Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only one who thinks that McAffe is more of a virus itself than anything else?

I stopped using it over 15 years ago because it slowed down the system, particularly upon bootup, worse than any virus ever could. And it's getting increasingly hard to remove -- anyone know where it is hidden in Win 11?

Most annoying are the flashing "WARNING" notices it sends when I am in the middle of doing something else -- well that, by definition, is a virus....

[Kazinski]

I quit using it years ago, and just use Microsoft defender, but your best defense is just being aware of what websites you go to, take frequent backups, and avoiding porn sites other than the Pornhub group.

[tylertusta]

Ransomware protection is very effective at limiting (you guessed it) ransomware attacks.

I also install a javascript blocker on my browser which allows me to selectively permit/block scripts on any website. Not only does it prevent surprise malicious code from running, but it often lets me get past site paywalls.

[tylertusta]

As long as you have a currently updated operating system, there is no need for any 3rd party antivirus software.

McAfee, Norton, etc- they offer nothing that the built-in Windows Defender and Windows ransomware protection can't do.

[Martinned2]

That is broadly right. The CMA's final report on the Norton/Avast merger sets out the details (albeit with redactions). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6310a9efd3bf7f634b9fc085/Final_report_-_NortonLifeLock_Avast.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

Is or has the merger been subject to review in the US?

[Martinned2]

The DOJ looked at it. (The way the DOJ and FTC divide up cases is an utter mystery to everybody.) The HSR waiting period expired without a 2nd letter, which is as close as you can get in the US to what we Europeans call a phase 1 clearance.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree, McAffe is a pain in the backside. I gave up on trying to get rid of it as it seems to be a minor irritant.

[OtisAH]

Tl;dr: Ed is angry at software he hasn’t used in 15 years, but which still sends him notifications and warnings.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Windows 11 was released on October 5, 2021 -- Ed isn't using the machine he was using 15 years ago.

[Magister]

Oh, right, the Windows 11 Civil War was right in between the Kids on Dr. Ed's Lawn Civil War and the Convenience Store Out of Dr. Ed's Favorite Snack Food Civil War -- who could forget?

[NvEric]

Seems the program is still installed or at least as an update.
So,
find 'Windows Tools'
find 'Control Panel'
click 'Programs and Features'
look for McAffe on the list
right-click it
click 'uninstall'

There's several other ways to find obnoxious programs and their entrails, but try that first, as it's the official way to get rid of stuff.

The Registry is another way, but its become a rather large beast with self-preservation features to keep Windows alive, however, non-Windows stuff could be found and may be removed that way, but maybe not.

[not guilty]

It appears that New York has a peculiar statute that authorizes an intermediate court hearing an appeal from a criminal conviction (but not the Court of Appeals of New York, which is what that state calls its court of last resort) to determine that a verdict of conviction resulting in a judgment was, in whole or in part, against the weight of the evidence. https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-criminal-procedure/part-2-the-principal-proceedings/title-m-proceedings-after-judgment/article-470-appeals-determination-thereof/section-47015-determination-of-appeals-by-intermediate-appellate-courts-scope-of-review That is contrary to criminal appellate practice in federal court and most states, which allows a reviewing court to determine whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find every element of the offense to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but not to determine the weight of the evidence.

The Court of Appeals of New York has set forth the test for the intermediate appellate court to apply:

To determine whether a verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence, however, the appellate court's dispositive analysis is not limited to [the sufficiency of evidence] test. Even if all the elements and necessary findings are supported by some credible evidence, the court must examine the evidence further. If based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable, then the appellate court must, like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony.

People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 (N.Y. 1987) [internal quotation marks omitted].

[Stephen Lathrop]

So what does that imply? Another trial de novo? And what is the convicted person's legal status, under what court's jurisdiction, during whatever process is involved? Any implications for previous assurances from you and others that Trump's appeal will have to wend its way through New York's court of last resort before it can be considered for cert at SCOTUS?

[not guilty]

A trial de novo would require that the parties start fresh and present evidence as if the first trial had not occurred. Appellate review of the weight of the evidence is on the evidentiary record developed in the trial court.

The appellate review of a claim that the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence is not de novo. "Great deference is accorded to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor." People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 (N.Y. 1987). A New York intermediate appellate court has summarized its task in evaluating the weight of the evidence developed at trial as follows:

In conducting a weight of the evidence review, an appellate court must first determine whether, "based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable" ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ; see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ). If it would have been reasonable for the factfinder to reach a different conclusion, "the court must weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions" ( People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ; see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d at 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). "If it appears that the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, then the appellate court may set aside the verdict" ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ; see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d at 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

People v. Spratley, 159 A.D.3d 725, 730-731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).

In that appellate review of the weight of the evidence is a state statutory right rather than a federal constitutional right, SCOTUS review of that issue is unavailable at any stage of the litigation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — Once again, thanks for the expertise. I wish all the VC's legal experts were so forthright.

[Riva]

What makes you think this political trial had anything to do with the law and legal standards, or that the NY legal establishment in general gives a rat’s ass about the fair and objective application of the law? The elements of a FECA violation (which by the way is enforced by the federal, not state authorities) were of no concern to this statutorily conflicted judge whose daughter is enriching herself off this disgrace beyond a consultant’s wildest dreams. Likewise, constitutional due process was of no concern. Jury, don’t bother to agree on the same crime, which we won’t actually specify anyway, it’s all good. Forgive me for not having the least trust in the farcical NY “legal” process, if one is a member of a disfavored political party.

[David Nieporent]

What makes you think that repeating the same ill-informed non-arguments makes them any less stupid?

[Riva]

It’s indisputable that the judge has a conflict of interest. His daughter is literally raising millions off this trial. And it is also clear that there was no violation of the federal campaign laws for anyone with a basic understanding of the federal regulations, not you or the judge of course. And apparently, your grasp of rudimentary constitutional due process is about as informed as your understanding of the separation of powers. This gross political prosecution is indefensible as a matter of law. Either you don’t know your ass from your elbow on the law (possible); or worse, you do and are just fine with this perverse weaponization of the law.

[David Nieporent]

It’s indisputable that the judge has a conflict of interest.

It's indisputable that Trump is a convicted felon. It's highly disputable that the judge has a conflict of interest.

His daughter is literally raising millions off this trial.

As always, Riva just makes up facts when he doesn't actually have any. Does Loren Merchan make one cent more based on the existence of — let alone the outcome of — the trial? Riva doesn't know. Riva doesn't care. It's just something Riva read on Twitter.

And it is also clear that there was no violation of the federal campaign laws for anyone with a basic understanding of the federal regulations, not you or the judge of course.

Riva is an expert on campaign finance law!

And apparently, your grasp of rudimentary constitutional due process is about as informed as your understanding of the separation of powers.

Riva is an expert on the constitution!

[Riva]

Nope, not an expert. Just just know more than you, which isn’t bragging (no pun intended on the fat slob). Like I know that an objective standard governs under FECA, that a person motive or mixed motive for the expenditure is irrelevant, that the governing standard asks whether the expenditure would have existed irrespective of the campaign, that the nda payment, even if it were a campaign expense which it clearly wasn’t) wouldn’t have been reported until after the election so it could not possibly have influenced the election, that state authorities have no power to enforce federal election law, that due process requires that a defendant be notified of the charges and that the jury agrees on the same.

[Mr. Bumble]

David Nieporent = Pompous, Self-important Ass = Douche.

Douche

someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.

[Riva]

He is quite the ass, but that I could ignore. It’s the revealing in this garbage lawfare that is inexcusable.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, look, my ankle-biting stalker is back.

[Nige]

I think all these words are for people who insist on pointing out your bullshit.

[Riva]

Interesting David. You don’t understand that Merchan is conflicted under NY law, you don’t understand FECA or the US constitution but don’t let that stop your asinine comments. And you love the Biden orchestrated lawfare. Despicable yes but a good repulsive democrat progressive, or something.

[David Nieporent]

Just just know more than you,

Tee hee. You at least have a sense of humor. You literally know nothing about this stuff; you just parrot words that you've read elsewhere by other MAGA pundits. You have never made one legal argument here that wasn't previously proffered by some MAGA nut on Twitter first.

Like I know that an objective standard governs under FECA,

No, you don't know that. You've never read FECA, never read a single case interpreting it, and don't even know what "objective standard" means in this context.

that the nda payment, even if it were a campaign expense which it clearly wasn’t)

Clearly! A word that's always the sign of a trained legal mind.

wouldn’t have been reported until after the election so it could not possibly have influenced the election,

This is stupid and wrong. Of course the payment could have influenced the election; you're confusing the reporting of the payment with the existence of the payment. It could have influenced the election by keeping voters from finding out about Trump's affair. And "could have" is far too weak a phrasing; that was the entire purpose of the payment.

that state authorities have no power to enforce federal election law,

True but irrelevant, since no state authorities tried to enforce federal election law in this case.

that due process requires that a defendant be notified of the charges and that the jury agrees on the same.

Also true but irrelevant, since the defendant — i.e., Trump — was notified of the charges and the jury did agree on the same.

[Riva]

That’s your response? Nothing substantively contradicting my comment, just more asinine insults? “Keeping voters from finding out” isn’t the legal standard you abysmal idiot. The motive or mixed motive for the payment is irrelevant. (I don’t speak abysmal idiot so run it through a translator). Now if you want an example of an expenditure that was clearly, objectively a campaign expense, that would be Hillary’s payment to her law firm cut outs to fund the Russian collusion fraud. And you simply beclown yourself further on the due process violations. An impressive display considering your previous comments. Truly a well rounded partisan imbecile. Just some advice, for the future, never go full partisan imbecile.

[hobie]

"...weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences"

Luckily for Trump his defense team established a robust trial record of counter evidence and witnesses instead of bloviation, denials, and/or basically saying that everything the prosecution said never actually happened in real life

[not guilty]

"Luckily for Trump his defense team established a robust trial record of counter evidence and witnesses instead of bloviation, denials, and/or basically saying that everything the prosecution said never actually happened in real life"

Through what witnesses? Robert Costello? I don't think so.

(Forgive me if I have failed to recognize a sarcastic retort.)

[hobie]

You are forgiven

[Frank Drackman]

Up bright and early fuck-face? I think we’ve established you’re a pussy who never served in any Military (I know, “Homo, much better now though”)
We now return you to kindler/gentler Frank

Frank

[Zarniwoop]

(Forgive me if I have failed to recognize a sarcastic retort.)

Yeah, check your sarcasm meter. Mine pegged the needle.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, if I am following the gist of your comment, that intermediate court hearing essentially lets the intermediate court to act as a ‘quasi jury of 1’ to evaluate whether the jury was right or wrong. And it tells them the rules on how to weigh the evidence to see if they would come out the same way.

Pragmatically, do I have it right? Is that what makes it peculiar?

[not guilty]

What makes it peculiar is that most appellate courts in criminal cases do not reweigh the evidence adduced at trial. In the ordinary case, if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction will stand even if the reviewing court would weigh the evidence differently.

It is also distinctive in that the statute applies to first tier appeals to the intermediate appellate court, but not to the court of last resort.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, it is NY. Confusion starts with the naming of the different levels of their courts.

[Ridgeway]

My knowledge of this is based on BarBri 30 years ago, but I don't recall there being any practical difference between the NY standard you cite and other states' appellate standards. I an appellate court wants to reverse on insufficient evidence grounds, they can all just say that based on XY and Z, no reasonable jury could have convicted. Just based on following the news, those sorts of reversals seem exceedingly rare in NY as in other states, hence my view that there is no practical difference in the standards.

[Reallynotbob]

At least in NY, "insufficient evidence" is evaluated with the benefit of the doubt given to the prosecutors, i.e. is there evidence sufficient to support the verdict logically. The NY "weight of the evidence" review gives deference to the jury, but allows allows the court to interrogate the evidence itself in totality.

"Weight of the evidence" reversals are rare, but they do happen.

[not guilty]

"My knowledge of this is based on BarBri 30 years ago, but I don’t recall there being any practical difference between the NY standard you cite and other states’ appellate standards. I [sic] an appellate court wants to reverse on insufficient evidence grounds, they can all just say that based on XY and Z, no reasonable jury could have convicted. Just based on following the news, those sorts of reversals seem exceedingly rare in NY as in other states, hence my view that there is no practical difference in the standards."

Review for insufficiency of evidence and reweighing the weight of the evidence are different tasks. If the evidence is such that, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational trier of fact could find every essential element of the offense to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that is a federal constitutional violation of due process guaranties, and the conviction must be reversed and the prosecution dismissed. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Every appellate court, state or federal, must apply that standard, which resolves all conflicts in the evidence and draws all inferences in favor of the prosecution. The appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or resolve disputed facts.

The New York statute that I cited permits the intermediate appellate court to go further and determine whether the weight of the evidence supports the jury's verdict and, if appropriate, reverse the judgments based on a factual determination that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.15:

Even if all the elements and necessary findings are supported by some credible evidence, the court must examine the evidence further. If based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable, then the appellate court must, like the trier of fact below, "weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" (People ex rel. MacCracken v Miller, 291 N.Y. 55, 62; compare, People v Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 41, 52; see also, Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 112, at 484 [rev ed]). If it appears that the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, then the appellate court may set aside the verdict (CPL 470.20).

People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 (N.Y. 1987).

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts the Supreme Judicial Court hearing an appeal in a first degree murder case has the same discretionary power as a trial court judge to reduce the degree of conviction or order a new trial. Otherwise the usual standard for sufficiency of the evidence applies, could any rational trier of fact have returned the verdict? The court rarely uses its discretionary power, perhaps once every year or two.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let's say that Trump somehow survives and is elected -- what would prevent him from having his DOJ audit absolutely everything in NY that involves Federal Money, starting with the uber-expensive subway extension. All the HUD money, all the ED money, all the H&HS money, and perhaps EBT cards as well.

Any Federal Suit could be brought upstate in Albany (where the state capitol is) and any appeal of a regulatory finding would have to be brought in DC. Everyone knows how corrupt NYC is, just prosecute them all, out of spite.

[Martinned2]

what would prevent him from having his DOJ audit absolutely everything in NY that involves Federal Money, starting with the uber-expensive subway extension. All the HUD money, all the ED money, all the H&HS money, and perhaps EBT cards as well.

Ethics about the proper way to exercise public office?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahaha. Way to start the day Martin.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that one gave me a chuckle too.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yeah, it's totally unethical for a government to audit it's spending!!

That's crazy talk!

[Riva]

Ethics? Like the fat slob Bragg? Like the conflicted hack judge? Like Matthew Colangelo? President Trump’s DOJ is going to be spoiled for choice.

[Reallynotbob]

Do you consider Judge Cannon conflicted, then also?

[NvEric]

No

[Reallynotbob]

I think that's the rub. "Conflict" apparently only works one way in your view.

[Riva]

Judge Merchan ( who presides over pretty much everything Trump related, what a coincidence) is statutorily conflicted. His daughter is raising millions off this farce. Judge Cannon is just enforcing the law and making rulings you don't like.

[David Nieporent]

who presides over pretty much everything Trump related,

It's true. Merchan is presiding over:

* The stolen documents case in Florida
* The J6 insurrection case in DC
* The Fulton County election subversion case
* The civil suit against the Trump organization for violating Executive Law § 63(12).
* The E Jean Carroll suit.
* The other E Jean Carroll suit.

[Riva]

That’s a fairly decent summary of the bullshit republic ending lawfare abuses.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The fact that Democrats have infested the DOJ and will ignore, undermine, and subvert anything a President Trump does to seek justice and normalize the politics.

[John F. Carr]

If Trump is president with a MAGA majority in Congress, New York will pay big. If Trump is president without a majority backing his revenge plans, New York will pay a bit less. The revenge does not have to be in the form of audits and prosecutions. New York City won approval from the Biden administration to charge tolls to enter lower Manhattan. Trump could have ordered the responsible agencies to deny permission. Many regulatory actions have disparate impact.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought congestion pricing was still being challenged in court.

[John F. Carr]

The regulatory approval is there. Now the burden is on the challengers to undo it. In many APA cases the agency could legally have gone either way and the courts will defer to the agency. Then it matters most who is in charge.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fraud prosecutions will be popular in Peoria -- particularly when the amounts allegedly stolen are multiple times the entire Peoria annual city budget.

[SimonP]

The problem is that Trump is too big of an idiot. You're talking about congestion pricing. But you're forgetting about the way that Trump slow-walked and cut Gateway Program funding.

That project - an expensive infrastructure project designed to increase rail capacity and bolster trans-Hudson infrastructure against future Sandy-like storms - addresses what was and remains a vital link in the economy of the northeast corridor. Trump and some Republicans have opposed it as a pork barrel project serving only the Northeast. But losing the tunnels we have now in another Sandy-like disaster would be enormously disruptive for a huge chunk of the American economy. Opposing the project was very much a nose-cutting gesture by the Chump-in-Chief.

So you can giggle like a schoolgirl over the pointless mischief that a hostile federal government can cause New Yorkers, like it's our fault that Trump committed crimes and hired shitty lawyers to defend him. Personally, I'm still smarting over losing SALT. But you forget at your peril that the northeast is home to a huge part of the American economy - just like California is - so you may not want a president who'll skewer that pig for no particularly good reason.

[SimonP]

As a New Yorker, let me just say - oh no! You mean the president might enforce federal law against public corruption especially aggressively in New York? You mean that we might finally be able to do something about all the money that we're wasting on corrupt contract deals and spend more of our tax money on actually providing services? You mean all of these clubby politicians who block meaningful change might go to jail?

Oh, no! Say it isn't so!

Question is - why wouldn't you want the president to do something similar in places like Texas and Florida? Are you actually saying that you're in favor of conservative political corruption?

[Jay Ash]

“According to the net…”

The public libraries in Davis, California apparently allow their employees to put up displays of books the employees like and reviews.

The library says these displays are not coordinated by the library, they are not official library positions, this is just a perk given to employees.

So in our current year, you can imagine what every one of these displays in every branch was about.

Yeah, ~~Pro-Life books~~, ~~Pro-Israel books~~, ~~Pro-Nimby books~~, Magic the Gathering books.

So as a layman, I can understand the library or the city having an official position on Magic the Gathering, or having no position on Magic the Gathering, but I don’t understand where in 1A law the library gets off giving employees space to air their disgusting Magic the Gathering viewpoints.

How is an employee any different from any member of the public, and if the employees are given display space, why can’t I go to the library and demand space for my White Wizard or Star Realms Game book reviews, or frankly any position I want library shelf-space to air and discuss.

If the library does have to give me the same amount of presentation space as the employees, can they post-facto demand certain viewpoints or even certain content?

Basically, does the library have an out where they can make statements about controversial topics but then say, whoah, no, you got us wrong, that wasn't the library speech, that was our employees' speech. And no, we do not have to let you rebut that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jay Ash — What's your beef? Just go to work in the library, get as familiar with the collection as the other other staffers are, and post your own recommendations along with the others. Except in a fevered imagination, that's not an, "out," it's a bit of extra service the library provides.

Not everything has to be grievance and victimhood. And for sure, as you know, the library can't open that service to all comers.

So what you are transparently trying to do is give each and every citizen an individual policy veto over library collection decisions. That's way too crabby, and somewhat evil. You might be better advised to just advocate shuttering all public libraries. Maybe attack the notion of literacy while you are at it.

[Krayt]

It was humor, of the listed controversial viewpoints, only disgusting Magic the Gathering beefed him off.

[Jay Ash]

Steven, I was probably unclear.

My point is that I’d have no problem if the library said this is our speech, but the library is trying to not take responsibility for it.

If I go to the library and complain about the library’s display, the library says “that’s our employees display, that’s not ours”. If I go to the city council and complain about the library’s display, the library says “that’s not our display, that’s our employees display”

I’m trying to understand where “that’s our employees display, and definitely not our display, but you can’t display your views” fits within 1A speech when it comes to government run, public resources like libraries, parks, airports, etc.

[Nige]

Dammit your weird complaint isn't being given the respect it deserves!

[Jay Ash]

he asked me a question and I replied and clarified and yet you came in and asked me to mute you. okay, done.

[Drewski]

Government speech doctrine. The government isn't required to open a public forum when it speaks, nor is it required to be viewpoint neutral. It can speak through employees or even contractors.

[Martinned2]

Sure, nothing to see here...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/mar/14/book-bans-us-schools-surge

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why does it bother you so much that little children won't be exposed to gross gay porn?

[Frank Drackman]

That's where they get their recruits.

[Davedave]

So you think they should only be exposed to the other kinds of gay porn?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"gross" covers all gay porn.

[Reallynotbob]

But not all porn... apparently.

[Drewski]

No, librarians selecting books for display is not a form of book-banning. Why would you even think that? Or did you just see the word "library" and feel the need to post an unrelated article to brag about recognizing it?

[Martinned2]

Did you actually read the article? The whole point is that politicians are trying to overrule the selections made by librarians. Which is definitely book-banning.

[Bwaaah]

Another b.s. article about book “bans” that doesn’t even try to define the word “ban”, but implicitly using that word to *not* mean what it traditionally and commonly means.

  ban: to prohibit especially by legal means

The contemporary left appears to use the word “ban” to mean: recategorize, relocate on shelves, issue audience appropriateness warning, or subject to person(s) calling for an actual ban.

The people yelling about “book bans” tend to be the very same people who favor increasingly limited permissiveness of “free speech.” “Book ban” is another battle cry of the speech police.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't hide behind 'according to the dictionary it's not a ban if we just fix it so no one can find the book.'

I tell you you're not fired, you're just being recategorized as an unpaid volunteer and moved to the basement with no duties, you'd know you were fired.

Blinkered formalism is weak.

Similarly, if you want to argue against someone's post, just saying 'people who make your argument are of a set that are hypocrites' is not actually addressing their argument. Or them as an individual.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The whole point is that politicians are trying to overrule the selections made by librarians. Which is definitely book-banning."

It's not book-banning when the government officials have total authority to decide what's in the library, but when elected officials have input it's book-banning?

What an Orwellian mindset.

[Martinned2]

I would argue the Orwellian mindset is yours, my friend. You, after all, are the one who's arguing that the government should get to decide what people get to read based on their whim.

[TwelveInchPianist]

huh? To the extent that selecting books for inclusion in a public library is "the government...decid[ing] what people get to read based on their whim.", you're the one arguing that. I'm simply arguing that the public should get some input.

You, strangely, are claiming that not giving government officials total control of libraries is "book-banning".

[Stephen Lathrop]

I’m simply arguing that the public should get some input.

If that were what you were doing, you would understand that the public gets that input during elections. But most MAGA types seem to suppose that nothing but a personal veto power wielded by each person individually is adequate input.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If that were what you were doing, you would understand that the public gets that input during elections."

That's precisely the point. But Martinned2 et al are claiming that elected officials overruling librarians is book-banning.

[Nige]

It is. They're obeying extemist fringe religious cranks calling for those books to be banned.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

The idea that politicians are better placed than librarians to choose books is a joke. Most of them haven't read a book in years, and ther decisions are just going to pander to the loudest segment of the population.

Their objectives are different than the librarians, and create bad incentives.

Librarians aren't saints, of course, and will make unfortunate decisions as well, but I'd rather live with that than have the politicians doing it.

And stop with "input." They don't want "input." They want control.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Their objectives are different than the librarians, and create bad incentives."

What are the librarians' objectives? What bad incentives do politicians have, other than to make sure public institutions are run the way the public wants them to be run?

