary who will decide the election.

It won't be turnout on the left or turnout on the right that matters -- but Biden hasn't figured that out yet (as doing so would force him to accept that he's the lesser of two evils, not a champion of the lower and middle class as he imagines).

Hopefully this, likely close, election will be a wakeup call for at least the losing party when they have to confront the painful reality that their candidate couldn't even beat the horrible candidate the other party put up.

The winning strategy is to attract the "mushy middle" -- and Biden's discomfort with calling out the far left of his party (of which he may be a member but is smart enough and still cognizant enough to back away from a little bit on occasion) makes that very difficult -- and at this late date, probably impossible.

It is elections like this that makes me glad I live in a state where, due to the EC, my vote will have no chance of changing the outcome. If California's popular vote goes to anyone but Biden, it could only mean that Trump won by a landslide (which won't happen) with, or without, California and will be "called" within seconds of the polls closing in Hawaii.

At least Trump isn't nearly as likely to support new entitlement programs that are nearly impossible to trim or remove without great unrest as more and more of the populace becomes dependent on those programs rather than dependent on personal responsibility, education, and an honest day's work.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I agree Trump by all lights disqualified himself from serious consideration of the presidency by
1) his temperament
2) his actions after he lost in 2020
3) he’s too old.

And I think Joe by any rational measure is also disqualified, not only is he too old, but he’s really showing it, and he’s a crook."

Trump's the one facing dozens of criminal charges, but Biden's the one you clearly label as a crook.

Both of them you claim to consider 'disqualified,' yet rather than doing the adult thing and voting for someone who isn't, you're going to 'reluctantly' (hah) vote for Trump.

Proof positive that morality is not your guiding compass.

[I Callahan]

Right, because charges = guilt. Aren’t the regulars here supposed to be attorneys?

This thread is a perfect example of the mass psychosis that leftists suffer from, especially when it comes to Trump. Each and every one of you should really seek help, because your beliefs about what happened on 1/6 are utterly, batshit insane.

[Darth Buckeye]

Trump’s behavior after November 2020 is less risible when one considers what he had to believe after watching the security state wage coup-like actions against him (the fake Russia scandal; the bizarre impeachment over actions that were less obvious than the ones that Biden bragged about), and the post-2020 election bragging in Time Magazine about the secret cabal that “fortified” the election against him.

The actions of the security state after the 2016 election reminds me of an old BBC mini-series from the early 80s named A VERY BRITISH COUP. Trump’s behavior was bad; but his behavior was not nearly as bad as that of the Dems and the major media that was doing anything to bring him down.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"the bizarre impeachment over actions that were less obvious than the ones that Biden bragged about"

Tell me you have no idea what you are talking about without saying you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason Republicans never attempted any sort of impeachment related to "the thing Biden bragged about" because that thing was the policy of the U.S., it was the policy of the EU, it was the policy of the IMF, it was the policy of every anti-corruption organization in Ukraine, and there were grassroots protests in Kyiv specifically aimed at achieving "the thing Biden bragged about." In short, there was nothing remotely illegal, unsavory, or untoward in "the thing Biden bragged about." Every non-corrupt, reasonably intelligent person who new anything about the situation wanted "the thing Biden bragged about" to be done. And, to boot, Biden was merely the messenger because, to repeat, he was just part of the team that implemented U.S. policy on the matter.

[David Nieporent]

Every non-corrupt, reasonably intelligent person who new anything about the situation wanted “the thing Biden bragged about” to be done.

Including GOP senators! Like MAGA Ron Johnson!

[Nige]

'but his behavior was not nearly as bad as that of the Dems and the major media that was doing anything to bring him down.'

This seems to boil down to: how dare you not love and honour Dear Leader.

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord after the state of the union and winning a couple of stand-offs with the Republicans, you would think people get off the Biden isn't with it train.

Sometimes politicians misstate a number. Often in their favor. This is not a sign their brains are mush, especially given the mountains of countervailing evidence.

And, as has been pointed out, Trump says utterly unhinged stuff at every single rally, and you give him a pass.

IOW this is partisan claptrap.

[Kazinski]

Well then lets hear your explanation for Joe having absolutely no idea about the basic facts a president should be focusing on everyday.

I guess I missed possibility c) which might be the most flattering: he doesn't care.

[Sarcastr0]

"Sometimes politicians misstate a number. Often in their favor." I see no evidence he doesn't understand inflation, I see he at the moment got what inflation was at the start of his term wrong. No more, no less.

You're a smart guy, but you turn so much of your intellect into double standards and turning off your critical thinking so you can support Trump.

It's kind of tragic.

[Kazinski]

He showed he didn't understand inflation in 2020 when he said:

"“Milton Friedman isn't running the show anymore.”

And the scariest thing to me is that I have no doubt that if Biden is reelected, and by some calamity he gets a democratic congress, then he will push for another 2 trillion dollar stimulus, or "investment", or Inflation Reduction Act II, because the man is absolutely clueless about inflation.

[Drewski]

You know, I don't really know much about inflation myself, but one thing I do know is that you frequently embarrass yourself confidently when talking about law and I have no reason to believe you're any more competent at economics. If you think Biden is clueless, my confidence in his judgment goes up.

[loki13]

While I happen to agree with you that I don't think we should be choosing between two candidates, both of whom will be octogenarians in office ....

I have to admit, it's really rich for you, of all people, to complain about someone who is repeating things that are incorrect or wrong, given your track record. Unless you are an octogenarian, in which case I can understand your desire to not both learning the facts before you spout off in your limited time left.

[Kazinski]

Well we differ in opinions Loki, I don't think we are arguing about the value of pi.

Your a smart guy and you've got your opinion, but you've never actually presented the math to prove you are incontrovertibly right. And until you do, ill stick with my opinion.

But honestly, if you have any examples where I'm actually wrong, I'd like to hear it, because I think my track record is actually pretty good.

[loki13]

Well, I will bring this up again, then.

You have a habit of pontificating about things that aren't correct. Such as the recent Hunter Biden example. When someone actually does the work to explain to you why you aren't correct, you change the subject.

But other times, when you pontificate about things that you aren't correct on, and someone points you to where you can find the actual information, you ... as you like to say, refuse to do homework.

Look, I am not expecting that all people have to go to the source documents. Or that you are prohibited from opining about legal issues if you aren't an attorney. But at a certain point, you do have to bring receipts. And you can't both ignore other people's receipts, and keep saying that you can't be bothered to go and get your own.

[Kazinski]

Receipts like just months after Joe became point man in Ukraine, Hunter gets appointed to Burisma's board, at a million dollar a year salary. Then after Burisma's oligarch flees Ukraine on corruption charges Joe calls an "audible" and announces withholding 1b in loan guarantees until the Ukrainian Prosecutor general is fired.

I suppose you're still claiming that Hunters laptop was Russian disinformation.

I'm not going to repeat all that today other than to say I stand by it all, and having a bunch of Democratic hacks claim its not true isn't evidence to the contrary, as we found with Hunters laptop.

[loki13]

"When someone actually does the work to explain to you why you aren’t correct, you change the subject."

Again, I don't bother to engage on all the BS you normally spout.

But when you veer into law-like substance, that's different. Notice how I was specifically referring to the issues that YOU BROUGHT UP about the Hunter Biden trial, and after I bothered to look at what you were claiming, and explained in excruciating detail how wrong you were, you changed the subject.

Just like you're doing here, by trying not to look like the fool that you are by pretending that "Hunter Biden" is a reference to something else.

Seriously, Kaz, either you know better, in which case, get some integrity, dude. Or you don't, in which case, to quote Melania Trump, "You didn't use a condom!!??!!!!"

Sorry. "Be best." Or at least try and be better.

[Armchair]

Loki,

If you have a point, make it. Alluding to some random event helps no one. Make it directly.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kazinski:

Then after Burisma’s oligarch flees Ukraine on corruption charges Joe calls an “audible” and announces withholding 1b in loan guarantees until the Ukrainian Prosecutor general is fired.

If you're still harping on Burisma, you don't really care about the facts. Shokin was fired after months of pressure by the U.S. (not an "audible" by Biden) as well as the EU, IMF, and every anti-corruption organization in Ukraine. He was fired because he was not going after corruption and it wasn't Biden's call. If this is the worst you have, then you have nothing on Biden.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

[Nige]

'Receipts like'

Yeah, those are the best 'receipts' you got, which definitely suggests you made your choice first then cast around for any old crap to justify it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You think an actual would-be traitor is a better prospect than a guy who might have the wrong take on inflation, without personal power to enact anything to bring it about?

[Darth Buckeye]

Actually, Biden is more a traitor than Trump, if not directly, then as part of the conspiracy to bring Trump down starting in late 2016.

[Nige]

Yeah, remember when Biden appointed Mueller?

[David Nieporent]

Even if that "conspiracy" weren't a figment of your imagination, how exactly would that make him a "traitor"? Obviously there's an express definition of treason that this conduct doesn't come close to matching, but even in the colloquial sense of the word, it requires that one have a duty of loyalty to someone and then betray it. But Biden never owed any such duty to Trump.

[I Callahan]

Nige - Trump didn’t choose Mueller either. So what is your point.

[jb]

Serious question: have you looked at inflation trends in the US vs. reasonably comparable economies? Which places do you think have had less impact from inflation while still maintaining growth since Biden was elected?

Also serious question: how much stimulus money do you think Trump put into the economy versus Biden?

[Kazinski]

Trump wasn’t blameless, but 2 prominent Democratic Economists put the blame squarely on Joe Biden:

Democratic economist Steven Rattner, who led the Obama Treasury Department’s auto bailout, branded Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus law, passed in March 2021 without any Republican votes, as the “original sin” of the inflation crisis.

“The bill — almost completely unfunded — sought to counter the effects of the Covid pandemic by focusing on demand-side stimulus rather than on investment. That has contributed materially to today’s inflation levels,” Ratter wrote in a November 2021 New York Times op-ed.

Larry Summers, who worked as President Barack Obama’s top White House economist and as President Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary, also blamed Biden’s spending.

Summers wrote in a February 2021 Washington Post op-ed that Biden’s stimulus bill could “set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.”

“There’s an element in this that the secret sauce of economics is arithmetic,” Summers reflected in July 2022.

“And there were many people in the debate who didn’t do arithmetic… and they thought more stimulus was good, so more stimulus was better, and they didn’t think too much stimulus was really possible.”

https://nypost.com/2024/05/08/us-news/biden-claims-inflation-was-9-when-he-came-into-office-when-it-actually-was-1-4/

I didn’t support the Trump 2.2b stimulus, although I admit I was completely in the dark about it, I was overseas at the time for about 6 months when the pandemic hit until April of 2020.

But surely you can understand Summers point, that a huge 2.2 stimulus at the height of the lockdown, could put us on a precarious position without pushing us over, while a 1.9T stimulus when the vaccines are rolling out the and the lock downs have ended was way too much and pushed us over the edge.

[bernard11]

Are you also willing to credit Biden for the fact that the US economy has outperformed other western economies over the past several years?

[Brett Bellmore]

The US economy typically outperforms other world economies. It has for decades now. The cumulative effect of that is why the US has one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, and the highest of any country of significant size. Most European countries would, if they were US states, count as among the poorer states.

Biden hasn't quite succeeded in tanking our economy to the point where it's as bad as the rest of the world, to be sure. It's not for lack of trying, but that's a pretty difficult task.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden hasn’t quite succeeded in tanking our economy to the point where it’s as bad as the rest of the world, to be sure
So no metrics, but your *vibes* insist don't credit Biden with anything.

How can you not look at yourself and see what this is?

But sure, America, more than other countries, has a philosophy based on number go up. That does not mean number goes up only counts for Trump not Biden - that'd be partisan brain worms!

It does mean we are very good at number go up, which can be clutch sometimes. It also means we've got this low-key collectivist market worship thing going on for some folks, wherein the members of our society exist to serve the wisdom of The Invisible Hand and not vice versa.

[BadLib]

I'm confident Biden wouldn't stop at another $2T Inflation Reinvigoration Act - that's chump change to Democrats spending other people's money. They would think much, much bigger without Manchin and Sinema in their ranks.

Democrats would convince themselves that winning the EC by even just a few votes and gaining control of both houses was a "mandate" and for the first 18 months would go nuts.

It is Biden's cluelessness about inflation that is most likely to make him a one-term President and three time losing Presidential candidate and a (likely) convicted felon a two-term President. "It's the economy, stupid" is as applicable today as it was over 30 years ago.

(Although if Biden were to win, it would be fun to see Harris run for election as the heir apparent (or incumbent) in 2028 - the entertainment value of that alone might be worth putting up with Biden for a while longer).

[bernard11]

So it's Biden who doesn't understand inflation?

Fuck that. You think a 100% tariff on all imported cars wouldn't be inflationary? Not to mention cause a major recession?

Lat me tell you something. Trump knows shit about economics. But hey, Biden used an inaccurate number, so that's enough fir Kazinski and the other worshipers. Trumpism has gone beyond a cult and become a religion, a particularly nasty and stupid one.

Tell us, Kazinski, what are the economic implications of rounding up millions of people, putting them in camps, and deporting them? Do you imagine Trump understands them?

[Kazinski]

I'm against Trump's proposed tarrifs, just as I'm against Biden's EV mandate.

But if you want to know why there is no confidence that Biden can fix inflation. Here is Biden's Chairman of the Council of economic advisors, who has degrees in Social Work, not economics explaining government finance:

"Interviewee: “The US government can’t go bankrupt because we can print our own money.”

Interviewer: “Like you say, they print the dollar, so why does the government even borrow?”

Bernstein: "Well, um, the – er – so the – I mean – again, some of the stuff gets – some of the language that the – erm – some of the language and concepts are just confusing. I mean, the government definitely prints money, and it definitely lends that money, which is why – erm, er – the government definitely prints money, and then it lends that money by – er – by selling bonds – er – is that what they do? They, they – erm – they – yeah, they, they – erm – they sell bonds – yeah, they sell bonds, right, so as they sell bonds and people buy bonds and lend them the money – yup – so a lot of times, a lot of times – at least to my ear – with [Modern Monetary Theory] the language and the concepts can be kind of unnecessarily confusing, but there is no question that the government prints money and then it uses that money to – um, er, uh – er – so – um – yeah, I – I – I guess I’m just – I don’t – I can’t really talk – eh, I don’t – I don’t get it – I don’t know what they’re talking about, like, ’cos – it’s like – the government clearly prints money, it does it all the time, and it clearly borrows, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this that ’n’ defic – conversation, so I don’t think there’s anything confusing there."

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/05/we-are-screwed.php

[Riva]

Maybe people don’t like inflation, open borders, offensive lawfare, taxes, anti-Semitism, incompetent foreign policy, pointless wars, high energy costs? and we could go on.

[Ed Grinberg]

There are plenty of people here at VC -- some of them bloggers! -- who do like one or more of these things. Guess who they are voting for in November...

[Riva]

I believe they are minority of the population. But the unverified, mail-in harvested ballots? That's a different question. Never saw a poll of the ballots' intention but I suspect pretty much all Biden.

[John Rohan]

Biden got out of a documents prosecution because Robert Hur determined he wasn't mentally competent to stand trial.

[Sarcastr0]

Completely untrue.

Hur said that, but it was immaterial to his finding. Gratuitous, really.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, Hur didn't even say that; that's spin on Hur's spin. What Hur actually said was that he guessed that Biden would use his age/failing memory — not his mental incompetence — as a defense if he were prosecuted.

[John Rohan]

It wasn't immaterial at all, nor was it "gratuitous" (I see you are using the DNC approved talking points here). Hur had to explain and give a reason why he wasn't recommending prosecution.

[Sarcastr0]

He did.

This wasn’t that explanation. The explanation was simply that the evidence he uncovered couldn’t establish guilt.

I can tell you didn’t read the thing.

[not guilty]

"Biden got out of a documents prosecution because Robert Hur determined he wasn’t mentally competent to stand trial."

Really? At what page of Robert Hur's report does any such determination appear? https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

I haven't read the report in full, but ctrl-f searches for the words "competent," "competence" and "competentency" show that none of the words are contained therein.

[Kazinski]

Well there was this "Third, as discussed to some extent above, Mr. Biden will likely present himself to the jury, as he did during his interview with our office, as a sympathetic, well­ meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

[David Nieporent]

Exactly. Very very different than "Hur determined he wasn't mentally competent to stand trial." (Including for the reason that people who aren't mentally competent to stand trial do not "present themselves to the jury" at all.)

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden forgot the year his son died, and where. POTUS Biden is not all there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, give me a break. I couldn't identify the date on which my own mother died, though I've got photographic recall of the event. Not everybody obsesses about dates, you know.

I'd be more concerned about the way he apparently is incapable of distinguishing his political lies about his personal history from the truth; I don't think he's actually lying at this point, delusional would better describe it.

[Nige]

You *can't* be concerned about that, you're a Trump voter. I mean, obviously you can, but if this is a rationale for voting for Trump, at face value it's a complete wash. On the other hand, Biden's always been gaffe-prone. Trump now keeps saying he's running against Obama.

[not guilty]

My reply was to John Rohan, who falsely asserted that “Biden got out of a documents prosecution because Robert Hur determined he wasn’t mentally competent to stand trial.” Hur did no such thing.

FWIW, Hur's report appears to be a hatchet job worthy of James Comey, who in 2016 trashed Hillary Clinton despite concluding that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a criminal case against her. (Comey also delivered the general election to Donald Trump with his eleventh hour shenanigans regarding Anthony Weiner.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently the definition of "hatchet job" is "not applying the whitewash thick enough". In both cases you had people who figured they were tasked with clearing an important politician of any political liability, but who couldn't bring themselves to actually pretend they were innocent. So the end result was unsatisfactory to everybody.

[Nige]

The usual thing where Democrats turning out not to have broken any laws or done anything to justify a prosecution is a bigger scandal than Trump's many multiple indictments.

[Sarcastr0]

people who figured they were tasked with clearing an important politician of any political liability

Telepathy strikes!

[bernard11]

Not true.

It's not what Hur said, and even what he said was a cheap, uncalled for, partisan shot that had no business in the report.

[John Rohan]

Hur had to explain why he wasn't recommending prosecution. If he was out to make a "partisan shot", he would have recommended throwing the book at Biden.

[bernard11]

Really?? Really??

You're appalled by Biden, but Trump seems just fine to you?

Wow. That is appalling.

You know, Politifact criticized Biden for the 9% business.

But they also had an article criticizing Trump for a lot of his BS, as bad or worse.

I bet you didn't read that, or weren't "appalled" if you did.

You have ceased being an honest man.

[Frank Drackman]

You First, I know that will certainly make me feel better.

[Bored Lawyer]

Ah yes, the "But Trump" defense. Almost as foolish as the ad hominem attack.

[Nige]

As if this isn't one long 'but Biden' to Trump's incoherence, ignorance and stupidity.

[jimc5499]

After you.

[Commenter_XY]

It is appalling to watch the mental and physical decline of POTUS Biden on national TV for the entire world to see. The answer is 'b' and the people who coached POTUS Biden for the interview intended 'a'.

It is not illegal for a politician to lie. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think he's actually lying at this point, "lying" requires being aware that what you're saying isn't true. He's at the point where the whole true/false distinction if gone.

[bernard11]

I don’t think he’s actually lying at this point, “lying” requires being aware that what you’re saying isn’t true. He’s at the point where the whole true/false distinction if gone.

This really is comedy gold. Contrary to your imaginings It describes Trump, not Biden, and has been a good description of Trump for decades.

As I said, your devotion to Trump - stop the lies and crawfishing about holding your nose, etc., - is frightening.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, seriously, a lot of his lies are pointless outrageous whoppers, they're hurting him. They're not the sort of lies that you'd tell for political effect if you were still aware of the truth.

This is a guy who's been lying about his history for so long that he no longer remembers the truth.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett going for another long-range neurological diagnosis.

From his track record, you can bet on the opposite of whatever he confidently finds.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Biden on his worst day is better than Trump on his best. Just compare what Trunp said at yesterdays rally and tell me who is more connected with reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

You want to be specific?

[Estragon]

I will say, there was something that confused me from the other day. When Trump refers to the “late, great” Hannibal Lecter… does he think that is a real person? Does he think Anthony Hopkins is dead? And what’s so great about Lecter anyways?

[Michael P]

Are you being sarcastic, or just totally missing how sarcasm works?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Whenever Trump seems out of touch with reality, he's being sarcastic. When Biden misspeaks, he's senile. A double standard here.

[Michael P]

Calling Hannibal Lecter "great" is not akin to claiming that the US had 9% inflation when Biden took office.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it is though.

People say wrong things. More if they talk in public more. It doesn't mean they are not mentally competent.

Trump is *regularly* incoherent in a way Biden is not. You give him a pass because this is just another talking point to you beep bop.

[Sonja T]

Sacastro - nice job trying to cover up the senility

[Sarcastr0]

The state of the union alone shows you are full of it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to SarcastrO:
The actual state of the union say differently.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, surveys show the GOP finds their own lives have not changed much or even improved, but they are all sure other people's lives are worse.

Both sides talk down the country when the President is of the opposite party.

But the right's ability to turn on a dime and suddenly feel awful is really remarkable. Or, remarkable in America at least.

[bernard11]

nice job trying to cover up the senility

The only senility on display is Trump's, and yours, and that of Trump's other supporters.

The demented fool can't even stay awake during his own trial. I'm sure he will be just fine in some sort of crisis.

[Sonja T]

captcrisis 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Whenever Trump seems out of touch with reality, he’s being sarcastic. When Biden misspeaks, he’s senile. A double standard here.

No double standard - Biden has serious cognitive deficiencies at this point in his life.

[Sarcastr0]

How could it not be true if you don't keep saying it!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Why'd you change your name, Joe? Did you finally figure out that your reputation was ruined? LOL.

[Kazinski]

This one?

Trump blasts Biden as ‘total moron’ before crowd of 100K at NJ rally: ‘Whole world is laughing at him’

“You could take the 10 worst presidents in the history of our country, and add them up .. and they haven’t done the damage to our country that this total moron has done,” Trump, 77, said to a cheering crowd of tens of thousands.
He’s a fool, he’s not a smart man. He never was,” Trump said.

“He was considered stupid. I talk about him differently now because now, the gloves are off. He’s a bad guy … he’s the worst president ever, of any country. The whole world is laughing at him, he’s a fool.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-blasts-biden-as-total-moron-before-crowd-of-100k-at-nj-rally-whole-world-is-laughing-at-him/ar-BB1mepIq

No, I can’t say I agree with Trump, it’s not a laughing matter.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

As an American who has lived abroad for ~30 years, I probably have a better perspective on what people say outside the US than most Americans, and there is little question that the rest of the world views Trump and Biden exactly the opposite way Trump believes they do. Which really should not surprise you (but does).