Note that whether or not politicians are better placed than librarians to figure out how to decide what books get put in libraries depends on what you observe the librarians doing. If you happy with the way public libraries are run, fine. But if you're not, in a Democracy we ask or elected officials to change things.

[Nige]

But if you’re not, in a Democracy we ask or elected officials to change things.'

You ask them to ban books, apparently.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But Martinned2 et al are claiming that elected officials overruling librarians is book-banning.

TiP — Martinned2 is correct. Some elected officials are empowered to choose professional librarians. They are not empowered to look over the shoulder of each and every public employee, and meddle with their work.

If the elected or appointed official who supervises a librarian finds reason to suppose that particular person needs replacement, that is the proper job of the official charged with that duty. It is not a situation which creates a power in each and every member of the public to meddle with the work of each public employee.

You get to vote, and of course to offer your advice to officeholders. The folks who win elections get policy-making jobs, and supervisory power. The people they supervise get to do their jobs. Nothing in that arrangement gives you personal power superior to all of that.

[David Nieporent]

They are not empowered to look over the shoulder of each and every public employee, and meddle with their work.

They are, in fact. Funny how your theory of sovereignty has evaporated.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You ask them to ban books, apparently."

And you ask librarians to ban books. What's the diff?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, let's see if I can understand the argument.

A public elementary school librarian is free to decline to stock Hustler magazine in her library because she thinks it's age inappropriate.

But if she does stock it, and the public finds out and contacts the Mayor to demand that it be removed because it's age inappropriate, that's suddenly censorship and a violation of civil liberties? Whose civil liberties?

[Nige]

A person who claims to believe in freedom and lberty and free speech invents hypotheticials to justify books being banned. Whose civil liberties indeed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If your definition of book-banning included removing Hustler magazine from a public elementary school library, I think most people would say they support at least some book-banning.

I mean, are you against removing Hustler magazine from an elementary school library, if it's not done by the librarian but by some fringe religious crank who's given that power by the legislature?

Why is it not book-banning when the librarian does it, but not when some fringe religious crank empowered by the legislature does it?

[Nige]

That's *your* defintion of book-banning, apparently.

'I mean, are you against removing Hustler magazine from an elementary school library,'

What elementary school library are you referring to?

'Why is it not book-banning when the librarian does it'

Does what? What elementary school librarian did this?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What elementary school library are you referring to?"

The one in my hypothetical. Please try to keep up.

[Nige]

If your attitude to book-banning is that it's ok to support ostensibly legal methods, you're not the paragon of liberty you might like to claim.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If your attitude to book-banning is that it’s ok to support ostensibly legal methods, you’re not the paragon of liberty you might like to claim."

My attitude toward book-banning is that calling something book-banning doesn't make it an infringement on liberty.

Again, how does the government declining to provide certain book infringe on anyone's liberty any more than the government providing books in the first place? Whose liberty is infringed upon?

[Bwaaah]

What liberty is being infringed upon? Whose liberty is infringed upon?

Despite your protests, the liberty to read whatever books one chooses is not infringed upon in any of this.

I do see infringement upon Nige Liberty.

[Nige]

I mean, when they make it clear they’re out to ban a bunch of books they don’t like, and they’re part of or catering to a wave of extremist cranks calling for books to be banned, it’s a book banning.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And when a librarian does it it's not, even if she's an extremist crank?

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Why is it not book-banning when the librarian does it, but not when some fringe religious crank empowered by the legislature does it?"
I think you meant "but is" instead of "but not", apologies if misreading; I'm no expert but we do delegate to professionals certain things.
I trust the pharmacist to professionally stock the hospital's pharmacy. I just can't believe librarians across the country are that loopy.
(Of course Hustler would never be in ANY school library)

[TwelveInchPianist]

" I’m no expert but we do delegate to professionals certain things.
I trust the pharmacist to professionally stock the hospital’s pharmacy."

Sure, but if we don't like the way they do those things we usually have the option to set constraints on how they do them.

I'm just not sure how people are reading a free-speech right into preventing the government from expressing things that people don't want the government to express.

[Nige]

I'm impressed with your commitment to banning books.

[Nige]

Does what? What did a librarian do?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I’m impressed with your commitment to Orwellian terminology.

"Will someone please think about the government’s liberty!"

[Drewski]

I glanced at it, which seems to vlbe more than you did with the conversation you hijacked. The question was why librarians' selection for displays don't invite counterspeech by the public in the same forum.
You brought up an irrelevant topic because you're an obsessive fool. Whether legislatures can ban books based on viewpoint from public libraries (probably not) and schools (maybe?) is a different subject than whether librarians' displays violate 1A.
Since I'm not an unemployed "activist" with 16 hours a day to post online, I don't care to get into the more complicated, and unrelated, question.

[Kazinski]

Generally Librarians are hired employees that answer to public official elected and answerable to voters and taxpayers.

People acknowledge that its perfectly appropriate and often necessary for elected officials to supervise police chiefs and police policies, why are Librarians different that any other civil servant under the elected officials who's job it is to run the bureaucracy for benefit of the people.

Librarians are not a priesthood.

But if you don't like it you could start a Church of Library or secular non profit to raise the money and run a library as its contributors see fit.

[Nige]

Who wants their local library micro-managed by nu-puritan religious freaks?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Apparently voters and taxpayers in certain jurisdictions.

[Nige]

'Apparently' doing a lot of work there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Isn't that precisely what you're complaining about?

[Bwaaah]

Apparently, Nige is a moron.

'Moron' does most of the work here.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TiP, Indeed. But voters and taxpayers in certain jurisdictions would turn MAGA hats into school uniform requirements if the 1A did not prevent that. I think you can see that doing that would be wrong, but apparently do not notice you are arguing in favor of that wrong practice in the case of library content.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" I think you can see that doing that would be wrong, but apparently do not notice you are arguing in favor of that wrong practice in the case of library content."

You don't see the difference between the government requiring private actors wear MAGA hats and the government declining to stock Hustler Magazine in elementary school libraries?

[Nige]

'How is an employee any different from any member of the public, and if the employees are given display space, why can’t I go to the library and demand space for my White Wizard or Star Realms Game book reviews, or frankly any position I want library shelf-space to air and discuss.'

What makes you think that if you have a proposal for some sort of event or display your local librarian wouldn't be quite keen to consider giving it a go? They organise events for and with the public all the time.

[Stephen Lathrop]

There is a nice precedent to inform the question whether Trump should get prison time. It involves a first-time offense by another TV celebrity, albeit one with a cleaner prior record and no contempt citations, nor attacks on the justice process.

Some nice biographical parallels, including even an, "Apprentice-style" TV program. Bottom line, 5 months prison, 5 months house arrest, and two years probation. For convictions on lying to investigators and obstruction of justice.

To read all about it, Google, "Martha Stewart’s Insider Trading Scandal." (sorry, couldn't make the link work)

[Kazinski]

Federal crime. Its apples to oranges.

In an environment that young violent criminals are let go without bail for assaulting old women on the street. Illegal aliens are let go for assaulting police in Manhattan and allowed to flee out of state. Where violent felonies are regularly pled down to misdemeanors, claiming a jail sentence for Trump is routine won't fly.

Of course I am not claiming Merchan won't sentence Trump to jail, however I don't think he will serve any time, or at most a few days while the higher courts step in.

In any event it won't have any affect on who wins the election in November.

[John F. Carr]

More specifically, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was intended in part to make white collar criminals go to federal prison. In effect, it allows prosecutors to insist on prison time for financial crimes, fraud, non-violent obstruction of justices, and so forth.

[Nige]

'In any event it won’t have any affect on who wins the election in November.'

I mean, we know YOU'RE ok with voting for a tedious moaning criminal, but I wonder how widespread that appeal really is.

[Drewski]

Sentencing isn't really determined by precedent, although it's informed by it. That case wouldn't serve as precedent in any case, since it's a different crime sentenced under federal guidelines. I don't have an opinion of whether Trump deserves jail time or not per se; I think he should probably be sentenced on the high end of the guidelines range to fully capture his extreme refual to accept responsibility and contemptuous behavior during trial. I don’t know if that range includes time in a box or not; what's important to me is that he is sentenced as a standard rich old bastard criminal.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fair enough, Drewski. I meant logical precedent, not legal precedent, but I should have known better than to do that on a legal blog.

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

he is sentenced as a standard rich old bastard criminal

I don’t think being rich or old should have any part in it.

It’s going to be hard to find a similar case to use for comparison. One would guess that all, or virtually all, previous felony prosecutions for falsifying business records would have as the underlying crime embezzlement, tax evasion, or business fraud. Not hiding an extramarital affair.

[Reallynotbob]

There are tons of felony business records convictions under NY state law. The "unique" part of this case was that one of the unlawful means of completing the crime involved violating federal election law. But from a sentencing standpoint, that matters little.

Trump's problem is: (1) incarceration is empirically much more likely when the defendant proceeds to trial; the justifications range from deterring the guilty from choosing to frivolously overburden the system, to establishing a risk of loss to incentivize plea bargaining; (2) the DA will almost certainly ask for incarceration as a matter of consistency with previous prosecutions for the same Penal Law section; (3) zero indicia of remorse or contrition; (4) out-of-court attacks on the integrity of the jury and court are usually deterred by enhanced sentences; (5) probation was available on a plea without DA consent, so granting probation after jury verdict will feel "light" to the court; (6) the speed of the verdict is an unacknowledged factor, as judges tend to view fast convictions as evidence the case wasn't even close.

Notwithstanding, I think Trump will get a break at sentencing, and will receive 5-year probation only, probably with a fine. Merchan could choose some from column A and some from column B, and sentence Trump to a split sentence of X days incarceration, plus 5 years probation. I *think* he even has latitude to set, for example, a report-to-jail date that could be served after the election but before inauguration, e.g. 30 days, with a report date on November 6.

[Riva]

Already plenty of precedent from the USSR, present day Russia, and communist China.

[Kazinski]

I have to ask who's mind changed about 2024 election after Trump's conviction on Thursday.

As I said before the verdict, the accusations and what people think are already baked in to what people think. Nothing has changed.

What people think about about who should be President next year has a lot more to do with this chart than anything that happened in a Manhattan courtroom last week.

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/28/food-inflation-grocery-prices
(spoiler: current food at home inflation rate 1.1%, food at home prices since Biden entered office +20.8%, and don't even ask about dining out prices).

[Martinned2]

Indeed. Which is why the bookmakers still have Trump as odds-on favourite: https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics

[Martinned2]

As for inflation, the problem with a two-party system is that unhappiness with the current president's inflation policy doesn't mean that the guy he's running against will give you lower inflation: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/06/trump-plan-supercharge-inflation/678566/

[Mr. Bumble]

...but we all know the current inflation is transitory.

[Martinned2]

That depends, as usual, on fiscal and monetary policy.

[Sarcastr0]

“ Inflation continues to drop from its January spike. On a conventional year-over-year basis, headline inflation came in at 2.7% and core inflation at 2.8%.”
https://jabberwocking.com/pce-inflation-slows-in-april/

[Mr. Bumble]

So now it's only twice what it was when Trump left office. I guess that's progress.

[Sarcastr0]

You mean the height of Covid?

[Martinned2]

I wonder if a massive drop in aggregate demand might have some effect on inflation.

[OtisAH]

Well, during the pandemic when people were driving far less, gas prices were quite low. Also, gas prices are always lower in the winter months when folks drive fewer miles and are higher in the summer when they drive more often and farther. So I’d say “yes.”

[Sarcastr0]

Oh dear, another Bumble fumble.

[Mr. Bumble]

Inflation since 2017:
2017 2.10%
2018 1.90%
2019 2.30%
2020 1.40%
2021 7.00%
2022 6.50%
2023 3.40%

[Sarcastr0]

Nice new goalposts, Bumble, since your previous ones were so clearly stupid for ignoring Covid.

You'd neve do that in support of your new argument, would you? Let's take a look...

Gadzooks what happened in 2021 and 2022?! Probably Biden's fault!

[Bwaaah]

Not surprising that you complain about valid data. Were it not for data, the validity of your opinions could appear to be equal to all others.

[Sarcastr0]

Bumble is making an argument based on the data, Bwaah.
You are ignoring his bad argument so you can blindly attack me without having to deal with his stupid Covid-ignoring.

I didn't come at the data. Deal with the argument or cool your jets.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Gadzooks what happened in 2021 and 2022?! Probably Biden’s fault!"

An increase in the money supply?

[Bwaaah]

And before we all get lost in Democrat spin about how great things are, *real* income (adjusted for inflation) has gone down during the Biden term.

People are worse off now, income-wise, than when the Biden administration started.

(sarcasm) But race relations and urban life have improved dramatically due to "liberal" policies. (/sarcasm)

[Sarcastr0]

Keep changing those goalposts!

And be sure not to look at just the last year or so, you need to pick your timescale so you can blame Biden for Covid!
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasing-power-of-american-households

But race relations and urban life have improved dramatically due to “liberal” policies.
Off topic racial resentment is really showing your ass.

[Bwaaah]

A simple authoritative graph is clearer than your endless attempts at spin:

Federal Reserve, Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over

In your defense, wages actually increased last year, but then dropped again in the first quarter of this year.

[NOVA Lawyer]

A simple authoritative graph is clearer than your endless attempts at spin:

Given your spin, I'm not sure you understand what your authoritative graph says.

Maybe look at this one with a more detailed breakdown. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=LEU0252881600Q,#)

Under who's watch did median usual weekly earnings of 16+ "employed full-time" workers begin to drop from the....what's that...Covid peak?

And under who's watch did that slide turn around?

Do you see a pre-Covid trend line and does that look like it basically continues after that spike in Q2 of 2020?

And what do you think caused that Q2 spike? Brilliant federal policies? Or a huge spike in unemployment especially for non-essential blue collar (i.e., lower paid) workers?

(Now compare that earlier graph to this graph of unemployment: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE)

Are you smart enough to see how real wages went up in Q2 2020 due to who was being counted and who was not counted because they weren't employed full-time....and then things reverted back to, again, the same basic trend line.

This wasn't some brilliant policy by one administration and bad policy by another. In fact, what this chart shows is despite high inflation, median weekly real wages are still higher now than they were pre-Covid. You seem to think the data tells a bad story for someone, but it's not the someone you think. (People's perceptions are another thing, but the data doesn't support your narrative.)

Bwaah, your use of statistics is why some people say there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[bernard11]

Interesting, Bumble.

Big jump in 2021 and 2022.

Do you think the CARES Act had anything to do with that?

But that's quibbling, I suppose. Just pointing out that Trump opened the faucets plenty, though someone will be along soon with all sorts of bizarre explanations for why that was OK.

Not that I'm complaining about that. Just some points:

1. Selecting one metric out of the mass of economic data available and trying to use that to criticize economic management is stupid, or extremely dishonest.

2. The US economy has in fact done quite well since Covid, better in general than other Western countries.

3. The fiscal stimulus associated with Covid was likely necessary to accomplish this. And inflation is coming down. Trust me. You don't want deflation.

4. It's hard/impossible to get these things exactly right, so it's certainly possible that the policies could have been slightly better, but that's hindsight. Anyone claiming that had Trump been reelected in 2020 we would be much better off is a damn fool.

Really. A damn fool.

So stop posting your inflation charts.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are now in the running to join SarcastrO and Nige in the douche parade.

[Bwaaah]

NOVA: My statement was: "People are worse off now, income-wise, than when the Biden administration started."

I see, per your point, that I was incorrect. Roughly speaking [correctly], I'd say that wages are now where they were where they were in 2019.

(The difference between your graph and mine appears to be immaterial.)

Regrets. It really isn't my intent to mislead. And I am not attempting to establish cause for wage changes.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Bwaah,

Regrets. It really isn’t my intent to mislead. And I am not attempting to establish cause for wage changes.

You are a gentleman. I believe you.

(And to your point: Roughly speaking..., I’d say that wages are now where they were where they were in 2019. That's a fair statement.)

[Kazinski]

Yes it’s all terribly unfair blaming Biden for inflation, but voters are like that. They only care about results.

However Biden might have been able to insulate himself a little from that if he hadn’t gone ahead with the second unnecessary stimulus without any GOP votes despite warnings from democratic economists like Larry Summers, didn’t cancel the Keystone pipeline, didn’t suspend Federal lease sales, didn’t double down with the ridiculously named inflation reduction act to spend hundreds of billions subsidizing electric cars nobody wants.

[Mr. Bumble]

Including $7.5 billion for 8 (so far after 2+ years) charging stations.

[jb]

It's true that Trump was the President of low inflation. Probably because he was also the President of super low economic growth (-3.7% in his last year in office) and high unemployment (6.4% when he left office). He also presided over the biggest crime wave in recent memory (30% surge in murder rate in 2020!), which fortunately Biden has made good progress in reining in.

[Magister]

Wasn't Barack Obama the President of lowest inflation for this century?

[Mr. Bumble]

No.

https://www.investopedia.com/inflation-rate-by-year-7253832

[jb]

Seems weird to say "no" and then link to an article that clearly says "yes". Inflation was lower under Obama and he didn't even have to crash the economy and wipe out millions of jobs to make it happen.

[Martinned2]

I would argue he did. (Or at least he and his Congress did.)

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-have-we-learned-about-austerity-since-the-great-recession/

[jb]

Obama's policies may have slowed the recovery, but it was well and truly crashed before he took office.

[Mr. Bumble]

The lowest inflation shown is: 2008 0.10%.
The chart does not show average inflation over a president's term.

[jb]

It seems pretty obvious that if you're going to talk about inflation under a particular President that you should look at inflation over their whole term, not any one random year. Otherwise we'd say something like "W was the President when we had the year with lowest inflation". (Because if not a term, why is a year the right metric? Why not a quarter or a month or two years or 500 days?)

And I realize it may be hard to do math, but it turns out you can compute an average pretty easily if you know the individual data points. Inflation will be a bit harder than just summing up the numbers and dividing by four, but it's not hard to eyeball your chart and see which President is going to have the lowest average even if you don't want to do some multiplication and division.

[Mr. Bumble]

So have at it, I'll wait.

[Magister]

It's not far from Bumble's link to a ranking of Presidents (from Eisenhower on) at the same site.

https://www.investopedia.com/us-inflation-rate-by-president-8546447

Geometric mean of only 2017 to 2019 gives 2.1%; Trump got the advantage of his cratering pandemic economy to lower his average and Biden's average suffered from fixing the mess Trump left behind. Everyone was sure that Biden couldn't deliver 100 million vaccine doses, let alone 200 million, and couldn't avoid a recession. The inflation of the first two Biden years was built in by the pandemic and Trump's mismanagement of it.

[Sonja T]

covid
massive Crime wave increase in Blue state

[jb]

LOLOL, I think you mean massive crime wave in red states:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/301593/us-crimes-committed-state/

(I actually had thought the crime increase was going to be evenly spread throughout the country so was pretty surprised to see how skewed it was towards red states. Turns out it's helpful to actually try to look at data!)

[Kazinski]

Yet average family real net worth increased 16% under Trump in his 4 years in office.

It has increased under Biden in his first 3 years too, but by only 0.7% despite his 1.9 trillion stimulus.

If you spend 1.9t on a stimulus package it should stimulate more than just inflation.

1st quarter GDP was just 1.3% annualized, we could be in a recession before the end of the summer.

[jb]

Genuinely curious: where's your net worth data coming from, and by "average" are we talking mean or median?

[Kazinski]

I got it from a Michael Barone column, he got it from a WSJ article:
“They come from an article in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal by Greg Ip and Rosie Ettenheim.”
https://m.arcamax.com/politics/fromtheright/michaelbarone/s-3258409

I posted about the column a week or two ago, and posted the link then, but I don't worry as much about links when I repeat a point.

[SRG2]

And of course most Americans don't pay attention to economics outside the US so have no idea whether the US's inflation is specific or part of a globalphenomenon.

[kramartini]

Global policy coordination can cause the illusion of a global phenomenon when, in fact, inflation is the result of each individual country's decision to enact the same inflationary policies as other countries.

[Martinned2]

True. Or it could be the result of the aftermath of a global pandemic, or a global energy supply shock.

In this case, Bidenomics has overshot the mark and created more inflation than necessary, while in Europe we have more exposure to the Ukraine war, which has put all of us at broadly the same level of inflation. (I.e. too high, but not troublingly so.)

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...All I can say is that Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party) has yet to impress me; it is only June, though. He has time; all of 5 months to persuade the me (and the electorate) that he is a viable alternative to the octogenarians running for POTUS currently. Doubtful.

Inflation: Retirees on fixed incomes and the poor have been impacted the most by Bidenomics. Their quality of life was permanently lowered by the cumulative impact over time of inflation.

[Krayt]

I am informed by people around here their investments kept them ahead of inflation. I encourage them to tout that good news loudly and proudly as the election approaches. Do not be shy!

[Mr. Bumble]

How much further ahead would they be with lower inflation?

[Kazinski]

Especially emphasize how much your home equity went up, that ought to nail down the Gen Z vote.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I thought you highly disliked the idea of Russian tanks rolling west of Poland?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Krayt

[Kazinski]

I'm not going to even look at a libertarian candidate until they stop nominating people who's claim to fame is they got 2% in a Senate election and forced a runoff.

Get back to me when they nominate a wild haired professor who raves about taking chainsaws to everything.

https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/wild-haired-ex-rocker-promises-to-remake-argentina-if-elected-president-19d11e7a

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

I have to ask who’s mind changed about 2024 election after Trump’s conviction

Haven't changed on who I'm going to vote for. Nor on who is likely to win. But I have changed my mind a bit on whether the results are going to be accepted peacefully.

It appears (so far) that Trump supporters intend to oppose the NY verdict using appropriate legal means: appeals in court and exercising their freedom of speech within the law. That's a good sign that they will do the same if they lose in November and January.

And (so far) it appears that Democrats are not using the verdict to remove Trump from the ballot and declare the election uncontested. Although I think their lawfare is 70% outright wrong and 100% an abuse of discretion, it appears their primary strategy in the trials is to make him look bad and thus lose votes. That's a good sign that they if they lose in November and January they won't pull some stunt like invalidating his electoral votes, or having NY prison guards physically prevent the swearing in.

So, moderately optimistic based on current reactions. Of course, either of these could change, and quickly.

[bernard11]

I'm not nearly as optimistic.

There seem to be plenty of people ready to do anything. You want to look at Michael Ejercito's recent posts? Do you don't think Dr. Ed would love to see some violence?

And I can't make myself believe that a Trump loss would go down quietly with the cultists.

[Nige]

'As I said before the verdict, the accusations and what people think are already baked in to what people think.'

Yeah, never mind those 'undecideds.'

[Stephen Lathrop]

Now that Trump is convicted, what should Biden do about debating him? I can't decide.

Seems like it would demean the presidency and the political process to debate Trump while pretending the conviction did not happen. But if Biden gave appropriate weight to Trump's felony record, all his civil offenses, his contempt citations, his attempted coup, and his continuing attacks on the justice system, it would make a travesty of the notion of an election debate over issues and policy.

Seems unwise for a POTUS to get into a tussle in a pigsty. Maybe better to call off the debate—with its necessary implication of equivalence between the participants—and instead excoriate the Trump record from the campaign trail. Any opinions?

[Kazinski]

There is only on reason for Biden to debate Trump, whether before or after the conviction: if his handlers think it gives him a better chance to win the election than not debating him.

I don't think Biden does have much of a chance to win in either case, however it might be better if they debate, but either way its unlikely to move the needle much.

[hobie]

If Biden brings it up in debate, then Trump will just start blathering about Hunter-this/Burisma-that. The whole world already knows Trump has felonies, and that he stole top secret documents and showed them off. Best just to leave that alone and stick to policy issues

[Martinned2]

Yes, because famously Trumpists are sticklers for a coherent policy platform.

[Frank Drackman]

Who's the Idiot who depleted the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Ill-legally (not my Opinion, the Surpremes) forgave bullions and bullions of Student Loans (30 years after I paid mine back of course) I'm sure a Prosecutor could find a crime somewhere in that mess. I haven't even got to the You-Crane Bribes

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Barack Obama in 2012:

“College Is the Best Investment You Can Make”

Notice that they rarely admit or correct their errors. They just tend to go silent about them.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't read Drackman's compulsive shitposting, but:

-College graduates are half as likely to be unemployed as their peers who only have a high school degree.

-Typical earnings for bachelor’s degree holders are $40,500 or 86 percent higher than those whose highest degree is a high school diploma.

-87% of bachelor’s degree holders report financial wellbeing, 20 percentage points higher than groups with any other level of education

-College graduates on average make $1.2 million more over their lifetime.
https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/employment-earnings

[Frank Drackman]

So they shouldn’t need Uncle Sam to forgive their loans. Cletus the Trucker didn’t get any help paying for his Truck Driving School(“Truck Master” I think it was, with todays Medicare Reimbursement levels Trucking is looking better and better)

Frank

[Davedave]

Yes, but college intake is not an even split of the population; you'd expect those people to make more money and be more employable even without degrees, so it's much harder to assess the actual benefit. Of course there are some career paths that demand certain qualifications, but in a lot of others it's far from clear that tertiary education is valuable, at least beyond meeting employers' expectations of 'it's what bright people do'.

[Sonja T]

hunters corruption on behave of the big guy is vastly worse than the supposed campaign finance violations - assuming that there was actually a campaign finance violation.

Bursima - why was Hunter paid for his consulting services - partisans dont be blind to the obvious.

[bernard11]

Sonja don't need no stinking evidence.

[David Nieporent]

For the record, Hunter Biden was not paid for "consulting services." He was paid for serving on the board of directors.

[Nige]

They really need to stop being scared of Trump and his supporters acting like unhinged narcissistic extremist whiner freaks. It’s probably their strongest point of attack: these people are fucking weird and also kind of stupid with monomaniacal obsessions that have little to do with actual real problems, and those few that do coincidentally relate to real problems they have no real actual solutions to offer for any of them and will make them worse.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Presidential debates are under the auspices of a *nonpartisan* 501(c)(3) organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates.

To them, if you're a major party candidate, even being a convicted felon won't keep you off the debate stage. But if you're an off-brand third party or independent candidate, then of course you're worse than a convicted felon and have no right to speak. Such is the nonpartisan decision of this nonpartisan nonprofit body.

[Martinned2]

Trump is still the most likely person to get elected president this year because, whether you like it or not, his voters don't care that he's a convicted felon. RFK jr. hears voices in his head and is about as likely to be elected as I am.

[Mr. Bumble]

I though the worm was dead.

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure, but either way I don't think he ever said that it was the worm that was talking to him.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

When I type in "rfk jr. voice in his head," what I get is descriptions of his voice, his hoarseness, and the condition leading to it.

[hobie]

IIRC, these debates are to be the first not under the auspices of the Debate Commission

[Frank Drackman]

Pretty sure Lincoln/Douglas wasn’t either

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

Using your own claimed fact (Trump will probably win) and reasoning (people with little chance of winning should not be permitted to debate), it follows that Biden should be banned from the debate.

Was that your intended conclusion?

[Martinned2]

You understand that there's a difference between "little chance" and Biden's 6/4 odds? (As per the current oddschecker.)

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

Where would you set the threshold?

I'm talking odds of winning, not percentage of the votes.

[BrotherMovesOn]

The CFTC has recently ruled that on-line futures markets (gambling) can no longer keep book for the upcoming Presidential election. The one I'm most familiar with is PredictIt, a partnership between the University of Iowa and an Australian outfit.
As of now they no longer have a listed market. The last market was long ago Haley stuff. I don't know how recently they stopped as it's been a few months since I checked the site. There's always offshore!

[David Nieporent]

Presidential debates are under the auspices of a *nonpartisan* 501(c)(3) organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates.

No, they’re not. Trump wouldn’t do a debate under their auspices, and then Biden proposed a debate plan this year (which Trump accepted) that doesn’t involve said Commission.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oops, I guess I was wrong on the Internet.

RIP, Commission on Presidential debates.

[Frank Drackman]

Good riddance

[Moderation4ever]

The answer is simple the debates are set and both parties should participate. What Biden needs to do is stick to the Presidential issues and not get drawn away into judicial topics. If Trump bring up the conviction respond with the jury has spoken.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Imagine Trump attacking Biden on national security. Biden responds with select excerpts from Trump's Florida indictment.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Is the debate even clearly on? Not clear Trump didn't/won't find some poison pill reason to call the whole thing rigged.

[Moderation4ever]

I do tend to think your right here. Trump reluctance to debate his Republican primary rivals suggest he is not up to the challenge.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did Biden debate his rivals?

[Moderation4ever]

No, he did not. I don't expect Joe Biden to back out of the debate, I do think Donald Trump will drop out. What more I expect all Republicans to praise the move on Trump part. Save the tape.

[Frank Drackman]

I expect Sleepy Joe to not debate because he’ll be “Dead Joe” Natural Causes! Natural Causes!

Frank

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

Nah, Trump believes he can make Biden look senile, and on that I think he is right.

That was not true of his potential debate opponents in the Republican primary, and therefore it was all downside.

[David Nieporent]

Nah, Trump believes he can make Biden look senile, and on that I think he is right.

He believed that in 2020, and was wrong; why should this time go any better for him?

[Nige]

Oh I hope he really does think that.

[Magister]

Biden, the incumbent president, polled above 60% throughout; no opponent broke 10%. Trump, loser in the last election, polled under 50% against opponents polling above 30%, and he didn't have an actual job. Otherwise, exactly the same.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, excoriate the Trump record -- and build the Trump base...

[Nige]

I swear to God this is the year we're going to get Trump supporters claiming Biden's only chance of winning is to unconditionally praise Trump to the skies. Centrists won't be able to believe anyone could be so insanely partisan as to disagree.

[Drewski]

Backing down for anything short of a national emergency or assassination-attempt-related injury would look terrible to voters. Even a regular injury would raise enough health questions to hurt him, even if they're spurious.

[OtisAH]

Biden will debate Convicted Felon Trump if Convicted Felon Trump shows up to debate.

The likelihood that Convicted Felon Trump starts making idiotic demands as the debate draws near and eventually declares that he won’t show because Dems Pelosi Biden rigged blah blah blah STOLLEN is quite high. If he does show, it will be the only one of the two to go off.

[bernard11]

The likelihood that Convicted Felon Trump starts making idiotic demands as the debate draws near and eventually declares that he won’t show because Dems Pelosi Biden rigged blah blah blah STOLLEN is quite high. If he does show, it will be the only one of the two to go off.

I think this is exactly right. Standard M.O. for Trump. Promise, break the promise, and then offer increasingly ridiculous excuses for breaking it.

He'll demand Sean Hannity moderate the debates or something, back out when Biden says no, and convince the Bumble's, Dr. Eds, etc. that it was Biden who backed out.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is Michael Colangelo and where is he off to next?
Who leaves the #3 position in the DOJ to work under Alvin Bragg
(should Bragg change his last name to "Liberty" like the fort, since "Bragg" is associated with the Confederacy?).

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh, Obama/Biden's guy Colangelo has had his Democrats hands in more than just the Bragg case.

He was involved the dissolving of the Donald J. Trump foundation.

[not guilty]

Who indeed is Michael Colangelo?

He is not Matthew Colangelo, who participated in the prosecution of Donald Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lost my scorecard and no coffee yet. Hard to keep up.
Must have been thinking of Michael Corleone.

[Zarniwoop]

Understood, I’ve said/typed regrettable things before coffee too.

That said, such an assertion doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that arises in a vacuum. It even might seem, to a cynic, to be deliberate disinformation targeting low-attention-span people (and voters).

Assuming that the conflation of Michael and Matthew wasn’t solely you … what was the source? Was it, in fact, deliberate disinformation and propaganda?

What impact will this “mistake” have on your assessment of the source and your future (pre-coffee) credulousness?

[Mr. Bumble]

Aside from the mix-up in names, what do you thing is disinformation?

[bernard11]

No disinformation, just some nasty, baseless, innuendo.

Standard Trump supporter tactic.

[Mr. Bumble]

No innuendo, just a question.
Who leaves the number three position in the DOJ to become a NYC assistant DA?
Any innuendo is projection by you.

[bernard11]

Nah, Bumble.

You're not interested in the information. You just want to take some sort of cheap shot.

I mean, the answer to your question is:

1. Who cares why he switched jobs. Nobody but a Trump cultist.

2. People have all sorts of reasons for changing jobs. You're trying, without evidence, to suggest there is something nefarious here.

So yeah. Nasty innuendo. Don't give me that "just asking questions" crap. It's a lie. You are not remotely interested in the details of his career choices.

[Bwaaah]

Now *that's* a move of the goalposts.

lol

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

A Obama/Biden Deep Stater that participated in numerous prosecutions of Donald Trump.

Almost as if he was sicc'd after him.

[kramartini]

Now that all of the evidence is in, it should be obvious to all that Trump is not guilty as a matter of law, since the prosecution failed to introduce any evidence that any of the 34 records constitute business records under New York law (NY Penal Law Section 175.00). Every single record was stored in Trump’s personal files and involved legal services billed to Donald Trump personally that were paid for with Trump’s personal funds. None of the records reflected the “condition or activity” of any “enterprise”. Trump is entitled to a directed verdict of “not guilty” or, barring that, an acquittal on appeal on the grounds of legally insufficient evidence.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Imagine what it must be like when your hobbyhorse is an argument so dumb Steven Calabresi was too embarrassed to bring it up.

[kramartini]

By “dumb” you mean “I don't get it”.

So far, no one has been able to specify what “condition or activity” of what “enterprise” these personal records reflect…

[Kenneth Almquist]

You claim that the Cohen billed Trump, rather than the Trump Organization, for what was misrepresented as legal services. The prosecution didn’t just rely on Michael Cohen’s testimony that he sent the invoices to the Trump Organization. There’s also the testimony of former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey Mcconney. There’s the testimony of the Trump Organization’s accounts payable supervisor, Deborah Tarasoff. There’s the invoices themselves, which were introduced into evidence on May 7.

Even Trump’s trial lawyers didn’t try to argue that the records in question weren’t Trump Organization business records because the evidence is just so clear on this point. Instead, they argued that the records were accurate because they reflected actual payments for legal work. (And the defense lawyers had a hard time even staying on message on that claim; they said that Cohen stole from the Trump Organization by misrepresenting the amount of money that Cohen needed to reimbursed for paying Red Finch, which is true, but only if you agree that the payments to Cohen were reimbersements.)

The evidence was so strong that Trump’s lawyers didn’t even bother to contest the point, but it doesn’t convince you (for reasons you don’t even attempt to explain), so the case should be dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Right.

[kramartini]

The claim for payment was related to a purported retainer agreement between Donald Trump and Cohen for personal legal services, and not for any services rendered to any company. Repeat, the bills did not claim that any services related to the invoices were for the benefit of any Trump entity.

The bills were marked "record of Donald J. Trump" and filed with Trump's personal records, the vouchers recording the transactions were posted to Trump's personal general ledger, and all payments were made out of personal funds.

How much clearer can one get that these are personal, not business. records?

[David Nieporent]

You know that simply repeating the defendant's arguments is kind of pointless when the jury already found that the defendant wasn't credible, right?

[kramartini]

You are, of course, wrong.

Arguments about legal sufficiency of evidence are matters of law that supersede the opinion of the jury, and can serve as the basis for a directed verdict of not guilty or an acquittal on appeal. (For example, see the Tom DeLay case in Texas from a decade back.)

Now is the exact right time to argue appellate matters.

[kramartini]

Consider the checks in the following article:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/27/us/politics/cohen-testimony-documents.html

These relate to Count 22 and Count 7.

How do either of these reflect the "condition or activity" of any "enterprise"?

[BadLib]

The jury instructions included the following definitions:

ENTERPRISE means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, social, political or governmental activity.

BUSINESS RECORD means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity.

Suppose a married couple (one or more people) jointly campaigned (an activity) for a cause such as abortion rights (political) and generally kept records of their household (an entity) finances to assist with budgeting (i.e. a record kept for the purpose of reflecting the condition of household finances).

Further suppose that the husband recorded an expense in Quicken for dinner with fellow abortion rights advocates as "Dinner with Joe" rather than "Dinner with Joe and Slutty Suzy" out of concern that his wife would become jealous of Slutty Suzy.

With these instructions a jury would have little choice but to find the husband guilty of violating New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree.

If, in fact, there was no dinner and the husband had instead paid Slutty Suzy for sex and mischaracterized the entry to conceal from his wife his act of engaging in criminal prostitution, a jury would have little choice but to find the husband guilty of violating New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree - the same felony Trump was charged with and convicted of.

I assume (hope?) that the judge had a strong basis in statutory or case law for such a broad characterization of "Enterprise" and "Business Record" as otherwise these definitions in the instructions would seem to be fodder for appeal.

In any event, if you live in New York, you should be very, very careful.

[David Nieporent]

I assume (hope?) that the judge had a strong basis in statutory or case law for such a broad characterization of “Enterprise”

You mean, like the actual wording of the statute?

NY Penal Law § 175.00

1. “Enterprise” means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity.

2. “Business record” means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity.

[kramartini]

A well -thought out response, but I think you miss the mark.

Note the words "kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity". The word "its" is reflective.

The indictments alleged, and the state proved in court, that the records were kept and maintained by the Trump Organization. But the checks did not reflect any condition or activity of the Trump Organization, but rather the payment of personal funds by Donald Trump to Michael Cohen.

[David Nieporent]

It's almost like this was the subject of pretrial litigation, with a ruling expressly rejecting your theory.

while Cohen was an employee of the Trump Organization, he also handled personal matters for Defendant; that Defendant owned the Trump Organization entities as the sole beneficiary of the Donald |. Trump Revocable Trust. and that $60,000 of the $420,000 repayment to Cohen was for work as a Trump Organization employee in 2016. “Indeed, the payments here exemplify the intermingling of the Trump Organization’s business records and Defendant’s purportedly personal expenses.” People’s Opposition at pg. 13. Defendant and the Trump Organization are intertwined to such a degree that it is of no legal relevance that some of the moneys paid to Cohen came from Defendant’s personal funds.

The People’s argument that the payments made to Cohen by Defendant in 2017 cannot be viewed in isolation is compelling. ‘The invoices, checks, and general ledger entries created in 2017, that were kept and maintained by the Trump Organization, reflected payments made to Cohen for a scheme that was discussed and implemented by Cohen and the Defendant in 2015 and 2016.

[kramartini]

Exactly. An incorrect ruling by the judge, which reads less like an authoritative legal opinion and more like a zero credit answer on an accounting exam.

The invoices were part of an agreement for Donald Trump to personally pay money to Cohen. Full stop. They reflected no liability of the Trump Organization, or any other enterprise. The invoices were marked “record of Donald J. Trump” and stored in Trump’s personal files, they were logged in DJT’s personal general ledger (which was not closed out to any Trump Organization financial statement at the end of the year), and they were paid out of Trump’s personal funds. None of the payments were deducted as business legal expenses on the books of any enterprise and were not deducted by Trump personally. There is nothing in any of the purported business records that reflects the “condition or activity” of the Trump Organization or any enterprise.

That Trump paid Cohen personally for certain activities while also receiving a salary from the Trump Organization shows that Trump did not convert company services to personal use. If Cohen did work that wasn’t properly related to the business, of course Trump should pay him personally. (For example, if the owner of a business were to pay an employee by check to mow his lawn on the weekend, that check would not be a business record. Nor would any invoice for the lawn service. Nor would an entry in a Quicken file reflecting the transaction.)

Indeed if, Trump were to have been shown to have used Cohen’s services as a Trump Organization employee for personal (or campaign) purposes, there would have been a legal violation. The side payments to Cohen out of Trump’s personal funds demonstrate that Trump was obeying the law, and do not magically transform Trump’s personal records into business records.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I understand your theory, and that you are very impressed with your own cleverness for coming up with it. It doesn't make it correct, though.

[kramartini]

So far, you have not demonstrated that a single one of the 34 records relate to the "condition or activity" of the Trump Organization, as alleged in the indictment.

Pick one count, any count, and demonstrate how the record in that count reflects the "condition or activity" of the Trump Organization. If you are right, this should be easy.

To help you out, this link is the best source I can find showing the exhibits which the DA claims are business records:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/30/evidence-trump-hush-money-trial/

[hobie]

A new Microsoft report is raising concern that Russia will again flood the US with fake election content - this time using AI-generated material. BUT...[rubbing chin]...is there actually an audience in the US that easily believes in conspiracies, lies, invisible supernatural beings, vaccine nano-trackers, space lasers and the like? I think not

[Mr. Bumble]

Will it finally include the “pee tape”?

[Michael P]

The pee tape will finally prove the laptop was Russian, it only needs two weeks to slow the spread (of disinformation).

[Bwaaah]

I just want to remind people that the Democrat-bought Steele Dossier was not the kick-off of the whole "Russian Collusion" campaign which can never be put to bed because it wasn't disproven and obstruction of justice and Trump Russian disinformation.

Ammiright?

[Nige]

It definitely sounds like you don't actually care whether you're right or not or about what is right or not.

[Frank Drackman]

Hi Fuck-Face, steal any Valor this weekend?

[OtisAH]

If he did we can be certain it wasn’t yours, piece of shit. So don’t worry about it.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m not certain, pretty easy to buy military uniform items, what’s hard is getting the terminology right, thus, the “Navy SEAL” who doesn’t know what BUDS is

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Who at the DOJ is going to get arrested for ignoring the lawful Congressional subpoena of Hur's audio recordings?

Are they covering up another DOJ crime?

[tylertusta]

No one will get arrested, at least not during this administration.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news:
Jury selection in Hunter Biden gun trial begins.

[Martinned2]

Why should anybody care about that?

[Mr. Bumble]

Based on comments and reporting apparently very few do. Just like Gold Bar Bob's trial.

[Martinned2]

Menendez is a public office holder who is wildly guilty, and Hunter Biden is someone who never held public office (or ran for it) and who might be guilty. Both are boring, from a "discussion on the internet" POV.

[ThePublius]

Might be guilty? Wow, you give him too much of the benefit of a doubt. He has admitted many times to chronic drug use. He lied about this on the federal form. What else do you need to know?

[Martinned2]

I don't care, and I don't see why anyone else would either. That's my point. (See two comments above.) Hence my utter lack of knowledge about what the man may or may not have done or admitted to.

[ThePublius]

Hunter is an important figure because he is a pivotal character in the Biden crime family narrative.

[Martinned2]

If you want to write fiction about the Biden family, please do it somewhere else.

https://archiveofourown.org/tags/Joe%20Biden/works

[Mr. Bumble]

The whole story of the Biden family has been a fiction.

[Mr. Bumble]

Actually it's stranger than fiction.
How a boob from Scranton, PA via Delafuckinowhere could make millions and rise to be President of the US.
A real Horatio Alger story.

[ThePublius]

Get lost, I'm staying right here! And, it's not fiction. How many shell corporations does one honest man have, anyway? Certainly not more than 20.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How many felony convictions does one honest man have, anyway? Certainly not more than 34.

Cultists such as you don't get to pretend like they care about honesty or crime.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's due process has been violeted.

For Biden, the process that is due is to type 'shell corporations' and then he is superguilty of crime family narrative.

[hobie]

Trump has 500 LLCs

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/what-trump-s-disclosure-his-500-llcs-can-can-t-n874391

[Bwaaah]

For an active real estate developer, every project will likely include at least one shell company in order to contain the assets and potential liabilities of a project (in case it fails). That's a common practice.

Shell companies for politicians? I don't have a theory.

[Nige]

Trump's a politician.

[Bob from Ohio]

"active real estate developer, every project will likely include at least one shell company"

Single asset entity. A lender will require it so a failure of another project does not affect the loan.

[bernard11]

For an active real estate developer, every project will likely include at least one shell company in order to contain the assets and potential liabilities of a project (in case it fails). That’s a common practice.

Fair enough, for liabilities that can be contained that way, but when was the last time Trump was an active real estate developer?

And how many properties that might create liabilities does he actually own today?

[BadLib]

The case is interesting in that Biden is torn between his goal of disarming law abiding citizens and his own son's pending conviction of a felony because he's a non-law abiding citizen who illegally acquired and possessed a firearm.

It will create an interesting tension when Biden is faced with the decision to, or not to, pardon his own son for a firearm related felony before he leaves office on noon January 20, 2025. My guess he will do so - after all, realistically, Biden would have no additional political ambitions at that time so has no need to sway with the wind after November 5, 2024.

There is a question if a President can pardon themselves, but I don't think there's any question that a President can pardon a relative.

[Sarcastr0]

By all evidence, Joe Biden's let the DoJ have a free hand with Hunter so far. To the point that Hunter's going up for a crime he probably wouldn't have gotten dinged for were he not Joe's son.

Dunno why you're dwelling on Joe Biden's pain when his actions so far seem exemplary. Seems a shitty thing to do.

[Bob from Ohio]

"going up "

He's not going to jail. Even if convicted the appeal won't be decided until after November, he will get a pardon.

[Bob from Ohio]

"interesting tension"

Really? I do not think there is any doubt about the pardon, win or lose.

Hunter is the "smartest man" Joe ever knew. He's attending the trial to sway the jury and he wen to a witness house last week to co-ordinate her testimony.

[Nige]

'Father supports son' shocker.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Joe’s not there today. Don’t know if he’s going. Jill went. But not surprising that you think familial love and support is some nefarious plot.

[Frank Drackman]

What people find boring varies. I find a “First Son” who fucked his dead brothers widow (don’t have any brothers, but it’s something I’d probably do) and had the balls to join the Navy knowing they do regular drug screens and still kept smoking Crack, I find it….
well lots of things, intriguing, interesting (in the way that corrupt PA Pol who blew his head off on live TV was “Interesting") anything but
“Boring”
You know what’s boring? All of these bullshite charges against “45” all of the Artillery against him and you can’t drum up a Larry Craig incident somewhere?? (Yeah, like a Germaphobe like “45” would ever use an Airport Pubic Toilet)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Doesn't Jewish Law require you to marry your brother's widow if she has small children? Or something like that?

The principle be to provide for the widow and children.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well Hunter never got past the fuck her part.
Meanwhile he's stiffed his ex-wife for $2.9 million in past alimony.

[David Nieporent]

Doesn’t Jewish Law require you to marry your brother’s widow if she has small children? Or something like that?

No. What is it like to go through life never looking anything up before speaking, but just blurting out anything one dimly remembers? (With emphasis on “dim.”) It’s exactly backwards: it’s those without kids (and there are many caveats and it’s not actually done.) (Also, the Bidens are Catholic, not Jewish.)