But, that wasn't what Estragon was referring to, of course.

[Frank Drackman]

Biden's certainly always at his worst, I'll give you that. The Medical College Admission Test used to have a "Critical Thinking" part, I'm guessing whatever Law School test you took didn't.

Frank "Mutatis Mutandis"

[I Callahan]

Completely opposite from reality. As I said in another comment: mass psychosis. It’s the only explanation for how utterly and completely lunatic it is that anyone with a working brain cell actually believes what you typed.

[tylertusta]

It is not illegal for a politician to lie.

Unless that politician is Donald Trump, and the prosecutor is one Jack Smith.

[hobie]

So you don't like a president that lies a lot?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So you don’t like a president that lies a lot?

That's an odd conclusion given that he said he doesn't think Biden is lying.

[Martinned2]

US inflation peaked not far from 9%. But that peak was in the summer of 2022, not in the start of 2021. See blue line here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932023_inflation_surge#/media/File:U.S._Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics,_Consumer_Price_Index_for_All_Urban_Consumers_-_April_2024.png

[Armchair]

I believe that's the point Kaz is making, and that Old Joe might have been a bit inaccurate when Old Joe said it was 9% at the start of his administration.

[Martinned2]

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with anyone. (Except Biden, I guess.)

[Kazinski]

Yes I think it hit 9.1 year over year in July of 2022. And Social Security COLA is based on CPI Oct-Sept:
2018 2.8
2019 1.6
2020 1.3
2021 5.9
2022 8.7
2023 3.2

[Commenter_XY]

Average inflation for 2023 was 4.1%.

[bernard11]

Average inflation for 2023 was 4.1%.

No, XY.

Consumer prices for all items rose 3.4 percent from December 2022 to December 2023. Food prices increased 2.7 percent, reflecting a 1.3-percent increase in prices for food at home and a 5.2-percent increase in prices for food away from home.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes bernard11....4.1%

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

[SimonP]

It's not factually accurate, but I'd chalk this mis-remembering up to the same "COVID memory hole" that dismisses Trump's mismanagement of the pandemic, losing millions of jobs, and the contraction of the economy. Biden probably on some level thinks that his real work began once he got the COVID response on track and started to move into normal politics - or what passes as "normal" politics, in the MAGA era. The same way that MAGA voters still think that Trump is "good for the economy," despite adding to the deficit while the economy was doing well and handing out blank checks with poor oversight - wasting billions of dollars on fraudulent claims - when the pandemic hit.

[Kazinski]

Well I agree Trump screwed up the pandemic, he listened to the idiots like Fauci at the NIH that screwed up and funded the Chinese to make the virus in Wuhan, then panicked and decided to shut the whole economy down.

Experts like Dr. Deborah Birx the Whitehouse Covid director that said in 2022:

“I knew these vaccines wouldn’t protect us from infection.” (at :35 of the video)

They told us they prevented infection 95% of the time.
Brian Kemp of Georgia and DeSantis got it more right than anyone else.

https://x.com/Simply4Truth_/status/1788413122337812719

And please show me a President who hasn't added to the deficit even when the economy is doing well. Trump does need to do better, but I am 100% sure Biden will do worse.

[SimonP]

And please show me a President who hasn’t added to the deficit even when the economy is doing well.

The point is, Republicans are supposed to be the ones who don't do that. Trump juiced a growing economy unnecessarily and passed budget-busting tax cuts, just to juice his economic cohort more.

Republicans are supposed to be the ones who introduce financial sanity and balance the budget. The big plan for doing so, on a second term, is what? Cutting Social Security and Medicare, right? How do you think that's going to go, hm? Realistically?

Democrats spend into deficits on the theory that investing in the middle and lower classes will grow the economy, producing more tax revenue. And you know what? They're right. Have been, every time they've been in office over the past several decades. We need more discipline on the spending side and reasonable tax rates on the taxing side, but on the whole Democrats govern closer to what they promise, fiscally, than any Republican since Nixon has.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Leaving aside presidential "responsibility" for Congress' spending, but how do four years under Trump actually compare with 3.5 years under Biden?

It turns out that Biden is currently "on track" to exceed "Trump's" increase of the gross federal debt of $7.8 trillion by the end of his four-year term, but only by ~$0.1 trillion. That's pretty much statistically insignificant, if you ask me.

[Brett Bellmore]

What IS significant is that he's going to do it without any emergencies. Trump's massive increase in the federal debt was related to Covid spending attempting to shore up the economy after the lockdowns crashed it.

Where's the pandemic that explains Biden's spending? There is none, he just likes spending a lot of money.

[Nige]

Well, the pandemic was still ongoing when Biden took office, and then there was the job of post-pandemic recovery, or is everything memory-holed with you guys?

[Brett Bellmore]

The job of post pandemic recovery consisted of ceasing to order businesses to commit suicide, so that the economy could recover on its own. That was very cheap. I will grant that Biden boosted the deficit by keeping the Covid handouts flowing long after the pandemic was over by any reasonable measure.

[Sarcastr0]

So I guess Trump ordered the businesses to commit suicide, and then boosted the deficit as well.

But can't really blame him. It was probably leftists controlling him just like they control the GOP.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that was the states. I will blame Trump for not pushing back against it, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, you don’t blame Trump. There’s no heat in this. You don’t actually blame Trump. Ever. For anything.

But Biden, well, he’s to blame for stuff that happened before he took office, inheriting a bunch of problems caused by President Probably Also Biden.

I won't get into your just the tip Covid tyranny stuff.

[I Callahan]

Sarcastro - you sound painfully stupid here. If you’d ever come out of your libtard echo chamber, you’d know that MANY conservatives are still pissed at how Trump handled the Covid mess.

Stop being such a single-minded know it all.

[Nige]

So, you agree, he did the job very well. The deficit presumably being less important than getting the economy on track in such a dire situation.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, that's what Democrats are known for...

Ordinarily, I would vote for the Republican for that exact reason, but (a) Trump, and (b) the other recent Republicans have also managed to preside over free-flowing deficit taps.

At this point, nobody can be expected to even try to reverse the "deficit heating", just like the other impending disaster we all must know by now that nobody will do anything about.

[Nige]

'Trump does need to do better, but I am 100% sure Biden will do worse.'

Biden's managed the recovery from the pandemic pretty well I'd say, which suggests you're way off the mark, because despite your protestations you want to vote for Trump for other reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

I am 100% sure Biden will do worse

As I learned in 2016 and many in the GOP learned in 'unskewed' 2012 - don't count your chickens.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Prejudicial evidence—sometimes I think I understand it; sometimes not. I get that a defendant being tried for this crime can suffer prejudice if a prosecutor mentions some other crime the defendant has been charged with, or convicted of. I am baffled by a ruling to say a prosecutor can introduce a transcript of a defendant's public remarks, but that it would be prejudicial to play before the jury a tape which shows the defendant uttering those same remarks.

If any lawyer thinks that distinction can be explained, I would appreciate the help.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would assume it relates to the difference between talking smack and smacking people.

[Kazinski]

I can't see any relevance of even the transcript to any of the criminal charges Trump is facing.

Remember Harvey Weinstein got his NY conviction thrown out because the judge allowed evidence of conduct that was similar to the crime he was accused of.

Merchan has already opened the door to reversal wide open.

[loki13]

"Merchan has already opened the door to reversal wide open."

Again, with the confident statements of the law!

In two parts-

1. The transcript was allowed because Hope Hicks was testifying about why there was such a need, for the campaign, to suppress further scandals like this so close to the election. Which goes to the prosecution's theory of the case. As any experienced trial attorney will tell you, a dry transcript is much less prejudicial than a live recording with the Defendant making the remarks.

2. Next, the issues related to some extraneous testimony of Stormy Daniels, for example, was ably handled by the Judge. The two issues there are- first, the judge did his best to stop the testimony, and more importantly, the defense didn't object, but then tried to use the statements elicited without objection for the mistrial. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And the Weinstein case isn't a "get out of jail" free card. First, it was a 4-3 decision. Second, it was the admission of a LOT of testimony of other women being sexually assaulted (that were not charged) both to prove the underlying criminality of Weinstein to sexually assault a single women, and the concomitant ruling that effectively prevented Weinstein from testifying on his own behalf.

However, this limited evidence was "non-propensity" evidence. First, Trump is not being charged with with sexual assault. It's actually irrelevant for purposes of the indictment as to whether or not he slept with Stormy Daniels (most would say that the Defense should have stipulated to that, and just not argued it, but for Trump's pride). But what is relevant is Trump's intent (because, you know, intent to conceal another crime) - and for that, the state of the campaign, including the Access Hollywood tape, is part of it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thanks for the answer Loki, but this part of it reinforces my confusion instead of reducing it:

As any experienced trial attorney will tell you, a dry transcript is much less prejudicial than a live recording with the Defendant making the remarks.

In my confused way, I understand that as a judge saying, "Yeah, it's relevant, but I can't let it stand on its own. I have to leave the defendant extra room to reduce the sting by lying about it, or explaining it away. It wouldn't do to let that bit of incontrovertible evidence stay uncontroverted."

And that's what baffles me. Because the defendant is as free to try to explain it either way. He just isn't free to lie about something for which proof as persuasive as a recording has been presented. I could understand calling it prejudicial because it's irrelevant to the case, but even you seem to concede it had relevance.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Trump isn’t actually disputing that he made the statement, is he? If he were, then the actual recording would probably be admissible.

[loki13]

Look, none of this is an exact science. Despite the howls from the usual suspects, I think that Merchan is doing a reasonable job of trying to make the case as fair as possible given the circumstances.

It's kind of like splitting the baby. Yes, the evidence certainly goes to the Prosecution's theory of the case, and as such would not be impermissible. After all, in order to understand why Trump had the intent to violate the campaign laws (which are two of the three "another crimes") the jury would need to understand Trump's state of mind, and why it was so important to him to cover up another issue like this, at that point, and to falsify business records in furtherance of it.

On the other hand, making it a single dry transcript read does reduce the sting of it. IOW, the prosecution can use it (in terms of their theory of the case), while it won't be huge prejudicial moment for the jury hearing the Defendant say, in Defendant's own words, the Access Hollywood tape.

[not guilty]

If Trump were to testify and dispute having made all or part of the statement as reflected in the transcript, then the judge might allow the prosecution to play the audio tape in rebuttal.

[loki13]

True. But-

1. That would be opening the door, and I doubt that will happen.

2. Given that Trump has already lied about this publicly (claiming he has been prohibited from testifying), I think that the odds of him testifying are approximately zero. Given his demeanor when testifying, I can't imagine that his attorneys would want it (and this is before getting into the legal issues).

[David Nieporent]

Given his demeanor when testifying, I can’t imagine that his attorneys would want it (and this is before getting into the legal issues).

Let's face it: if you were Trump's criminal defense lawyer, you would do anything up to and including pushing him down a flight of stairs in the courthouse to keep him from testifying.

[not guilty]

"Let’s face it: if you were Trump’s criminal defense lawyer, you would do anything up to and including pushing him down a flight of stairs in the courthouse to keep him from testifying."

That is true, but the decision of whether to testify or not is among the fundamental decisions regarding the case, such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal, which are reserved to the accused. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). A defendant who has a lawyer relegates control of much of the case to the lawyer except as to certain fundamental decisions reserved to the client, including whether to testify at trial. People v. Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383, 390 (N.Y. 1986).

[Kazinski]

I am confident Weinstein got his NY conviction reversed because of prejudicial statements.

But you're welcome to refute it.

[loki13]

I feel like a broken record. The appellate opinion is available.

Read it. Of course, it does require some background knowledge (such as propensity), but my god, I have never seen someone who is so confident arguing with people with actual knowledge of stuff, based on things that they refuse to read.

Quite a skill.

[not guilty]

"I am confident Weinstein got his NY conviction reversed because of prejudicial statements."

Read the Court of Appeals opinion, Kazinski. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2024/24.html The third paragraph of the majority opinion states:

Defendant was convicted by a jury for various sexual crimes against three named complainants and, on appeal, claims that he was judged, not on the conduct for which he was indicted, but on irrelevant, prejudicial, and untested allegations of prior bad acts. We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless. The only evidence against defendant was the complainants' testimony, and the result of the court's rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant's character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant's right to testify. The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.

[Kazinski]

Just what do you think this means in English?

“We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose.”

I think I will just stick with what I said rather than amend it to a more technically correct:

"I am confident Weinstein got his conviction reversed because of 'erroneously admitted testimony' that 'served no material non-propensity purpose'.

You guys are hilarious.

[loki13]

“served no material non-propensity purpose.”

Yep. That’s our Kaz!!!

He doesn’t even understand what he doesn’t understand. Even when people already pointed out the propensity bit to him.

“Read it. Of course, it does require some background knowledge (such as propensity), but my god, I have never seen someone who is so confident arguing with people with actual knowledge of stuff, based on things that they refuse to read.”

Amazing what an idiot with a lack of knowledge and no shame can do.

Since you FINALLY did the minimum required homework, Kaz, why not step up and actually try to understand what you read, instead of just quickly scanning it to try and find something you think that supports you.

(And, of course, hilariously showing that you don’t get it.)

[not guilty]

Kazinski, testimony regarding uncharged, prior bad acts by the accused is conceptually quite different from "prejudicial statements" which you posited upthread.

[Armchair]

" the defense didn’t object, "

The defense objected several times, if you read the transcript.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not a lawyer but let me suggest the logical way to look at the decision. The evidence in question is not directly related to the charge as Trump is not charged with abusing women. The evidence does play into his motive to try to hide his affairs with women. Trump was exposed in the tape and therefore wanted to stop further disclosures about his relationships. So, the judge allows the transcripts but not the actual tape which is much more inflammatory because of the defendant's actual voice saying the words.

[Michael P]

I'll quote Wikipedia on admissible evidence:

For evidence to be admissible, it must tend to prove or disprove some fact at issue in the proceeding. However, if the utility of this evidence is outweighed by its tendency to cause the fact finder to disapprove of the party it is introduced against for some unrelated reason, it is not admissible.

For the moment, set aside the second part about unfair prejudice. What "fact at issue in the proceeding" does the Access Hollywood tape speak to? Whether Trump wanted GIffords to be quiet about the alleged encounter is not at issue; what is at issue is whether the payment by Trump's private lawyer was a campaign contribution that was hidden by how the Trump Organization recorded the reimbursement to that lawyer. How does the tape or its transcript resolve that?

The testimony by Giffords herself runs aground on the same shoals of irrelevancy to the proceeding, even before reaching the straits of unfair prejudice.

[Brett Bellmore]

" The evidence does play into his motive to try to hide his affairs with women."

But that's irrelevant to the case, since there isn't actually any question whether he was trying to hide it. The real question is whether the money spent to hide them was illegal campaign spending, or I suppose technically whether Trump thought it was illegal campaign spending.

Unless he thought it was illegal campaign spending, he wasn't trying to conceal a crime, and the purported mislabeling of the payments reverts back to a misdemeanor past the statute of limitations.

[Moderation4ever]

To you and Michael P, the evidence goes to motive. Trump had been stung by the Access Hollywood tapes and wanted to shut down anymore releases on his womanizing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, obviously. But also irrelevant, because nobody is claiming he wasn't trying to do that. Trying to do that wasn't illegal.

Keep that in mind: Paying a hooker to shut up about your cheating on your wife with her isn't illegal. So he has no need to dispute that it got done, or that he wanted it done.

The actual argument is that the hooker was paid to shut up only to improve his political prospects, and thus was a campaign donation. And wasn't reported as such, and so was an illegal campaign donation.

And that Trump himself thought it was an illegal campaign donation, and directed that it be labeled in his financial records to conceal it.

Proving that he didn't want people learning that he'd cheated with a hooker doesn't really get you that far in making THAT case.

Now, they do have Cohen confessing that it was an illegal campaign donation, that's sorta relevant. But they never had to prove that charge to get the confession, it was bought and paid for by going VERY easy on him for actually provable tax fraud charges unrelated to Trump.

Trump is still permitted to dispute that, though, because this is HIS trial, not Cohen's. And even demonstrating that Cohen genuinely thought the payoff was illegal doesn't prove Trump thought that. At this point they haven't even proven that he directed the payments to be recorded as a retainer!

[Moderation4ever]

Your motivation doesn't have to be illegal, the actions you take because of the motivation is what is illegal. Needing money is not illegal, stealing to get the needed money is illegal.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you're missing the odd details of the case at hand:

The state crime was supposedly inaccurately characterizing the payments in financial records. But this by itself is only a misdemeanor, and the statute of limitations would have passed.

By claiming that this was done to conceal a crime, the misdemeanor gets elevated to a felony, and the statute of limitations evaded.

So, yes, actually they DO have to establish that his motivation was to conceal a crime, if he wasn't trying to conceal a crime the case evaporates.

[Kazinski]

“The evidence does play into his motive to try to hide his affairs with women.”

99% of married men who have affairs are motivated to hide their affairs from friends, coworkers, their wife, the neighbor next door they hate, their children, and people they’ve never even met.

Of course he had many motives to hide the affair, and wanting to win the election was one of them, and not an illegal motive.

[Nige]

Why would the motive need to be illegal? (As opposed to squalid. He's a squalid guy!)

[Kazinski]

Then what's he on trial for?

[Nige]

To grossly simplify: acts prompted by those motivations.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nige, the issue here is that "just" falsifying the records is only a misdemeanor, on which the statute of limitations had already run out.

Bragg is elevating it to a felony on the basis that it was done in order to conceal a crime. That gets him around the expired statute of limitations.

So, yes, he actually does have to have been motivated by a desire to conceal a crime, not just something embarrassing, or else the case falls apart.

[Nige]

What crime does he say was concealed?

[Sarcastr0]

I believe that establishing a non-element items like jurisdiction or is the officer properly appointed and 'is the predicate offense actually a crime' are preponderance of the evidence, with a presumption of validity.

[Tahotai]

The rule is that evidence should be more probative (having the quality of proving something) then it is prejudicial. Unfortunately most evidence isn't neatly sorted into being entirely one category or the other.

For example, take a gruesome murder in which the victim is horrifically tortured before death. An extended description of what torture occurred is probably going to be disallowed because it is more like to prejudice the jury by making them want vengeance then help them determine whether the defendant actually committed the crime. But omitting all of the details could also throw off the juries calculations so the compromise ends up being something like a short and dry description with only the relevant facts (the duration, whether a weapon was used, was it sexual in nature, etc. etc.)

The public remarks in question are different in scale but of a similar vein. The tape is too prejudicial, omitting the remarks entirely goes too far in the other direction so you compromise and read a transcript.

Also relevant to consideration is the idea that "If you bring it up the other side also gets to talk about it." So if you have someone convicted of several small time robberies accused of rape, mentioning their past convictions are likely to be ruled to be too prejudicial, but if the defense starts talking about how their client is a law abiding citizen then the prosecution will likely be allowed to bring in the past convictions.

[Moderation4ever]

Makes sense.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t know the specifics of the instance you’re talking about, but I can explain the distinction in the abstract:

Lots of people talk (either ignorantly or in shorthand) about prejudicial evidence. But all evidence introduced by the prosecution is prejudicial to the defense; that’s the whole point of introducing it. The issue under the rules of evidence is whether the evidence is unfairly prejudicial: whether the prejudicial effect substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence. The same information can be more or less prejudicial if presented in different form, such that the aforementioned calculation comes out differently. (Describing a crime scene may be less prejudicial than showing gruesome photos, for instance.) A transcript may be less prejudicial than a video.

[loki13]

"But all evidence introduced by the prosecution is prejudicial to the defense; that’s the whole point of introducing it."

As someone who assists a high school trial team, I want to reiterate this point. If the evidence you are introducing isn't prejudicial to the other side, why are you introducing it?

(As a further note, "unfairly prejudicial" works in criminal law, but it's the objection of last resort in civil law, IME.)

[tylertusta]

I've read through all of the replies posted before this one, and I think David's comes closest in explaining it to a layman.

I'll break it down into ELI5 terms. Here's an example:

Prosecution is going after someone for robbery. They have evidence of the break-in from the security camera, they have witnesses that can identify the defendant at being in the area at the time of the robbery, and they have evidence that the car used in the robbery matches the defendant's car. All of that would be admissible in trial. All of this evidence and testimony are bad for the defendant, but it is also needed to prove the charges.

The prosecution also has evidence that when the defendant was a minor, he once killed a puppy. This evidence would probably not be admissible at trial.

Why? We generally don't convict people of crimes just because they're also a jerk. The charge is burglary, not puppy-killing.

This is what David is referring to as it being unfairly prejudicial to the defendant.

[not guilty]

“I am baffled by a ruling to say a prosecutor can introduce a transcript of a defendant’s public remarks, but that it would be prejudicial to play before the jury a tape which shows the defendant uttering those same remarks.”

Nearly all evidence introduced at trial is prejudicial to some extent. The trial court is the gatekeeper as to when the probative value of evidence is outweighed by unfair prejudice to the opposing party. A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger that its admission would create undue prejudice to a party.

I surmise that Judge Merchan found that the content of the public remarks is relevant, hence the transcript is admissible, but the probative value of the jury hearing the audio tape of the defendant’s own voice — over and above that of the transcript — is marginal, and the prejudicial effect thereof upon the defendant would outweigh that marginal probative value.

Federal courts and some states, but not New York, require for exclusion that the probative value be substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. Fed.R.Evid. 403.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Splitting the baby? Without bothering to inform myself of the actual facts (apols.), I imagine the prosecution wanted to introduce the tape, but the defense objected. Admitting the transcript leaves each side somewhat disappointed, but allows the trial to move on.

[Commenter_XY]

RIP Jim Simon, the greatest hedge fund manager who ever lived.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Would that be the "late, great" Jim Simon?

[Michael P]

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/11/un-halves-its-estimate-of-women-and-children-killed-in-gaza/

The United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) revised its child fatality figure from the Gaza war sharply downward, reporting more than 14,500 deaths on May 6 but then 7,797 on May 8. OCHA also revised downward its figure for women fatalities from more than 9,500 deaths to 4,959 deaths. The Jerusalem Post first reported the changes on May 11.

This should make all the people who have been parroting Hamas propaganda uncomfortable.

[Martinned2]

Why would you say that? Did anything anyone said hinge on whether the child fatalities were 14,500 or 8,000?

[Don Nico]

Actually yes, Martin. Much of the world wide outrage has been driven by the oft repeated claims of the HAMAS propaganda machine.
And that is not to mention Biden's walk toward throwing Israel under the bus.