[Frank Drackman]

I think Dr Ed was asking me, as the Conspiracies Designated Hebrew (great read , Bio of Ron Blomberg) I’m supposed to be the expert in Talmudic Law, I think it depends on whether she’s a good lay or not, Hunter gets a pass from this Hebrew

Frank

[ThePublius]

He was asking a question. Calm down!

[SRG2]

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

The failure to consummate a levirate marriage is what Onan was punished for, not masturbation.

[Ridgeway]

I thought it was for not using a tissue and making a mess on the floor.

[bernard11]

It was for "spilling his seed," thereby denying his dead brother any descendants.

A bit confusing, actually.

[Mr. Bumble]

So was he a wanker or not?

[Ridgeway]

@Bumble -- my surmise is that it was what is technically referred to as "coitus interruptus" and more colloquially as a "money shot."

It is possible that he was rubbing one out instead, but that doesn't make as much sense under the circumstances.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People here are very concerned about Second Amendment rights & think the whole thing is a grave injustice?

[Martinned2]

I'm sure that's it.

[Kazinski]

I care.

The gun charge is unconstitutional.

But the tax charges seem to be more than well founded.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The kiddie Porn ones as well.

[Nige]

Hunter's kiddie porn is the Trump pee tape of Bidenphobia.

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't a poster on here claim to have seen the child porn and then someone pointed out they just admitted to viewing child porn and they got real quiet?

[Nige]

Yes. Yes they did. Though it had to be pointed out a few times before they copped on.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Mad_kalak. Several people pointed it out in the moment. I pointed it out with a link when he later went on about sexual morality and tried to deny it.

[BrotherMovesOn]

LTG, where do you see mad_kalak on this thread?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Mad_kalak was the guy who accessed CSAM believing it to involve Hunter Biden and encouraged others to do the same. He rarely posts now because, well, he accessed CSAM and encouraged others to do the same.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why should anybody care about that?"

President is an elected king. If the king's son in the UK got tried, I think there might be an article or two.

[Sarcastr0]

President is an elected king

You can argue it's newsworthy without this hot take.

[Bob from Ohio]

The US president is both head of state and government. He has more individual power than any UK/British/English monarch since Elizabeth I or maybe William of Orange.

Elected short term king is pretty accurate.

[Sarcastr0]

Monarch is not determined by magnitude of power.

You ever read a bio of George Washington?

[Martinned2]

The king's son in the UK is, of course, also his heir...

[Bob from Ohio]

Not Harry.

[Martinned2]

Sure he is. Are you somehow under the impression that prince Harry has been excluded from the line of succession? If Charles, William, and William's kids all get hit by a bus, Harry is king.

[Bob from Ohio]

"heir" means the next in line, no?

Is Eugenia his heir? Lucas Tindall? Zenouska Mowatt?

[Martinned2]

They are all the king's heirs. (Actually, I'm not sure about the Tindalls. They may have opted out when they got married.)

[David Nieporent]

The president is not an elected king. Also, the UK monarch’s son is the heir to the throne; Hunter Biden is not going to be the next president.

[Bob from Ohio]

"UK monarch’s son is the heir to the throne;"

Not Harry.

[David Nieporent]

Well, he's not first in line, but he is still in the line of succession.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yet not "the heir to the throne" as you said.

You should look up things and not dimly recall stuff. Emphasis on dim.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, you caught me on a bit of pedantry. A monarch's son is a heir to the throne, not the heir to the throne. Doesn't change the point in the slightest

[Davedave]

He said the monarch's son...

[jb]

Wow, can you imagine the corrupt DOJ rushing to bring a criminal case in an election year for behavior that occurred six years ago? Election interference!!!

[hobie]

From the Washington Post this morning: https://wapo.st/4bO2FFW

"TRUMP CLAIMS HE NEVER CALLED FOR HILLARY CLINTON TO BE LOCKED UP"

"“I didn’t say ‘lock her up,’ but the people said lock her up, lock her up,” Trump said." [on Fox & Friends]

[Mr. Bumble]

...and did the DOJ under Trump make any move to lock her up?
If they had Bill would have be eternally grateful and probably be a Trump supporter.

[Martinned2]

Yes. For four years: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/us/politics/fbi-clinton-foundation.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Paywalled but not on point. "Lock her up" was not about the Clinton Foundation.
By the way, whatever happened to the Clinton Foundation?

[Martinned2]

It's not like he was going to lock up the Clinton Foundation itself. It's a Foundation. The point of investigating it was to lock up Hillary.

The Foundation, of course, still exists. If you want to donate, you can do that here: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/?form=donate

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't be a douche; that's reserved for SarcastrO and Nige.
The calls to "lock her up" revolved around her time as Sec. of State.

[Martinned2]

Sure, but that was nonsense, so the Trumpists in the DOJ spent the whole following four years trying to find something else that they could lock her up for. Please the boss no matter what, etc.

[Nige]

"Lock her up specifically for acts committed while Secretary Of State' they didn't chant. By the time he was elected it was for the face-carving video and ordering children from a pizza place.

[Frank Drackman]

Could I have your credit card information so I can read it?
Just Kidding, its the NYT so I know it's bullshit, almost as bad as National Pubic Radio.

Frank

[bernard11]

Fuck you, Frank.

Here's the damn link, to the Washington Post, not the NYT.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/02/trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up/

[jb]

Not for lack of trying by Trump:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/trump-demands-barr-arrest-foes-427389

See, it turns out that even if you want to try to go find some crimes your political opponents have engaged in, there actually needs to be some criminal behavior to prosecute. Hence why Trump and Hunter are facing felony indictments, and Hilary and Joe are not.

[Michael P]

Corn Pop said "lock her up" when Joe Biden was talking with a dead Amtrak conductor about how Beau Biden died in Iraq in some year, because of a drunk truck driver who killed Joe's wife and daughter. She should also be locked up because she caused lightning to strike a pond near his house, starting a fire that nearly cost him his wife, cat, and '67 Corvette. Not because she explained that two dudes in suits kissing each other in downtown Wilmington in the 1960s simply love each other. Also, she was responsible for him getting arrested with Nelson Mandela when marching in Selma, AL.

[Frank Drackman]

I love Sleepy’s stories, he’s like a more retarded Forrest Gump or a duller Kramer

Frank “thus ruining the very Pants I was returning to Martin Luther King Jr!”

[Martinned2]

I know that some people here like to be kept up to speed on the Dutch coalition negotiations. The four parties have now settled on a new prime minister. Hilariously, given how many populist parties will be in the new coalition, the guy they picked is the current most senior civil servant in the Ministry for Justice, and previous head of the intelligence service. Basically they picked the most "deep state" guy in the entire country.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/05/new-prime-minister-dick-schoof-will-represent-all-the-dutch/

[Mr. Bumble]

Gotta love parliamentary systems.

[Martinned2]

This is certainly odd. Normally the leader of the biggest party becomes PM. But because in this case no one wants to join a government with Geert Wilders as PM, they had to come up with an alternative solution.

This is, of course, the reason why having a directly elected PM, like Israel used to have, is a terrible idea. You need the flexibility to make sure the country gets a PM that the majority of parliament can live with.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about the majority of the people?

[Martinned2]

Given that Geert Wilders got 23% of the votes in a strictly proportionate system, it's not as if there is some kind of silent majority that he speaks for. (However much he likes to pretend otherwise.)

[John F. Carr]

What does Wilders get out of the deal compared to being excluded?

[Martinned2]

He gets to be the largest party in government, instead of the largest party in opposition.

[Krayt]

Isn’t that what a coalition of elected legislators is supposed to represent?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Incompatible parties embracing. Tulips meet as one.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[accidental double post]

[Frank Drackman]

Any of you Conspirators who fly frequently know that they always let Active and Retired Military board first, even before First Class, but they don’t give them an upgrade on their ticket, usually back in Steerage, so Be Like Frank, who only flies First Class, and swap seats, don’t let the Stewardess (I still call them Stewardesses) say you can’t (well if she does, it’s not your fault, no sense getting locked up) Least we can do for our Men/Women/Indeterminate in Uniform/Retired.
OK, maybe I tend to do it more for the hot young women, and on the short flights where First Class really isn’t worth it and I don’t have a tight connection, it’s the thought that counts.
Smooth Frankie Move, get your drink first, then offer to swap.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Boarding first does have the nice benefit of first access to the overhead bins.

[Frank Drackman]

Your luggage gets treated better than the other luggage also, you can tell because all of the Coach luggage won’t talk to the First Class luggage. Always laugh when people ask if I fly Southwest.

Frank "Let them eat their stale peanuts(as long as nobody on board has a Peanut Allergy, which is such BS, I always bring my own, and nobodies every died of Peanut Anaphylaxis on any of my flights)

[OtisAH]

Of course piece of shit is full of shit. Shit is what piece of shit is made of.

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t hate me for my Skymiles (they never expire!)

[Moderation4ever]

The article below caught my eye in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal. While I don't like the idea of paying people to stay sober, something they should do themselves. I do think that the immediate reward of payment for a clean drug test may be a method that works for some. This is not a perfect system but if it helps a percentage that is progress. The public spends so much on trying to stop drugs, prosecuting and treating users that not sure this is really that much more.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a22/page_187d0df2-b95b-5f8d-9517-4f7c007d0499.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's like paying kids for good grades.

[Moderation4ever]

It is like paying kids for good grades. They will benefits from those grades in the long term but the instant reward is easier for them to connect with.

[Moderation4ever]

Can the Biden peace plan make progress in ending the conflict in Gaza? Don't really know but right now it is the only thing on the table and I hope it get consideration.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be the Obama Plan:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/06/the-obama-deal.php

[Sarcastr0]

The 'Obama is the secret puppetmaster' nonsense is growing lately.

[jb]

Seems like a pretty dumb tactic? AFAICT, most people like Obama a lot more than Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

It is not meant for external consumption. It is a tonic for the troops who can't let go of their sekret Muslim/birther/darkly-no-one-of-us villain.

[Frank Drackman]

It was reasonable that the Son of a Moose-lum African Prince might have had “Moose-Lum” on his Birth Certificate(I don’t get it, I thought Moose-Lims are the same as everyone?) especially when he was too cute releasing an Internet generated version before “45” shamed him into releasing the genuine one,

Frank

[bernard11]

Powerline.

You expect honesty?

[Mr. Bumble]

Confirmed: You are a douche. Congratulations.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Bumble:
"stupid Polack"
"Nips"
"dumb Mick"
"Jamaican voodoo judge (referring to an African-American federal judge)
"fags" (referring to gay American citizens)
"dipshit", "douche-bag", "fuckwit" inter fuck-all alia (addressing practitioners)

Remind us which Master Race you belong to again? Thanks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ah, the sniping troll crawls out of the closet to use old material, then slinks away.
FYI, the Wop Hunky race if you must know.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Yes, your views are most certainly "old material".
You post here 20 times a day. Effeminate one sentence insults.
You understand nothing you absolute cretin.

[Michael P]

No. That's because it is not only an Obama plan, but because it's a pro-Hamas plan. As they have a history of doing, Hamas started this outbreak of fighting during a previous ceasefire.

[ThePublius]

The only viable plan to end the conflict in Gaza is the one the IDF is executing.

Biden lied about the plan when he announced it, saying it was Israel's plan. It was not. Further, it doesn't call for the destruction or even disarmament of Hamas.

If Hamas is not destroyed, and the region and people "de-Hamasified," there will be forever conflict there, per Hamas' own words.

[Martinned2]

You realise that the only way to "de-Hamasify" the Gaza strip is to completely ethnically cleanse it, right? All the current Hamas fighters are orphans because of previous Israeli-Hamas fighting, and the current war will simply have the same effect again down the line.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe just make it a gun free zone.

[Martinned2]

That would definitely be a start.

[ThePublius]

And that was sarcasm.

[Bwaaah]

Because if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have missiles.

[ThePublius]

That's not so. De-Hamasification does not require ethnic cleansing, and more that de-Nazification after WWII required ethnic cleansing.

All the current Hamas fighters are orphans? That's more baloney.

However, de-Hamasification will be a difficult, intensive, and long term program and process, reaching right down to children of toddler age, restructuring the schools and learning materials, reaching the adults, and all of the institutions.

I think the only viable long term solution is to just make Gaza part of Israel, make Gazans Israeli citizens, and go from there. Perhaps put some kind of prohibition on voting for a generation or so, so the Gazans don't overwhelm the Israeli electorate and put Hamas back in charge. And, there would have to be some kind of long term investigation, identification, and prosecution of Hamas members in the populace.

[Martinned2]

De-Hamasification does not require ethnic cleansing, and more that de-Nazification after WWII required ethnic cleansing.

Do you know who ran Germany after the war? Do you think that everyone who held political office or sat in the senior civil service post 1949 was plucked out of a concentration camp or exile?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#End

[ThePublius]

Yes, I do, and I didn't say what you suggest. But know this: after WWII, the Nazis were no longer in charge. Biden's plan is such that Hamas could remain in charge, or soon resume control.

[Michael P]

There's a difference between removing Hamas and removing all of its members as individuals, just as there was a difference between removing the Nazi party and banning all its members from future public service. Israel's target is the power given to Hamas's murderous ideology, not the Muslim Arabs who live in Gaza.

[Dr. Ed 2]

With Germany we had the issue of Stalin....

[Nige]

I think it's cute that you claim to believe this is still about Hamas and not about just keeping the conflict going because it keeps Netenyahu in power.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You realise [sic] that the only way to “de-Hamasify” the Gaza strip is to completely ethnically cleanse it, right? "

Ok.

20 Arab states can easily absorb 2 million. Little Israel absorbed nearly a million ethnically cleansed by the Arabs post 1948.

[Martinned2]

I've got to give it to you, at least you're honest in your advocacy of war crimes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"war crimes"

Studenten and East Prussian Germans. Settled those problems.

Your approach means that in 1 or 5 or 10 years, many Arabs die in the next war. But no war crimes!

[LawTalkingGuy]

The legal community in Ohio is actually pretty diverse. Do your colleagues in the bar of Arab descent, know you’re essentially a Kahanist? I mean there’s no good answer to this question.

1. Either you’re an open one who deliberately antagonizes people in which case you’re a huge asshole who makes people uncomfortable.

2. You’re a huge liar who pretends to be friendly but secretly hopes for the destruction of their families and mass suffering.

3. You deliberately stay away from them which makes you both a bigot and a pussy.

Which is it?

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't talk politics in my work dude. Its not relevant to anything in the law.

"destruction of their families"

Emigration would save their lives.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Its not relevant to anything in the law.”

This is false. Your gleeful and unapologetic endorsement of immorality calls into question your ability to practice law ethically and competently. No one with such depraved views can be trusted to behave ethically. I mean you think rape is okay so long as it’s a right wing government, what’s a little unethical conduct compared to THAT?

But also: I knew you were a lying pussy. People truly don’t know how depraved you are, do they?

They don’t know you want to displace or kill two million people (to start) do they?

They don’t know you are a forceful defender of Pinochet AFTER being confronted with his great crimes including sexual violence, do they ?

They don’t know you think that due process is a bullet in the head (unless it’s Trump)? Do they?

They don’t know that you think “need a tissue” is an appropriate response to a child shot by the police trying to kill her dog is an appropriate response to a denial of qualified immunity?

They don’t know that you scoff at the very concept of fair trials, do they?

If you give even one tenth of your views at work you’d be dismissed immediately as a huge liability.

[Bob from Ohio]

Touch grass dude. Your head is going to explode.

[Bwaaah]

Your comments are so typically ungrounded by overflowing anger. Do you bring that stuff to work? If so, you must be the boss. (A subordinate shouldn't be allowed to disrupt business with that poisonous stuff.) Anyway, you either you hide your political shit, or you work in a highly politicized homogenous organization, or people hate you. Which is it?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not the boss, no one hates me, (in fact I’m well -liked), and my political views are well-known. I work with good people who don’t spout vile sociopathic shit like Bob does on here so there’s nothing to get angry about at work.

See the thing is, I’m angry at Bob specifically. I don’t work with freaks like that. So work is chill. But while he holds himself out as a member of my bar, while spouting not just vile views (like using animals to rape women is okay as long as it’s the Pinochet regime and as long as they’re left leaning), but views that strike at the heart of the system he took an oath to uphold (like criminal trials shouldn’t be fair) I’ll show my anger towards him. He disgraces us every single day with his bullshit, and I’m going to let him know it.

[Bwaaah]

I appreciate your sincere response. (sincerely)

And I'm going to guess you are more moderate in language at work than you are here. (But I could be wrong.)

🙂

[Davedave]

Stooging for Iran again, because they hate Jews as much as you do? Fucking Nazi liar. You know not a word of what you wrote is true, and you just don't fucking care.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who are you responding to? Dots go back to one of my comments.

[Nige]

He doesn't actually care. He says that to everyone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nuke it.

[Don Nico]

The Biden plan leaves Hamas as the de facto governance of Gaza. In that case, the war was pointless and Israeli remains gravely threatened.

[Moderation4ever]

I believe part of the plan is for new governance in Gaza that is not Hamas.

[Don Nico]

You may believe that but what was in the papers was very unclear except that Israel is not supposed a presence in Gaza.
In that case I am not so naive as to think thatHamas will not be a presence.

[Commenter_XY]

Hamas must be utterly defeated, and seen throughout the arab world as defeated, for peace to occur. No deal, but defeating and eliminating Hamas...is better than a bad deal that leaves Hamas in place. The Biden plan....lol, ok. 🙂

POTUS Biden's old boss, Pres Obama had this pungent comment: Never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up.

So it is with 'The Biden Plan'.

You don't have to like Bibi to understand the essential truth he has stated: there is no coexisting with Hamas; they must be defeated. He is right about this. Bibi can be right about this, and wrong about many other things.

[bernard11]

You don’t have to like Bibi to understand the essential truth he has stated: there is no coexisting with Hamas; they must be defeated.

I agree with this.

I also despise Netanyahu. I think he will be remembered as an utter catastrophe for Israel, and Jews in general. I think his covert support for Hamas - Now he thinks they should be destroyed - contributed to this disaster.

[Nige]

When they've mown down all the human shields, whoever's left will, finally, be Hamas.

[John F. Carr]

The plan is

1. Stop fighting
2. (a miracle occurs)
3. Sign a peace treaty

The leadership of Hamas has to go. We should not repeat the mistake of de-Baathification and purge everybody with ties to Hamas.

[Michael P]

https://open.substack.com/pub/greglukianoff/p/the-mental-health-consequences-of

There is a strong, and meaningful, correlation between poor mental health and the woke mob. That article suggests the former comes from the latter, but Arnold Kling argues that it's the other way around: adopting woke ideology is a coping mechanism to avoid responsibility for one's own mental health. I suspect it's a vicious loop, with each direction reinforcing the other.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, conservatives self-report their mental health differently.

This is not good social science. And this kind of partisan editorialism does FIRE no favors as an honest broker.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 presents more evidence-free counterfactual blather from the last person anyone here expects to be an honest broker. Boring.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's a douche thing.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm coming at the methodology. Dunno what evidence I need to do that.

[Krayt]

People feel they've latched onto some deeper truth of the state of reality, this and a dog that barks "I love you!" at 11.

Religious folk wouldn't know anything about that. Latching onto supposed deeper knowledge of reality, that is.

Or talking animals for that matter.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not good social science."

It doesn't support lib shibboleths so bad.

[Sarcastr0]

Self reporting is a well known fraught technique.

You do love assuming bad faith off the break.

[Bob from Ohio]

From you? Yes I do.

Trick is that there is no good social science. So you are right!

[Sarcastr0]

So you make accusations without support when it's me.
Also you curate purposeful ignorance about social science.

Seems like unserious, performative assholery. I shouldn't have engaged.

[Bob from Ohio]

"purposeful ignorance about social science"

"The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce." Wikipedia

Its not science.

[Sarcastr0]

Science being hard does not mean it's not science. You also seem to be arguing that medical science is not a science.
Not to mention the descriptive sciences like entomology or astronomy.

[Don Nico]

There is a difference between "medicine is not science" and "medical sciences are not science." They are distinct and they are different.

[Nige]

‘adopting woke ideology is a coping mechanism to avoid responsibility for one’s own mental health.’

Wow, this sounds like a carefully-researched conclusion.

Alternatively being ‘woke’ includes awareness of and compassion towards people with mental health problems which means ‘woke’ people are more open about their mental health problems, and people with mental halth problems are more welcome and receive more help and care from the ‘woke,’ so they end up being ‘woke’ also.

I guess it;s no surprise the way things are going that hostility and contempt for mental health issues is crystallising around right wing reactionary MAGAs, since it's becoing a catch-all for things they really don't like. Soon 'woke' and 'mental health issues' will be interchangeable for them, and both seen as shameful and bad and not fully real.

[Sarcastr0]

This is authored by the President of FIRE.

I think FIRE does a good job of being relatively nonpartisan in who they go after, especially lately.
But their President waging a pop-sociology based culture war against the 'woke' is a bad look.

[Nige]

It is seriously weird and bit of a red flag in an outfit like that.

[bernard11]

There is a correlation - that's all - maybe, between self-reported mental health and political leanings among college students - ludicrously described by Michael P. as "the woke mob". Nice dispassionate scientific position there.

Now comes Arnold Kling - who has no known training or experience in mental health issues - to pontificate on the reasons, and Michael P. , who likely knows even less about it than Kling - to throw in his idiotic opinion.

Here's a tip, Michael, and it's something Kling should know. You don't develop and test your hypothesis on the same data. It's a mistake. You don't mine the data to find something you like hearing, and then use that to support your views.

This is basic stuff.

[Michael P]

Well, that’s a bunch of bullshit that tries to sound smarter than it is — which isn’t hard, because it’s as dumb as a post, and par for bernard11.

For example, Kling and I are offering competing hypotheses to explain observed data. We’re explicitly not claiming that the observed data proves a hypothesis.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Fauci has recently confessed he made up whole cloth masking kids and six feet social distancing.

Look at all you stupid Democrat bootlickers who TruStED the ScIeNCe, OuR InstiTutionS Aren’T CorrUpt!

NIH employees have made hundreds of millions in Big Pharma kickbacks and you Statist bootlickers don’t bat an eye.

Don't worry about 2024, guys, ThE SciEnCE is cooking up another plandemic as an excuse to revoke all ballot security.
If that fails, they'll gin up WW3 and Biden will just Zelensky himself into lifetime dictator.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/06/02/six-foot-rule-covid-no-science/

The question is not about anything being made up, it is only about whether six feet was really the right social distance.

WHO said that three feet was enough. CDC initially adopted sex feet because they thought COVID was spread via droplets. Though the exact six feet number seems to have some back-of-the-envelope to it.

Social distancing doesn't really have any pharmaceutical implications.

Your attack on science is about the same level of factual versus emotional basis as your attacks on Jews.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do masks.

[Krayt]

Early on they said the (normal cloth) masks would stop expectoration of larger droplets, and stop people from touching their own nose and mouth, so were of value. IIRC, it wss estimated to slow things 40%. If so, was it worth it? But that was from early on.

The goal was to “level the curve”, i.e. stop hospitals from getting overwhelmed. I also noted at the time that, after about 2 months, politicians began shifting the rhetoric from saving grandma’s life to saving your life, yes you right there. Panic is needed.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The hospitals were so overwhelmed we only got 50,123 hours of dancing TikTok nurses instead of the 100s of thousands we could've gotten had they been empty!

[Sarcastr0]

So after flatten the curve failed and we were in for a worldwide long haul, the government rhetoric changed?

Sinister.

[Don Nico]

"Though the exact six feet number seems to have some back-of-the-envelope to it."
That is what the estimates made at MIT also concluded and what set the classroom occupancy levels even with masking.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So pointing out tHe ScIEnCe made up six feet has Sacastr0 calling me a science denier after he carefully proves my claim.

lol wtf is this real life?

[Sarcastr0]

Six feet was a policy decision not a scientific push.

Policy = science plus values, as mediated by government policymakers.

Fauci has in the past conflated the two, which is not ideal but no excuse for you to be dumb on this.

But even as to the science itself, you're wrong. You seemed above to be coming at social distancing generally, which as I posted is an incorrect take on the science. Now you claim your issue is specifically the number 6?

[Martinned2]

Of course it was. And in the rest of the world it was 2 meters or, in a few places, 1.5 meters. Rounding is a thing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why are you such a dishonest participant?

This was my claim:
"Fauci has recently confessed he made up whole cloth masking kids and six feet social distancing."

[Sarcastr0]

So what’s made up out of whole cloth to you is the specific magnitude being six in six feet social distancing?

Weak.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why is that weak?

[SRG2]

Local schools have a 5mph speed limit on their grounds. They know that (almost) no-one will adhere to it, but with that limit, people drive around 15mph, which is tolerable. If they put a 15mph limit, people would drive at 25mpf to 30mph, which isn't.

A 6-foot limit would seem to fit that behavioural approach.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You're rationalizing and excuse making. The people who imposed this regime upon us made it up.

And you seem to be okay with that as if that's acceptable.

[SRG2]

I didn't say I was okay with it. I am genuinely unsure, but were I in a position to impose a regime I would do so based on behaviour not theory. If y feet is a safe distance but people will observe only 1/2 y, I would recommend 2y. And one would be an idiot not to.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maine is 15 mph, Ma is 20 mph.
State law.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So there are rumors and videos floating around of a Houthi missile hitting the USS Eisenhower.

Do you think Biden administration is censoring this because they are cowards and want to protect Iran's reputation, like when they censored the Chinese military spy balloons spying on US citizens?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm more inclined to believe the video is a hoax.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Well that could be. I watched one several times and the side shot hits what is clearly a US Navy ship with a large 021 painted on the rear, however, the rear profile doesn't quite look like a large AC to me. Then there appears to be an edit and the rest video looks more like an AC.

Not sure of the provenance of the different parts of the video, but definitely could be fake.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In terms of Aircraft Carriers, Eisenhower is #69, #21 was the Boxer which was scrapped in 1971 (built in 1945).

I do not believe that the USN has the leading zero on any of its ships — however, I believe that the Russians do. Not sure about the Chinese.

A while back, the Iranians were making plywood scale models of US Aircraft Carriers — in the desert — which they then shot missiles at. This may be a product of that, with ocean photoshopped in.

Have you looked at any of the service-connected publications, e.g. Army Times, Naval Institute, etc? They might say "minor damage" when it wasn't, but I doubt they'd ignore it -- too many people who actually knew (enlisted) would expect them to have *something* about it if it happened.

[Krayt]

Conspiracies involving hundreds of people are inherently false by their own sheer weight.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How many people were involved in covering up Gulf of Tonkin and the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty?

[Frank Drackman]

Not enough obviously

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look, Israel (a) apologized and (b) paid damages for the USS Liberty -- they fucked up and they admitted it. Things like this happen in combat, happen with such frequency that there are international protocols, i.e. apologize and pay damages.

During Clinton's Bosnian Adventures, we accidentally bombed the French Embassy. The US apologized and paid damages...

[Bob from Ohio]

Chinese embassy.

[Estragon]

“During Clinton’s Bosnian Adventures, we accidentally bombed the French Embassy.”

I don’t make stuff up!

[Bob from Ohio]

We did bomb an embassy. The nationality is not the important detail.

[Estragon]

I bet it was to all the French embassy workers who weren’t bombed. And to the people who were.

It takes literally 2 seconds to confirm the details of something like this. What would you call the repeated reckless posting of factual assertions without care for their accuracy? I’m of the opinion it’s intentional. Why he continues to come to this ostensibly legal blog to do this day in, day out, I leave for the reader to contemplate.

Unfortunately, as for why you feel the need to defend it— I already know the answer to that one.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I already know the answer to that one."

Oh, another lib mind reader.

Too many here are needlessly cruel to him. I'm tired of it so am going to defend him when I can.

Just mute him if he offends you so much.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The Bob scale of cruelty:

Pinochet using widespread sexual violence to suppress dissent: A-Okay. Nothing wrong with that!

People making fun of a known
doofus online: Needlessly cruel!

[Estragon]

“Oh, another lib mind reader.”

No need for ESP— we have a decade of comments to look back on at this point. For you of all people to be bemoaning needless online cruelty is really rich.

[Estragon]

Reminds me of the time you were tone-policing the Buckley obit. Disingenuous doesn’t even begin to describe it.

[Estragon]

“Offends”

It don’t offend. Exasperate, maybe— but of course one has to weigh that against both the comedic value and the window into a really special kind of crazy

[Dr. Ed 2]

It appears that they fired at Ike but the ones that didn't go way off course were shot down.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/houthis-claim-to-launch-missile-attack-on-us-aircraft-carrier-in-red-sea/

[ThePublius]

My pick for Trump's VP pick: Donald Trump, Jr.

Discuss.

[Mr. Bumble]

Be serious.

[Ed Grinberg]

Wouldn't stop me from voting for him.

[Bob from Ohio]

That would be interesting. I wonder what the effect would be? Likely little imho.

He's more qualified than Harris at least.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You know you can just say that you agree with him on ideology instead of making the farcical claim that the disphit cokehead fail-son whose only job has been at his dad’s closely held company is more “qualified” than the former DA, state AG, US Senator, current VP for the job of VP.

[Bob from Ohio]

"disphit cokehead fail-son"

You just described Hunter.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay so? Doesn’t really matter if he is or not since no one wants him to exercise political power.

[bernard11]

Has anyone said Hunter would be a good VP pick?

Or can you just not resist making the dumbest, feeblest, most jackass-like response you can think of?

[BadLib]

That's setting the bar awfully low...

[Kazinski]

Nah, this isn't a monarchy.

[ThePublius]

What do you mean "nah," it's my pick, not yours.

[Moderation4ever]

This the Dumb and Dumber ticket. You loved the movie now have it in real life.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Trump is assassinated, this country is toast -- and the Dems want to see him dead.

Latest is a year in Riker's Island withOUT Secret Service Protection where he'd be dead inside 24 hours. The Revolution would start the next day.

[hobie]

I meant to ask in a stand-alone comment, but this will do:

Are you any of you only fans prepared to die for your feminine, orange Caligula?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

After you people murder Trump, you'll feel empowered to send your homo goons after my children or nig up my neighborhood.

That's probably a line for me. Immediate family safety, but who knows. Maybe there are others.

[Sarcastr0]

No one has talked like this in public for like 50 years.

Why you augment your already horrible politics with fake performative slut-making I do not understand.

[OtisAH]

When will you learn that dude has no politics? He doesn’t give shit about any of these topics, he doesn’t care about the details, and he really doesn’t care about your rebuttals. He’s an edgy edgelord sea lion whose only social interactions, like most of the misfits here, occur here at the conspiracy. And his only interest is getting you to reply to him all day, everyday.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You are such a genuine freak. Like it’s truly incredible.

[Kazinski]

Took me about a week to mute him, you must be slow.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Fuck-face, still stealing Valor? Some Hells Angels members are Veterans, might want to remember that

Frank

[not guilty]

I don't claim to speak for my fellow Democrats, but I want to see Donald Trump live a good many years. In prison. Whether he continues to receive Secret Service protection while locked up would be for Congress to decide.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what crimes would justify a "good many years" (in prison)?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Harming Our Sacred Democracy by trying to drain the swamp and bring peace to the world.

Democrats and DC can’t have either of those.

[Frank Drackman]

Cum in one hand and want in the other and see which gets sticky first (if you’re lucky)

[Kazinski]

Well the WhiteHouse is kind of a prison.

[apedad]

Your wet dreams are getting weirder.

[Moderation4ever]

What if Trump was assassinated by Melonia in a jealous rage over his affairs? Would the country still be toast?

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump is going to be assassinated by cancer?

[Frank Drackman]

She could assassinate me any day, it would have to be death by fellatio though

[Moderation4ever]

Trump is 77 and something will get him eventually. Could be cancer, heart disease, or a host of other things. Ben Franklin said it best, there is no escaping death or taxes.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks, allmighty MOTO(Master of the Obvious) You mean “45”’s not Immortal?? Dammit! Guess I’ll vote for Sleepy, whose birth date is closer to Lincoln’s Presidency than his own

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

For practical purposes the candidates are the same age. There is no reason to think one will outlive the other. This is a guess, but I think Joe Biden listens to his doctors and Donald Trump listens to his doctors as much as he listens to his lawyers.

[Jmaie]

Am I a bad person for visualizing (not wishing for, quite) a presidential debate featuring a gas leak?

[Mr. Bumble]

Biden will probably accommodate your wish by letting several rip.

[Bob from Ohio]

"practical purposes the candidates are the same age."

Your honor, 14 is for practical purposes the same as 18!

[Moderation4ever]

Talking about health and mental acuity a 14-year and an 18-year old are similar. Both are likely in transitional puberty and transition brain function. Socially they are different.

[bernard11]

Fuck you, Ed.

Find me a smidge of support fro your comment. And no, some random comment by some nothing imbecile who hapens to be a Democrat is not something "the Dems" want.

Must you spew this poison, these psychotic accusations?

[ReaderY]

It appears that Hamas managed to successfully boobytrap a command post near a refugee camp so that when a targeted Israeli airstrike hit the command post, the boobytrap created a much larger secondary incendiary explosion that started a fire in the refugee camp.

Success! Hamas’ strategy succeeded in getting dozens of Gazan civilians killed, and its shills have been milking this strategic kill success for all it’s worth and then some, loudly accusing Israel of deliberate genocide, ever since.

As Golda Meir put it, “there will be peace when they love their children more than they hate ours.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Kind of like the “hospital” strike.
Bullshit.

[Michael P]

"Boobytrap" implies an intention to kill enemies at that location. Is there evidence that that intended that? It seems more likely to me that they had a stockpile of munitions (presumably unknown to the Israelis) that cooked off in the blast.

I'm not sure we have a single word in English if the intention was to kill other Palestinians....

[Don Nico]

The Hamas strategy has been for large numbers of Gazans to be martyred.
That way the conscience of the world would turn against Israel. In the end Hamas would remain in power and Israel would be a pariah state.

[ReaderY]

[Krayt]

Last fall, the BBC inteviewed the leader of Hamas in Lebanon.

Interviewer: You plan to launch rockets from Lebanon in support. Israel has said ther would be a severe response. Aren't you concerned about civilian lives in Lebanon?

Response: Nope! Them's the breaks. That's on Israel!

It is part of their business model. It seems to be working.

[Davedave]

I don't know about direct intent, but if you think the Hamas leadership have any concern at all for Palestinians, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. They're paid Iranian agents, who are interested in money, not helping Palestinians.

[Gasman]

As Golda Meir put it, “there will be peace when they love their children more than they hate ours."

A classic method of demonizing the enemy. Similar to accusations of well poisoning, child murder libel, and other related tropes

The quiet part that Meir was speaking is still plain to hear.

[ReaderY]

One of the things that astonished me about the Trump trial is that Trump’s lawyers had a perfectly plausible legal defense. Politicians paying off mistresses has hardly been unprecedented in our history, yet has never historically been considered a campaign contribution. Yet they went instead for appeals to the base, denying anything had happened, portraying the prosecution as vindictive and corrupt, etc.

Did Trump want to get convicted with the idea that being convicted would help him politically? After all, Adolf Hitler was jailed after the abortive Munich putsch, and it doesn’t seem to have harmed his political career.

[ReaderY]

I also find Mr. Calabresi’s recent arguments really weird. It seems to me that there are perfectly sober, nonsensational arguments in Mr. Trump’s favor, particularly that there is a long history of American politicians paying off mistresses and nobody had ever thought to call it a campaign contribution before, so traditional legal principles like the rule of lenity, avoiding constitutional vagueness, and so forth ought to favor Mr. Trump.

Instead, not only does Mr. Calabresi not deploy what would strike me as Mr. Trump’s best arguments, he undermines them. I think Mr. Trump’s best arguments require establishing the idea that payments to a mistress are not campaign contributions. But Mr. Calabresi doubles down on the opposite position. Because he says payments to mistresses in exchange for silence most definitely are campaign contributions, the First Amendment protects politicians’ right to make them. By making an argument that is both itself legally spurious and completely undermines what strikes me as Mr. Trump’s best and most plausible defense, it’s almost like he is helping to get Mr. Trump’s conviction upheld, making his case to the court of popular opinion rather than the Court of Appeals.

[hobie]

Like with all Borg, the hive mind dictates they must parrot what the queen says: that nothing at all happened

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Kinda like how you do with any and all accusations against Trump? Parrot that they are pure and true?

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of like your military career

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

> I think Mr. Trump’s best arguments require establishing the idea that payments to a mistress are not campaign contributions.

No. The judge made it clear that the actual predicate crime was irrelevant, the jury just had to believe that some predicate crime had occurred.

There was no defense available related to predicate crimes.

[Krayt]

Not just a campaign contribution, but ostensibly from himself to himself. There is no tit for tat possible appearance of corruption there.

You can argue paying off a secret affair is of interest to the voters, but it’s hardly the reason for the law as the payment is not from some not-the-candidate to the candidate.

[Nige]

People act like it' s anyone's fault but Trump's when they argue that he stupidly committed felonies or other dumb crimes.

[not guilty]

"One of the things that astonished me about the Trump trial is that Trump’s lawyers had a perfectly plausible legal defense. Politicians paying off mistresses has hardly been unprecedented in our history, yet has never historically been considered a campaign contribution. Yet they went instead for appeals to the base, denying anything had happened, portraying the prosecution as vindictive and corrupt, etc."

Donald Trump was not prosecuted for paying off Stormy Daniels. The payoff was not the crime. Trump's falsification of business records in order to conceal Michael Cohen's six figure contribution to benefit Trump's campaign was the conduct charged.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

“to conceal Michael Cohen’s six figure contribution to benefit Trump’s campaign was the conduct charged.”

Uh, you’re making that part up. That was one of a potpurri of potential predicate crimes. None had to be demonstrated, only hinted at and suggested and asserted. Never proven. Or even allowed to be defended against.

I expect you’ll continue to lie about this and carry water for these corrupt villains, because that’s what you do. One of your elites does something, and you rush to defend and bootlick.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you believe Trump was charged with, if not covering up the Cohen-mediated payoff?

Formal charge, as indicted and convicted, no political dodging.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Covering up some possible criminal act. Of which that was one theory.

How on Earth do you not know the predicate crime that Obama/Biden, Bragg and Colangelo were relying upon was a grab bag of possibilities?

>Formal charge, as indicted and convicted, no political dodging.

His only formal charges were regarding record keeping, and there was no specific predicate crime in the charge, nor demonstrated in the court.

[Sarcastr0]

What was the misdemeanor charge that the crime coverup bit enhanced to a felony?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

A bookkeeping one? Do you really not know the very basics of this case? wtf?

[Sarcastr0]

So you're saying that the base charge was concealing Michael Cohen’s six figure contribution to benefit Trump’s campaign?

And that the potential concomitant crimes were something other than that?

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

Reader Y started this by saying "Politicians paying off mistresses has hardly been unprecedented in our history, yet has never historically been considered a campaign contribution."

If he's right, then Cohen didn't make a campaign contribution. In which case this option on the pick-your-underlier menu Bragg presented was invalid.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The John Edwards case supports that claim.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>So you’re saying that the base charge was concealing Michael Cohen’s six figure contribution to benefit Trump’s campaign?

No. Why can't you read and understand my words as I wrote them?

The "base charge" relied upon some amorphous hydra of possible crimes, none proven.

[Sarcastr0]

The misdemeanor charge is the base charge, and you keep sliding off what exactly it is.
It's falsifying records regarding Cohen’s payment to Stormy.

Your focus on the associated crimes required to make the base charge into a felony has you tied up in knots.

Not that understanding is really required for one such as you.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Your misdemeanor base charge had its statute of limitations expire.

My base charge is the one used by Bragg that elevated the expired misdemeanor into a felony.

It can't be done without a predicate crime, which was never proven only theorized about.

What has me tied up in knots is your and not guilty repeatedly lying about the facts of the case.

You are probably lying out of sheer ignorance. NG is doing so out of willful ignorance.

Prosecution theories are not facts. Especially ones that were never adjudicated in a court.

[Sarcastr0]

So you knew what I meant by base charge, ignored that and made up your own definition for base charge and didn't really let anyone know you'd switched terminology.

Or, you got confused and fucked up and are trying to cover with bluster.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wrong again.

Of course you are intentionally wrong and you will continue to assert one of the 3 prosecutor theories as of it were a proven fact.

Because that's what you're known for. Lying

[Kazinski]

Trump didn’t falsify any records, his controller wrote the checks based on the invoice he received from Cohen, and coded the journal entry also based on the invoices.

We also know that Trump didn’t micromanage the invoices because Cohen hid the 50,000 he admitted stealing in the invoices.

[Don Nico]

My impression was "corruptly influencing " an election.

[not guilty]

The crime intended to be concealed was Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law, which provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.

The prosecution argued three theories of what constituted "unlawful means" within the meaning of Section 17-152. Michael Cohen's contribution exceeding the $2,700 limit imposed by federal campaign finance law was one of such theories.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So you lied earlier like I said? You asserted as a fact something that was just one of 3 possibilities. None of which were ever proven.

Why haven't you corrected the record of your earlier lies?

False in uno or something or other, right?

[not guilty]

No, I haven't lied about anything. I simply gave greater detail in the more recent comment. Michael Cohen's exceeding the $2,700 cap on campaign contributions was part and parcel of the unlawful means by which he, Trump and others conspired to promote Trump's candidacy for president.

New York Election Law § 17-152 is a conspiracy statute. Cohen's six figure payoff to Stormy Daniels was both a freestanding crime (for which, among other offenses, Cohen went to prison) and an overt act in furtherance of the 17-152 conspiracy.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Weird how that was just one of Braggs/Colangelos theories that wasn't proven in court yet you assert it as if it were fact.

Was that the same interpretation the jury relied upon?

No one knows, except apparently you.

[David Nieporent]

wasn’t proven in court

I think you missed the jury verdict the other day.

[ReaderY]

It seems to me that all three theories require classifying the payment as acampaign contribution. If it isn’t compaign contribution, it isnmt limited to $2,700. Etc. So I don’t see that you are really refuting either my point that for the felony conviction to stand, these payments have to be classified as campaign contributions, or my point that this classification is potentially questionable.

[ReaderY]

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. But falsifying business records with the intent to commit and facilitate concealing another crime is a felony.

Trump was convicted of felonies, not misdemeanors. The other crime that Trump was convicted of having concealed was an illegal campaign contribution. So it was essential to conviction, and the People of New York had to establish, that the money paid to Stormy Daniels constituted an illegal campaign contribution. It was an absolutely central part of the case.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>The other crime that Trump was convicted of having concealed was an illegal campaign contribution.

Not true. That "other crime" was never proven, only speculated as to one of the theories.

>So it was essential to conviction, and the People of New York had to establish, that the money paid to Stormy Daniels constituted an illegal campaign contribution. It was an absolutely central part of the case.

Weird how that was never done. Isn't it? No other predicate crime was established.

[ReaderY]

It’s one thing to say you disagree with his conviction. It’s another to claim he was never convicted, that saying he was convicted is “not true.”

[jb]

Yes, the Trump defense was terrible. It seems like there's two claims that would plausibly provide a strong rebuttal to the prosecution's case:

1) That Trump didn't actually have any knowledge of the payments and the cover up in the false business records. This point relied almost completely on Cohen's testimony. A former federal prosecutor argues that the defense should have focused almost entirely on this point.

2) As you say, that the motivation was personal rather than campaign-related and therefore there was no second crime for the payments to abet or conceal. I think this is a harder argument because Pecker's testimony was really strong in establishing that the hush money was really focused on the campaign, but it's a much stronger argument that the sea of denials that they engaged in instead (e.g., that he didn't sleep with Stormy in the first place).

Would be interesting to hear from someone like not guilty as to how he'd have put on the defense as compared to Blanche. (Although most people seem to think that most of the strategy was dictated by Trump himself, in which case it's no surprise it's more bombastic than effective.)

[Martinned2]

1) That Trump didn’t actually have any knowledge of the payments and the cover up in the false business records. This point relied almost completely on Cohen’s testimony. A former federal prosecutor argues that the defense should have focused almost entirely on this point.

Yes, for example by putting Trump himself on the stand and having him say that he had no idea.

[Davedave]

Putting Trump on the stand has two problems: 1) it'd show up the mental deterioration and 2) it's likely he'd perjure himself in some very obvious way, and rack up further charges.

[jb]

That would obviously have been a terrible idea, but the defense could have just focused on the fact that Cohen's testimony was the only link to Trump's knowledge of the whole thing and that Cohen was a big liar.

Instead they tried to make the case that basically *everyone* was a liar. Stormy Daniels was a liar. David Pecker was a liar. Pecker, in particular, came off as very credible so if you're trying to make the same argument about him as about Cohen it really gets in the way of your own credibility.

[David Nieporent]

Agreed, but also — not to repeat myself — Costello was a horrible, horrible choice for impeaching Cohen. It played really well on MAGA social media ("Cohen's own lawyer says he's a liar!"), but not so much in the courtroom, where it was made clear that Costello wasn't Cohen's lawyer and didn't think he was a liar.

[Kenneth Almquist]

In closing arguments, the prosecution argued that Trump’s knowledge could be established by circumstantial evidence:

Trump didn't know about the reimbursement? It was all cooked up by Weisselberg and Cohen? That's crazy. Neither one of them had anywhere near that kind of authority. Even Weisselberg, the CFO, could only approve invoices up to
$10,000 ....

Let's play [out the defense theory].

Weisselberg and Cohen approve this reimbursement scheme all on their own. So, now it's April, whatever, and Mr. Trump gets his small stack of checks and invoices and he's flipping through and he's paying his $80 Verizon bill and he comes to a $35,000 check to Michael Cohen, the Personal Attorney to the President, the guy who is basically doing no work at all for Mr. Trump.

And there is no one else he works for, right, he's the Personal Attorney to the President. So whatever work he's doing, he's doing for the President....

What does Mr. Trump do at that moment, when he suddenly realizes we're paying this guy $35,000?

Does he pick up the phone and call Allen Weisselberg? Does he call Cohen and say why am I paying you $35,000 for nothing? No. He just signs it. Every month. And he never once picks up that phone. He never once make further inquiry....

Despite his frugality and his attention to detail, the defendant didn't ask any questions, because he already knew the answers.

The prosecution goes on to review witness testimony and excerpts from Trump’s books to support the claim about Trump’s frugality and attention to detail. This makes it essentially impossible to believe that Trump would sign a $35,000 check without verifying that the money should actually be paid. Most wealthy people would either put their Verizon bill on autopay or authorize someone else to pay the bill. Trump had someone print the check, but insisted on signing the check himself so he could verify he wasn’t overpaying.

In short, the prosecution made what strikes me as a very strong case for Trump’s knowledge without once mentioning Michael Cohen’s testimony. I agree that the defense didn’t do a great job of arguing its case, but if the evidence shows that your client is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, even the best defense is going to lose.