[Martinned2]

Let me get this straight: Are you saying that 14,500 dead children would have been bad, but 8,000 might be OK?

(And, for the record, I'm not endorsing either number.)

[Don Nico]

No, I did not say that and you know it.
But what did anyone expect in urban warfare?

[Martinned2]

But what did anyone expect in urban warfare?

Compliance with the laws of war. E.g. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1

[Michael P]

That's funny. But not ha-ha funny. You hold Israel to a double standard, and on top of that imply that they're violating the laws of war when they fire back at militants who fire from protected sites.

[Martinned2]

Could you explain which double standard you're accusing me of?

And no, Israel does not necessarily violate the laws of war when it fires back at militants. But it does violate the laws of war if it targets civilian targets, or if it targets things without even worrying about civilian casualties. And it seems unlikely that it would have killed as many civilians as you claim without doing one or both.

[Michael P]

You criticize Israel endlessly for supposedly violating the laws of war, yet if you've ever even admitted that Hamas unquestionably violates those laws then I can't remember it.

And you blame Israel because you fall for Hamas propaganda, like your "it seems unlikely" here.

[Martinned2]

You criticize Israel endlessly for supposedly violating the laws of war, yet if you’ve ever even admitted that Hamas unquestionably violates those laws then I can’t remember it.

I've done so repeatedly, including in this thread. But it's a boring topic for discussion, because nobody disputes it.

And you blame Israel because you fall for Hamas propaganda, like your “it seems unlikely” here.

You're the one who shared the numbers. Do you have a different interpretation of what they mean?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Gosh, I hope you don't think the same of me! I will heretofore begin every comment related to Palestine-Israel with a hearty, hopefully unambiguous, "Fuck Hamas".

[zztop8970]

it seems unlikely that it would have killed as many civilians as you claim without doing one or both.
Why?

[Don Nico]

That is easy to say when the Hamas police state has used the civilian populations as a grand human shield.
I get the complaint about choking off supplies of food and water but for the fatalities, I think that level was inevitable and consistent with Israeli's claim that it has tried to limit civilian casualties.

[Martinned2]

The use of human shields does not excuse a policy of firing on them.

[Brett Bellmore]

But it DOES excuse a policy of firing on the people hiding behind them, even if the human shields get shot, too. The laws of war aren't written to make using human shields an effective tactic, you use them, they get killed, that's on you, not the side you used them against.

If it's a target you would have bombed anyway for normal military reasons, the fact that the enemy builds an orphanage over it doesn't immunize it. It counts against THEM.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fuck Hamas.

Are you suggesting that Israel is no longer under any obligation to minimize civilian casualties if its target hides among those civilians?

That might sound okay in abstract, but as Don Nico has put it, "the Hamas police state has used the civilian populations as a grand human shield", which cannot seriously be used to justify mass civilian casualties.

[Brett Bellmore]

I’m telling you that Israel is under no obligation to outright avoid the death of Hamas’ civilian shields, under the laws of war. They have an obligation to minimize them where they can without seriously compromising military objectives, but that’s about it. They don’t have to push the number of civilian deaths down to zero, they just have to not go out of their way to kill civilians.

If Hamas sites their headquarters under an orphanage, you get dead orphans, and under the rules of warfare, that’s on Hamas so long as blowing up their headquarters is a legitimate military objective. If Hamas sites their headquarters next to an orphanage, Israel can’t say, “F it, we’re using a blockbuster bomb instead of one of our precision bombs, because we like big explosions better.” But if nothing short of a blockbuster will get the job done, and taking out that headquarters is an important military objective, bye bye orphans.

Israel has largely covered the whole civilian death issue under the laws of war by urging civilians to evacuate, and giving them a bit of time to do it in. That Hamas won't LET them evacuate is on Hamas.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fuck Hamas.

“they just have to not go out of their way to kill civilians”

I think you’ll find that modern rules of war do not say that.

[Commenter_XY]

Israel is in compliance with the laws of war. As much so as America, Russia, China, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

[Martinned2]

Egypt and China aren't currently at war with anybody. Whether the US is depends on what they're doing in places like Yemen that we don't read about in the newspapers. But Russia and Saudi Arabia are definitely not complying with the laws of war.

[Brett Bellmore]

China most assuredly IS at war right now, they've been biting off pieces of Philippine territorial waters for several years now. Classic act of war.

It's only not a hot war because the Philippines don't have enough of a military to dare push back on them. So they largely have to let China nibble away.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would be nice to still have Subic Bay and a Navy large enough and competent enough to use it.

[Sarcastr0]

Classic act of war

No, it's not.

War sometimes such things, but not all territorial encroachment is an act of war.

There is all sorts of social science on the ways the larger powers bully smaller countries in ways well below war.

Don't be so dramatic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Sarcastr0, military territorial encroachment is about as "cause of war" as a cause of war gets. This isn't a misplaced fence, China is literally building military bases in Philippine national waters, and denying them access to their own territory, attacking Philippine military ships in Philippine territorial water.

There would be a hot war right now between the Philippines and China if the disparity of forces weren't so great that the Philippines don't care fight back.

[Sarcastr0]

Causa beli being present does not mean war itself is.

Wars are big loud things. This isn't that.

[Don Nico]

It is nice to read S_0's defense of Chinese military aggression in the South China Sea. Thank goodness that it is okay to use high pressure water cannon against Filipinos but not bullets.

[Sarcastr0]

S_0’s defense of Chinese military aggression in the South China Sea.

Saying 'no, China is not at war with the Philippines' is not defending what they are doing.

Don't misread to be an asshole, you're above that.

Or you used to be.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're admitting that China is continually engaged in military aggression against a neighbor, taking pieces of their territory, and attacking their military on their own territory, but are adamant that this doesn't qualify as "being at war"? For some reason or other?

That is the stupidest quibble I've seen in a long while.

[Sarcastr0]

DIME. Diplomatic, informational, military, economic.

These are the sub war ways that powerful counties influence their smaller neighbors. Russia favors the I. Chine the M and E.

None of this is news, Brett. Don’t try and reinvent political sociology.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are literally denying that one country sending its military into another country's territory to attack their military and seize territory, is "war". Why in the world is it so important to you to deny that China is currently waging war against the Philippines, that you'd take such a stupid position in public?

[tylertusta]

It's ironic that as soon as Israel gets involved, a lot of people suddenly think they're experts on the laws of war.

[Nige]

Well, you suddenly have people defending war crimes. This also happened a lot during the US invasons of Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq.

[tylertusta]

If it happened before, then it's not "sudden."

And a lot of what people think are war crimes really aren't war crimes.

[Nige]

I'll leave you to work out the logic fail in the first part.

Maybe they are maybe they aren't. Hence the debate.

[tylertusta]

Nige, you once again succeed in missing the point.

[Nige]

Which point?

[tylertusta]

Exactly.

[Martinned2]

For the record, I have a very shiny LLM in international law diploma at home, which definitely predates the current Gaza war.

[tylertusta]

And I'm sure you had an in-depth class on the Geneva Conventions, LOAC, Rules of Engagement, and a military service background applying them to go along with that diploma, too.

[Kazinski]

Neither is ok, and Israel needs to finish it's Rafah campaign and kill the thousands of Hamas holdouts, so Gaza, Israel, and the world can start moving towards long term solutions.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that would be nice.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes

[Bwaaah]

Yes.

[Nige]

It seems to be doing an absolutely shit job of destroying Hamas so far, since reports suggest it still has an existing and functional command structure on the ground, so every single one of those children died for nothing.

Solutions are now fucked for the long term, unless you actually think genocide is one of them.

[Michael P]

Hamas has had several options available to it that would reduce those numbers to approximately zero. They could surrender, they could stop using human shields, they could stop firing at Israel from schools and churches and hospitals, they could let civilians instead of militants hide in their tunnel system, they could have not perpetrated the October 7th attack.

Israel is doing much less collateral damage than any other urban combatant in history, against an enemy that hopes for civilian deaths, and yet people like you still demand they should just stop so that a band of terrorists can continue to run a corrupt enclave.

As I said, it should make you uncomfortable.

[Martinned2]

Hamas is committing at least as many, and probably more, war crimes than Israel. But one side's war crimes does not give the other side licence to ignore the laws of war as well. If Israel can't find a way to solve its problems in Gaza without violating the rules of war, it should think harder, not act unlawfully.

[Michael P]

Hamas's war crimes are generally why civilian casualties are as high as they are. Israel doesn't have magic Hamas-seeking bullets. When Hamas fires from an apartment building, they're the ones morally and legally responsible for deaths due to return fire.

[Martinned2]

When Hamas fires from an apartment building, they’re the ones morally and legally responsible for deaths due to return fire.

Morally, definitely, but legally, not so much.

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/what-is-and-is-not-human-shielding/#:~:text=Impact%20of%20Human%20Shielding%20on%20the%20Enemy

Article 51(8) of Additional Protocol I provides that a violation by the enemy of the human shielding prohibition does not release the attacker from its “legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.” This means that the human shields continue to factor fully into proportionality calculations and that the attacker must do everything feasible in the circumstances to avoid harming them (so-called active precautions). For instance, an attacker must consider alternative tactics, weapons, and targets that would yield a similar effect on the enemy while placing the shields at less risk of harm.

[Michael P]

Of course you want Israel to use their magic Hamas-seeking bullets to attack some target besides the buildings from which Hamas is firing.

[Martinned2]

If there's no lawful way to shoot at something, then all that's left is not shooting at that object all.

[Michael P]

You haven't even come close to showing that shooting at Hamas when they're firing from a building is illegal under the standard that you quoted.

[Martinned2]

You haven’t even come close to showing that shooting at Hamas when they’re firing from a building is illegal under the standard that you quoted.

I guess reading comprehension is hard. Or, more likely, you ignored the links I provided to relevant legal sources. So let me quote the relevant Geneva Convention article in full.

Article 51 - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51

Applying this standard to the hypo you state means, simply put (for maximum comprehension) that Israel can't shoot at Hamas if they're in a building full of civilians. (Nor can Hamas shoot at the IDF if the IDF is in a building full of civilians.)

The only conversation to have is whether art. 57 AP1 is customary international law or not. But even if it isn't, art. 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute, which applies throughout the territory of Gaza to actions by both Hamas and the IDF, contains an equivalent (albeit shorter) provision.

[Brett Bellmore]

None of which is really applicable to waging war with a foe using their own civilian population as an innocent shield.

[tylertusta]

Applying this standard to the hypo you state means, simply put (for maximum comprehension) that Israel can’t shoot at Hamas if they’re in a building full of civilians. (Nor can Hamas shoot at the IDF if the IDF is in a building full of civilians.)

And what specifically in Article 51 says this? Please point to the exact provision.

[Nige]

These laws of war are supposed to be what seperates a legitimate army waging legitimate war from terrorist organisations or rogue states. If they are dispensed with when inconvenient, the distinction becomes less clear.

[Bob from Ohio]

“Rome Statute, which applies throughout the territory of Gaza to actions by both Hamas and the IDF”

Israel is not a signatory to that treaty. So whatever the ICC may say, its not subject to it. As the court will find out if it actually attempts to apply it.

[tylertusta]

Even if Israel was a party to the treaty, they wouldn't be violating its terms to the tune of "thousands of dead children" as our friends Martinned2 and Nige are asserting.

As unfortunate as the results are, Michael's hypothetical of Hamas firing out of an apartment building allows for Israel to drop a precision-guided bomb to collapse the building.

That notional action by the IDF passes muster under both the Geneva Conventions and the LOAC.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fuck Hamas.

Sure, if dropping an apartment building known to be occupied by civilians constitutes doing "everything feasible in the circumstances to avoid harming them (so-called active precautions). For instance, an attacker must consider alternative tactics, weapons, and targets that would yield a similar effect on the enemy while placing the shields at less risk of harm."

If not, those responsible should be lined up against a wall and shot (or whatever it is they do to people who commit war crimes these days).

[tylertusta]

ObviouslyNotSpam,

It would not be a crime because there is no other feasible way to accomplish the military objective, and any alternatives to dealing with the building either do not allow the accomplishment of the military objective nor do they provide any meaningful improvement in the outcomes for any civilians anyways.

If you want to go into detail as to why there are no feasible alternatives, I'd be happy to carry on down at the root of a new comment tree.

[Nige]

'as our friends Martinned2 and Nige are asserting'

I'm not asserting it, I think thousands of dead children is horrific and unjustifiable in its own right.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm all for calling out Martinned when you disagree with his policy proposals, or when he gets a bit knee-jerk 'this is why America is bad'

But this 'you're not American so your opinion is silly and dumb' is some knee-jerk nationalist gatekeeping that makes me cringe to have some of you as my countrymen.

Don't use WW2 some kind of win button, that's fucked up.

[tylertusta]

Nige:

Civilian deaths are unfortunate and should be avoided whenever possible. But it’s not always possible. That’s how war is- a thousand tragedies, or a million- one after each other.

War happens not because humans like it, but because without it, an even greater tragedy will occur. People who can’t face that reality don’t know what the world is really like.

[tylertusta]

Sarcastr0:

Not sure who you were talking to, Peanut. I think you replied to the wrong thread.

[tylertusta]

There are two problems with this comment.

The first is a misunderstanding of the term "proportionality." That's a key part in that paragraph.

Proportionality means that the belligerents should avoid deliberately attacking civilians, and should try to mitigate civilian casualties when they get caught in the middle. It doesn't mean that belligerents are required to adhere to zero civilian casualties.

The express terms of the article allows for a proportional response.

Based on Michael's hypothetical, under the terms of the article Israel is permitted to drop a laser-guided bomb on the apartment building, collapsing it and killing everyone inside.

That's unfortunate, but permitted under the laws of war.

The second problem is that you're arguing that Israel should be held accountable to a treaty that Israel has not signed.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fuck Hamas.

You seem so sure about that. Why? If you're wrong, those responsible should be punished severely. But I'm happy to leave this for the courts to decide.

[Martinned2]

Proportionality means that the belligerents should avoid deliberately attacking civilians, and should try to mitigate civilian casualties when they get caught in the middle. It doesn’t mean that belligerents are required to adhere to zero civilian casualties.

Fully agree.

The second problem is that you’re arguing that Israel should be held accountable to a treaty that Israel has not signed.

That's exactly what I didn't argue in the last paragraph of the comment that I suspect you're replying to. The proportionality requirement is probably customary international law (the Yugoslavia Tribunal case law will say, but I can't be bothered to look it up). Otherwise, the Rome Statute applies throughout the territory of the State of Palestine, as defined by the ICC. Whether Israel has ratified the Rome Statute or not doesn't change that.

[tylertusta]

ObviouslyNotSpam:
You seem so sure about that. Why?

Unless we get an actual honest-to-god JAG lawyer to join these comment sections, I'm probably one of the most knowledgeable people in this thread on this topic. I say this due to my own personal experiences while serving in the military and having had to live under the rules that we're talking about.

Martinned2:
Otherwise, the Rome Statute applies throughout the territory of the State of Palestine, as defined by the ICC

The ICC can claim jurisdiction all it wants, but Israel doesn't recognize it.

The proportionality requirement is probably customary international law

It's part of the LOAC. It's international law for most countries. Of the handful of countries that haven't signed onto the relevant treaties, some like the US consider it merely customary and will try to abide by its limitations without surrendering national sovereignty on it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fuck Hamas.

What we probably need is an international war crimes lawyer, rather than a lawyer whose job is to defend the US military.

As I said, I'm happy for the courts to sort all this out later. No need for anyone to stop doing whatever they're doing if they're so sure they're complying with the applicable law!

[tylertusta]

ObviouslyNotSpam:

Good luck finding an honest-to-god lawyer who specializes in war crimes to come here, and if you found one, I'd immediately be suspicious of their motives. NGOs have their own agendas and seem to pick sides, the ICRC first among them even in the current Gaza conflict.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fuck Hamas.

Yes, you have successfully convinced me of your military background.

[tylertusta]

ObviouslyNotSpam:

Good! Any time you want to talk about the Geneva Conventions, Laws of Armed Conflict, or the Rules of Engagement, just ask.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fuck Hamas.

Oh, but of course. No need to “immediately be suspicious of [your] motives”, as you so helpfully put it!

[tylertusta]

ObviouslyNotSpam:

"No need to 'immediately be suspicious of [your] motives'"

Exactly! Now you're getting it!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Israel is doing much less collateral damage than any other urban combatant in history..."

You said that with quite a lot of confidence, and quite the lack of evidence.

It's ok. We understand that talking about Israel's prolific use of 2,000lb bombs and destruction of residential structures wouldn't play well with your lies.

[Frank Drackman]

What the fuck do you think a war is?

[Mr. Bumble]

A video game.

[jb]

"Israel is doing much less collateral damage than any other urban combatant in history, against an enemy that hopes for civilian deaths, and yet people like you still demand they should just stop so that a band of terrorists can continue to run a corrupt enclave."

This is an interesting assertion that I haven't seen any evidence for. Is there data that compares to civilian casualties during urban warfare in Iraq, say, or for a more contemporary example, Ukraine?

[Don Nico]

Indeed there is RaqaaH and Mosul for example

[jb]

Cool. Do you have a link to anything that might support Michael P's proposition?

[zztop8970]

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=283668378154422

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Let me get this straight

The next time you get something straight will be the first time.

[zztop8970]

I think what he's saying is that parroting Hamas propaganda numbers without verifying them, as the UN has done and continues to do, is bad.

[Sarcastr0]

It does you no favors to keep saying every bad view of Israel from protesters to news to national governments is driven by a hidden but powerful HAMAS propaganda machine.

[Don Nico]

It is only hidden from you S_0. It is well financed by Iran and Qatar.

[Sarcastr0]

You do realize we could replace HAMAS with Jewish and send you back 90 years and you would fit right in with a very different crowd?

Don’t do this conspiratorial puppetmaster shit. It has a very bad history.

Sometimes people are wrong about Israel *independent of Hamas involvement*.

Sometimes they just disagree with you, and aren't neccessarly wrong or propagandized at all.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned2:
Willful ignorance does not suit you well.

[Martinned2]

Willful ignorance about what?

[Mr. Bumble]

The fact that the number of "civilian" casualties (women and children was not a talking point and your second post that Don's comment approves of the lower numbers as being acceptable.

Funny that there are no numbers from Hamas as to fighters killed.

[Martinned2]

The number was absolutely a talking point, but nothing hinged on whether it was 14,500 or 8,000. No sane person would approve of one but not the other.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and no one (who is sane) does.

[Martinned2]

So then what do you believe I am willfully ignorant about?

[Mr. Bumble]

The fact that you and others were using the inflated numbers as a talking point to condemn Israel's actions in Gaza.

[Martinned2]

I don't think that I did. But regardless, we've established that we agree that the numbers don't matter. (At least not among the numbers on offer.)

[David Nieporent]

No sane person would approve of one but not the other.

Of course one would. The lower the number of "children" killed,¹ the more discriminate and legitimate Israel's actions look.
​
​
¹The definition of children being used by Hamas is a bad one, though most of the people parroting Hamas's casualty figures don't realize that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fuck Hamas.

Really? Virtually from day 1, the casualty figures provided by "the Gaza Health Ministry" were questioned and ridiculed. Surely, you didn't miss all the brouhaha?

Everyone knows (and knew, from day 1) that the Gaza Health Ministry is part of Hamas, and that their figures didn't differentiate between civilians and Hamas personnel, and that they were therefore only of peripheral significance.

Obviously, Hamas wanted to exaggerate the casualty figures, and conceal how many of them were Hamas fighters, in the belief that bigger numbers are more impressive for propaganda purposes.

But nobody thinks 14,500 is bad and 8,000 is good.

[ReaderY]

In other words, Martinned2 is saying Jews and uniquely Jews are not allowed to defend themselves. Urban warfare involves heavy civilian casualties. Whenever there has been urban warfare – and there has been plenty of it in the last few decades, including plenty done by the United States – you haven’t said boo. You said nothing for example when the United States and its allies leveled Raqaa and devasted other cities in its conquest of ISIS, which involved quite a bit of urban warfare with plenty of bombing and house-to-house fighting courtesy of Uncle Sam and G.I. Joe.

Only when Jews defend themselves do you, uniquely, throw yourself into a hissy fit over what happens when every other nation in the world defends itself against an attacker by taking the conflict to enemy territory.

If you gave a shit about Gaza civilians, you’d lobby Hamas to divert a small amount of that donated concrete for reconstruction from the last war that it pilfered to build its tunnel network and maybe build a bomb shelter or two? It hasn’t built a single one. Indeed, its entire strategy has involved inflating the civilian body count any way it can.

Obviously building bomb shelters or even refraining from deliberately putting bases and caches as close as possible to children would run totally against its propaganda strategy, which depends on raising the body count as high as it possibly can. Nor would it be consistent with that strategy for Hamas to refrain from stealing food donations for itself.

May I therefore make a much more modest suggestion? There have been videos circulating of Hamas militants shooting civilians in the streets. May I humbly suggest that, if you are truly concerned about Gaza civilians, that you at least ask Hamas to refrain from taking direct action to make the number of bodies its propaganda wing can attribute to Israeli atrocities as high as possible?

But you don’t do these things. You WANT the body count to be as high as possible so you can make Israel and uniquely Israel to look as bad as possible for what you know perfectly well EVERY nation does in war. You know perfectly well Israel has conducted itself no less ethically than other Western nations conducting urban war.

But as you said yourself, facts simply don’t matter to you. You don’t, as you said, care about them. What matters when propaganda is used as an instrument of war, as you and your cronies are doing here, is whatever will make the other side look as bad as possible, by any means necessary.

[Martinned2]

In other words, Martinned2 is saying Jews and uniquely Jews are not allowed to defend themselves.

It is difficult to imagine a more drastic way that you could have misrepresented what I said. Mute.

[Commenter_XY]

Truth hurts, we know.

[Nige]

In the tradition of pro-war propaganda, truth, as they say, is the first casualty.

[Michael P]

I disagree with ReaderY on most things, but the only point I can even quibble with here is whether you “WANT the body count to be as high as possible”. Based on your comments, I think you don’t care because you’ll make one-sided, bad-faith criticisms of Israel for any non-zero count of Gazan deaths.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fuck Hamas.

You have no idea whether Martin opposed the US occupation and/or the civilian casualties in Iraq. I suspect he probably did, not that it would be of any logical relevance to his position on Israel’s current war in Gaza. You seriously think a whiny European liberal like Martin would have “said nothing” in opposition to the way the US conducted the Iraq war?

[Martinned2]

I'll do you one better. We had many arguments about the occupation of Iraq on the original Volokh Conspiracy. I'm not sure how many other commenters from back then are still around, but I'm pretty sure we spent some nice times arguing about the interpretation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I do know my whiny European liberals.