[not guilty]

"Would be interesting to hear from someone like not guilty as to how he’d have put on the defense as compared to Blanche. (Although most people seem to think that most of the strategy was dictated by Trump himself, in which case it’s no surprise it’s more bombastic than effective.)"

Renato Mariotti has some good points in the New York Times article that jb links. For example:

The prosecution had to prove that Mr. Trump knew about and caused — or at least was an accomplice in creating — the false business records. But at the time the records were created, Mr. Trump was in the White House. The defense could argue that Mr. Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, who has pleaded guilty to lying under oath and tax fraud, came up with that scheme on their own. Mr. Trump, his lawyers could argue, was focused on his role as president.

There was no point in cross-examining Stormy Daniels. She added very little to the prosecution's case.

If I were defending Donald Trump and had a free hand to conduct the defense, I would have argued that Trump did not intend to defraud anyone. The prosecution was required to prove both the actus reus and the mens rea as to each count of the indictment. I would have argued that the government had not produced evidence of a culpable mental state.

I would have asked for a jury instruction on misdemeanor falsification of business records in the second degree, and I would have emphasized that any theoretical problems with record keeping did not evince an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

[Kazinski]

That is very likely their only bite at Trumps Apple at least before the election. Trump's interlocutory appeal in his Georgia case was scheduled for October arguments.

I don't know whether that's Cannon's fault or Alito's.

[not guilty]

If I were conducting the Fulton County prosecution, I would move to sever the six defendants who are not before the Court of Appeals for a separate trial, and I would request that that trial begin on the Tuesday following Labor Day. Those six defendants have not waived their right to a speedy trial.

The full range of evidence of the RICO conspiracy and the overt acts in furtherance thereof could be offered, in that the acts of one conspirator are imputed to all coconspirators. In that John Eastman is one of the non-appealing defendants, the entire fraudulent elector scam can be laid bare, including the participation of Donald Trump and the other defendants.

[John F. Carr]

The Biden administration is patting itself on the back for quickly granting Ukraine permission to use some American weapons in a small part of Russia bordering Ukraine. Ukraine has been wanting such permission for two years.

[Don Nico]

Mr Biden is playing a dangerous game of chicken with Mr Putin that plays into the Russian military strategy of escalating to de-escalate and does so on the territory of Ukraine.
It would be fascinating to know the NSC discussions of the US reaction to a 1 kt nuclear explosion in Kyiv.

[Mr. Bumble]

It would be classified as a minor incursion.

[Krayt]

Don't you freakin' bomb Laos or Cambodia!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Mr Biden" vs. "President Trump" or "POTUS Trump"

Right-wing misfits are not adjusting well to their fate in the culture war.

Their coddling of Israel's right-wing war criminals and disdain for Ukraine are also precisely on-brand for a bunch of worthless conservative losers.

Carry on, clingers . . . but only so far as better Americans permit the culture war's deplorable casualties to do anything, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

You also think war with China is coming soon.

Have you considered your threat analysis is more Clancyfied than realistic?

[Don Nico]

"Have you considered your threat analysis is more Clancyfied than realistic?"
Have you ever taken the time to educate yourself about Russian military doctrine of the past 20 years? That has nothing to do with Clancy. Try reading The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States (October 2023). Then get back to me.

I did not say that war with China is coming. That is your gross distortion habit boiling over again. But I do what Japanese news on a daily basis and the view in the far East is quite different from your apparent imaginary ideas

[Sarcastr0]

I am a fan of the National Defense Strategy myself but it seems to align. Where are you getting your dire warnings of escalation with Russia from?

Your second-guessing the Secretary of Defense regarding strategic deterrence is noted. But you've been clancyposting about the dangers Russia as a way to go against Ukraine for over a year now.

You've not been shy posting motives here, and they are not concerns of the risks to the US, but a grudge against Ukraine.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Omg it's just so improper to question His Majesty King Secretary of Defense!

Given his highly successful track record for surrendering $80B in best in class warfighting gear to rock throwing child rapists and building a $500M pier to nowhere that provided lifesaving supplies to more rock throwers and child rapists for a good 2 to 3 hours that one time, he should be honored and respected!

[Sarcastr0]

Don cites to Congress but not any particular quote; he just tries to say 'I read big Defense Docs and so I'm informed' and then credential his opinion into validity.

Which is a bad way to be if you're coming against the conclusions of the DoD.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
You are just insulting and little more. I taught a course on the topic this semester. You actually know zip and continue with your ipse dixit.
And yes I have read many documents from the DOD and from other organizations such as the bulletin of the atomic scientists. I have had as guest lecturers Harvard faculty and a Us Ambassador involved in arms control negotiations, and A prominent DoD policy official.
I have no grudge against Ukraine, that is another of your lies.
You just have you ignorance and laziness to rely on and just lie, lie, lie.
I am NOT coming out against DoD policy which is dictated by the Administration. I am articulating what has been elaborated concerning the evolution of Russian nuclear doctrine. For as start for the references have a look at https://thebulletin.org/2024/02/escalating-to-de-escalate-with-nuclear-weapons-research-shows-its-a-particularly-bad-idea/.
I don't have time to waste trying to educate you. You just don't like contrary opinions and comments. Admit it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"second-guessing the Secretary of Defense regarding strategic deterrence"

Oh dear. A citizen second guesses an officeholder!

Cats and dogs living together!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Ukraine requested Javelins and Stingers before the full-scale war began when Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022. Initially, they didn’t receive the large quantities they wanted amid fears of escalation. Eventually, they received more, used them effectively, and then received even more. No nuclear war occurred.

After the battle of Kyiv was won, Ukraine requested MiG-29s, which Poland agreed to provide in exchange for Western fighters. The Biden administration blocked this initially, but later relented, and no nuclear war occurred.

Ukraine requested F-16 fighter jets to help protect its skies. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.

Ukraine requested Patriot missiles to defend against relentless Russian air attacks. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred. Many lives were saved.

Ukraine requested HIMARS rocket launchers, the advanced missile/artillery system, to attack Russian supply lines. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.

Ukraine requested Abrams tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles for trench warfare in the east. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.

Ukraine requested ATACMS missiles, with a range of about 190 miles, to attack Russian targets. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/opinions/biden-ukraine-russia-putin-nuclear-kinzinger-hodges/index.html

Shut the fuck up with your Putin propaganda.

[bernard11]

OK.

What do you think of Mike Johnson's behavior on the whole business of support for Ukraine?

If you want to criticize Biden for being slow, then maybe Johnson and the GOP lunatics who control him should come in for a bit of criticism also. No?

[John F. Carr]

I wish Johnson had supported aid from the beginning instead of dragging out the process for six months. I also think Democrats were right to back him up against a right wing revolt. He gave them something they wanted and it is doubtful that his replacement would be better.

I was thinking the Ukraine aid vote was like the usual game of budget chicken except the cost was people and homes instead of billions of dollars.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, obsolete academic veneer
— dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for America’s vestigial
bigots -- has operated for no more than

SEVENTEEN (13)

days without publishing at least
one explicit racial slur; it has
published racial slurs on at least

TWENTY-EIGHT (28)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 28 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 28 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
American legal thought by members
of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog's stale and ugly thinking, here is something better (Europe now; U.S. stadium tour start at the end of July).

Here is another preview from that tour.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones moments:

First, a tune played a few nights ago for the first time in 10 years, featuring some fine work from the original engine room (Bill and Charlie).

Next, a story of rape, murder, kisses, pajamas, pregnancy, children, curlers, and the voice.

An overlooked element of the Stones' mastery is their cultivation and incorporation of the best of others.

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

There’s been some argument about who RFK hurts more, Trump or Biden. Who knows, but it’s pretty clear which side is more afraid, judging from the behavior of Democrats with respect to his ballot access petitions.

The Nevada Secretary of State (elected Democrat) has ruled that the petitions he completed and submitted are invalid due to lack of a VP candidate listed in addition to RFK. This is despite the facts that:

1. The petition form, provided by the state, only has space for one name.
2. State law says that an independent candidate petition can not list more than one name.
3. The Secretary of State’s office told the RFK campaign they did NOT need to include a VP name.
4, The SoS doesn’t dispute (3) but says they made a mistake, so tough luck for relying on what they said.
5. Biden and Trump are given until August to name their VP candidates.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Democrats get to make up with their own rules and laws when it comes to Saving Our Sacred Democracy That Dies in Darkness.

Sacred Democracy is just too important.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah, I don't see how RFK Jr. hurts Trump.
I'd say the same thing about this guy:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/05/27/libertarian-party-chooses-nominee-supports-open-borders-drag-queen-story-hour/
He pledged to "end the genocide [in Gaza]" in his acceptance speech.
When he ran for Senate two years ago, he "noted his support for federal LGBTQ anti-discrimination protections..." (How libertarian!)
I don't see too many potential Trump-voters switching their votes to this guy.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, I don’t see how RFK Jr. hurts Trump.

Because they both appeal to crazy/stupid voters.

[Frank Drackman]

You shouldn't write off any demographic, crazy/stupid voters pay taxes like everyone else.

[BadLib]

RFK Jr. will draw mostly from those who are faced with the prospect of voting for the "lesser of two very evil evils" - not from Trump or Biden supporters.

Without RFK Jr., some of these people would just not have voted for anyone - but if they were voting anyway down ticket most of this pool would have picked either Biden or Trump (viewing any of the traditional third parties as being well established nuthouses and not realizing how much of a nut, albeit not in a nuthouse, RFK Jr. is).

With RFK Jr, some of these people will pick him as a protest vote. The question is how many of these would, in the absence of RFK Jr., have voted for Trump and how many for Biden.

Those pontificating in comment sections on legitimate news/opinion sites tend to be politically engaged and have fairly strong opinions. It would, however, be a grave mistake to assume that most voters fall in either of those categories.

[hobie]

I happen to be acquainted with a wealthy Texas super-donor and super-Trumper. Late last year he had RFK and some fellow Trump donors over to his ranch for a powwow. Make no mistake, Republicans are definitely RFK-curious precisely because of his anti-science bent.

[Frank Drackman]

Way to go Fuck-face, does this “Super Donor” lie about his military service like you do? The “Anti-Science” is on your side, maybe if you had to get Plague/Typhoid/Small Pox/Yellow Fever/Anthrax 0f those only Typhoid is routinely given to Non Military you’d be more open minded about side effects

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You sound like you're going full Calabresi, Drackman.

What happened to make you so cranky? Did a hear something about a black child receiving a school lunch, a gay person not being ridiculed by a police officer, a woman earning more than her husband, or a school teaching evolution?

[Frank Drackman]

I’ve treated more Black Children in 1 afternoon than you’ve molested in your whole life, hmm I think I just paid you a compliment. I’d like to believe in Evil-Lution but hard to cram all those missing species into 6000 years. The Arc simplifies things greatly(Noah had to keep telling the Rabbits “Only 2!”

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There is no way you treated 4,000 black children in one day.

That's not possible.

[Bob from Ohio]

"happen to be acquainted"

Is hauling manure really being "acquainted"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Just in case you have him muted:

Frank Drackman 28 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User

Way to go Fuck-face, does this “Super Donor” lie about his military service like you do? The “Anti-Science” is on your side, maybe if you had to get Plague/Typhoid/Small Pox/Yellow Fever/Anthrax 0f those only Typhoid is routinely given to Non Military you’d be more open minded about side effects

Frank

[hobie]

I don't know what he's on about. He seems to think I'm military, that the Rev is a football coach and that he himself practices medicine at the Free Clinic when not janitoring or masturbating

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, so someone who has no military experience is criticizing a combat veteran, like Orwell said ( and if he didn’t he should have) about the prospect of being hanged, being shot at in anger has a way of focusing one’s mind
My bad, it was Mark Twain
Frank

[Bwaaah]

Frank Drackman 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Oh, so someone who has no military experience is criticizing a combat veteran, like Orwell said ( and if he didn’t he should have) about the prospect of being hanged, being shot at in anger has a way of focusing one’s mind
My bad, it was Mark Twain
Frank

[Nige]

If you thought voting for Trump was degrading, here's someone volunteering as a Drackmanpuppet.

[Kazinski]

I have Frank muted because he never says anything substantive, and that's a perfect example why I don't need to read his posts.

If fact I see 5 consecutive grey posts in that block between David and Bob, and I'm not the least bit worried I missed anything.

[Frank Drackman]

You have me muted? Is that like Dean Wormer's Double Secret Probation? Does this mean we're not friends anymore? You know Ted, if I thought you weren't my friend... I just don't think I could bear it!

[Bwaaah]

LOL. Fun!

[Kazinski]

Well in Nevada Trump has a pretty substantial lead, so it may not matter, two polls of likely voters in may by the very respected Cook Political Report, an NYT Siena showed Trump up by 9 and 13% respectively.

It is true there was a RV Morning Consult poll which showed it tied a few weeks ago, but it had a margin of error of 5%, and the last Morning Consult poll in April had it Trump +8.

In any case I think the Dems underhandedly keeping RFKjr off the ballot may cost them more votes than letting him on.

Michigan is really the state to watch for the RFK effect, he is guaranteed ballot access, its definitely in play, and there is a large cohort of voters there that may well want to make a futile gesture at the ballot box to make a point for future elections.

Right now RFK is polling at 7 in the RCP composite, and in both the 2 way and 5 way races Trump and Biden are virtually tied.

Its kind of ironic that RFKsr was killed by a Palestinian, now his son is working hard for the Arab spoiler vote in Michigan.

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

Its kind of ironic that RFKsr was killed by a Palestinian, now his son is working hard for the Arab spoiler vote in Michigan.

What’s ironic about that? Perhaps he takes the view that his father was killed by Sirhan Sirhan, rather than by an entire ethnic group most of whom weren’t even born when his father was killed.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, he’s RFK Jr., so he takes the position that Sirhan Sirhan is innocent.

[loki13]

Or, at least, that he's not culpable.

The vaccines made him do it.

[hobie]

How do we know which RFK thoughts are his own and not those of the worm?

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

Wow, looked it up. I did not realize RFK Jr thinks Thane Eugene Cesar did it.

Thank you, I learned something.

[Estragon]

I encourage all would-be trump voters to keep talking about RFK at every possible opportunity. Tell your friends too!

[Kenneth Almquist]

2) The state law covering independent Presidential candidates (NRS 298.109) uses the singular to refer to the candidate, which implies that the a ballot petition can only list one Presidential candidate. It states explicitly that the petition “must also designate a nominee for Vice President.” Your claim is misleading because it seems intended to imply that state law prevents a petition from naming both a Presidential and a Vice Presidential candidate, when in fact the law requires it.[1]

3) An employee at the Secretary of State office screwed up here. On March 7, the Secretary of State sent a memo to all independent candidates explaining the requirements to get on the ballot, but the Kennedy campaign started collecting petitions earlier than that.

4) The Secretary of State has no ability to override the clear language of the statute. A little common sense would say not to place too much reliance on a legal interpretation from a random government employee who makes no claim to have ever been to law school. The Kennedy campaign would have been wise to hire a Nevada attorney to advise them on the law, or to rely on an official communications like the March 7 memo.

5) Nevada law has different requirements for nominees of political parties and independent candidates. That doesn’t give the Secretary of State a license to ignore the law pertaining to independent candidates.

1) You don’t link to the petition form provided by the state, so I’m a bit skeptical of this one. There is no statutory requirement to use a form provided by the state. The state might have provided a sample petition for use by independent candidates who were running for offices other than President. A sample petition intended to be used by non-Presidential candidates would not list a Vice-President.

[1] https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-298.html

[David Nieporent]

uses the singular to refer to the candidate, which implies that the a ballot petition can only list one Presidential candidate.

293.200(5) does more than imply. It says, "No petition of candidacy may contain the name of more than one candidate for each office to be filled."

The form is not the best designed; the problem is that it's not a president-specific form, but a form for any office. So it only has one line. But given that the law does in fact clearly say that a veep nominee must be listed, it was a screwup by RFK, and not — as ducksalad claimed — some sort of trickery by the Nevada Secretary of State. Moreover, the actual guide published by the Nevada SoS expressly says, "A sample petition is provided in the Appendix.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE DOES NOT APPROVE THE LEGALITY OF THE PETITION LANGUAGE OR THE PETITION FORM"

But here's a copy of the sample petition:

https://www.8newsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2024/04/Kennedy-NOI.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

Congratulations to Mexico's new President elect.
The first woman, Jewish president.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Gates of Toledo.

[Moderation4ever]

Something that the United States has yet to achieve. Our best is two Catholic Presidents and one black President.

[Frank Drackman]

You mean 1/2 Black, oh wait, the "One Drop Rule" even if Barry Hussein was only 1/1024th Black, he'd be "Black", got it.

[ThePublius]

Why is Obama black? He's 1/2 and 1/2, isn't he? Same as Tiger Woods - black, not Asian? Does it really just come down to appearance?

And why isn't Elon Musk African American?

[Nige]

Some zombie race shitposting shambling back into the discourse, I see.

[Frank Drackman]

Mazel Tov! I know, she's a lefty, it's May-He-Co, a Country with One (Government Owned) Gun Store, Serfs not allowed to own military calibers, which is the whole reason the Colt 1911 was chambered in 38 Super, funny that all of the AK's, M-16's, Pistols the Cartels use are chambered in military calibers.
Jews have a long history in May-he-co, arriving a 100 years before the Pilgrims landed a Plymouth Rock (it's that Jewish guilt thing, I always arrive a 100 years early)

Frank "2024?? dammit, the reservation is for 2124"

[bernard11]

Amen.

Maybe she can give the cartels a "potch in punim," which my mother constantly threatened, but never delivered.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

From what I can peace together from that police stabbing in Mannheim was that the Mohammedan invader attacked a German Patriot, then the police office tackled the White dude for defending himself against the Mohammedan.

The Mohammedan, in his blood rage, stabbed anyone White he could find, not realizing the police officer is going to subdue his victim so he could finish him off.

It's kinda like classic poetic justice and what the Left deserves. They deserve to suffer the fruits of their labors.

[Krayt]

Jesus would have had blond hair, not blonde, unless He were a girl. Though I’m not so sure how well a gendered word survives today.

He did have long hair.

[Frank Drackman]

According to Willie Nelson, who was probably there

[Ed Grinberg]

from Wikipedia:
Footage from the event showed the suspect ambushing people with a knife. A number of bystanders grappled with the suspect, but he managed to break free. The livestream showed that a police officer tried to quickly intervene, and tackled and restrained a bystander trying to subdue the suspect. The suspect then stabbed the police officer in the neck before getting non-fatally shot by another police officer.

[Bob from Ohio]

fatally stabbed

[Sarcastr0]

"One of the hottest games of the last year is Blood Rage. The epic war-game/euro pitting Viking clans against one another in a point-grabbing battle to the death is one of Eric Lang’s best to date"
https://www.boardgamersanonymous.com/episode-105-if-you-like-blood-rage-try/

Don't see anything about Mohammedans here, or even Muslims.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You should watch the video I was referring to instead of one of your faggy board games.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't do that thing where I watch gross videos of bloody death to wax my hate-boner.

[Frank Drackman]

"Mohammedan"?? Jesus, are you the real Jesus? I haven't heard that term in decades, and even then, used by old fuck Professors, who'd ask the one Indian (Joe Biden-7-11 variety) in the class if they were a "Mohammedan" ("Umm, no I am Hindu, please don't hold that against me! I can convert if required!")

Frank

[Krayt]

[Krayt]

[Frank Drackman]

I know the Revolting Reverend will bore us with more of his Stones Deep Tracks, but any Wilson Phillips fans out there? Carpenters? How about the Corrs(the Who? Play “Breathless” once and you’ll be humming it for weeks, you’ve been warned) Abba? Organist at Dodger Stadium would play “Fernando” when umm Fernando came to bat (remember pitchers batting?) Frankie Hot Tip of the day
Debbie Gibson(Debbie phase much better) “Electric Youth” (Atlantic 1988)play it backwards and you get retrograde Ejaculation(an actual ICD 10 condition)

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

Carpenters were great. Karen had the best voice in pop music.

[ThePublius]

I prefer Judith Durham.

[Mr. Bumble]

Worth a listen: I Know I'll Never Find Another You

and she was so very cute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=wZf41UudAbI&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F&feature=emb_logo

[Bob from Ohio]

"Judith Durham"

You might be right about that. Its a tough choice.

[ThePublius]

I agree. Karen was fabulous. I like many female vocalists. Judy Collins is another.

[Frank Drackman]

Good one, and while we’re “Down Under” ( get it?) what about Kylie Ménage-a-Trois (I like her version of the Locomotion better than the original) and the late Chrissy Amphlett of the Divinyls (I just “touched myself” thinking about it)

Frank

[Bwaaah]

For those of you who like vocal perfection: Voctave

[Dr. Ed 2]

Died from Anorexia if I am not mistaken -- sad.

[Kazinski]

Linda Ronstadt And the Stone Poneys

https://youtu.be/w9qsDgA1q8Y?feature=shared

[Frank Drackman]

I know I'm "Muted" but good one

[Bwaaah]

Frank Drackman 3 hours ago

I know I’m “Muted” but good one

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The soundtrack of Volokh Conspiracy fans seems to involve a lot of white people. Sometimes very bland white people.

If there is a theme song for this white, male, conservative blog, Pat Boone should sing it (with a melody pinched from Motown) and the Osmonds should be the dancers. Sponsored, of course, by a catheter company, a gold company, and a reverse mortgage company.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who knew the Stones were Knee-grows.

[ThePublius]

That's not fair, Arthur. I like a lot of white musicians, and a lot of black musicians, and I don't care what color they are.

I play sax. Most of my sax heroes are black. Most of my piano players, and band leaders, too.

Remember when I mentioned stride piano? Check out Fats Waller.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is retrograde ejaculation like when I give your ancient mom a facial? What's that called?

[Frank Drackman]

She is old, but one of the hottest 82 year olds out there, an age you're unlikely to reach with that attitude. Oh, it won't be me that leaves you in a shallow grave, but certain peoples don't take kindly to that. Moms are off limits, violate at your own peril

Frank

[Guten]

Why was Trump charged for felonies and not misdemeanors?

[OtisAH]

Listen, if you still don’t understand the issues after months and months of this being explained here and all across the internet, repeatedly, hundreds to thousands of times a day, every day, why should anyone bother explaining it to you now?

Hell, there are dozens of such explanations on this single open thread. Yesterday, too. Tomorrow for sure. And you, plus all the regular dipshits, still can’t figure it out. Just bathe in blissful ignorance and leave all this thinking stuff to others.

[Frank Drackman]

You don’t know either obviously

[Guten]

Thanks for the response. I'm a non-lawyer trying to get an educated response from lawyers to better understand the situation at hand.

[Kenneth Almquist]

New York law has two variants of the crime of falsifying business records. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony. Falsifying business records in the second degree is a misdemeanor.

Often, when an individual is charged with falsifying business records in the first degree, the jury will have the option of finding the defend guilty of the crime charged, guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree, or not guilty.

In the case against Trump, the statute of limitations had expired on the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, so he could not be convicted of that crime. Therefore, the only options given to the jury were to find Trump guilty of the crime charged (falsifying business records in the first degree) or finding him not guilty.