Proost!

[Drewski]

It's just more on the overwhelming pile of evidence that Hamas lies and that UN reports are frequently based on these lies. So while specific numbers may not affect anyone's opinion, we should all bear in mind that shrill accusations of atrocities like Israel bombing hospitals or digging mass civilian graves tend to be false - and often are Hamas's own work.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fuck Hamas.

Try to keep up, drewski.

[SimonP]

FDD is a hasbara outlet.

But if you click through to the underlying stories, you can see that the underlying issue is that the system for identifying and counting the dead has been essentially destroyed by ongoing Israeli attacks of Gazan hospitals and health infrastructure. The revision has nothing to do with whether Hamas is telling the truth or not. It has everything to do with whether Hamas's Health Ministry can prove that specific individuals are dead, which is hard to do when Israel is bombing the people who would ordinarily do the counting.

Not that you, or any of the other bloodthirsty pro-Israel hawks, really care one way or the other about the numbers. You're fine not knowing the truth, and letting Israel do what it likes. But that's the underlying issue here.

[Nige]

This does not seem to be correct.

https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-153

It says here 30,8787 fatalities, 9,000 women, 13,000 children, 7,000 missing or under the rubble.

I think they’re taking the difficulties in identifying the dead as meaning the dead aren’t dead.

Anyway, the IDF are hammering away, I’m sure the score will get back up in no time.

[Michael P]

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1788954532124455368

We were assured there were no ballot counting shenanigans in 2020, especially not in Georgia.

[Martinned2]

Take it up with your own party: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/28/georgia-republican-official-voting-illegally-fined

[jb]

The claim has never been that there were *no* shenanigans, ballot-counting or otherwise. The claim is that there's no evidence that any shenanigans were meaningful in terms of the election result. Not sure why this distinction is hard to understand, but apparently no one on the right is capable of doing so.

Having said that, did you bother to watch the video? The person asking the questions asks where the ballot images from election day are, the investigators respond "we didn't ask for them since we were supposed to be investigating the recount" and somehow now there's a lot of breathless speculation that the ballot images are "missing" as opposed to "not requested". Not really evidence of anything except for some old lady being confused about what was being investigated.

[Michael P]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/thomas-jefferson-university-apologizes-commencement-mispronunciations-rcna151902

By interesting coincidence, my coworkers were discussing Key and Peele's Substitute Teacher a couple of weeks ago, in the context of A-a-ron Rodgers.

[Krayt]

Interesting, they claim the speaker was just reading phonetic spellings, ironically to try to ensure accurate pronunciations, so it would be whoever developed that who was the idiot. Or jokester.

As an engineer, you should test pilot that stuff! Unless they did. Because jokester.

[David Nieporent]

so it would be whoever developed that who was the idiot.

Given how bad the described ones were, I'm wondering if ChatGPT struck again.

[Michael P]

I've seen ceremonies like that where they ask the attendees to provide a phonetic spelling of their name -- but without guidance on what phonetic convention to use. OTOH, this ceremony had more confusion than seems explainable by that.

[Krayt]

There's phonetic pronunciation as if writing it for a child, and the pronunciation using weird scientific spellings, as in a dictionary. I wonder if someone (or AI) got confused on which to use.

[Gasman]

The reader was of a generation where ebonics was all the rage.

But really, you are the public voice for the university, and you didn't rehearse? Utter incompetence.

[Don Nico]

From the NYT this morning: An extensive article on the police state run by Hamas in Gaza: “Secret Hamas Files Show How It Spied on Everyday Palestinians.”
As for the PLA, it is a totally corrupt and ineffective entity.
This is what students are protesting for and what Mr Biden finds to be the ingredients for a two-state solution.

[Commenter_XY]

TSS is dead, Don Nico.

[Don Nico]

I fully agree. In fact, the idea of it is an impediment to a peaceful solution.

[Martinned2]

Agreed. Give all Palestinians currently residing in the occupied territories and Gaza Israeli citizenship, and create some kind of Northern Ireland-style (election) system to keep them from killing each other via the ballot box.

[Frank Drackman]

are you Retarded?

[David Nieporent]

Palestinians do not want Israeli citizenship.

[Martinned2]

Give it to them anyway, and then they can vote what they want to do with it.

[David Nieporent]

Give it to them anyway,

If Russia declared that all Ukrainians now are Russian citizens, how do you think Ukraine, or the world, would take that?

[Martinned2]

I wasn't proposing awarding citizenship unilaterally. My one state solution definitely involves a comprehensive peace treaty.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your "solution" seems to just assume away a lot of problems, like Hamas being genocidal.

[Mr. Bumble]

Palestinians do not want Israel to exist.

[Martinned2]

Fortunately that's not up to them, and a (properly-designed) one-state solution wouldn't make it up to them.

[Krayt]

Who represents me has little value if I am not free. A dictator oppressor who looks like me and spouts my religion (which cynics note is used by oppressors to help gather critical masses to support oppression, curiously) is of little use to me.

I shall not sit safe and free and intimate what makes me feel good about who should be other folks’ overlords. Nothing there is good.

[David Nieporent]

The two state solution is not dead. It is so badly battered and bruised that it is in hiding behind the furnace in the basement, but it is the only possible peaceful solution. You're not expelling all the Jews. You're not expelling all the Palestinians. Nobody actually living there — as opposed to Westerners — supports a binational state. And of course the status quo is neither peaceful nor a solution.

That leaves, by process of elimination, a two-state solution.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with the two state solution is that it's not a solution. If you change the West Bank or Gaza from a 'territory' to a 'state', what changes? Basically nothing! You've just got a state waging genocidal war against Israel, instead of a territory.

So, what the heck does it "solve"?

[Don Nico]

Your idea is my idea.
David, when one looks at the map of possible gerrymanders, one see that there not two economically viable states who have non-symbiotic relations.

[Riva]

Yeah, not like there aren’t already any Arab states in the region. Let’s subdivide the only functioning democracy in the middle east even more. For a solution rejected by the “Palestinians” for decades, basically since the inception of Israel.

[Krayt]

I keep saying it. Some day there may be a proper Palestinian state. On that day, millions around the world will cheer...the creation of another kleptocracy, a vicious dictatorship that starts making well-appointed palaces.

Hooray! You now have western ivory-tower approved categorical representation, and that's all that matters, freedom be damned. Uhhh, hand me that bullhorn, I don't think that reached the ground.

[Nige]

Well they're currentlu cheering the incessant bombing of what is essentially one big refugee camp run by wargangs funded and armed by outsiders, so let's keep doing that.

[Michael P]

https://nypost.com/2024/05/11/us-news/anti-israel-protestors-in-nyc-shut-down-manhattan-bridge/

Useful idiots continue to be confused about who attacked whom on October 7th.

[Nige]

You seem confused about the morality of using one atrocity to justify even bigger atrocities, as if the atrocity itself is less important than the license it affords right-wing extremists to get their war on.

[Moderation4ever]

My local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, had a good article today about the use of ballot drop boxes. The article points out that it can be the rural voter who is most impacted by the lack of ballot drop boxes. These rural areas often have part time clerks that are not as available to accept ballot returns. It also points out that slower mail routes can delay ballots in the mail. As rural areas tend to vote Republican, stopping the use of ballot boxes is a detriment to the Republican effort.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a1/page_83981224-d6ba-5b39-b1e6-3e617efa28b0.html

[Martinned2]

I assume Republicans in Wisconsin have responded to this by increasing the budget for elections, making voting by mail easier, and by increasing the period when voters can submit their ballots?

[Brett Bellmore]

So, I'm not a subscriber, the print was small, and I only got a couple seconds before an offer to subscribe grayed everything out. But the tiny bit I did manage to read said something about the clerks missing them. Did it say the voters did, too?

Most of the controversy about drop boxes revolved around two factors:

1) Unattended drop boxes, as opposed to drop boxes in government buildings. I mean, if you put a drop box inside a municipal office, that's quite a bit less concerning than if you put it on a street corner. Though any sort of absentee vote compromises ballot secrecy and chain of custody.

2) Not legally authorized drop boxes. 2020 saw a remarkable number of changes to election procedures that didn't actually have any legal basis. In what world is this not supposed to cause doubts?

[Ed Grinberg]

re: unattended drop-boxes
http://www.2000mules.com

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you citing that as an authority on the matter?

[Armchair]

I presume this is why there's concern over ballot drop boxes. The potential for vote fraud of one sort or another.. Yes, this example is in a different state, but the same concepts apply.

https://apnews.com/article/ballot-drop-boxes-voter-fraud-conspiracies-af4751d78f87c8f5aeefc5daa2b1f6a9

[Mr. Bumble]

Does the size of the crowd Trump drew in blue New Jersey portend anything about the coming election?

[Moderation4ever]

It does suggest people are willing to travel to see Donald Trump speak. This was always the case and previous election we new that some of the crowd were made up of followers. Kind of like the Dead Heads of old.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're suggesting it was mostly an imported crowd rather than a NJ crowd?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think NJ is in play?

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe. Murphy had to pull out all the stops to get re-elected.
NJ's useless primary is in June so that might shed some light on Trump's support.

[Commenter_XY]

No, the People's Republic of NJ is not in play.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No, Democrats count the votes.

[Nige]

That's because they don't need their fingers to go above ten.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I was going to say, we saw the same thing in 2020: Trump drawing huge crowds, Biden having trouble filling rooms, but Biden won.

I think it comes down to people not voting for Biden, but instead against Trump. Trump had been so demonized at that point, that the Democrats could have beaten him with a department store manikin. It was Trump vs Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat always does better than Real Democrat, being an imaginary figure without real downsides. I think the Democrats knew that, too, which is why he 'campaigned' out of his basement, with virtually no personal appearances.

The problem they're facing this time around is that Biden isn't a generic Democrat anymore, so people can't just pretend he doesn't have any bad points. And he's given a lot of people a lot of reason to hate HIM, now.

So it's more "awful vs awful", instead of "awful vs imaginary Democrat".

[apedad]

"Trump drawing huge crowds, Biden having trouble filling rooms, but Biden won."

I'd say that points out the fanaticism / leader-worship / cult of Trump, not anything about Biden.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess you could describe Trump's supporters actually supporting Trump, while Biden's supporters just hating Trump, that way. If you meant to be pejorative. The opposition to Trump was every bit as fanatical, you know.

It was a Trump or not Trump election, Biden was incidental to it, which is why he didn't really have to campaign.

[Nige]

Apparently it's ok to be ridiculously reductive and dismissive about Biden voters, but Trump voters are complicated with real concerns.

[Frank Drackman]

with the traffic? I'm amazed anyone showed up and I watch every single rally on Algores Youtubes or sometimes CSPAN, wonder if the Village People are getting a check everytime "Macho Man" gets played"

[ThePublius]

Yes, I think it does. I think this time around a lot of dems, and more unenrolled will vote for Trump. Economy, Israel.

[Mr. Bumble]

Including Lawrence Taylor and his family.

[Commenter_XY]

It speaks to:

A rally on the beach? Beautiful weather, too. 🙂
A lot of 'Groupies' - there were a lot of tourists, which lead to...
A commercial bonanza; thanks all of you for spending money in NJ! 🙂
General discontent in the electorate

Other than that, it doesn't portend much. Maybe POTUS Biden could try holding a beach rally near his home. A day at the beach is great for families.

[Bwaaah]

All stated as if to say what it was, and not what you wish it was.

You didn't miss what matters most. Well done.

[SimonP]

I dunno, it maybe portends that Trump's handlers understand the importance to him of seeing large crowds, and it makes for good FoxNews content? I wonder how much money the campaign is spending to gather these groups.

I surmise that Trump supporters go to these rallies expecting to be entertained, but then often sit through rambling, often nonsensical speeches that they have to tune out in order to maintain their enthusiasm. I don't know that there's anything more to their turnout than that. It's like interpreting the number of people tailgating outside a football stadium as support for the home team. It's not an illogical connection to draw, but it kind of overlooks the point of attending.

[Heedless]

I don't know.

When thousands of screaming fans turn out to hear Taylor Swift perform, And do so repeatedly, I generally take that to mean that they are quite enthusiastic about listening to Taylor Swift.

I draw the same conclusion about Donald Trump.

[SimonP]

And when thousands of concertgoers begin filing out while Taylor Swift is still performing...

Also, part of the difference is that Taylor Swift doesn't pay people to show up.

[Moderation4ever]

I have noted a number of articles recently in my newspaper on guns being stolen from cars. Unlocked cars. I again point out that the second amendment gives people the right to own a gun but doesn't tell you should have a gun. If you are not smart enough and careful enough to secure a firearm then maybe you should think about whether you are the person who should have a gun.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe we should seriously go after people stealing from cars? Just a thought...

[Mr. Bumble]

...or stealing cars.

[Ed Grinberg]

...or assaulting / robbing people (which necessitates gun-carry in the first place)

[Michael P]

And what did that lady expect when she wore that dress, anyway?

[Moderation4ever]

I believe that is already a crime. Pretty hard to track down thieves when people leave the car unlocked. Police usually have to wait till the gun is used in a crime.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I have noted a number of articles recently in my newspaper on guns being stolen from cars. "
Anecdotes are always nice and convenient too.

[Moderation4ever]

Anecdotes yes, but a number of them.

[Michael P]

Is it easier to track down a thief who breaks a window to get inside the car? If so, why?

[Frank Drackman]

Well, Idiot, it's peoples following the (mostly Illegal) laws that keep them from exercising their 2d Amendment rights (can't take my 357 into a Bar? that's where I'll probably need it) and I didn't realize a nonremovable gun safe was an option on any cars.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I don't know about gun safes for cars, but people could try locking their cars doors that would be a start. As for taking a gun to a bar. First, I would not go into a bar where I thought I would need a gun. Secondly, alcohol and guns are not a good mix. Thirdly you still have the gun in your car, and I see the occasional story of the bar patrons walking out to the car to get the gun and then just walking back and shooting people.

[Brett Bellmore]

That went completely over your head. People often go into bars to do something other than drink booze. In fact, thinking back on all the times I've been in bars, almost all of them didn't involve drinking. Mostly stopping to take a piss on a long drive, actually. Wakes, a couple of times. But I wasn't drinking, because *I'd be driving!*.

The point is, that if you can't take the gun with you, you have to leave it in the car.

[Martinned2]

Have you considered leaving it at the gun range?

[Mr. Bumble]

How about being able to leave it on your hip?

[Martinned2]

So that you can cosplay Buffalo Bill? I don't think you need a working gun for that.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m not woke so I don’t know what cosplay is, I carry one in order to be able to kill someone before they can kill me

[MoreCurious]

What's the you vs. them score so far? (And don't count the ones you kill in the O.R.)

[Armchair]

It's not going to do a lot of good there. I've never seen a criminal dumb enough to break into an active shooting range.

[Martinned2]

Which is why a gun range is a good place to store guns if you're worried about them being stolen.

[Frank Drackman]

Very few fun ranges are open 24-7, and they get broken into all the time

[Armchair]

"Active" shooting range.

[ThePublius]

That's pretty dumb, considering these folks have the guns in their cars for self defense.

[Martinned2]

Yes, I also thought Heat was a great movie.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s worth watching just for Natalie Portman

[Brett Bellmore]

Why is your answer to government inconveniencing exercise of a civil liberty always not exercising it?

Simply put, if I go to the gun range, I bring my gun with me, because if I keep it at the gun range it's unavailable to me to use anywhere else, and the anywhere else is the point of having it in the first place. Going to the gun range is just a chance to practice with it, since I no longer live in the country with a run range in my backyard.

[Martinned2]

Why is your answer to government inconveniencing exercise of a civil liberty always not exercising it?

It isn't. But thinking about guns as a civil liberty is dumb.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, in America it is more than a civil liberty, it is a Constitutional right.

[Martinned2]

Not all Constitutional Rights are civil liberties. And there are plenty of things in the Constitution that are just plain dumb, like prohibition and the process for electing Presidents.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, yeah, the ACLU's position: Constitutional right are only civil liberties if they happen to like them.

[Mr. Bumble]

When you become an American citizen feel free to advocate for changing the Constitution; otherwise stay in your lane.

[ducksalad]

prohibition and the process for electing Presidents.

Progress! We’ve convinced you to leave jury trials off your list of Bad American Habits.

[Martinned2]

When you become an American citizen feel free to advocate for changing the Constitution; otherwise stay in your lane.

As soon as you guys stop violently overthrowing other countries' governments, we'll get right on that.

Progress! We’ve convinced you to leave jury trials off your list of Bad American Habits.

It was a non-exhaustive list.

[ThePublius]

"As soon as you guys stop violently overthrowing other countries’ governments, we’ll get right on that."

And we'll stop bailing you out of wars, saving your asses so you can still speak Dutch instead of German.

There was a classified ad after WWII - "Dutch Army rifles, never fired, dropped once."

[Nige]

‘And we’ll stop’

If only you could distinguish between helping allies and just fucking around with other countries for dubious ends and with even more dubious outcomes, you might establish a functional moral framework.

Of course European powers did that too, on a grand scale, but one of the outcomes of that were the conditions that gave us first one, then a second world war, so there's even that example to go by.

[Kazinski]

Its even more than a constitutional right, its a bedrock part of American culture.

The gun lobby didn't invent Annie Oakley to indoctrinate kids.

[Martinned2]

Didn't it?

As for things that are "a bedrock part of American culture", so is racism, but that doesn't mean you guys haven't been trying to change that.

[Brett Bellmore]

In as much as Annie Oakley was a real historical figure, obviously not.

Look, we get that you don't like America being America instead of a grossly over-sized copy of Belgium. Get over it, we don't WANT to be a grossly over-sized copy of Belgium.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey Martinned2 are hundreds of years of anti-semitism throughout Europe a form of racism?

[David Nieporent]

TIL that Annie Oakley was a Quaker.

[David Nieporent]

I am quite certain that 99.974% of people at bars are there to drink, not to use the bathroom on long drives.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am quite certain that 99.974% of percentages in comments are pulled out of people's asses.

I expect it depends on the bar.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Not really. If a bar doesn’t have the majority of its patrons there to buy drinks instead of to use the bathroom, it’s not going to be a bar for very long.

[Armchair]

There's a lot of room between 50%+1 and 99.974%

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of bars are actually pubs, and make a good deal of their income off the food. But mainly, as Airmchair notes, there's a lot of room between "mostly" and "almost exclusively".

[ThePublius]

That's probably true, but the more interesting statistic is the percentage of people carrying guns in bars.

[Moderation4ever]

So, lock your car when you go into use the bathroom.

[ThePublius]

It is against the law to leave a firearm in a car in Massachusetts.

[Frank Drackman]

Locking the car door? I thought we were supposed to leave them unlocked to save the costs of broken windows and not injure the disadvantaged Utes that are forced to lower themselves to Car Thievery?

[Armchair]

So, a question for everyone out there.

Let's say Congress authorizes an aid package to a country, and the President signs it. Then, the President decides to hold up part of the aid package for "policy reasons". There's no provision for the President to hold up the aid according to the law, according to the reasons he states, he just says to stop it.

Is that legal? Should that be an impeachable offense, regardless of the intent?

[hobie]

I don't know. Does the Constitution vest the executive with the authority to do this or not?

[Martinned2]

Impoundment of appropriated funds has, apparently, never been assessed by the Supreme Court one way or another. But it's certainly not unprecedented.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-7/ALDE_00013376/

Personally I would say it is lawful unless Congress has explicitly required the President to spend the money in question.

[Armchair]

Train v. City of New York (1975)

[Martinned2]

Thanks. That seems right.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it depends if there's a statutory deadline for delivering the money. If there is, and the money gets delivered anyway by the deadline? No obligation to get it paid out as fast as possible, so no harm, no foul. Though you might get theatrical complaints, or even a failed impeachment.

Presidents actually did exercise this authority to not spend appropriated money, for most of the nation's history. Then Congress got pissy about Nixon trying to avoid spending all the money they'd appropriated, and enacted the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. I don't think it has been subjected to Supreme court review, though.

[Martinned2]

Interesting. I'm not a fan, but I wouldn't think it's unconstitutional. Congress is in charge of the money, and in charge of writing the laws. The President is in charge of spending the money and executing the laws. This law seems squarely part of the former.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/chapter-17B

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly? Yes, I think that spending appropriated funds would fall under the President's constitutional duty to take care that the law is faithfully executed, provided that Congress mandates spending the money, rather than just authorizing spending it.

But precedent ran the other way for most of the nation's history, and the law mandating that appropriations be spent hasn't been tested.

[Martinned2]

Until Congress made this law, I think the better view was that the President had the power not to spend money that was appropriated. But pre-1974 customs don't tell you very much about the constitutionality of this law.

And who would have standing to sue over this? And even if someone did, before 1974 impoundment was considered a political question, so presumably it still is, whether we like it or not.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose somebody who didn't get paid, if a President violated it. Then the President could defend the failure to pay them.

[Martinned2]

That would require the President not to pay a debt in a situation where there was already a contract. I don't think a Congressional appropriation, even if it specifies a specific person who needs to get paid by name (which I wouldn't think is how appropriations are typically done) is enough to create standing.

(But I guess at some point standing and the merits just become one and the same. "You don't have standing because a Congressional appropriation isn't enough to give you a legal right to be paid." is also a ruling on the merits.)

[David Nieporent]

I don't know why you think an appropriation wouldn't create standing. And, yes, some appropriations specify people (or more often corporate entities) by name. Earmarks designate specific recipients.

[Kazinski]

IIRC, it was tested during the Nixon Administration, when Nixon started "sequestering" funds he thought didn't need to be spent.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not at the Supreme court. And Nixon was hardly the first President to do that. Maybe the first President faced with a Congress absolutely determined to spend the money regardless of whether it was really necessary...

[Bwaaah]

"Is that legal? Should that be an impeachable offense, regardless of the intent?"

That all Depends. Which President?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you're too stupid to recognize Armchair's improper hypothetical and his dishonest omission of critical and distinguishing facts?

Sorry, that's a rhetorical question.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If I'm not mistaken, its also one he has previously raised in the VC
comment section (although it could have been someone else with the exact same degree of cleverness, or it could have been in the Reason comment section).

[Nige]

This has been another butthurt hypothetical.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Should that be an impeachable offense, regardless of the intent?

I mean, no? It seems like the intent is extremely relevant to whether or not impeachment is appropriate! (And, to be clear, Trump’s intent was clearly worse than Biden’s here.)

[Armchair]

"Intent" is often in the eye of the beholder and subject to considerable interpretation.

Is it the "intent" to expose excessive government corruption? Is that a good intent?

What about the "intent" to sway voters, regardless of what Congress wants?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, if you already have trouble differentiating fact from fiction, determining someone's "intent" is really gonna throw you...

The courts, however, have incorporated this ingenious method called, the "jury", to help with this. And it really kinda works!

[Sarcastr0]

Making up o try we intents based on fan fiction does not really come at the intent the charged law requires.

Makes sense you don’t want to play in that pool - the facts sure do speak to that intent again and again.

[hobie]

Now that I live among the rednecks of Ohio and all their Trump lawn signs, I'm confused by their loyalties. For over 100 years the Democrat Machine saw to it that every uneducated white man here got a job pulling a lever for $50/hr. Of course that bankrupted all the companies, but that's hardly the fault of the Machine. Comes now 2024 and the Democrats are the cause of all their woes, and the enemy of their unions and their entitlements (yep, most are on the dole) are now their saviors. I don't get it

[Martinned2]

What's not to get? The whole point of Trumpism, like many similar radical right movements in other countries, is that it's actually quite left-wing economically. Import taxes, which are so popular that the Democrats had to get on the bandwagon, top-down government management of the economy, etc.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-urges-general-motors-reopen-ohio-plant-tweet-214847009--finance.html

[Mr. Bumble]

So your saying politics is a mobius strip and can travel right and come up left?

[Martinned2]

It's called horseshoe theory.

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

But in this case, it just tells us that a one-dimensional model of the political spectrum isn't very helpful. You need at least two.

[Martinned2]

...but which two is difficult. E.g. on this chart you'd probably say that Trump is authoritarian left and Biden is centre left. (I.e. somewhere on or near the horizontal axis.) And you may well put Biden further to the right than Trump. But whether that quite captures the difference between them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#/media/File:Political_Compass_standard_model.svg

[Armchair]

From the actions taken, it more appears that Biden is authoritarian left, while Trump is centrist.

Only one of these individuals has weaponized the federal government to attack his opponent with the power of the state.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Only one of these individuals has weaponized the federal government to attack his opponent with the power of the state."

That's not actually true, because it didn't actually happen. Trump committed crimes, and was properly and fairly indicted for them by ordinary citizens.

That's two lies from you so far today. How far do you think I'll have to scroll to find a third?

[Armchair]

Sure....

Every authoritarian in history has used the state to attack his political opponents for "crimes" and found someone to stamp it.

Don't let it stop you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

By all means, prove your case.

Prove that Trump did not commit the crimes he's accused of, and prove that the prosecution is just some rubber-stamp of Biden's doing.

Otherwise your cries are nothing but the tears of a child who needs his diaper changed.

[ThePublius]

Trumpism isn't radical right. The Dems/progs have moved so far left that it just appears that way. Name a Trump policy or position that's "radical."

[Martinned2]

Wanting to mess with the democratic process?

[Mr. Bumble]

By having the gall to run for president?

[David Nieporent]

By refusing to accept electoral results.

[Mr. Bumble]

But in fact he did accept them by leaving the White House on Jan. 20, 2021. No tanks surrounding the White House or the Capitol and Joe Biden has been President for 3.5 years.

[Nige]

Except he still hasn’t actually accepted the result and is still claiming the election was stolen.

[Mr. Bumble]

So is Hillary. So what?

[Nige]

No, she isn't. This is so laughable, because it's based on one quote given years later and it's supposed to be equivalent to things like Trump going so far as to refuse to engage in the transfer of power to the Biden administration and a mob storming the Capitol on his behalf.

[ThePublius]

How's that? "Messing with the democratic process," a threat to democracy, jailing reporters, all of that stuff, is a made-up false narrative by Democrats. Trump did no such thing during his first term. The only party "messing with the democratic process" are the Democrats: see all the bullshit prosecutions of Trump, including that ridiculous kangaroo court in New York.

[Sarcastr0]

Republican's who will not commit to accepting the results in 2024 if Trump loses:

Lindsey Graham
JD Vance
Kari Lake
Tim Scott

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, give me a break on Lindsey Graham. He just says whatever he thinks the voters want to hear, and then does what he feels like. The guy is a joke. Ignore what he says, only what he does matters.

But, on committing to accepting the results? That's the sort of thing nobody should unconditionally commit to.

[Sarcastr0]

He’s the most damming, empty vessel that he is.

A GOP weathervane knows which way the wind is blowing, and it’s not towards faith in our democratic institutions.

No one is saying unconditional as in obvious fraud Brett.

We all know your feelings in 2020 - not quite legitimate because courts that don’t agree with you aren’t quite legitimate. And the deniers are driven by election security concerns.

I expect similar apologetics from you should Trump lose 2024 and the inevitable denial comes up again.

[ThePublius]

Do you mean "election deniers" like Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, that kind of election denial?

The term is loaded and insulting, of course, evoking holocaust denialism.

And calling someone a denier is assuming that your view, your position, is absolutely, factually correct. Which it is not. There is actually plenty of evidence of election monkey business in 2020, despite the Dem narrative of "no evidence" (of anything they disagree with, by the way).

Finally, the courts didn't decide this, they decided nothing on the merits.

You're just parroting the Dem narrative.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes. 'There is no difference between complaining and trying to overturn the election, also it was a good thing to try and overturn the election.'

I know where you'll stand this year, and I very much hope you end up a frustrated failure.

the courts didn’t decide this, they decided nothing on the merits.
You've been corrected on this at least twice. Your stubborn adherence to your delusions is not good for this country, and thus neither are you.

[Nige]

No, the actual election denial kind that Trump did. You're welcome.

'There is actually plenty of evidence'*

*footage not found

[David Nieporent]

There is actually plenty of evidence of election monkey business in 2020, despite the Dem narrative of “no evidence” (of anything they disagree with, by the way).

It is not a "Dem narrative." It is a sane narrative. The narrative of the courts. The narrative of every investigation and audit. The narrative of Trump's own AG. The narrative of Trump's own lawyers when forced to shit or get off the pot in court.

Finally, the courts didn’t decide this, they decided nothing on the merits.

False. There were dozens of 2020 election cases decided on the merits.

[Zarniwoop]

You should read this 3d Cir opinion and get back to us: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf

The first line:

BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.

Bibas is a Trump appointee.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember when Gore didn't accept the results back in 2000, when he lost to Bush? He didn't accept the results until the Supreme court had terminated his efforts to overturn the election.

Look, people contest election outcomes all the time, mostly unsuccessfully, but not always. You're demanding that Republicans, and only Republicans, give up the right to do that.

[Bwaaah]

That was [D]ifferent.

(hat tip to C_XY)

[Sarcastr0]

I remember Gore following legitimate channels, and in the end deciding not to push any further once the Court weighed in.

Nothing like Trump’s lying, strongarming, fraud, etc.

I know where you’ll be in November if Trump loses as well. It won't be on the side of our republic.

[Nige]

'You’re demanding that Republicans, and only Republicans, give up the right to do that.'

What a straw man.

'That was [D]ifferent.'

Yes, it was a genuine dispute.

[David Nieporent]

Remember when Gore didn’t accept the results back in 2000,

No. There was a bona fide, good faith dispute over the results, and he accepted the results the moment they were final.

(Now's your cue to move goalposts and talk about a handful of members of Congress who performatively objected to the certification.)

[Don Nico]

"in the end deciding not to push any further once the Court weighed in."
S_0,
What do you suggest he might have done at that point aside from armed revolt?

[Josh R]

.

What do you suggest he might have done at that point aside from armed revolt?

Have the DOJ declare there was fraud in Florida? Call for a "wild" protest on Jan 6? Have the VP (!!) unilaterally reject Florida's votes?

[Sarcastr0]

What do you suggest he might have done at that point aside from armed revolt?

First TRUMP TRIED AN ARMED REVOLT.

Gore could have petulantly not conceded.
Tried some additional legal objection
Send over alternate slates of electors.

Gore: "This is America, and we put country before party. We stand together behind our new president.

I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am, too.

But I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country."

Trump withers by comparison.

[Brett Bellmore]

"First TRUMP TRIED AN ARMED REVOLT."

NO. HE. DIDN'T. (Capital letters, thus I refute you.)

Given the involvement of the FBI in the Proud Boy's planning, you'd be on solider grounds saying that the FBI tried an armed revolt! Do you think for one moment that, if the Biden administration had even a shred of evidence showing that Trump ordered the January 6th breakin, we wouldn't have heard of it by now?

They'd have charged him with insurrection in a heartbeat, if they actually had any evidence to support it.

So, let's hear it. Let's hear your evidence that Trump tried an armed revolt.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy fuck Brett J6 was not a FBI false flag. Informants are not agents, as has been explained to you many many many times.

Didn't think you'd go all the way there, but here you are.

OTOH you have J6 people saying they though Trump asked them to be there, to the point they thought they weren't going to get in trouble once the righteous violence was done.

You have social media posts from Trump, and his words the day of which goes to intent, if not incitement.

You have the Eastman memos explaining how this kind of pressure on Pence to do the needful would help overturn the election.

You have Trump seeing people doing this shit *in his name* being glued to his TV and refusing to speak calm them down via word or text for hours.

It didn't turn out the way Trump wanted it to - the violence backfired as it sometimes does. But it is basically undeniable he wanted some violence on J6.

This is all evidence that puts the lie to the already tin foil hat insanity of 'The FBI did it.' Holy shit you're all the way deep on this one, eh?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Holy fuck Brett J6 was not a FBI false flag. Informants are not agents, as has been explained to you many many many times."

Asserted and explained are different words for a reason, stop confusing them. I didn't say that it was a false flag, though it makes more sense as a false flag than a coup. I said you could make a stronger case for the FBI being guilty of armed revolt than Trump. Not a great case, but stronger, because you actually have proof of the FBI communicating with the Proud Boys, and that leading to the attack. You've got bupkis when it comes to Trump.

"OTOH you have J6 people saying they though Trump asked them to be there,"

Right, and the dog ordered the Son of Sam killings.

"You have the Eastman memos explaining how this kind of pressure on Pence to do the needful would help overturn the election."

My, being very vague about "this kind of pressure", aren't we? I've read the Eastman memos, don't recall anything in there about breaking into the Capitol.

"You have Trump seeing people doing this shit *in his name* being glued to his TV and refusing to speak calm them down via word or text for hours."

I'm sure he found it hilarious after they'd turned down his offer of security, at least until he realized it killed off his election challenge.

[Sarcastr0]

You are the one asserting that everyone that the FBI has down as having given them information is acting as their full instrument, at their beck and call. You assert that.

And it's your usual just the tip conservative insanity to say 'it's not a false flag except you can absolutely make that case, and Trump is very innocent.'

And then listen to you. Everyone who said Trump did it was deluded.
And pressure on Pence might not have meant violence, even if the violence took the form of direct, spoken, pressure against Pence.

J6 is a huge and obvious indictment of the right-wing project and it's anti-democratic goals. You're having real trouble ignoring it, so you take refuge in some 'I'm not saying but I'm saying' conspiracizing and your usual instrumental inability to see connections (in contrast to your incredible ability to see connections when a liberal is involved.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Just as everyone else expects similar apologetics from you when the Democrats commit all their election fraud again.

They know they can get away with it, even when it's in your face blatant.

You'll be all like "of course Democrats can count votes in secret, they wouldn't work for the government if they weren't upstanding and noble people! They would never do anything like cheat in an election!"

[Nige]

'Just as everyone else expects similar apologetics from you when the Democrats commit all their election fraud again.'

ie insist on real actual evidence.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you think there might be some evidence in those 1.2M ballots the Democrats in GA illegally destroyed from 2020?

[Nige]

No. Otherwise someone would have presented it in a public or judicial forum.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It was a public forum where we just found out the Democrats illegally destroyed those ballots.

You should email Alex Soros and tell him to update y'alls news feed, y'all are ignorant.

[David Nieporent]

It was a public forum where we just found out the Democrats illegally destroyed those ballots.

There was nothing about any ballots being destroyed, legally or illegally.

[Brett Bellmore]

True, that wasn't really ballots being destroyed.

This did happen, though, back in 2017. So we can't actually say Georgia elections officials don't ever destroy evidence.

[Nige]

So, as is often the case, when it comes to real proof of Trump's claims, proof of something else entirely has to stand in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, *I* didn't make that claim, so don't pin it on me.

There were a lot of shady things going on in the 2020 election. There were about 10-100 times as many wild rumors of shady things being spread around. I found it quite annoying how many people couldn't tell the difference.

I think there was enough messed up about that election that it's just barely possible that Trump would have won if everything had been on the up and up. But you'd never be able to prove it, and the courts sure as hell weren't going to cancel a Presidential election and hold it a second time, the way they might for some lower office like city councilman.

The proper response to a farce like that was to try to make sure it wouldn't happen again, not go on a futile quest to undo the outcome.

[Nige]

You haven’t identified a single thing shady or messed up about the election. The courts never came near that dilemma, because there was no evidence of anything shady or messed up. Trump explicitly claimed the Supreme Court would throw him the election, it just had to get there. Quality of evidence irrelevant.

The only thing people are eager to recreate next election is exactly the same atmosphere of lies and hysteria about its validity, only more so.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But, on committing to accepting the results? That’s the sort of thing nobody should unconditionally commit to.

Anyone who has sworn an oath to protect the Constitution has already unconditionally committed to accepting the results of an election after it has been certified.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out Hilary Rodman

[Tempe Jeff]

And they forgot the black lady from Georgia. "It's Chinatown, Jake ".

[Martinned2]

Incidentally, you seem to have missed the part where I said that arguably Trump is to the left of Biden, economically.

[Brett Bellmore]

Neither major party is really free market at this point, but they typically have different approaches to rendering the market unfree.

Democrats typically like high levels of regulation which force the private sector to do their bidding. Think the ACA dictating what features health insurance had to have, who it had to be sold to at what price, and even a tentative effort to force people to buy it. Or Biden's efforts to force car manufactures to sell electric vehicles by setting physically impossible pollution standards for vehicles, while not counting the pollution from power plants as 'vehicle' emissions.

By contrast, the tariffs Trump is advocating try to tilt the field in favor of domestic manufacture, while leaving the domestic companies free to make their own decisions. You notice that Trump was "urging" GM to make that decision, not proposing to fine them if they didn't.

[Martinned2]

You notice that Trump was “urging” GM to make that decision, not proposing to fine them if they didn’t.

Clearly you didn't read The Art of The Deal. Threats work better if you don't make them explicit.

[Brett Bellmore]

In other words, you're just going to assume that everything Trump says is backed by a threat. And ignore when Biden actually does threaten industry.

[Martinned2]

And ignore when Biden actually does threaten industry.

What gave you the impression that I like Biden's economic policies? You realise that I vote centre-right, right?

[Jmaie]

Center right by European or American standards?

[Martinned2]

David Cameron Tory (pre-Brexit), Mitt Romney Republican, stuff in that vein.

[Noscitur a sociis]

By contrast, the tariffs Trump is advocating try to tilt the field in favor of domestic manufacture, while leaving the domestic companies free to make their own decisions.

Trump literally campaigned on how he was going to prohibit American companies from relocating, while his opponents (Democrats and Republicans alike) wouldn’t. E.g.,

In between, he tells a long story about various imagined interactions with the Ford Motor Company over their plan to build a new multi-billion-dollar plant in Mexico. Presumably because of NAFTA, which he doesn’t mention, Ford will (he says) be able to import cars and trucks and parts from that plant without any tariff payments. His story presupposes that Ford needs the president’s permission to build that plant, and that the president has the power to impose arbitrary company- and product-specific import duties as part of making a deal to give such permission. In this context, Trump presents his personal wealth and ability to finance his own campaign as an advantage.

You’ll see some further repetitions; some examples of omitted redundant phrase-endings, and plenty of paratactic constructions.

After introducing the topic, Mr. Trump imagines Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton interacting with the company:

so with all of this money that they give
here’s what happens
they go to a Jeb
and they say mister president
Ford has moved in
ba ba ba
let’s say he knows it’s bad cause it’s bad
he’ll say well that’s no good we don’t want them to make that deal
then he’ll get a call from his donors
his special interests his lobbyists
and they’ll say they helped you
they gave you five million dollars Jeb
you have to let them do it
and you know he’s a very weak person so he’s going to in two seconds
you have to let them go in
and he’ll let them go in
__
they’ll call Hillary they’ll say
madam president
they give you millions
they gave you millions of dollars
you can’t do anything about that
and she’ll say you’re right I can’t they’ve been very loyal to me
not to you
but to her
okay?
because she’s a hundred percent- look
is she crooked or what?
okay give me a break is- is she crooked?
I mean
how crooked is she?
how crooked is she?
and you have to understand
in my prior life one of the magazines said world-class businessman
which is true I’m all over the world and I’m a
I think great
really good-
and I get along with everybody I get along with her I get along with everybody
I get along with democra- that’s my obligation that’s my job
I have to do that
so they say to her
they say
it’s bad
we got to stop it
and then she’ll be confronted with the special interests the lobbyists the donors
and immediately she’ll say all right let them build

…

Mr. Trump then goes on to describe his own imagined interaction with Ford — he of course deals directly with the president of the company:

now here’s Trump
now Trump is president
Trump Trump
Trump is now president
Trump
Trump
so
president Trump
I owe them-
all I-
you know who I owe I- here- this is the group I owe
I owe these people
wow
I owe these people
so I didn’t take any of their money
and by the way you know it’s sort of adverse to what I do
these people are coming up especially I’ve been in first place practically since I
announced, right
for like six months I’ve been in first place
do you know how many people have come up
darn I’d love to contribute to your campaign
I said I’m not taking money
they said but we’d love to make a major contribution
because if I do you know what’s going to happen it’s just psychologically even if- it’s not- it- deal or any-
it’s just a guy gives you five million bucks and he’s representing a company
or he’s representing China or he’s rep-
you know you sort of feel obligated I m- I still really don’t think it- but I’m a very loyal person
so I just do it the easy way I don’t take it
and it’s very hard for me to say no, because all my life I take
I take money, I love money, I take money
now I’m telling these people I don’t want your money
I don’t want your money
because I know what happens
so now they come to me
and I’ll get a call from the head of Ford, nice guy by the way
I think, who the hell knows
right but I think he’s a-
wrote me a beautiful letter
and he’ll say to me
mister president
we’re doing a wonderful thing
I said why is it wonderful that you’re building a plant in Mexico
why can’t you build that plant in the United States
ideally in Michi- you know ideally I want it in Michigan
but why can’t you even if it’s anywhere in the United States right
but why can’t you build that plant in Michigan
well ba ba ba ba ba ba
after about three seconds I know it’s all nonsense
because there’s nothing he can convince me on
and I’ll say no no no
here’s the story
here’s the story
I’m a free trader
but this is no good for our country
if you build that plant in Mexico
I’m going to charge you
thirty five percent
on every car truck and part
that you send into our country
every single one
every single car
truck and part
we’re going to put a tax of thirty five- and I’m a free trader
but we can’t be stupid traders
cause what’s happening with China is ten times worse
I mean we have a trade deficit with China five hundred billion dollars a year
and then I listen to Obama
our trading partner — they’re no partner
they’re ripping us
and I love China they pay me a fortune they buy my apartments
I have them as tenants in my building
I have the largest bank in the world in China
they pay me a lot of rent
how can I dislike China but they’re just too smart for our politicians
so here’s what happens
so I’ll say I want thirty five percent tax
on every car and every truck and every part that comes into this country
and he’s going to say
well
we won’t do it
now here’s what is probably going to happen
and I have the smartest businessmen in the world many of them are endorsing me
Carl Icahn has endorsed me
a lot of the great ones cause they know I’m like smart this is what I do
so what happens
but this is too easy
I don’t need any- but this is too easy
this takes minutes
so what happens is
he’ll say probably we can’t do that
I’ll say don’t worry about it
call me whenever you’re ready
within twenty four hours I’ll get a call
and he’ll make one more plea
mister president that’s not right
I’ll say
thirty five percent
and if you wait another day it’s going to forty, okay?
it’s true
it’s going to forty
and as good and as tough and as smart as they are
here’s what he’s going to say, has to
and this isn’t like ninety nine percent this is a hundred percent
he’s going to say mister president
we’re going to build our new plant in the United States
right here
well this is the place I’d like to see it
but we’re going to build our new- and that’s a hundred percent
now
he may wait a day
he may wait two days
but that’s what’s going to happen

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=23057

[ThePublius]

I didn't miss the point, there was no point. At least, no clearly articulated point. First, what does it mean to be left or right economically? Second, Trump has been encouraging U.S. companies, supporting U.S. energy development and production, protecting U.S. workers from the flood of illegal immigrants who drive down wages, recognizing that China is waging an economic war on the U.S., and has been doing so for decades, and so forth. On the other hand, the Democratic party has abandoned their support of U.S. workers, despite their rhetoric, has abandoned support of U.S. industries and products, has joined with China, accepting their economic and other support, and so forth. The Democratic party has moved far left and radical, making it appear the Republican party has moved.

[Martinned2]

First, what does it mean to be left or right economically?

Conveniently we had a whole thread about that recently: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/14/what-differentiates-political-left-and-right/

Second, Trump has been encouraging U.S. companies, supporting U.S. energy development and production, protecting U.S. workers from the flood of illegal immigrants who drive down wages, recognizing that China is waging an economic war on the U.S., and has been doing so for decades, and so forth.

Tl;dr, Trump has been doing economic regulation that you approve of.

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that these were also the pre-Trump policies of the GOP? Otherwise I'm confused by your claim that the Republicans haven't moved.

On the other hand, the Democratic party has abandoned their support of U.S. workers, despite their rhetoric, has abandoned support of U.S. industries and products, has joined with China, accepting their economic and other support, and so forth. The Democratic party has moved far left and radical, making it appear the Republican party has moved.

Tl;dr, the Democrats have been doing economic policies that you don't approve of, like giving US workers access to cheap imported products so that US workers have more real spending power.

[ThePublius]

No, it's not regulation I approve of, it's lack of regulation, lack of constraint; not intentionally shutting down U.S. energy production, and so forth.

Which worked better, by the way? Do you prefer the Biden economy or the Trump economy?

[Martinned2]

Do you prefer the Biden economy or the Trump economy?

LOL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

[ThePublius]

It's not fallacious. Do you think Biden's aggressive policies, including attacking the energy industry, printing tons of money, and so forth, are not responsible for inflation, price increases, and so forth?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No, they think it’s corporate greed. These people do not believe it’s possible for a Democrat government policy to have a harmful effect, and the only reason there are ills in society are because citizens are too free and do not comply with the plans of the governing classes.

[Sarcastr0]

I think inflation is a complicated thing, and anyone who says they know the cause is selling something.