[not guilty]

Team Trump had the option of requesting that the jury be charged with misdemeanor falsifying business records in the second degree as a lesser offense, which would have waived the statute of limitations.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Guten, I think Otis is being a little harsh here but there really is no impediment to understanding the case except time and effort. At some level, there are multiple sources on TV and on-line - lawyers trying to explain their take on things to an overwhelmingly non-lawyer audience.
It really only takes an investment of a moderate amount of time to grasp the basics.

[Guten]

Thanks.

[Kazinski]

Because Bragg wanted to charge him with a felony and thought with the right judge and jury he could make it stick.

After campaigning of getting Trump, a misdemeanor wasn't going to cut it.

[OtisAH]

Huh, “2000 Mules” was all bullshit? Who could’ve this coming?! From the NYT:

“The conservative media company Salem Media Group has apologized to a Georgia man who was falsely depicted as having committed election fraud in the film 2,000 Mules, which Salem co-produced and released in 2022 . . .

“The film features surveillance video of the man from Georgia, Mark Andrews, as he places ballots into a drop box near Atlanta, along with voice-over commentary by Mr. D’Souza calling the action “a crime” and adding, ‘These are fraudulent votes.’ . . .

Mr. Andrews sued Mr. D’Souza, along with Salem and two individuals associated with the right-wing election-monitoring group True the Vote, for defamation in October 2022. State investigators in Georgia have since found that Mr. Andrews committed no crime and that he had legally deposited the ballots for himself and several members of his family.

“‘It was never our intent that the publication of the ‘2,000 Mules’ film and book would harm Mr. Andrews,’ Salem said in a statement on Friday. ‘We apologize for the hurt the inclusion of Mr. Andrews’s image in the movie, book and promotional materials have caused Mr. Andrews and his family.’

“Salem, one of the largest radio broadcasters in the country, with 115 stations, also syndicates radio and podcast content, operates several websites and publishes a number of conservative Christian-themed magazines. It said on Friday that it had taken ‘2,000 Mules’ off its platforms and that it would no longer distribute the film and the book.”

================

My favorite part: “‘It was never our intent that the publication of the ‘2,000 Mules’ film and book would harm Mr. Andrews,’ Salem said in a statement on Friday.”

That’s probably the “reckless disregard” portion of the matter.

[Moderation4ever]

Thanks for mentioning this case. I am sick in tire of hearing about Donald Trump being picked on when we have real examples of people whose lives were affected by Trump whiny that he did not get reelected. So much sympathy for a man who has none for the others he threw under the bus.

[Frank Drackman]

Of course you’re sick, you’re in a Tire!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>State investigators in Georgia have since found that Mr. Andrews committed no crime and that he had legally deposited the ballots for himself and several members of his family.

An absolute impossibility since there is zero chain of custody.

You guys believe this obvious nonsense because your worldview demands you continually accept as true things that cannot be.

[Moderation4ever]

But there is chain of custody. Your mistake here is assuming that there is a defined standard for chain of custody and that is not true. Chain of custody is defined for the project. Mail in ballots must be sealed and have the require signatures and addresses to be accepted. That is the required level of chain of custody. Mr. Andrew did nothing different than if he had placed the ballots in his mailbox for the mailperson to pick up for delivery.

[Bob from Ohio]

How does anyone know what ballots he placed in the box?

[Moderation4ever]

Well let's start with the incident was investigated and no problem were found. The fact is that the ballots would be from registered voters and so would match up to the voter list. The fact has been shown again that mail in or dropped off ballots are no more likely to be fraud that in person voting.

[Bob from Ohio]

Lots of words to dance around the question.

[Estragon]

Bob on his white horse, defending Ed and Dinesh from “unwarranted online cruelty.”

Oh sorry, I meant convicted felon Dinesh. Maybe it’s a badge of honor these days…

[bernard11]

Wait, Bob.

Isn't it the job of the accusers to prove their case?

Seems like a simple and obviously rule. Are you really suggesting that, absent any evidence otherwise, the guy has to show the ballots were legitimate?

Sounds to me like Salem and D'souza are just trying to dodge major libel damages.

[John F. Carr]

In news from last month, British prosecutors have a tool to calculate the value of a tree for use in criminal prosecutions. AP reports

A prosecutor said the value of the roughly 150-year-old beloved tree that was toppled onto Hadrian’s Wall in northern England last year exceeded 620,000 pounds ($785,000). ... The prosecutor said the tree was evaluated using a tool to calculate the cost of replacing a significant public tree that considers its size, the quality of its crown and canopy, and the number of people who could visit it. Prosecutors also took into account the “serious distress” and economic consequences and social damage, [prosecutor Rebecca] Brown said.

In America the value of a tree may be based on lumber or replacement value depending on the circumstances. I have never heard of distress or social damage being used. In my state the owner of an illegally cut tree is ordinarily entitled to triple damages.

[Mr. Bumble]

What is the value of the Joshua trees being removed for a solar farm?

[Davedave]

Broadly speaking, the way the value of a tree is calculated is to look at what it would cost to buy a replacement tree (and transplant it). People can and do sell mature (live) trees for transplantation.

[Martinned2]

This particular tree was useful for much more than just lumber, so it makes sense that any valuation methodology would take that into account.

[John F. Carr]

In America the dollar value of a tree could be the cost of new a tree instead of lumber. Like the dollar value of a dead pet is the cost of a replacement.

Once in a while in America we get a story about somebody who cut down trees for a better view and went past his property line onto a neighbor's lot. Folks on the internet are gleeful about the high cost of replacing the neighbor's trees. Mature trees can be expensive. The internet also loses interest after the initial schadenfreude and I don't know how much money the tree cutters ended up paying.

[Kazinski]

I wondered on what basis they decided that laying rubber on a Pride Crosswalk was a felony.

https://thepostmillennial.com/police-vow-to-find-violator-who-did-donuts-on-pride-crosswalk-in-florida

$1100 in damages in two unrelated incidents seems, a little flimsy, although they may have a hurt feelings multiplier metric.

[Nige]

The real question, of course, is why there was only the one fucking tree.

[bernard11]

Kind of a silly complaint, isn't it, John?

A tree can have considerable value over and above its commodity value as a chunk of wood.

[John F. Carr]

If they want to prosecute for vandalism, fine. If they want to calculate a monetary value down to the pound based on intangibles, for use in a criminal proceeding, that's silly.

[Martinned2]

That depends on how much of a difference it makes. This particular tree wasn't there for the firewood. It was never intended that it would ever be cut down. Your argument is like valuing a shipment of baseball bats by their lumber value.

[loki13]

So, it's summer!

What is everyone drinking this summer?

Beer, Light Booze, and Cocktail?

I'll start with my three-

Beer: Allagash White. Good summer drinkin' when you want something more than a Corona.

Light Booze: Cynar Spritz. Aperol Spritzes are way too sweet and overplayed. Try this instead. 3 parts prosecco : 2 parts Cynar : 1 part soda.

Cocktail: Rum old fashioned. But with good rum. Why? Because bourbon is for winter, and rum is for summer!

[Mr. Bumble]

Good rum straight up.

A spiked watermelon.

[loki13]

Good rum, straight up, is hard to beat.

Have any particular bottles you are partial to? Do you like the funkier rums?

[Mr. Bumble]

I’m nursing a bottle of pre-Castro rum my grandparents brought back from a trip to Cuba in the late 50’s. Name escapes me because I have it stashed away.

[Sarcastr0]

Never had the palate for a lot of drinking, but been dipping my toe in lately.

Beer - sours and brown ales.

Light booze - N/A

Cocktail - bloody marys

[Frank Drackman]

Only drink Old Fashioneds and (real) Martinis, you can’t improve on perfection and a Dos Equis chaser, yes I see myself as Don Draper/James Bond, and Jim Morison (the Lizard King didn’t always drink Beer, but when he did it was Dos Equis)
Frank “Mother? I want to….
Wish you a happy Mother’s Day, all day long baby!

[loki13]

Assume by real martinis, you mean gin?

In which case, I agree!

[Frank Drackman]

Of course, and it has to be Gilbey's (actually I use "Mr. Boston" in a Gilbey's bottle, the Gilbey's I put in the "Mr. Boston" bottle, nobody seems to notice)

Frank

[loki13]

I like the occasional bloody mary, mostly because the tomato juice fools me into thinking it is healthy. Has to be spicy, though!

The one thing I don't like is the modern trend of restaurants that put an entire plate of food on top of the bloody mary. I wanted a drink, not a five-course meal.

[Sarcastr0]

I like the alchemy of trying to make my own.

I actually find the best booze to use isn't vodka, it's something smokier. Currently experimenting with pechuga mezcal.

[loki13]

I enjoy mezcal, so I'll have to give that a try!

[OtisAH]

That’s called a “Mezcal Bloody Maria.”

[hobie]

Took a recent solo trip to Oaxaca. Every little tienda, no matter what the goods, had their own homemade mescal...usually stored in plastic water bottles under the counter. Oh my lord the smoothness! All of them!

[Estragon]

I have wildly vacillated on this but have come around (sort of) to your point of view on the BMs.

I live in a “foodie” town so every bloody bloody around here has fuckin elk jerky and stinging nettle vodka and pickled turnips and on and on… it’s too much. Hear me out now:

The pinnacle Bloody Mary experience is actually a Mr. and Mrs. T’s with Tito’s served on an airplane. Anything else is unnecessary and even offensive. I could be talked into a lime wedge, MAYBE. But no further.

[Ridgeway]

One of my favorite beers is a Kristall (as opposed to Hefe) Weizenbier. It feels lighter than a standard hefeweizen, and should be served cold, so it is particularly nice in summer.

They are not common in the US -- the main brand I see is Weihenstefaner -- but pick some up if you can.

If you happen to be in Germany, they are much more common.

[Moderation4ever]

Summertime cocktails should be Gin based. Like Gin and Tonic or Pimm's Cup.

[Mr. Bumble]

How anyone (you and Loki here) can manage gin is beyond me.

[Estragon]

One gin should be manageable for any kind of decent drinker. I do try never to go beyond 2 in any particular evening; that said— if you go to London to Dukes Bar they will bring the martini trolley around and that is an experience!

It is true that some people seem to tolerate it better than others. Please drink responsibly!

[Mr. Bumble]

Can't get past the smell but that's me. Drinking responsibly seems not to be too favored lately.
Growing up in the 50's I can remember the adults drinking at parties and picnics and no one was ever sloshed. Heck, we were even allowed to have a swig of beer or some wine (usually mixed with some soda) or maybe a taste of a mixed drink (sours were popular back the).Now, for too many, it's like college binge drinking.

[Moderation4ever]

And just for the record, James Bond's Vesper Martini does have Gin and lots of it.

Vesper Martini as defined by Ian Fleming
3 ounces gin
1 ounce vodka
1/2 ounce Lillet blanc aperitif
Garnish: lemon twist

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe we all should talk about drinking more often. Everybody seems so mellow.

[Frank Drackman]

Gilbey's in a Mr. Boston bottle, and like in Nascar, if you ain't rubbin, you ain't racin, in Drinking if you don't have a headache the next day you aren't doing it right.

Frank "Shaken, not Stirred"

[Kazinski]

Summer I often drink cider.

I make my own, and don't even bottle or keg it.

I have a 5 gallon bucket with a spigot and lid. Costco sometimes has pure apple juice not from concentrate, without preservatives (make sure there are no preservatives in your apple juice because it will kill your yeast). I put 4 or 5 gallons of apple juice in the fermenter, throw in a packet of champagne yeast when I want a super dry French style cidre brut, or red star distillers yeast for a more American style cider, or a cider yeast.

Then after week to 10 days Its ready and about 5.5-6% depending on how sweet your apple juice is to start, and you can bottle it to preserve the carbonation but make sure its completely fermented or you will have exploding bottles. Since I brew beer I have specific gravity float so I can tell how much sugar is left, but that isn't necessary if you don't bottle it, you can just go by taste. In fact I usually start drinking it within 4 days, its just slightly sweeter and lower alcohol and it will continue to ferment at room temperature.

You can do smaller batches in a 2 gallon ice tea jug with a spigot. But it is important to have a spigot at the bottom so you can let the yeast settle at the bottom and leave it undisturbed when you dispense it.

I just fill my glass or pitcher out of the spigot, and don't worry about keeping it carbonated. 5 gallons of apple juice makes about 2 cases worth. And I've never had it go bad before I finished a batch, the co2 in the fermenter, and the 6% alcohol keeps it from spoiling, although I suppose it could happen, so better drink it or refrigerate it within 30-45 days, which isn't a problem for me.

[Frank Drackman]

Amazing that (Dr) Martin Luther King Jr got a fairer Trial in 1960 Alabama than “45” got in 2024 Manhattan. MLK was charged with multiple tax felonies, all White Jury, and Acquitted. Of course this is a Legal Blog and it takes a I-ANAL Doctor to bring it up

Frank “I have a Scheme”

[Bwaaah]

Excellent article by Shaun Maguire (a partner at Sequoia Capital) explaining why he has shifted from being a pro-abortion, Hillary supporter to a Trump supporter (and still pro-abortion). Many of his points echo my own sentiments and evolution to a similar position (without having that kind of money to donate).

Shaun Maguire: I just donated $300k to Trump

[Martinned2]

So the guy blames Biden for implementing Trump's deal with the Taliban, and that's why he won't vote for Biden?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Biden's Afghan withdrawal disaster was Trump's fault?

You people are deranged lunatics.

[Kazinski]

You may think its dumb but he was a Darpa contractor deployed to Afghanistan, so I think he's earned the right to form his own opinion, and excuse me for suggesting its probably a more well informed opinion than yours.

His main criticism seems to be that Biden abandoning Bagram Air base which was defensible and staging the evacuation from Kabul.

You might at tell us about your own experiences going in and out of Bagram, and why Maguire is offbase.

And it wasn't Trumps plan to stage the evacuation from Kabul, it was Joe's and he overrode the Generals to implement it.

[Nige]

Yeah, as a military contractor, he was one of the only groups of people the long useless wasteful slog of the war was supposed to benefit, no wonder he pissed.

[jb]

That piece was really dumb, starting with the point that Martinned2 makes below.

But as a general rule, if someone is only responding to the worst versions of an argument, it's hard to take the discussion seriously. Beyond the Afghanistan thing, the rest of the piece is basically just a regurgitation of Fox News talking points that I can't imagine are going to be persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with him.

[Sarcastr0]

It's weird how much people who are just now deciding to vote for Trump sound exactly like dyed in the wool Breitbart reading Tucker watching Hillary hating MAGA.

Bwaah's been resenting DEI stuff and defending Trump's legal issues on here like he was born MAGA.

[Balisane]

The fact that 96% of Democrats think Trump got a fair trial is very telling of the way the modern Democrap piece of shit thinks

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The dependent class of Democrats gobble whatever shiite their elites tell them to.

[Balisane]

They certainly love gobbling Biden's male excretions.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"Your chiIdren will LOVE us!"
"Your chiIdren will JOIN US!"

Heard today at a Pr*de event.

Echoes of the Recruit Recruit Recruit chants they used to do at earlier homo marches.

[Bwaaah]

Disclaimer: I’m quite comfortable with a wide spectrum of sexuality, and suspect I have big differences with JeyHay regarding this matter. (Drag doesn't bother me in the least.)

That said, here is what JeyHay is talking about.

I’ll leave Nigecastr0 to attack anybody who thinks that’s a freak show (which I guess would include me).

[apedad]

Why should anyone attack anyone?

Bigots have rights too (sorry for the steal Rev K!).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

As big a freak show as a faith healing exhibition, a rattlesnake-juggling exhibition, a backwater gun bash, a tongues-speaking exhibition, or whatever else it is that half-educated, superstitious yokels do in our desolate, can't-keep-up conservative communities?

[Sarcastr0]

Think what you want; I’m not attending any pride parades myself.

But I’m also not hate-attending them like Jesus up there seems to be.

We all can have our private judgements, but 1) Don’t share your private thoughts where they’ll just cause a fight, that’s being a dick, and 2) don’t advocate for laws to take away rights based on who you think are ‘freaks.’

I also find it funny how you've started to conflate me and Nige. You do realize how different our politics are, don't you?
Nige is truly on the left; I'm a much more boring institutionalist liberal.
We just both hate bad arguments.

[Bwaaah]

I do see big differences between you and Nige with respect to political perspective (and even argument structure).

But you both almost reflexively argue against anything presented by a person you deem “MAGA” (a.k.a. Republican, right-winger, anti-Democrat). I say “almost” because you occasionally don’t don’t that. Nige is quite literally bot-like.

You dispute pretty much any argument presented by that which you perceive to be the political right, regardless of whether it is a reasonable or unreasonable argument. If you disagree with this statement, then you probably don’t differentiate between a bad argument and an argument with which you disagree. They are not the same, to me.

Calling you “Nigecastr0” is at least a clearly limited slur. Calling me “MAGA” is not.

Anyway, you dependably oppose just about anything I say, as does Nige.

[Sarcastr0]

This is confirmation bias.

You don't see me posting much in gun threads, except about how Bruen is bad originalism. I think there's an individual right to self defense that includes keeping and bearing. I also don't really care to get into what the definition of an assault rifle is.

In areas where I don't care, I don't post. You're the one filling in the blanks and finding some blanket reactionaryism. Which is rich coming from a Trump voter.

I disagree with bad arguments. You make lots of them. If you make an argument that isn't bad, I'll probably just leave it lie.

[Nige]

'But you both almost reflexively argue against anything presented by a person you deem “MAGA”'

We disagree with people we disagree with: Bwaaah shocked and horrified at such unfair behaviour.

'Nige is quite literally bot-like.'

This is funny because you're plagiarising Drackman who plagiarised me mocking him.

'You dispute pretty much any argument presented by that which you perceive to be the political right'

You claim that we base out disagreeement on the alignment of the person making the argument rather than the argument. I mean, correlation ain't causation or anything but people of different political alignements disagreeing? Film at eleven etc.

'Calling you “Nigecastr0” is at least a clearly limited slur.'

Keep trying. You might hit Trump level of boring shitty nicknames as a substitute for substance.

'Anyway, you dependably oppose just about anything I say, as does Nige.'

And you spend all your time ranting and raving about our sheer cheek in disagreeing with you, and never expound a single syllable in defending any of the admittedly dumb shit you say.

[bernard11]

I dispute, or at least don't credit, most arguments coming from the MAGA crowd.

It's a useful heuristic. I mean, the arguments have so often proven to be clearly invalid, the "facts" false or wildly distorted, that I don't want to spend time checking things out, as I used to do.

Am I supposed to investigate everything Dr. Ed or Armchair says? Am I supposed to analyze Bob's logic and morality? Sure, I might be wrong to reject all that sometimes, but it will be seldom.

When some of your allies start to demonstrate a bit of integrity in what they post I'll consider the arguments. Until then I'll just assume they are full of shit.

[Bwaaah]

The heuristic I challenge is one that says that if you would vote for DJT, then you are "MAGA." That heuristic is widely employed here, to me, for example. When I advance an argument, I often get *not* a response to my argument, but a response to standard MAGA arguments related only to the topic of the discussion, but not the particulars.

I call this behavior, broadly speaking, "groupism." It's widely represented here, and tends to turn attempts at actual discourse into replays of the same old same-old.

I dispute the usefulness of the "MAGA" paradigm as a way to identify people. Dr. Ed, Armchair and Bob appear to have distinctly different perspectives, even if they typically come up on the "same side" of an argument. That notion of "sides" is highly simplistic and reductive, and a convenient distortion as such.

To your point about the inefficiency of investigating every claim, I would argue that the benefit of presumptive dismissal should be assigned person by person, as each one shows their credibility or lack thereof. But such a simple shibboleth as "Would you consider voting for DJT?" should not be considered a valid determinant of credibility, as I can assure you that it doesn't establish one's affinity to so-called MAGA ideology.

[Nige]

'“Would you consider voting for DJT?” should not be considered a valid determinant of credibility, as I can assure you that it doesn’t establish one’s affinity to so-called MAGA ideology.'

There's sufficent affinity to vote for him. You seem to be completely unaware how you all end up saying the same things, with minor variations. We don't have to distinguish anything - we just have to note that the same arguments, statements and assertions all emerge over and over.

[Bwaaah]

“We don’t have to distinguish anything.

Who is the “we” for whom you purport to speak, Nige?

Anybody who is comfortable saying Nige speaks for them, please weigh in here with a simple “I am comfortable with Nige speaking for me.”

[Nige]

Why are you so offended at the possibility that more than one person here notices that the Trump voters sooner or later all bring up the same dumb shit?

[Bwaaah]

You speak for yourself, but in your typical fashion of overreach, purport to speak for others.

They, They, They, Nige. They, They, They.

Typical unresponsive, irresponsible, speculative nothing.

[Nige]

Y'know, if you have anything to actually say to distinguish yourself from MAGAs you're really not saying it. I've never seen you respond to anything substantive with anything other than an attack on the commenter. Or a long boring diatribe about how unfair it is that people treat you, a Trump voter, as if you're some sort of mere Trump voter!

[Nige]

'Nige is truly on the left;'

I mean, climate change is real and we should be bending every effort to mitigate and reverse its effects, healthcare should be free, cops should be accountable to civic powers and not para-military forces, tax billionaires and slash military spending with an axe. Does that make me truly on the left?

[Bwaaah]

“Nige is truly on the left”

That one took me by surprise. I think it was very poor wording, as if to suggest that he (Sarc) *isn’t* truly on the left, which is obviously not so.

I think what he meant is that you are farther left than him (although I don’t specifically endorse that assertion here), and for the sake of differentiating himself, he unintentionally threw all of the left under the bus (so to speak).

That was more of a misstatement about himself than about you. No offense intended here, but it seemed to disparage the left as a whole, which coming from him, is difficult to reconcile.

[Nige]

It only disparaged the rest of the left to the extent that he does not quite share their views, in which case he shares the disparagement each person holds for views not their own.

[ThePublius]

Why can't we have big bills? Like, 1,000 dollar bills, 500 dollar bills?

I know they supposedly ended them to somehow thwart organized crime, but it's ridiculous. Crooks and drug dealers use venmo, cashapp, and similar apps.

Today I needed $3,500 in cash. That should have three thousands and one five hundred. Instead, because it was all they had on hand, I ended up with 40 fifties and fifteen hundreds. A pain in the ass to carry and to count.

We are being treated like children by the government.

[Frank Drackman]

Georgia Lottery has a Commercial for one of their cash games, with a couple in an expensive high end restaurant, Waiter takes cash with reluctance, tries to swipe it in the CC machine "It's not swiping!"(said in a lilting gay accent) Matre' D returns the cash "I'm sorry sir, we can't take your very well done collection of Presidential Portraits as payment"
Paid for my ZO6 with cash, all Benjamins, felt like Jules in Pulp Fiction carrying it in a Briefcase.

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

I can't remember the last time I paid for something in cash—certainly before COVID, and I'd guess more like ~2015? There was one restaurant I liked that used to require it, but they switched a while ago.

If anything, the government should be phasing out more bills.

[bernard11]

Why can’t we have big bills? Like, 1,000 dollar bills, 500 dollar bills?

Because their usefulness for ordinary commerce is small relative to the cost of printing them?

[Roger S]

Europe has 500 euro notes. Yes, we should have $500 notes, with Ronald Reagan's image on the front.

[ThePublius]

And Trump on the $1,000 bill! Ha, ha.