[Nige]

'including attacking the energy industry'

I recently learned that if you use solar in Alabama the energy company can fine you for the energy it produces. I think he needs to attack harder.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nige: $5/kW installed capacity, per month, on your electric bill. You can avoid it by simply not being hooked up to the grid to begin with.

The electric rate is sized to pay for both fixed and variable costs of providing power, assuming you're using a normal amount of it. Installing solar can drive your electricity use down to zero on average, but it's not costing the utility any less to make that capacity available to you; Wires and transformers don't become free just because you happen not to use them during a given month. So, you really think people with solar panels should be able to use the grid as an emergency backup, free of charge?

California does the same thing, those rednecks!

[Nige]

They pay for the non-solar energy they use, they're *also* fined for the solar energy. The amount of solar energy generated in Calfornia recently reduced the cost of energy to something negative. Scary.

[Zarniwoop]

Brett sez:

The electric rate is sized to pay for both fixed and variable costs of providing power, assuming you’re using a normal amount of it.

That’s why my electrical bill (WI) has both a fixed component (connection fees, etc.) and a variable component (per kWh consumed). The grid connection isn't free; if I shut off my main breaker, I still get an electric bill just for the hookup existing. I bet your bill is exactly the same.

An additional fee for solar is a penalty for daring to lower one’s variable component. Do you also think the electric company should get to charge me $5 a month for getting a more efficient refrigerator or a new AC unit, because those also lower the amount of kWh my house consumes?

That’s bat-sheet insane corporate handouts designed to stifle competition and the free market, courtesy of legislators who are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. And you’ve got your kneepads on to justify your support for it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, go off grid, stop using the grid as your backup system, and you won't have to pay this.

[Nige]

What an amazing non-solution to systemic dysfunctions!

[David Nieporent]

Which worked better, by the way? Do you prefer the Biden economy or the Trump economy?

I disagree with many of Biden's economic policies, but there's no question that the present economy¹ is objectively better than the one we experienced during the previous administration.
​
​
¹ Which is not the "Biden economy"; the short-term impact of policies on the economy is much smaller than partisans pretend.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're delusional or willfully stupid.

[Nige]

'Do you prefer the Biden economy or the Trump economy?'

Trump inherited a strong Obama/Biden economy, who inherited a catastrophic Republican economy, Biden inherited a dreadful Trump/pandemic economy and honestly, he's not doing too bad.

[David Nieporent]

Name a Trump policy or position that’s “radical.”

Rounding up tens of millions of people.
Withdrawing from NATO.

[Mr. Bumble]

Neither of which happened and are likely to.

[Frank Drackman]

Which is too bad

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure what the difference is between withdrawing from NATO and reneging on the art. 5 commitment, in practical terms.

[Nige]

So what are you voting for?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Terminating the Constitution as an option?

Asking his minions to eliminate the FCPA?

[David Nieporent]

Being a dictator on Day 1?

[Mr. Bumble]

…and only day 1. Hyperbole. it's a thing.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, David (or is it Daivd?), that was just Trump catching you out with his inimitable 4D chess-playing.

You see, in that particular case he was “just joking”. That the other things he also said he would do would only be possible if he wasn’t joking is pure coincidence. Or TDS. Either way, it just proves the “vast leftwing conspiracy” arrayed against him…

[Harvey Mosley]

Radical = enforcing immigration law and telling NATO countries not to expect the US to uphold its obligations if they don't.

[David Nieporent]

Radical = enforcing immigration law and telling NATO countries not to expect the US to uphold its obligations if they don’t.

You're spinning and misrepresenting, respectively.

No, "enforcing immigration law" is not radical. Enforcing immigration law by rounding up millions of people would be. Enforcing traffic laws is not radical. But if a government official said that 100% of motorists who were speeding would be arrested and taken to jail, that would be radical.

And with respect to NATO: (1) there are no "obligations" that the other members aren't upholding; and (2) Trump wants to pull out of NATO entirely, according to his own former officials. It has nothing to do with supposed obligations. His claim that they aren't is either stupid or a lie (he confuses a general understanding that members should spend 2% of their respective GDP on defense with the idea that members owe 2% of their GDP to NATO), but also is irrelevant in that this is just a pretext to pull out of NATO entirely.

[Sarcastr0]

Immigration law does not say mass deportation. NATO does not say the US should pull out if folks aren't making their *targets* (not obligations).

NATO is really good for world stability, though obviously not a panacea.
Even if we alone supported it, there's a good argument it's worth it since our trade, science, and foreign policy and are all postured to get the most benefit from a free and low-conflict world.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you the Revolting Reverend in Drag?? It's because they're Bitter Klingers obviously, you know, my "Bettors"

Frank

[Armchair]

Here's a question for you hobie. Let's take two candidates/parties.

1. Party One tells the voters what wonderful people they are, and how they are going to bring back the jobs and support their values.

2. Party two tells the voters that they're all redneck backwards rubes that should be voting for Party two (if they know what's good for them) because of actions taken 50 years ago, while acting like the voters values are crap.

Which one do you think the voters are going to support? Which would you support?

[ThePublius]

On point two, yes, see Pelosi's remarks of the other day:

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was rebuked as an "elite" during a recent Oxford Union debate, where she argued that populism in the United States is a threat to democracy.

Pelosi — a self-described "devout" Catholic — said during the April 25 debate that certain Americans, whom she considered to be "poor souls who are looking for some answers," refuse to accept the answers Democrats give them on particular topics due to their beliefs about "guns, gays, [and] God."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-rebuked-oxford-debate-condemning-americans-clouded-guns-gays-god

Yes, we're all just a bunch of poor, ignorant rubes who don't know we should be voting Democrat. F.U.N.P.

[Martinned2]

we’re all just a bunch of poor, ignorant rubes who don’t know we should be voting Democrat. F.U.N.P.

You prefer a politician who believes that but doesn't say it out loud?

Like this guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0

[Martinned2]

The one that isn't lying to them, and doesn't treat them like gullible idiots?

[Armchair]

Wow...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Armchair's Party One tells some voters how wonderful they are, while demonizing and threatening other voters relentlessly. Party One identifies the voters for targeting with racism, misogyny, xenophobia, superstitious gay-bashing, antisemitism, transphobia, Islamophobia, etc. Also, disdain for education and reason.

Carry on, clingers. Precisely so far and so long as better Americans permit. Not a step beyond. Thank you for your lifelong compliance with the preferences of the culture war's winners.

[Ed Grinberg]

Accusing Republicans of antisemitism today is ... pretty fucking brazen. Which party overwhelmingly rebuked university leadership for their antisemitic double-standards? Which party overwhelmingly voted to send weapons to Israel? Who is currently holding up those weapons?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog exhibits Republican antisemitism regularly, as part of the daily stream of multihued bigotry.

[Nige]

Who's behind the Great Replacement, then?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not the Jews, to be sure. Governing elites in general, who find their own populations inconvenient.

[Nige]

You're kidding yourself about your fellow conspiracy theorists. Or don't care.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, of course not.

When the theory was first espoused in the late 19th Century by rabid antisemites, it was false.

These days, the same theory is true (and has no connection whatsoever with its antisemitic origins).

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, any theory wherein a cabal of shadowy elites with a grand plan first pacify and then end all nations *always* ends up being about the Jews.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's shadowy about public officeholders?

[Sarcastr0]

Their sekret replacement agenda, of course.

And their collusion with the media, and Hollywood, and the GOP, and every government agency, and the judiciary, and the schools, and the Latino hordes.

[Brett Bellmore]

This doesn't look very sekret to me.

Neither does this.

We're not having enough children, the response is we must increase immigration. Notice how the response isn't finding ways to persuade us to have enough children? In fact, the administration's primary birthrate relevant policy seems to be subsidizing abortion, instead.

You might not LIKE characterizing this as replacing the existing population, but that's still what it amounts to, and it's not secret at all.

[Sarcastr0]

So not public officeholders anymore, some dude writing for Brookings and the LA Times Editorial Board.

You might not LIKE characterizing this as replacing the existing population, but that’s still what it amounts to, and it’s not secret at all.
Now you've moved your definition to 'any immigration-favoring policy is the Great Replacement.'

Moving goalposts like that is textbook conspiracy brain. Cast a wide enough net with low enough standards, and the evidence will come! (Then you can go back to the original goalposts, secure they've been validated.)

[David Nieporent]

Notice how the response isn’t finding ways to persuade us to have enough children?

Perhaps that's because nobody has ever found a way to do that? As people — and countries — get richer, birthrates decline. Trying to bribe people to have more kids, trying to expand the welfare state to make it cheaper, none of that works. (European countries have tried many variations.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Perhaps that’s because nobody has ever found a way to do that?"

Not like anybody's really tried.

Actually, there have been some studies on the responsiveness of birth rates to child support subsidizes, and the actual problem seems to be that, while it's feasible, no government particularly wants to actually expend enough resources to make it happen.

Importing people from third world countries is cheaper. If you don't keep honest books, anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

listen to yourself, Brett.

"Actually, there have been some studies"

-And due to not following these uncited studies, the US is doing a Great Replacement?

Hmmm...seems too easy. Like, a lot too easy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Example of such a study.

Seriously, the problem doesn't appear to be that incentives don't work, but rather that governments typically are too cheap to offer them at an effective level. You essentially have to offer enough of an incentive that it makes financial sense for middle income women to stop working and have babies instead.

Importing third worlders looks cheaper if you ignore most of the costs.

[Nige]

It’s only a problem if you think there’s some intrinsic genetic superiority to the people being ‘replaced.’ Lol the Great Replacement is eugenics redux.

[Sarcastr0]

'follow these studies or else you're evil' but see studies on gender, or the climate.

Those are biased and bad.

Brett, you are abusing science, both substantively and procedurally.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It’s only a problem if you think there’s some intrinsic genetic superiority to the people being ‘replaced.’"

If I thought anything that stupid, I'd hardly have married a woman from the Philippines. I bet my genetic legacy on that not being true, and my son being in honors classes confirms that I didn't lose that bet.

What I think is that a large fraction of the US's historical advantage over the rest of the world is cultural. Cultural inheritance happens when you raise your own children. It is very much less effective in the case of immigrants coming to the country and hopefully assimilating.

In fact, in the case of immigration, assimilation runs both ways, the immigrant adopts the culture of their new home, and their new home picks up some of the culture they brought with them. "You are what you eat" when it comes to immigration.

So mass immigration from dysfunctional societies carries enormous danger with it, danger that you don't get by having children. Particularly when it's mass illegal immigration, where you don't even get to vet the immigrants.

I don't want the US to become more like the failed nations of central and South America, CULTURALLY. I couldn't give a bucket of warm spit whether we end up LOOKING like them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's nice.

Just so we're clear, you'd be cool with the Great Replacement if it were really, honestly and truly being done just to save money?

Sounds a bit like those convenient Republican "concerns" about the exorbitant cost of helping Ukraine defend itself from Putler.

[Nige]

'I don’t want the US to become more like the failed nations of central and South America, CULTURALLY.'

When you married your wife, did you vet her CULTURALLY? Or is there a Bellmore exception? Also, how much of the South American CULTURE of dysfunction you deplore is the result of external actors interfering down the decades, y'know, like the US. Is that your CULTURE? Reap what you sow, and all that.

But you're just substituting CULTURE for GENETICS and making it a synonym for POLITICS. People fleeing dysfunctional regimes are generally not eager to recreate them, and the US is dysfunctional in all sorts of ways, and worse if you're poor, but it's stable.

You're in the tiny minority of the Great Replacement crowd with this, and it's only a sop.

[Sarcastr0]

Basically what Nige is saying.

You're making the racial arguments, but substitution 'culture.' See also: you and 'black culture.'

We are not so fragile; have some faith in the exceptional allure of American culture.

Or, as Nige notes, it's not really about culture, it's about your fears about voting habits. Which is 1) Increasingly shown to be wrong, and 2) is no good reason to make policy [hence your policy push is based on telepathically finding *the other guys* are the ones making policy based on voting patterns.]

[David Nieporent]

Accusing Republicans of antisemitism today is … pretty fucking brazen. Which party overwhelmingly rebuked university leadership for their antisemitic double-standards? Which party overwhelmingly voted to send weapons to Israel? Who is currently holding up those weapons?

This is Trump's constant refrain. But newsflash: American Jews are Americans, not Israelis. The vast majority of us have a strong affinity for Israel and want to see it be safe and thrive — but we don't confuse support for Israel with being philosemitic. One can't defend against charges of antisemitism by saying, "But I support Israel; isn't that enough?"

Whatever their stance on Israel, Christian nationalists are a threat to Jews in the U.S., and they're overwhelmingly on the right.

[Ed Grinberg]

don’t confuse support for Israel with being philosemitic.
1. That's a rather odd thing to say. I don't know of many (any?) people who (1) support Israel, but (2) hate Jews. Conversely, it isn't very convincing to claim you're "philosemitic" when you denounce the Jewish state as the greatest source of evil on Earth (maybe after the U.S.).
2. Let's say, counterintuitively, that support for Israel does not prove one's "philosemitism." What about opposition to antisemitism? I note that, for some strange reason, you make no reference to this part of my comment:
"Which party overwhelmingly rebuked university leadership for their antisemitic double-standards?"

[Nige]

Oh, lots of pro-war supporters of Israel LOVE Jews because they're killing non-white poepl, they might one day convert, and they'll all soon die in the Final Battle.

“Which party overwhelmingly rebuked university leadership for their antisemitic double-standards?”

Grandstanding bad-faith virtue-signalling to silent dissent, support a war and undermine third level education in the US.

[Zarniwoop]

Accusing Republicans of antisemitism today is … pretty fucking brazen.

Do you think those folks wearing khakis, carrying tiki torches, and chanting “Jews will not replace us!!1!” were at a “Unite the Left” rally?

Do you recall who called those same folks “very fine people”?

[Sarcastr0]

Here's noted white nationalist webforum Free Republic:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4236936/posts

Depends on how many self-hating Jews there are in the USA.
Many Jews I know value LIBERAL ideology more than Israel.
1 posted on 5/10/2024, 8:11:36 AM by SeekAndFind

No. Somehow, being Democrat is part of the Jewish DNA.
4 posted on 5/10/2024, 8:13:42 AM by brownsfan (It's going to take real, serious, hard times to wake the American public.)

I’m pretty sure most Jews care more about abortions for all than standing up for Israel. Or about trans-rights than Israel’s existence.
8 posted on 5/10/2024, 8:16:29 AM by Mr Rogers (We're a nation of feelings, not thoughts.)

Most US Jews would rather walk into the ovens then desert the Dem party.
11 posted on 5/10/2024, 8:19:00 AM by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now its your turn)

These kapos will keep voting Dem and then be shocked that it results in the left hating them. Then they will look to us to save them when they won’t even vote to save themselves.
12 posted on 5/10/2024, 8:19:44 AM by nonliberal (Z.)

Well, that was awful. There you go, Zionist antisemites.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Since you're only capable of arguing with false hypotheticals...

Which example has the "Party" telling Jews who vote for Biden that they "hate Israel?"

[Nige]

'Party two tells the voters that they’re all redneck backwards rubes that should be voting for Party two (if they know what’s good for them) because of actions taken 50 years ago, while acting like the voters values are crap.'

You nailed the Republicans, in fairness.

[Armchair]

Please...explain how.

[Nige]

You encapsulated the sense of resentment and victimisation driving MAGA Republicans quite well, I thought.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I live among the rednecks of Ohio and all their Trump lawn signs"

I thought you lived in the actual City of Cleveland?

[hobie]

I do. But I work in the sticks.

[ThePublius]

Jared Bernstein, Biden's Chairman of Council of Economic Advisers, hasn't a clue about monetary policy, bonds, and so on. It's quite scary. At first I thought it was some kind of clever parody, but it's real!

"...if deficit spending is A-OK and doesn’t hurt a thing, why do we have taxes?"

"Well, um, the – er – so the – I mean – again, some of the stuff gets – some of the language that the – erm – some of the language and concepts are just confusing. I mean, the government definitely prints money, and it definitely lends that money, which is why – erm, er – the government definitely prints money, and then it lends that money by – er – by selling bonds – er – is that what they do? They, they – erm – they – yeah, they, they – erm – they sell bonds – yeah, they sell bonds, right, so as they sell bonds and people buy bonds and lend them the money – yup – so a lot of times, a lot of times – at least to my ear – with [Modern Monetary Theory] the language and the concepts can be kind of unnecessarily confusing, but there is no question that the government prints money and then it uses that money to – um, er, uh – er – so – um – yeah, I – I – I guess I’m just – I don’t – I can’t really talk – eh, I don’t – I don’t get it – I don’t know what they’re talking about, like, ’cos – it’s like – the government clearly prints money, it does it all the time, and it clearly borrows, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this that ’n’ defic – conversation, so I don’t think there’s anything confusing there."

https://youtu.be/tpXBB09ze_U?si=5EXG0MTeVxD9vy24

This guy is a moron.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that was bad, but there are some shenanigans afoot around that clip: https://twitter.com/ernietedeschi/status/1786843282925867332

[Michael P]

What shenanigans, specifically? How do those supposed shenanigans validate or excuse Bernstein's response?

[Martinned2]

They don't, that's why I wrote "that was bad". But there is some creative editing here, of a video from 2020. (I.e. before he had his current job, and before the inflation of recent years.)

[Michael P]

What "creative editing"? Did he learn much about economics and how government taxes and seiginorage work between February 2020 and being installed on the Council of Economic Advisors in 2021?

[ThePublius]

There are no shenanigans and no creative editing. You just don't like a Biden appointee being exposed as a moron.

Do you think he's not a moron? Do you like him, support him? Think he's up to the job? What is it, exactly?

There are 25 year old financial advisers who are head and shoulders ahead of this jerk in their understanding of the economy, monetary policy, financial instruments, and who can articulate it - even teach a course in it. How this knucklehead ended up with this job is a mystery to me.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, he's a music major.

[John F. Carr]

The Biden administration has, according to The Hill, ended a program called "Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety" which encouraged police to make pretext stops. It is a nice gesture of little practical effect. The practice is ingrained in American policing and will thrive with or without federal encouragement. Fixing the problem will require legislative or judicial action. A bill to ban pretext stops failed in California. Any state Supreme Court could fix the problem almost overnight by overruling Whren under state constitutional law.

[ThePublius]

I think the term is "pretextual."

Theirs a bill banning such stops in Massachusetts, but I don't know the status:

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

_______________

In the One Hundred and Ninety-Second General Court
(2021-2022)

_______________

An Act banning pretextual traffic stops.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 90 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2018 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after section 62, the following new section:-

Section 63.

A) The following words shall have the following meanings:

“Pretextual traffic stop” – A traffic stop in which a reasonable law enforcement officer would not have made a stop without a pretextual motivation.

“Law enforcement officer”, a law enforcement officer as defined in section 220 of chapter 6.

B) No law enforcement officer shall engage in a pretextual traffic stop.

C) No law enforcement officer shall ask questions during a traffic stop that are not reasonably related to the purpose of the stop without independent justification.

D) No law enforcement officer shall search a vehicle or a person during a traffic stop unless that search is reasonably related to the purpose of the stop, without independent justification.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Looks like it was referred to committee where it died without a vote.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm kind of missing where it encouraged pretextual stops.

It actually appears to recommend identifying high crime areas and concentrating police resources there.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why would the Biden administration promote such a racist policy?

[Ed Grinberg]

Here's the article:
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4653862-biden-just-quietly-took-a-key-step-to-decriminalize-traffic-safety/
- ...a crucial...step to improve public safety...
- [T]hese programs...make roads more dangerous for Black drivers.
- ...discriminatory over-policing...

Here's an alternative view:
https://vdare.com/posts/traffic-stops-are-bad-because-they-discourage-black-criminals-from-carrying-guns-driving-badly-and-dealing-drugs

[Brett Bellmore]

Kinda suspected it was going to be that: You put the police where the crimes are happening, those are generally going to be disproportionately minority areas, because the minorities in question have disproportionately high crime rates, or just disproportionately live in such areas.

Which results in them being subject to traffic stops disproportionately often relative to the overall population, though not relative to the population where the police have rationally been deployed.

But since the disproportion in crime rates driving this can't be acknowledged, the stops HAVE to be "pretextual", the actual explanation having been ruled out a priori.

[John F. Carr]

Police pick and choose who to stop for indistinguishable acts based on whether the driver looks like a crook.

[Heedless]

I saw this in person in Massachusetts, where a senior cop with a rookie in tow pulled me over for an expired tag, walked the rookie through the procedure for evaluating me (they made me swear undying allegiance to the Pats), and let me go since i didn't "look like shitbird."

Community policing is great when they think you are part of the community.

[Nige]

If you target a particular place, community or group for over-policing, the stats reflect it. What a surprise.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It's one thing to exclude reliable evidence because the police did something illegal. But excluding it because you don't think the person they stopped was doing something illegal enough? That's insanity.

[David Nieporent]

That’s insanity

Not in this context. There's "illegal" and then there's illegal. Traffic violations are only "illegal." The dirty little not-even-a-little-bit-secret is that every single driver can be pulled over if the cops want to; not only are the traffic laws innumerable, but they're also largely subjective. What's insanity is saying that cops have free rein to stop all motorists just because they feel like it.

[loki13]

"What’s insanity is saying that cops have free rein to stop all motorists just because they feel like it."

Well, I would put it slightly differently.

What's insane is that-

1. Traffic laws are written in such a way that stopping any car, at any time, can be justified.

AND...

2. The case law, from Whren on, allows LEO to do all sorts of fun things once they have stopped your car.

In short, because of a whole bunch of decisions (largely stemming from the war on drugs), LEO has an incentive to pull people over, and then ... you know, find out what else they can do once the car is pulled over. And because every stop is justifiable, it effectively allows LEO to pull over cars whenever they want, and then go from there.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The dirty little not-even-a-little-bit-secret is that every single driver can be pulled over if the cops want to; not only are the traffic laws innumerable, but they’re also largely subjective.

To the extent that's true (and it's obviously not totally true, since traffic stops do get thrown out for lack of justification even in a post-Whren world), that's the problem, not the objective test.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what you mean by "traffic stops do get thrown out." Searches may get thrown out. Or the results of interrogations that extend the stops beyond the Rodriguez parameters. Even prosecution for the underlying traffic offense might get dropped (if, say, the cop's equipment wasn't properly calibrated, or if dashcam/bodycam footage disproves the existence of the offense). But how can a stop be thrown out? What would that even mean?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean that all evidence from a traffic stop is suppressed, becasue the court concludes that there wasn't a legal basis for the stop in the first place. This is a pretty normal phrasing for this circumstance in my jursidiction, but I realie that may not be the case in New York.

[David Nieporent]

Except I said above that a search may get thrown out. But that's because a valid reason for a traffic stop — i.e., a moving violation — does not give p.c. for a search. The cop needs independent justification for the search. Or even for extending the traffic stop.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Yes, what you’re describing would be a valid basis to have evidence suppressed, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with what I’m talking about. I’m saying that defendants are can and do get evidence suppressed by showing that the stop itself was illegal, which means that “ Traffic laws are written in such a way that stopping any car, at any time, can be justified” is, at best, an exaggeration.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, of course "the traffic stop was illegal" would be legal grounds for tossing out any evidence uncovered, but post-Whren, there is effectively no such thing as "the traffic stop was illegal" under the federal constitution. Your claim that this happens is faulty.¹ There are other reasons why evidence might be suppressed — that the search was illegal — and that might be what you're thinking of.
​​
​​
¹As Loki said, unless the cop basically chooses to tank the case, by not showing up in court, or by telling a lie actually refuted by video evidence. (For example, if the cop said, "I pulled him over because his tail light was out," when his dashcam actually showed that the tail light was not out.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

post-Whren, there is effectively no such thing as “the traffic stop was illegal” under the federal constitution.

We're certainly going in circles, but this is the thing that you're wrong about. Here's a handful that I found in about five minutes of searching Westlaw. (I excluded a few more where the court either found the stop was illegal but found a reason not to exclude the evidence, or where the court arguably didn't apply Whren and gave too much weight to the officers' subjective motivation.)

-U.S. v. Brown, 2022 WL 17061195 (D. N. Dak.)
-U.S. v. Boyd, 2021 WL 5304176 (D. Me.)
-U.S. v. Miller, 439 F.Supp.3d 91 (E.D.N.Y. 2020)
-U.S. v. Salinas, 2017 WL 2954786 (N.D. Tex.)
-U.S. v. Mota, 155 F.Supp.3d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)
-U.S. v. Moore, 2010 WL 3341809 (E.D. Mich.) (just a report and recommendation, but I checked the docket and the district judge adopted it)
-U.S. v. Magallanes, 730 F. Supp.2d 969 (D. Neb.)
-U.S. v. Burke, 605 F.Supp.2d 688 (D. Md. 2009)
-U.S. v. Coppin, 2009 WL 2913921 (N.D. Tex.)
-U.S. v. Sugar, 322 F.Supp.2d 85 (D. Mass. 2004)
-U.S. v. Gilliam, 275 F.Supp.2d 797 (W.D. Ky. 2003) (this one would probably come out the other way today based on Heien v. North Carolina)

[loki13]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if someone says …

“Piercing the corporate veil almost never happens …”*

Then it doesn’t really matter that a person can find a handful of cases since 2003 where a court did, in fact, allow someone to pierce the corporate veil.

And I say this with both of us knowing that civil litigation involving corporate entities happens somewhat less often than traffic stops in the United States.

*The usual euphemism is that it’s like lightning striking a person. It does happen, of course, but you can’t really count on it.

[loki13]

IME, traffic stops get thrown out for the following reasons-

1. A failure to come up with a decent lie and document it correctly.

2. A camera that directly contradicts a lie.

3. An officer not choosing to take the stand and testilie.

That’s it.

If you actually review your state’s traffic laws (and I can’t speak to all jurisdictions, but enough) you will see that the laws provide that any car on the road can plausibly be pulled over.

Were you speeding?
Were you driving too slow?
Were you not driving in a manner “appropriate” for the conditions?
Were you driving at the speed limit, but not appropriately reducing your speed because you were on a curve? A narrow road? Coming up to the crest in a hill? Are there inclement weather conditions, or the possibility of same, or prior inclement weather, that would make it not prudent to travel at that speed? Are you driving at an appropriate speed given the other factors, yet the speed is inappropriate considering your distance to other vehicles and people?

That’s just speed. That’s not “failure to signal a lane change” or there’s something not quite right on your car, or any of a number of SO MANY LAWS that they could get you on.

So yeah. Having known quite a few LEOs in multiple jurisdictions, the only thing keeping a a LEO from lawfully pulling you over is going to be their own stupidity. And, the fact that they can almost always nab someone else more easily given all the low-hanging fruit.

Let me know if your experience has proven different.

(ETA and I will say that, being the person I am driving the cars that I do, I have never had to deal with this for the most part. However, there was a period of time when I was doing some work in a... underprivileged part of the community, and I was pulled over for no apparent reason that would be provided by the LEO, and was let go shortly after the officers realized that I was an attorney going to visit a client.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, it's been my experience that courts will suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop because they find that there wasn't a valid legal basis for the stop. I suppose it happens in one of the contexts you're describing (i.e. the officer honestly describes facts that don't support the stop, or the officer testifies to facts that would support it but other evidence contradicts it), but it certainly happens.

[loki13]

Yes, suppression of evidence does happen. Of course. Just like, oh, piercing the corporate veil happens. I think the problem is two-fold.

First, it doesn't happen as often as laypeople think. Not ... even ... close. And you aren't helping with that.

True story- I had a friend in the PD's office, and suppression of evidence from a stop was so uncommon that the office through a PARTY every time it occurred. Admittedly, it wasn't a big jurisdiction, but still. I think you get the point.

And this circles back to the second thing that you didn't address. In every jurisdiction that I can think of, the traffic laws are written such that you can be pulled over at almost any time. The failure to come up with a reason is, quite simply, a failure on LEO's part. Which you don't seem to be arguing.

The reason that most of us aren't aware of it is because:

1. Most of the people on this board commenting aren't ... let's say "subject" to "discretionary" stops. Instead, we are the types that caterwaul about how unfair life is when we get pulled over doing 84 in a 70 zone, because "someone else was going 90, AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!!11!!!"

2. As I wrote, low-hanging fruit. There are so many easy ways for LEO to pull you over, they almost never resort to the more creative ways.

[David Nieporent]

True story- I had a friend in the PD’s office, and suppression of evidence from a stop was so uncommon that the office through a PARTY every time it occurred. Admittedly, it wasn’t a big jurisdiction, but still. I think you get the point.

But just to repeat the point I was making to NaS, I'll bet that upwards of 90% of those instances were based on the search being illegal, not the stop being illegal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

First, it doesn’t happen as often as laypeople think. Not … even … close. And you aren’t helping with that.

I don't know that it's either necessary or particularly helpful to go there, but... I have practiced primarily criminal law for my entire career, while my impression is that you (and David Nieporent) have not. So if we're relying on specialized knowledge to resolve this, I don't think it comes out in your favor.

And this circles back to the second thing that you didn’t address. In every jurisdiction that I can think of, the traffic laws are written such that you can be pulled over at almost any time.

I do indeed think that's, at best, a substantial overstatement. While there are a lot of traffic laws, and they cover a lot of conduct that's pretty routine, I do find that judges are willing to take a close look, and do actually insist on a showing that a violation actually occurred.

The failure to come up with a reason is, quite simply, a failure on LEO’s part. Which you don’t seem to be arguing.

I guess it depends what you mean by this. I do think that it's absolutely possible for most people to complete most of their drives without doing that would create a legal basis for a stop. So in that situation.

Based on your initial comment, I can't tell whether you're including "didn't convincingly lie and pretend that a violation occurred" as a "failure on LEO’s part." If so, I'd say:

1. With the proliferation of video, an officer's uncorroborated word has less power than it ever has
2. The cases I cited above (and plenty others I didn't) show that at least some officers aren't willing to lie when they could probably get away with it, even if that means that evidence coudl be suppressed
3. To the extent that the ability of officers to lie expands the scope to search, overruling Whren is not very well calculated to solve it, because it's hard to imagine something much easier to lie about than your subjective motivations for stopping someone who was actually doing something illegal.

[loki13]

"I don’t know that it’s either necessary or particularly helpful to go there, but… I have practiced primarily criminal law for my entire career, while my impression is that you (and David Nieporent) have not. So if we’re relying on specialized knowledge to resolve this, I don’t think it comes out in your favor."

Well, given that I have stated the basis for my knowledge (I have quite a few LEOs as friends, clerked for several years with different judges doing criminal work, and am close friends with several people in the PD's office), I will trust what I have seen, observed, and heard.

That said, I also caveated my statements. I am familiar with traffic laws (but not all jurisdictions). I am familiar with how rarely it happens in one PD's office (but carefully stated that it wasn't a large office covering a lot of people), and so on.

And it doesn't seem that you have actually offered any disagreement based on your experience. Have you? Are you disagreeing with any of this, or is this the point where you are arguing for the sake of arguing?

So, since you brought it up, with your cast background in criminal litigation, as a total number of traffic stops where this becomes an issue (a search that finds evidence), how often do we get a successful motion to suppress evidence from that stop because the court determines that the original stop did not have a valid basis?

Let's exclude the cases where LEO was already looking at someone as a suspect for something and the defendant can then assert that the search was clearly pretextual. I'm talking about the usual, "LEO pulls you over because they can, and based on their experience and training (ahem) or 'consent' go on to search and find that marijuana or cocaine or whatever."

[Martinned2]

The (second to) last attempt by the UK government to keep out any and all immigrants hasn't survived its first legal challenge in Northern Ireland (where EU and/or human rights law still apply).

https://www.judiciaryni.uk/files/judiciaryni/2024-05/Summary%20of%20judgment%20-%20In%20re%20NIHRC%20and%20JR%20295%20%28Illegal%20Migration%20Act%202023%29%20-%20130524_0.pdf

[John F. Carr]

That document is of a kind we don't see in America. It is not a decision but more of a long press release summarizing a decision. The syllabus of a Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit decision is much shorter.

(Spoiler)
Featuring a surprise appearance by the Good Friday Agreement.

In brief, the court said the Withdrawl Agreement with the EU required certain treatment of persons claiming refugee status. Perhaps Parliament could overrule the court although the five year clock is running down. (The American Congress can overrule an interpretation of a treaty, as far as domestic law is concerned, but the Spanish Parliament can not. There is no universal rule.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, receding academic veneer
has operated for no more than

SIX (6)

days without publishing at least
one racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least

TWENTY-SEVEN (27)

occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 27 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 27 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

This blog is outrunning its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.
These numbers likely miss
some of the racial slurs this
blog regularly publishes; it
would be unreasonable to expect
anyone to catch all of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, Islamophobic, racist,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding right-wing fringe of
legal academia by members of
the Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog's stale, ugly thinking, here is (by request) something worthwhile.

This one is even better -- tre cool, one might say.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones moments:

First, one that was dusted off for Vegas.

Next, a demonstration of the difference a word can make.

Seattle next. Keith's back to two tunes. Enjoy it!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The missing link, substituting "some time" for "the night."

[Dr. Ed 2]

How is Cohen able to testify against his former client?

[Brett Bellmore]

There's a crime exception to attorney client privilege, so that's not as shocking as you think. It's more a case of, "How is a perjurer able to testify?", actually.

[Mr. Bumble]

“How is a perjurer able to testify?”, truthfully.

[OtisAH]

When the perjury you were convicted of was on behalf of the person you’re testifying against, your testimony becomes relevant.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" Da Nang Dick.

[ThePublius]

Why does the courtroom sketch artist depict Stormy Daniels as so ugly? She's actually a quite attractive woman. If I were Daniels I would sue the artist!

[Brett Bellmore]

The courtroom sketch artists depict everybody as ugly. It's just a side job when they're not doing caricatures at county fairs, after all.

[Frank Drackman]

You do know she used to be "Gregory Clifford"??

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

When the FBI illegally spies on citizens 250,000x (mostly Republicans), the GOP rewards them with $300M new campus.

When the Border Patrol lets in millions of illegals and flies them all over the country to pad Democrat House membership, the GOP shakes their fist and writes angry letters.

When the FBI SWAT's parents who object to their children being groomed, the GOP plans a meeting to consider forming a committee to possibly investigate the FBI.
When the DOJ imprisons veterans for 2 years without a trial over a guided tour in the Capitol, while letting go armed Antifa agent-provocateurs with wrist slaps, the GOP tweets angrily and go on the unwatched news channels and promise to get to the bottom of it.

When some fat, Soro's paid, morons say "Down with Israel's genocide". The GOP leaps to action passing bill after bill, giving billions to the Jews and has all night voting sessions to get the bills passed. They move mountains for the Jews.

Washington D.C. is a disgrace and millions of 1776 Americans are disenfranchised and have no representation.

[Ed Grinberg]

"1776 Americans"
Is that like "Aryans"?
For those of us whose ancestors weren't on the Mayflower, what exactly would you like us to do? Leave? Or just not petition the government for redress of grievances (so as not to annoy you)?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

1776 Americans are those who still prefer freedom and liberty over the boot of the State on their necks while they tongue-bath some politician, elite, or bureaucrat's asshole.

You know, people like me and not people like you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

From the few times I've seen it used, it is used exactly like "Aryans".

Proudly.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh no I should be so ashamed!!!! How dare me!!!

(as you wave around your Gay Pride, Black Pride, Trans Pride, Hispanic Pride, Everything But White Pride, I Hate America Pride flags).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Somebody please tell me if he didn't say something obviously racist and/or bigoted in his multiple grey-box responses.

Otherwise, I will die never knowing the truth!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why does the US government borrow and pay interest to a private institution for money it prints itself?

Also, since deficits and debt don't matter for governments, why doesn't Ukraine just print all the money it needs to fund its own war? Do deficits and debt matter for the Ukraine but not the US?

[ReaderY]

If you’re referring to the Federal Reserve, it’s not exactly a purely private institution.

But regardless of how one characterizees it, the United States has worked through private and semi-private financial entities for nearly its entire life. All paper money is a kind of debt, dating from the days when it represented a promise to pay in gold or silver. Private banks issued most banknotes well into the 19th century (that’s why they’re still called banknotes). And remember the Bank of the United States controversy in the early 19th Century? In some ways the Federal Reserve is a sort of enhanced Bank of the United States.

You are aware there were massive deficits under Trump? The idea that deficits are somehow a Democrat thing is a little stale.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's an nice comment filled with interesting trivia and facts (oh and a nice little strawman).

What would make it great was if it actually addressed the question...

Deficits are party agnostic and are merely an accounting concept derived by a simple calculation.

We often hear the refrain that deficits don't matter, nor does the size of our national debt. If these don't matter, why don't governments just print the money they need to fund themselves? Why are we printing money, borrowing it from a private bank, then giving it foreign nations who can print their own money?

Does the US have unique set of economic principles that only apply to us?
That doesn't make sense if you think about it for just a minute or two.

[David Nieporent]

We often hear the refrain that deficits don’t matter,

No, we don't. A Dick Cheney misquote¹ used to be trotted out by the left to attack the GOP during the W administration. And there are a handful of MMT kooks on the left who are widely rejected by mainstream economists, liberal and conservative alike. There are times when deficit spending can be a good thing, but that's not remotely the same as "deficits don't matter."
​​
​​
¹He said that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," but he was talking politically, not economically.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I can't believe you'd call Sarcraptr0 a kook to his face!

[Brett Bellmore]

"There are times when deficit spending can be a good thing,"

I borrowed to buy the house I live in now, which is not remotely the same as borrowing to eat steak instead of chicken while borrowing to pay the interest on my credit card, too.

The problem is that most of the deficit consists of steak and interest payments, not a mortgage. We're not deficit spending because there's some ultra important thing we need to buy RIGHT NOW, we're doing it because our government simply isn't willing to live within its means.

[Sarcastr0]

Sovereign debt is not personal debt.

You keep not getting that.

[Brett Bellmore]

You keep saying that like it mattered. It doesn't matter nearly as much as you want to think.

[Sarcastr0]

'The analogy is wrong but it doesn't matter.' Brett, that's not an argument, that's you wanting to be right and papering over everything else.

I can and have said sovereign debt has costs, and explain why without resorting to an analogy that's flat false.

But! It doesn't give the black-and-white result you want. And we do know you like you some bring lines. Hence you deny this pretty basic macroeconomic principle and take refuge in the simplistic world this fraught analogy provides.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What do you mean, "not exactly a purely private institution"? It's not even close to a private institution, much less a "purely private" one.

Federal Reserve nuts are some of the dumbest creatures on God's flat Earth.

[Martinned2]

Odd, my reply here disappeared. Testing..., testing...

[Mr. Bumble]

Does flagging work?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news:
Jury selection begins in Gold Bar Bob's trial today.

[ReaderY]

Sure explains all the rainbow flags at the pro-Hamas encampments.

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2024-04-03/ty-article-magazine/.premium/hamas-files-found-by-israel-in-gaza-detail-execution-of-senior-member-accused-of-being-gay/0000018e-9e6d-d64e-afce-fffd62370000

[Nige]

As if you're going to fly a rainbow flag for the guy, or think about who's killing the gays in Gaza at the moment.

[David Nieporent]

Hamas.

[Nige]

Using IDF as proxy? Convoluted homophobic murder plot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, it's in the Nazi tradition...

[Commenter_XY]

Sadly, it is true. Hamas is homophobic. And transphobic. Clearly, for progressives, that is worse than anything else Hamas has done lately.

[Nige]

Or it's the lgtbq people included in the tens of thousands of people currently being killed. It's not that difficult.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I stopped supporting Hamas when I found out they didn’t have a DEI officer…I have standards for Greta’s sake!!

[ReaderY]

And of course, when Israeli children are deliberately targeted, it’s decolonization, not genocide. Decolonization good.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna120310

[Commenter_XY]

..

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is that really what you think?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(Grey box pile-on, yikes!)

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone who hasn't should go to Israel, even you Towel Heads, then you won't have any questions about who the "Good Guys" are.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Smotrich, Ben Givr, and Netanyahu are the “good guys” among the right-wing write-offs at the Volokh Conspiracy, but they are, increasingly and justly, pariahs in international eyes.

Bigoted, superstitious, and obsolete is no way to go through life, clingers.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Fail to stop 9/11 or fail to prevent China from unleashing a bioweapon into America or failing to prevent Hamas from slaughtering civilians…all ways to increase support among Republicans. Now allow a Chinese balloon to fly over America and that’s treason punishable by death!!

[Josh R]

The latest Sienna/NY Times polls show Trump up between 5 and 10%-points in AZ and GA and double digits in NV (that’s a shocker given NV has gone blue since 2008). The 538 poll averages show Trump with a 4, 6 and 7-% point lead in AZ, GA and NV respectively.

If Trump were to win those three states, but lose each of PA, MI and WI (the blue wall, where the 538 averages have Trump ahead 1-2%-points), he would end up with 268 electoral votes. If Trump adds the 2nd congressional district in Nebraska, we have a 269-269 tie.

Biden has a lot of work to do. And yet, the bettong markets have the race even. People think the race will tighten or the polls are wrong.

[tylertusta]

I'm curious to see how these poll numbers change if Trump gets convicted in NY.

I suspect that we'll see a bump in Trump's polling, depending on how vicious Merchan is during sentencing.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody who is not already a hardcore member of the Trump cult is going to reward him for a felony conviction.

[tylertusta]

If he’s convicted in NY, I think you’re going to be very disappointed, David.

[David Nieporent]

As Yogi Berra said, making predictions is hard, especially about the future.

I will be disappointed in that it's unlikely to sway a meaningful amount of his support. But I doubt it will help his support one iota.

Yes, I am sure we will see some posturing on twitter of the form, "I didn't like him and didn't want to support him, but after seeing what they're doing to him, I have no choice but to vote for him." I think anyone who sincerely thinks that way would have already been swayed by the fact of him being prosecuted, and the conviction wouldn't add anything.

I also think the number of people who sincerely think that way can be counted on the fingers of one hand after one has had an industrial accident severing several digits. Virtually anyone who says that was always planning to support Trump, and is either lying to himself or to us about his reasons.

[tylertusta]

But I doubt it will help his support one iota.

Biden's support among blacks has been declining significantly.

Ironically, it turns out that blacks are starting to be sympathetic towards a white Republican who they view as being unfairly railroaded by the courts. Blacks are a critical demographic for Biden and Democrats, and if they peel away from the Democratic Party then Trump might actually win in Nov.

We'd see a the largest boost in Trump's polling if the felony conviction comes out of the NY case run by Bragg. A lot of the electorate sees both the elevation of a business record dispute to a felony and the stacking of charges as excessive. A lot of Americans are looking at the court proceedings there and see it as a kangaroo court.

The absolute worst outcome for Democrats politically in the NY case is if Trump in convicted and also sentenced to prison. A lot of people are gonna be mad if that happens. It'll probably enough people to change the outcome of the election by itself.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Wow, where did this newfound "faith in elections" come from, dude?

Are you suggesting Republicans didn't learn their lesson from the last one?

[tylertusta]

Wow, where did this newfound “faith in elections” come from, dude?

Wow, do you always make assumptions about people?

Are you suggesting Republicans didn’t learn their lesson from the last one?

Are you?

[Ridgeway]

‘Yes, I am sure we will see some posturing on twitter of the form, “I didn’t like him and didn’t want to support him, but after seeing what they’re doing to him, I have no choice but to vote for him.” I think anyone who sincerely thinks that way would have already been swayed by the fact of him being prosecuted, and the conviction wouldn’t add anything.

I also think the number of people who sincerely think that way can be counted on the fingers of one hand after one has had an industrial accident severing several digits. Virtually anyone who says that was always planning to support Trump, and is either lying to himself or to us about his reasons.”

I agree. Here is another version — if Trump were somehow acquitted, would that hypothetical voter say, “The System works! Now I can vote Biden with a clear conscience. Whew!”

ETA -- I guess one possibility would be that a conviction would actually motivate the person to get out and vote Trump, rather than stay home and watch TV that Tuesday night. I'd suspect the number of those marginally-motivated voters is pretty small, though, esp in a Presidential election.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Nobody who is not already a hardcore member of the Trump cult is going to reward him for a felony conviction.

Your TDS is at such an advanced stage that it has seriously impacted your cognitive functions…or you just have little-to-no understanding of human nature. You also seem to have missed the bumps in the polls Trump has received after each indictment. To varying degrees, people are irrational beings, and often make decisions based on emotional responses rather than facts and reason. Many of those people are neither Trump nor Biden supporters, die-hard or otherwise, but view the non-stop lawfare waged against Trump as corrupt abuses of state power to stifle/punish political opposition, and they see Biden as the head of the party that is engaging in those abuses, and might therefor be inclined to see all this as yet another reason to remove Biden from power (and, if possible, further neuter the party as a whole). It has nothing to do with “rewarding” Trump for anything. He is simply viewed as the lesser of two evils. Most would likely prefer a different alternative to Biden and the current Ds in power, but don’t have that option. No doubt that phenomenon was at play to some extent in the 2016 election as well, in that there were voters who weren’t exactly Trump fans, but were steadfastly opposed to putting another Clinton in the White House…especially Hillary.