[Frank Drackman]

Could happen, certainly won't ever be Joe. $1,000 isn't that much anymore, I routinely carry that much, according to Inflation Calculators $1,000 in 2024 dollars is the same as $97 from the year I was born, $1,000 bills would be as useful today as Benjamins were in 1962

[Frank Drackman]

Could happen, certainly won’t ever be Joe. $1,000 isn’t that much anymore, I routinely carry that much, according to Inflation Calculators $1,000 in 2024 dollars is the same as $97 from the year I was born, $1,000 bills would be as useful today as Benjamins were in 1962

[Estragon]

A comment so nice, you posted it twice. Before any of that happens we’re going to get Tubman on the $20s… can’t wait for the existential freakout about that!

[Frank Drackman]

Lets see, 8 years of William Juffuhson, 8 of Barry Hussein Osama, and now Sleepy Joe in his 4th year, go ahead and do it already! and maybe Jimme "JJ" Walker for the Dollar? I've heard the guy on the current bill owned a few Slaves, actually so did the guys on the 2$ and 50$

Frank

[Kazinski]

I'm all for putting a Republican woman gun owner on the 20$ bill.

[Martinned2]

They are still legal tender, but no central bank has issued a €500 note since 2019. Here in the UK the highest denomination is £50, and I honestly don't think I've ever seen one in 10+ years of living here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Think of how much easier it would have been for Obola to send $400 million to the mullahs.

[ThePublius]

" £50, and I honestly don’t think I’ve ever seen one in 10+ years of living here."

Really? Wow. I carry 50's and 100's so my wallet isn't so fat.

[Martinned2]

I generally don't carry cash at all, since I only use it for my dry cleaner, for the people who come to clean my house every once in a while, and for getting a haircut (depending on which hairdresser I go to).

But at least Nigel Farage is going to protect our sacred right to pay with cash! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTlYmgGDvtM

[Frank Drackman]

Which is why the wait staff spit in your food. Tipping with a Credit Card goes straight to the management, who may or may not throw a few crumbs to the waiter/waitress. Even if they do it’s on paper so they have to pay Uncle Sam his whole Vig, you tip cash like I do and it’s up to them what they report.
OTOH I don't tip a Barber (your "Hair Dresser"?? I think the Pope has a term for men who go to Hair Dressers) because I cut my own hair, not that hard when you have as little hair as I do, do it the same way my Mom used to, (she used a Bowl, I use a baseball cap now) when she'd do my Moe Howard "Bowl Cut"

Frank

[Bwaaah]

For all who insisted there was nothing Biden could do about border crossings for “asylum” seekers…that he was just following the law…there’s news.

Biden prepares a tough executive order that would shut down asylum after 2,500 migrants arrive a day

The same people called Republicans “hypocrites” when they voted down a “compromise” that would have “shut down the border” after 5,000 crossings per day. Now, in an executive action obviously intended to try to rescue a reelection attempt, the report says he’s unilaterally (without any congressional action) taking it down to 2,500.

Democrats. Laws. Principles. Something. Something. Something.

[Sarcastr0]

First, it’s pretty bad to prejudge asylum seekers as a class, much less to use cutesy scare quotes to do it.

Second, this is a strawman. I’ve seen no one say Biden can’t change asylum policy, just that he doesn’t need to.

It’s the anti-illegal (mostly nativist) crowd who insist that Biden’s breaking the law based on dedicated ignorance of discretion and immigration law.

[Frank Drackman]

"Anti-Illegal"??
let's see, double negative, so you mean "Legal" AKA "Law Abiding"
Now who's the Idiot who doesn't talk good Engrish???

Frank "I absolutely won't refuse to disagree with whatever you agree is disagreeable, Agreed??"

[Bwaaah]

"“I absolutely won’t refuse to disagree with whatever you agree is disagreeable, Agreed??”

LOL. I tried to get it, and ended up with my head up my ass.

[Bwaaah]

That which you call "scare quotes" are terms I am using which I expect to mean very different things to different people. To leave out the quotes and pretend that I am speaking clearly with those terms would be quite misleading.

For example, it's a practical myth that you can "shut down the border," even though that expression is used widely. That which was previously called a "compromise" offer of 5,000 people per day was a genuine compromise to some, but a notably uncompromising offer to others. "Asylum" seekers, in so many cases, are as legitimate as "medical" marijuana users, which is to say that I wouldn't need scare quotes if we could just call them government legitimized aliens and government legitimized pot smokers (more recently, cannabis users).

[jb]

I don't get it. You're mad because he's doing the thing that you want him to do?

[Bwaaah]

No. Why would that make me mad?

(I do wonder where an arbitrary number of 2,500 comes from, as opposed to any more than we can competently process per day.)

[Sarcastr0]

Your post comes in attacking 'all who insisted there was nothing Biden could do about border crossings.' You seem pretty mad at those strawmen.

[Bwaaah]

I'm not mad. But are they "strawmen"? Are you sure numerous people didn't make that exact argument here in VC?

They did.

Why *did* Democrats insist on allowing at least 5,000 people to cross the border daily? Joe Biden never explained why 10,000 immigrants per day was good for him, or for America, or for Democrats, or I don't know. He still doesn't justify it. It's some kind of unjustified policy. And for that very reason, it's about to be 2,500 unjustified but guaranteed crossings. Do tell me the party's explanation for these various numbers.

And FYI: I believe that a high level of legal immigration is invaluable to our economy, and potential "cultural dilution" bothers me little at this point. That would be my excuse. (Reconcile that with my alleged MAGAness.) But Democrat reasoning? No explanation. No attempt at explicitly defending the policy. "What do you expect Biden to do?" is exactly what various people wrote, for whatever mealy-mouthed reasons they had.

[Martinned2]

An interesting aspect of Palestine's intervention in the South Africa v. Israel case at the ICJ is that under the Rules of the Court, Israel can object to it claiming that "Palestine is not a state". Which is a big gamble, because then the ICJ would be able to rule on whether Palestine is a state or not. So, will it?

[Mr. Bumble]

By what authority?

[Bwaaah]

With people who think like you, there's no such thing as international government.

But Martinned won't be deterred. (Da turd?)

[John F. Carr]

Suppose the ICJ says Palestine is a state and Gaza is part of that state. What new rights does that give Palestine or Abbas, and what new obligations does that impose on Israel? Is an ICJ decision on a subsidiary jurisdictional question worth more than 143 formal recognitions by UN members?

[Martinned2]

If the ICJ says Palestine is a state (big if), that would pretty much shut up those who say it isn't. That still doesn't require anyone to recognise the state of Palestine, much less any body that purports to be the government of the state of Palestine, but it certainly strengthens the Palestinians' case for recognition, for full UN membership, etc.

I think it's a tricky issue, and I didn't necessarily think the ICC pre-trial chamber's judgment on the matter was very compelling. Which is exactly what makes it interesting. If Israel raises the admissibility objection, it could end up with the ICC saying that Palestine is not a state, which would be a big win for Israel.

Realistically, the ICJ would probably find a way to avoid saying that. But, as the Wall Advisory Opinion shows (and the Kosovo opinion, for that matter), that doesn't necessarily mean that it would say the opposite either.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What a bunch of Eurotrash LARPing as actual lawyers do or don't do is not, in fact, interesting.

[Martinned2]

It is to people who respect the rule of law.

[David Nieporent]

I'm shocked, shocked. Well, not that shocked.

Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign

Witnesses in the various criminal cases against the former president have gotten pay raises, new jobs and more. If any benefits were intended to influence testimony, that could be a crime.

Nine witnesses in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have received significant financial benefits, including large raises from his campaign, severance packages, new jobs, and a grant of shares and cash from Trump’s media company.

The benefits have flowed from Trump’s businesses and campaign committees, according to a ProPublica analysis of public disclosures, court records and securities filings. One campaign aide had his average monthly pay double, from $26,000 to $53,500. Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. And one of the campaign’s top officials had her daughter hired onto the campaign staff, where she is now the fourth-highest-paid employee.

These pay increases and other benefits often came at delicate moments in the legal proceedings against Trump. One aide who was given a plum position on the board of Trump’s social media company, for example, got the seat after he was subpoenaed but before he testified.

Remember that every accusation by MAGA is a confession.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you think they got more or less than that Judge's daughter? And her clients which he gave special seats to in the courtroom?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Definitely not shocking. But I didn't know so many details were out. This looks dangerously close to witness tampering.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So there haven't been any mass riots or lootings like the last time a well known convicted felon got his.

Do you think that's because the Feds are too busy marching in front of all these pr*de parades wagging their fat tits and tiny lady peckers to all the little Democrat children lapdancing at the pr*de parades? They're just too busy to marching in their leather dog uniforms crack open their Patriot Front uniforms (which just so happen to be what they wear to the office)?

[MoreCurious]

Pride is not a bad word; it's okay to spell it out.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in Trump Lawfare news:
GA appeals court to hear appeal of allowing Miss Fanny to remain on the case set for October. No date so far.

[Moderation4ever]

Wondering why the double standard? Justice Alito integrity should not be questioned, but Fanni Willis's integrity can be questioned. For the record I think the brew-ha-ha over Alito's flag is stupid, but the same is true for those questioning prosecutors, judges and juries in Trump cases.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Fanni Willis’s integrity "

She hired her lover and paid him hundreds of thousands of tax dollars.

Bur Mrs. Alito flew some flags!

[Estragon]

Spit at her neighbors too!

[Moderation4ever]

Both actions represent bad judgement. I don't think either qualify for removal from cases.

[Nige]

Yeah, why isn't anybody making a big deal about the Fanni Willis thing?

[Martinned2]

Are we suggesting that we should apply the same impartiality standards for prosecutors and US Supreme Court justices? I wouldn't mind that, personally, but it would certainly be novel.

[Mr. Bumble]

Tomorrow marks the 80th anniversary of D-Day. Will any of our betters or self-important leaders mark the day with the solemn dignity it deserves?

[David Nieporent]

I know one person who won't honor the suckers and losers who fought there.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh, don't be coy.

[Frank Drackman]

the "D" in D-day stood for "Day" so it's literally "Day-Day" Wait for Sleepy Joe to claim they called it that because of his Stutter. But I cut him some slack, his son Bo was eaten by French Cannibals on Omaha Beach.

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Incidentally, tomorrow does not in fact mark the 80th anniversary of D-Day.

[Magister]

At least he got the month right, unlike George H. W. Bush in 1988 and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[bernard11]

Give him a break. He only missed by a little.

[Nige]

You need to allow for delays due to weather.

[MoreCurious]

Biden will be in Normandy for the 80th anniversary of D-Day which, as everyone knows, occurred on June 6, 1944.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks to all for correcting me on the date. Don't know where that came from.

[Martinned2]

Blame Maureen Sweeney: https://news.sky.com/story/irish-postmistresss-weather-report-that-helped-allied-forces-avert-disaster-on-d-day-13145470

[Frank Drackman]

Well he fought there with Nelson Mandela and John Lewis, so he's got the right.

[Michael P]

The ongoing trials of the Feeding Our Future fraud in Minneapolis are fascinating, and covered very well at Powerline Blog: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/06/at-the-feeding-our-fraud-trial-detention.php

[Bwaaah]

Wow. This was a $250 million fraudulent meals-for-kids scheme in Minnesota between 2020 and 2021.

A USDA administered meal program relaxed its in-person auditing standards during the pandemic, and fraudsters created scores of "feeding sites" serviced by shell companies that did little more than file reimbursement requests. When the Minnesota Department of Education became suspicious in fall 2020 and halted payments to the central "Feed Our Future" non-profit that administered the scheme, the non-profit sued and the MDE resumed payments under threat from a judge who said they had no basis to withhold payment.

This is a great example of the principal-agent problem and how difficult it was to curtail waste of other people's money because the only party that would benefit from curtailment, the taxpayers, were an abstract and under-represented party.

For those who don't trust Powerline Blog, here's a good start from the Minneapolis Star Tribune: https://www.startribune.com/first-defendant-in-feeding-our-future-cases-goes-to-trial/600360444/?refresh=true.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think the case is now with the jury. One juror had to be replaced because someone dropped off a bag with $120,000 the day before hinting that more could follow for a not guilty vote.

The jury is now sequestered.

[Bwaaah]

Oh, and another abstract group, one that I'll refer to as children who need food, isn't even a party in the matter.

[Bwaaah]

Possibly tangentially related, it appears that yesterday's announced prosecution of Epoch Times CFO Bill Guan for money laundering was tapped into expanded unemployment insurance benefits proffered during the pandemic.

This is to say that along with every dollar of benefit handed out by government should be significant oversight, and costs, associated with program compliance assurance. Expensive compliance assurance programs are necessary when spending other people's money, as in government programs, because no benefit administrator or benefit recipient has a pecuniary interest that substantially aligns with that of the taxpayers.

[Martinned2]

It occurs to me that I didn't even mention this week's European Parliament elections. (Most member states vote on Sunday, but obviously in my native country we could never vote on the Sabbath, so we vote on Thursday. A couple of other countries vote on Friday and Saturday, or across multiple days.)

Conveniently, Politico has put together an introduction to the elections for Americans: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-election-ursula-von-der-leyen-roberta-metsola-charles-michel-an-americans-guide-to-the-eu-election/

[Martinned2]

Here's an interesting article about why the Greens are probably going to lose big: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/04/why-green-parties-polling-badly-european-elections

[Martinned2]

That reminds me, I saw an interesting article about the number of Dutch polling stations for the European Parliament elections. Because it turns out that there are hundreds fewer than in last year's national parliament election, since local authorities assume that turnout will be lower.

It was news to me, but there is no law that governs this. There isn't even guidance from the Election Commission. In India the law says that everyone has to be able to vote within 2 km from their home, but in the Netherlands there's nothing. It's a wonderful example of how a high-trust society can get away with having fewer laws and still function better.

That said, the Election Commission is now considering whether there should be some guidance in this area.

(In case you were wondering, there will be 9405 polling stations for about 13.5m eligible voters, so one polling station for every 1405 eligible voters, on average. As you would expect, in rural areas they have more polling stations by this metric, and in urban areas fewer. It ranges from about 800 eligible voters per polling station to 2970.)

[Martinned2]

O, another thing I forgot to mention yesterday:

The Icelandic presidential elections took place on Saturday, and that was pretty wild. (By Icelandic standards.)

Halla Tómasdóttir won with 34% of the vote, even though she was consistently polling around 4%-5% as recently as April. Meanwhile, Katrín Jakobsdóttir quit her job as prime minister to run for president, and now has nothing. Halla Hrund Logadóttir was the big favourite up to the middle of May, but now ended up with only 16% of the vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Icelandic_presidential_election#Opinion_polls

And yes, this is a system where anyone can be on the ballot as long as they can get 1,500 voter signatures. Single round, plurality wins.

[ThePublius]

"Single round, plurality wins." As it should be, in my opinion.

What's your view on ranked-choice voting?

[Martinned2]

Preferences beyond the first preference should be taken into account. There is no principled reason why they shouldn't be. (Though there is, of course, Arrow's impossibility theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem)

More symbolically, a leader should be forced to win over the (at least begrudging) support of more than half the voters before they get to run the country. The only reason why Iceland doesn't do that is because their president doesn't really have very much power. Of course, it's better still not to let a single person run the country at all, which is also something Iceland does.

[ThePublius]

"More symbolically, a leader should be forced to win over the (at least begrudging) support of more than half the voters before they get to run the country."

Why? What philosophy (of yours) requires this?

[Martinned2]

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

[ThePublius]

Well, that's implemented, by proxy, by the electoral college in the U.S., for presidential elections. One must receive a majority of electors, 270 at least.

But, I see no problem with less than a majority for a winning candidate, if more people want him than the others who are running.

[Martinned2]

Exactly. You don't get to be President of the United States without an absolute majority of votes cast. Through whatever process the majority of the people have to give the new president a mandate.

Let me turn this around: How can someone who is passionately disliked by 70% of the people but has won the votes of the other 30% ever claim a democratic mandate to govern? On the other hand, if the person is the preferred candidate of 30% of voters and the second choice of another 30%, they might have a stronger claim. Ideally the electoral system brings those preferences out in some way. That can be done with ranked choice voting, or with a two round system, or with indirect elections, whereby elected politicians choose a head of government that a majority of them prefer.

[ThePublius]

It depends on the type of government! Not everything need be 100% democratic, nor is anything so! Look at the U.S. Why can't we vote for cabinet members, or justices of the Supreme Court?

[Martinned2]

Those people, indirectly, still rely on a mandate from a majority of the electorate. In that specific case by a majority of the Senate, who vote about individual cabinet members and judges on behalf of the people. (And by the president, elected by a majority of the electoral college, who nominated them.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

if more people want him than the others who are running.

This. But that's not what we have.

In 7 out of the last 8 elections, the Democratic candidate has gotten "more people [to] want him [or her] than the others who are running", yet Republicans have won the White House in 3 out of those 8 years. If the Republican wins this time, the numbers will very likely be 8 of 9 where "more people" wanted the Democrat, yet 4 of 9 times a Republican became president anyway.

It looks like we agree that is problematic. It won't change anytime soon, but there is no rational reason anyone would set up a system in which that sort of thing happened so regularly. That is a failure of the system.

(And it won't be fixed any time soon, so it's okay to just acknowledge that is not a good thing from a self-government perspective. Not unlike gerrymandering which, whether in Maryland or South Carolina, is not a good thing for self-government but is really hard to end at this point.)

[Martinned2]

The American people accept the constitution, and therefore accept the process that the constitution provides for electing a president, which funnels their votes through the electoral college, and requires an absolute majority of the vote only in the electoral college.

Given how hard it is to change the US constitution, it may well be that there is a situation where a significant majority of the US voters want to change this system but find that they can't. But at the moment I don't think that's the case, other than that Democrats are annoyed that they sometimes lose even when they have a majority of the popular vote.

Of course, the National Popular Vote interstate compact is still a thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Of course, the National Popular Vote interstate compact is still a thing."
Sounds un-Constitutional.

[Martinned2]

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors

Weren't you Trumpists such big fans of that provision?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not so much a "Trumpist" as an anti-Bidenist.

[Bwaaah]

The compact, as I understand it, is an agreement that at such time as enough states endorse the compact, they will put it into effect. The effect is that they will switch their electoral vote allocations from a winner-takes-all method to a proportional method, i.e. if 40% of voters in the state vote for Candidate X, then the state will allocate 40% of its electoral college votes to Candidate X.

If put in effect by a state, there is a switch from winner-takes-all to popular allocation.

Why would that be unconstitutional?

[Martinned2]

@Bwaah: No, the idea is to give 100% of each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The effect of which would be, if enough states participate, to give the White House to the winner of the national popular vote.

[Bwaaah]

Ahhh. Thanks for setting me straight. Uggh.

I could see how that might be construed as a denial of proportional representation (so-called "one man, one vote"). Is that the constitutional question?

[NOVA Lawyer]

where a significant majority of the US voters want to change this system but find that they can’t

I'm pretty sure that's where we are. (Polls show 70% or better support: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/polls#2007WPKHU)

Regardless, this aspect of the Constitution is a historical artifact that is anachronistic in the modern world. (In 1790, the smallest state had a population of 60,000, the largest 750,000, or roughly a 1:12.5 ratio. Currently, the smallest to biggest ratio is roughly 600,00:40 million or 1:66. The smallest states now have 5 times more power relative to their population than when the system was adopted.)

To the extent a less than "significant" majority would like to change this, it's because the 30% or so who don't want to change it like the current system because it gives them, essentially, the opportunity to rule over the 55%. There is no principled reason why anyone thinks the current US electoral college system is ideal, opposition is simply about retaining minority power over the majority.

(Taking a Nozick type approach, if you didn't know whether you would be in the 55% getting ruled by the 45% or vice versa, no one would choose a system in which their preferred candidate would get a majority of votes but lose. And, notably, the system we have was chosen precisely so that a political minority could rule over those who didn't have property or were considered property. In other words, this wasn't a feature adopted for noble purposes, it was ignoble from the start and is working mischief to this day.)

requires an absolute majority of the vote only in the electoral college

It doesn't technically require that. Failing that, which has happened, a would-be president must attain an absolute majority vote of the state delegations in the House....and failing that, the Vice President becomes President.

[Martinned2]

I think you mean Rawls.

And I'm not prepared to infer a lack of support for the constitution from a survey. That's where demonstrations come in. They are a way of showing support for a cause that goes beyond a survey response or typing something on social media.

It doesn’t technically require that. Failing that, which has happened, a would-be president must attain an absolute majority vote of the state delegations in the House….and failing that, the Vice President becomes President.

Yes, my earlier answers covered that off but the last time I used the simplified formula. The point is that a person needs an absolute majority of something to become President, which isn't the same as requiring an absolute majority of voters, but does reflect the same basic intuition. (I.e. majority rules.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

I think you mean Rawls.

I first read of it in Nozick's critique of Rawls in his Anarchy, State, and Utopia. But, yes, the veil of ignorance is from Rawls.

That’s where demonstrations come in. They are a way of showing support for a cause that goes beyond a survey response or typing something on social media.

And this is a great way of deciding that a "significant" number of people don't want to change a status quo that will be difficult, if not impossible, to change. If you mean, things aren't so bad there isn't a revolution, then say that. But people generally aren't going to demonstrate against something that is almost impossible to change without a revolution if they don't want a revolution. It's silly to interpret the lack of demonstrations as they like the particular feature of the system or, at least, are ambivalent about it.

So, frankly, a survey is a better way of gauging opinion than "demonstrations" on an issue such as this. As I've noted, there is virtually no chance of changing this without significantly greater than 70% support. Just on paper, you have to get 3/4 of states to agree to it. Some of these states (and likely at least 13), like Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Alaska, Idaho, etc., have no incentive to agree to give away substantial power just because it is the right thing to do, particularly in a heavily partisan time like the present. A demonstration is a waste of time. It would require near unanimity of agreement given this, unlike, say, prohibition, affects the very political bodies who would have to approve the amendment and who can exercise their political power to stymie any attempt at change.

The only counter is it doesn't matter that an overwhelming majority of people would choose something different if they could. The status quo is so heavily entrenched that it will not, in our lifetimes, be scrapped for a better, more equitable system. But let's not pretend it's anything like the optimal system for choosing the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

[Mr. Bumble]

The smallest states have three electoral votes. If the popular vote was 50/50 how would you apportion that state's vote? 1/2 votes?

[Martinned2]

The NPV interstate compact would give 100% of the participating states' electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Or were you suggesting a scenario where two candidates get exactly the same number of votes from voters?

[Mr. Bumble]

I was responding to Bwaaah 's comment above.

[Frank Drackman]

Too bad about Article IV Section IV Clause I(Constitution, US) but you knew that already and were hoping we didn’t.

Frank

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How about the fact that these States have entered into a compact with one another without the prior authorization of Congress?

Expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

[Bwaaah]

???

[NvEric]

Here's something interesting:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/06/karen-kwiatkowski/its-not-you-its-me/

I'd say not 'derealization' afflicts many in the way described, but rather they don't realize they are detached from reality. People here make comments, post articles, detached, and so too those in government, from reality. They have neither foot nor foundation based in the world, physically or otherwise, of what constitutes the reality of the present as seen, touched, or otherwise sensed in any fashion there is. It didn't start with Trump, however.

Trump has driven the afflicted farther than would have been possible. otherwise A form of insanity afflicts our federal government to where average insanity can not describe, can not match. New entries into the DSM must be made. Maybe doctors grasping such will fail in this task as it is a very profound affliction.

In short, a generation's worth of people are lost, completely lost in a quest to reach a Utopia, a phantasm only they can foster from their depths of mind, for which a cure yet waits to treat them someday, and soon I pray.