Whether or not they are right in their perceptions does not matter. What matters is that there are almost certainly people who feel this way. What they’re numbers are, I cannot even begin to guess. But they do exist, and I suspect they’re likely to vote. And the fact that Trump is still polling so strongly after all of this, and seems to have actually gained support…albeit modest gains…among groups that are traditionally D strongholds (minorities, LGBTQWXYZ, et al) strongly suggest that one need not be a “die hard member of the Trump cult” to be persuaded that a 2nd Biden term might not be in your or the country’s best interests, even if it means holding your nose and voting for someone like Trump.

[David Nieporent]

You also seem to have missed the bumps in the polls Trump has received after each indictment.

That's because they don't exist. There was a single very small bump after the first time, and none thereafter. But again: that already happened. It's baked in. There's no reason to think there are additional people out there — people who yawned when Trump was indicted — but would suddenly swing to him if convicted.

among groups that are traditionally D strongholds (minorities, LGBTQWXYZ, et al) strongly suggest that one need not be a “die hard member of the Trump cult” to be persuaded that a 2nd Biden term might not be in your or the country’s best interests,

That has nothing to do with the discussion. We're not talking about people voting for Trump because they prefer him to Biden; of course there are some of them. We're talking about people voting for Trump because Trump was convicted of a crime. (Not "in spite of," but because. That is, people who won't vote for Trump if he's acquitted, but will if he's convicted.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That’s because they don’t exist. There was a single very small bump after the first time, and none thereafter.

I guess I was mislead by extreme Trump-supporting media like....NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191242168/donald-trumps-repeated-legal-woes-have-given-him-a-boost-in-the-polls

That has nothing to do with the discussion. We’re not talking about people voting for Trump because they prefer him to Biden

Of course it's relevant to the discussion. We're talking about your assertion that only "a die hard member of the Trump cult" would respond to a Trump conviction in NY by supporting him because...again, your assertion...that would be a case of "rewarding" him for that conviction. My point is that, although they weren't convictions, his gains in support among those groups following the indictments are likely explainable...at least in part...as responses to the aforementioned perception of suppression of political opposition by those in power. Can I prove that? Of course not. But the fact remains that a pro-Trump (or rather, anti-Biden/Democrats) response to all of this does not require one to be a "die-hard" Trump supporter, and that your assertion is hyper-simplistic.

[Josh R]

That’s the GOP primary vote, not the general election.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That’s the GOP primary vote, not the general election.

Which is complete irrelevant. We're talking about the phenomenon of increased support among those who are not (or at least were not) already "hardcore member(s) of the Trump cult", at least partially as a reaction to what some perceive as attempts at political opposition suppression. This isn't that difficult to understand.

[Josh R]

As it relates to "hardcore members," sure. But, as it relates to "additional people" who will vote for Trump because of a conviction, I doubt it. Almost all of those were reflected in his increased GOP primary numbers.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I already addressed that below.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

his gains in support among those groups

...should have read...

his gains in support among those and other groups

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Let's address this one too:

There’s no reason to think there are additional people out there — people who yawned when Trump was indicted — but would suddenly swing to him if convicted.

Of course there's reason to think that there remain some potential supporters out there. A number of things have occurred since the indictments themselves that could well cement the impression of intolerable political warfare in the minds of those who may have previously still been on the fence about it...including, but not limited to the corruption by the GA DA and at least one member of her "team" who appear to have enriched themselves via their pursuit of the case at the expense of taxpayers, as well as Willis' other rather unsavory actions. While that doesn't exonerate Trump, it's just another item that makes the Democrats in general seem dirty, and certainly less than sincere when it comes to what they keep claiming is their altruistic concern for preserving democracy.

[Sarcastr0]

People who believe that rot have been on board the Trump train for ages.

[Kazinski]

I was watching Bloomberg discuss the just released NYT poll.

One of them opined: Trump is about as low as he can go in the polls, but the problem is Biden has dropped lower.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yeah...you don't need to be popular to win. You just need to be less unpopular than the other guy.

[Nige]

Not quite, though, since Trump lost the popular vote twice, which means he was the least popular guy both times, but still managed to win once.

[not guilty]

One vote a felony conviction would cost Donald Trump would be his own. He would be unable to vote for himself.

[Frank Drackman]

you claim to be a lawyer? depends on the state. He could establish residency in Maine or Vermont that allow Felons to vote even from Prison.

[Kazinski]

I doubt it, it would take Florida 10 minutes to pass a bill that a NY felony conviction for crimes not recognized in FL does not impact voting rights, or merely say convictions still under appeal won't impact voting rights.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Trump is imprisoned in New York, would he be eligible to vote in Florida?

I do not know.

That's a relatively unimportant point. The important point is that Trump would be moving along a path toward dying in prison.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You can just imagine them lining up (on their knees) on the orange carpet, can't you!

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the race probably will tighten, as the Democrats have a LOT of levers available to them to pull, that they're leaving untouched at the moment. The DOJ could decide to charge Trump with insurrection, various internet platforms could ramp up their censorship, lawfare against anyone who dares to work for him could pick up the pace.

OTOH, Biden or Trump could stroke out at any time. I tend to think it's more likely to be a blowout one way or the other, than to be close.

[tylertusta]

as the Democrats have a LOT of levers available to them to pull, that they’re leaving untouched at the moment

To add to your list, I fully expect Democrats to try to challenge and discard Trump's electoral votes on January 3th, 2025 should he win the election.

After if that fails, we're going to see the quo warranto provision in DC trotted out.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Just curious, but would you support or oppose Democrats doing that? And why?

[tylertusta]

My answer would depend on what happens between now and January 3rd/20th, 2025.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm sure.

[ducksalad]

One expects some Democrat in Congress will raise an objection, and very likely there are cranks who will try stuff like quo warranto. But neither action is likely to get very far.

[tylertusta]

Quo warranto can be issued by the DC District Court.

You know, the same judges that got 1512(c)(2) so completely correct that they're about to get reversed by SCOTUS.

[ducksalad]

The DC court do that in theory, but higher courts have shown a willingness to accept paperwork and take action to reverse/stay when it’s an emergency, sometimes within hours.

The SC, including at least two out of the three liberals, seem highly skeptical of giving state and low-level federal officers the individual authority to overturn a presidential election or eliminate a major national candidate.

[tylertusta]

My point wasn't that it would necessarily be successful.

Just the temptation is enough to cause Democrats to try to throw it to the wall in case it sticks.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Quite the projection.

Just because that's what the loser and his supporters did in 2020/2021, that doesn't mean a new precedent for losers is established. But that's what I see a lot in these comments, people assuming Democrats will do what the guy they supported did, so it's just two equally awful choices and they prefer the 2020 loser's policies. I think it would be better if people were just honest with themselves, they choose to support the only guy who has lost the presidential race then falsely claimed the election was rigged and sought extra-constitutional means to stay in office anyway.

[tylertusta]

What projection?

This isn't Democrat or Republican phenomenon. We have a trend in American politics where political parties are increasingly seeing how far they can bend the rules in order to achieve fleeting political victories. There's been a gradual escalation happening in our politics for a while now, and this is an extension of it.

If Trump is President-elect in 2025, we should expect those two mechanisms to be used against him at least.

And since you seem to be unaware that Democrats are considering these strategies, here's an Atlantic article that is explicitly considering to nullify Trump on Jan 3rd:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/democrats-congress-trump-january-6/677545/

[NOVA Lawyer]

The article is behind a paywall. However, there is more than a little daylight between "an Atlantic article that is explicitly considering to nullify Trump on Jan 3rd" (which at its worst seems to indicate the author considers the possibility) and "Democrats are considering these strategies". Moreover, there is an entire year's worth of daylight between even "Democrats are considering" the possibility of challenges on January 3rd and "we should expect these two mechanisms to be used against [Trump] at least." (emphasis in tyler's original).

That conclusion doesn't follow, at all, from your evidence. You claim certainty that these things will happen, but only scant evidence that someone is considering the possibility.

That is partisan reasoning, whatever you say. And Democrats, were they to try anything similar to Trump's efforts in 2020/2021, would receive significant pushback from, at least, me. I'd never vote for anyone who participated in those sorts of shenanigans again and would let them know. I'm pretty certain I wouldn't be alone. We haven't been aghast at J6 just to have Democrats turn around and do something similar.

So stop with the equivalences.

[tylertusta]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

We haven’t been aghast at J6 just to have Democrats turn around and do something similar.

See you in six months.

[tylertusta]

On a side note, NOVA Lawyer’s comment is part of another trend in American politics, and unlike the political escalation I wrote about above, has been used heavily by the left when trying to shut down opposition.

It’s rhetoric that I call a “merited impossibility.” Originally coined by Rod Dreher in the context of the sexual revolution, it applies outside of that context as well.

First, they lie.

“That’s impossible! We’d never do that! Wow, conservatives are stooopid. Such projection!”

Then, when the thing happens that they originally said wasn’t going to happen, they say that we deserved it.

Right now, in the above comment, NOVA Lawyer derides my predictions (and calls me dishonest to boot).

Should Trump win six months from now, NOVA Lawyer’s going to be singing a different tune. And he might even say that it deserves to happen.

See you in six months, NOVA Lawyer.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is not one of your more insightful or honest comments.

First, they lie.

Which I haven’t done, have I? So my comment cannot be part of this supposed method.

I can guarantee you if Democrats lie about a stolen election, ignore recounts which refute any such claims, and then try to retain the Presidency by throwing out the electoral votes of states whose counts were certified by the state and not invalidated by a court order, I will not claim Republicans deserve it. It’s shameful you project Republicans’ shameful conduct in 2020/2021 onto me.

calls me dishonest to boot

That’s a stretch. I said you are being dishonest with yourself. That’s not being dishonest with anyone else. It just leads you to try to justify Republicans actions in 2020/2021 by pretending to be certain Democrats will do the same thing in 2024/2025. And, as pointed out above, your evidence for that is incredibly weak. It is Trump, not Biden, making claims that the opposing party is trying to rig the election, that the only way he can lose is through fraud.

Should Trump win six months from now, NOVA Lawyer’s going to be singing a different tune.

Your worst prediction yet.

And he might even say that it deserves to happen.

And then you make it worse yet.

You’re already laying the groundwork for Republicans who will try a more successful repeat of the lead to J6 this coming election if Trump loses. You’re claiming the Democrats would do it if the Republicans don’t, which is just another way of excusing the Republicans’ past conduct and their future conduct.

Only one of us is engaging in anything resembling “merited impossibility” and that is you. (Also, it’s so well-established it really ought not be said at this point that this is precisely the method Trump and his sycophants have repeatedly used from 2015 through the present. First deny, then say it wasn’t bad anyway.

Why do you spend your time as an apologist for these anti-democratic, anti-rule of law people?

[tylertusta]

Which I haven’t done, have I? So my comment cannot be part of this supposed method.

I seem to recall a certain former President getting in trouble for trying to deny something after someone gives him advice and evidence that he’s wrong.

I sent you an article showing that they’re considering it. You pooh-pooh it. According to the TrumpLaw, I think we’re now in the territory of being able to say that you’re lying.

I can guarantee you if Democrats lie about a stolen election, ignore recounts which refute any such claims, and then try to retain the Presidency by throwing out the electoral votes of states whose counts were certified by the state and not invalidated by a court order

And I haven’t accused you or Democrats of trying this specific method.

I’ve said something completely different. Please reread my comments so you can understand what I’m talking about.

That’s a stretch. I said you are being dishonest with yourself

So you stepped in it and are trying to talk yourself out of it now, aren’t you counselor?

So I’m dishonest. But not actually dishonest.

As a lawyer, can you tell me what would a jury make of that statement? Are you calling me dishonest or not?

It just leads you to try to justify Republicans actions in 2020/2021 by pretending to be certain Democrats will do the same thing in 2024/2025.

Facts not in evidence, counselor.

With all of my time commentating here, have you ever seen me try to justify violence as a means of political change? At all?

I think you assume too much.

Your worst prediction yet.

We’ll see, comrade. Thread bookmarked. I’ll see you after the election if Trump wins.

You’re already laying the groundwork for Republicans who will try a more successful repeat of the lead to J6 this coming election if Trump loses.

You have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Come back to me when you have read the article I linked.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So you stepped in it and are trying to talk yourself out of it now, aren’t you counselor?

Nope. I said you are being dishonest with yourself. I never backed off of that. But that presupposes you aren't knowingly spreading falsehoods to others because, in fact, you believe the things you're saying. I'm sure you can appreciate the distinction.

Come back to me when you have read the article I linked.

I already told you it's behind a paywall, so I'm not going to read it.

But I do see you are talking about Congressional objections. Yes, it's highly likely some nut will file an objection to some state. But I will predict it will only be a nut and not, as with Republicans, a majority of Democratic House members who object (again, assuming, as in 2020, the states certified the results pursuant to state law and courts rejected all challenges).

And the other is the quo warranto route, which won't succeed and, as ducksalad has pointed out, would only be tried, if at all, by isolated cranks and not Biden or other prominent Democrats after having lost the election.

So, sure, if by "the Democrats" you means some nuts, then it's a great prediction. If instead you actually mean the power players in the Democratic party, then no. And if you're leaning on the former, you're creating false equivalences.

[tylertusta]

I’m sure you can appreciate the distinction.

A distinction without a difference, counselor.

I already told you it’s behind a paywall, so I’m not going to read it.

There are free methods of viewing articles.

...by isolated cranks...

Isolated?

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

[NOVA Lawyer]

A distinction without a difference, counselor.

You are not terribly discerning if you think so.

Isolated?

It was a genuine theory, but the Supreme Court took it off the table. Posting a March 2024 summary is pretty irrelevant now. You're making a future prediction, one that presupposes litigants and courts will, essentially, ignore the Supreme Court. That's not a good bet. Sure, there will be some, but, again, these are not efforts that ever were nor will they be supported by Biden. You can't show "the Democrats" are doing something based on litigation that is initiated by individuals or groups that are not directed by Biden, other prominent Democrats, or mainstream Democratic organizations. Even less if, as in Colorado, the litigants are Republicans.

[M L]

The internet censorship is starting to ramp up again now.

[Commenter_XY]

The Bob From Ohio Rule (BOFO Rule) applies: Polls are trash this far out from election.

[Kazinski]

Nevada and Arizona are examples of swing states where the Hispanic realignment is making a big difference. Both are > 20%, and have been almost evenly divided in recent elections.

Other states with higher % like California, Texas and NM, aren't close so the impact isn't as apparent. Florida is also somewhat unique, because of the Cuban population, and the realignment there might have started with DeSantis, not Trump.

[OtisAH]

Area man distributes counterfeit money to homeless people; admits to felony on Twitter:

https://boingboing.net/2024/05/13/cruelty-is-the-point-a-trump-ghoul-brags-about-entrapping-homeless-people.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope that is fake.

[Frank Drackman]

Counterfeit money generally is

[Mr. Bumble]

Just ask Floyd George.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not much decency to be found among the Volokh Conspiracy's fans.

Similarly, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Jesus) accompanies Christian example and evangelical hero Donald Trump to court today, hoping (and praying?) no harm befalls Trump for paying money (or, more accurate, arranging for others to pay money on Trump's behalf) to the women Trump was cheating with while Trump's wife was home with an infant.

Miracles!

[wolfefan]

Good piece on a Trump appointee calling out the 5th circuit. It's relevant to this blog's occasional interest in the manipulation of the courts by plaintiffs, often in the 5th. https://www.lawdork.com/p/trump-appointee-pittman-blasts-fifth-circuit

[David Nieporent]

I may be dead before I can remember which one is Mark Pittman and which is Robert Pitman without doublechecking. (What makes it worse is that there was a magistrate judge in SDNY, where I practice, for a number of years named Henry Pitman.)

[John F. Carr]

After reading the order I now understand why plaintiffs were so desperate to remain in Pittman's court. It is not simply that he is thought to be conservative. In the Fifth Circuit the CFPB is unconstitutional by design and all its regulations are invalid.

[loki13]

I did appreciate what he did, which is that he provided that as the only basis for the injunction.

Look, it's pretty impressive when both the Chamber of Commerce and the 5th COA manages to anger their district court judges with this nonsense.

[loki13]

Look, if even the Trumpy judges in the ND Texas are starting to call out the 5th Cir. appellate decisions for basically taking napalm to regular procedure, then you know just how bad it is.

I will keep reiterating this point- the rot in the 5th isn't because of the substance of the rulings (we can argue about that all day), it's because of the way that the judges are consistently manipulating normal legal process.

It's bad enough when attorneys and litigants can't depend on the courts to apply the law and precedent correctly. But once the courts start tossing away basic procedural rules and norms to get to their decisions, you've got a real problem.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s “Stage Money” like whats in Monopoly, you try spending it you deserve to be in jail

[Tax Litigator]

These open-thread discussions too often descend into mud-slinging without any redeemable intellectual or social value. I think, though, that they are perhaps useful in giving a forum for those inclined to vent and, hopefully, they will vent less often in blogs with a serious topic that needs serious discussion.

[ducksalad]

Got a link to those serious blogs?

We promise to send only our very best people.

[Tax Litigator]

Touche!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Re: Florida airman

A criminal will say he’s a cop to get you to open up the door. But if you open the door armed then you probably shouldn’t be as nonchalant as the airman. He definitely has a RKBA and he definitely can shoot an intruder. Here’s the problem with the 2A—either guns are scary or they’re not. If someone walking around with a gun scares you then America is probably not the place for you. That cop needs to move to Sweden or Luxembourg because someone that pees their panties at the site of a gun shouldn’t live in America.

I will add 2A proponents believe Rittenhouse was being a responsible young man by showing an interest in guns…those exact same people believed Trayvon Martin was exhibiting thuggish behavior by showing an interest in guns. So do the math.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Bernie Sanders says it's a health crisis that we have so many white doctors in the US.

He says that in order to make non-whites live longer, we need more black, brown, & Native American doctors to treat them.

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1790074842944848361

I definitely think that calls for more affirmative action to license doctors based upon skin color.

Just make sure that these wonderfully diverse doctors only treat people that match their skin color.

I wish they would do the same for all critical professions. I think that would be true equity and a utopia!

[Longtobefree]

But if white people only get to go to white doctors, how can the elite virtue signal?

[Michael P]

Princeton's hunger strikers found themselves compelled to end their hunger strike due to "health concerns", or as many of us call it, "not eating enough".

https://www.foxnews.com/us/princeton-university-students-end-anti-israel-hunger-strike-due-to-health-concerns

[apedad]

Man who crashed U-Haul near White House barriers pleads guilty

Sai Varshith Kandula (Chesterfield, Mississippi), 20, was driving the truck on May 22 last year when he veered onto the sidewalk before crashing into the security barriers around Lafayette Square in front of the White House, per authorities. After reversing the truck and striking the barriers a second time, Kandula exited the then-disabled truck and showed a flag with a Nazi swastika before authorities intervened.

Upon his arrest, he was taken into custody and told authorities he was trying to “get to the White House, seize power, and be put in charge of the nation,” per court documents.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4661826-man-who-crashed-u-haul-near-white-house-barriers-pleads-guilty/

It's good to see the Mississippi Nazis have embraced diversity!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm actually wondering, in cases like this, do they get sentenced to psychiatric treatment? The guy is clearly certifiable.

[Mr. Bumble]

You talking about apedad?

[apedad]

If me telling God that you're OK because you haven’t openly stated you want me killed makes me a psycho, then so be it.

[Mr. Bumble]

You talk to God about me? Interesting.

[John F. Carr]

He's on medication for schizophrenia. Not crazy enough to lock up in the loony bin and not sane enough to stay on the street. (In distantly related news, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has just ruled that juveniles who are not competent to stand trial may not be ordered into treatment by a judge.)

He is to be sentenced as a terrorist, not a vandal. See docket item 37 at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67664886/united-states-v-kandula/, specifically the agreed fact "His actions were calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or force." That echoes the legal definition of terrorism. The sentencing guidelines call for a multi-decade sentence in cases of terrorism, although the prosecution has accepted a plea to a charge with a ten year statutory maximum.

[OtisAH]

I don’t know whether Turnip wears diapers. He wears poorly tailored suits so maybe that explains what folks are seeing. Besides, “There but for the grace of God go I.” I do know that if he does wear diapers, it’s not a point of pride for him like his mugshot seems to be.

But what’s funny is, his cult has decided not only that he does wear diapers, they’ve taken to wearing diapers with Turnip campaign slogans and/or his face on them. They think they’re displaying their love of Turnip and, of course, owning the libs. From all we know about Turnip, he thinks they’re mocking him or, at the least, calling attention to a mortifying situation of his.

I will guarantee that Turnip does not share their fervor for diapers and I expect his campaign to work quickly behind the scenes to put an end to this movement (heh). And in no time at all we’ll hear that the diaper-wearers were all Lib plants and the whole episode will be forgotten. At least that’s the likely plan, afaic. I also doubt we’ll hear Jesse Watters or any of the other FOXfools talk again about how old and fragile Turnip is in court.

[Sarcastr0]

So far it's just scattered nuts, looks like.

But man, is it weird.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He says as he strokes his Pfizer tattoo...

[Nige]

Please. This can't be true. Don't let this be true.

[Brett Bellmore]

Doing some searching, I've confirmed that this has actually happened, though the scale of it seems to be minuscule. I don't know that it's any stupider than "pussy hats", but that's hardly saying much.

Given just how little evidence there is that this trend is at all popular, I wonder if it's just another Project Lincoln psyop, like the tiki torch stunt.

[Nige]

Did Trump boast about grabbing somone by the diaper?

'another Project Lincoln psyop'

The idea that that was a psyop is pathetic, and so is this.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The idea that that was a psyop is pathetic, and so is this.

I guess I don’t know exactly what Brett means by “psyop”, but they definitely admitted they were behind it. The diaper thing seems to involve enough dispersed effort that I think it’s probably genuine (although certainly not widespread), and pathetic.

[Nige]

I don't think they were particularly coy about it, it was just an election stunt.

[Nige]

Ok. I've seen it. It's real. If Biden's campaign doesn't absolutely go to town on how utterly bizarre and freakish Trump's supporters are, with this as a central image, they're missing a trick.

[OtisAH]

“I wonder if it’s just another Project Lincoln psyop, like the tiki torch stunt.”

Fucking hilarious. The worst.

[John F. Carr]

On this day in 1948, the state of Israel was proclaimed. And there was much rejoicing. And much despair. Pretty much everybody responsible is dead now, I suppose.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and tomorrow marks the start of the first attempt by Arab states to destroy Israel.

[NvEric]

Here's a RINO writer,
Tom Davis is a retired colonel in the United States Army and a former defense industry official. While in uniform, he taught economics at the United States Military Academy.