Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Let the games begin!

[NvEric]

Olympic ? I competed once against Dan O’Brien at Stanford in the late 90s - Shot Put. Am I a household name ? No !, but maybe if one researches.

What other games are their ?
Certainly not the upcoming presidential "debates" - A clown called Biden, who should be in a Federal Prison if there were a legitimate Attorney General, against an average businessman, Trump, who did legitimately become POTUS 45... twice.

Games ? What games ? Life, the Universe, and Everything ? 42 !!!

Games are children's outlets to learn, grow, or avoid maturity.

No game can ever end worthy of finality past its innocent construction. Competition, such as a few of the Olympic ones, are not games, but rather tests of skill, strength, and mind to overcome oneself with others attempting to do the same. This is the only valid outcome worthy in True competition.

Combat within oneself, not against another, is competition. Otherwise, a game is by set rules beyond one's abilities of self and into a framework which can never be, nor have final results except for, in the extreme, cessation of an opponent's capability to continue their life.

So, YES, let the games begin, and GOD help those true to their faith, who do not injure others, but rather use peaceful force of reason and peaceful will of their abilities to prevail.

I do not choose anything, but will follow others, if, and only if, they choose correctly the path absent a game.

[ThePublius]

Robert Reich this morning:

"One of Trump’s most successful ploys has been to frame the upcoming election as a contest between strength and weakness, and to convince many Americans that stridency and pugnacity are signs of strength while truth and humility signal weakness."

Excuse me? Isn't it Biden who's often saying "I can take you," and challenging people to push up contests? I don't recall Trump being pugnacious or pugilistic.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If the Left is anything, it's delusional propagandists and liars. Biden is still trotting out the "Both Sides" hoax in between his pants shitting.

[Brett Bellmore]

On the bright side, though, Snopes FINALLY admitted that Trump didn't call neo-Nazis "fine people" in Charlotte, seven years ago.

Only took them seven years to debunk that one, with the evidence they cited in front of them the whole time.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, except Trump actually did call neo-Nazis "fine people" in Charlotte.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot the "n't".

[Riva]

Don’t waste your time with David. He still believes in the letter by the 51 lying intel whores recruited by the Biden campaign. And I’m sure he also still believes in the Russian collusion fraud and the fictional pee tape. Or he will at least will gladly spread the disinformation and lies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No he didn't. Not everyone who wanted to keep the statutes was a neo-nazi.

[David Nieporent]

Not everyone who wanted to keep the statutes [sic] was a neo-nazi.

I mean, they probably were. But that's beside the point because that wasn't Trump's claim. He wasn't saying that there were fine people on both sides of the statue debate. He was saying that there were fine people on both sides in Charlottesville on that weekend.

And, in fact, the only people in Charlottesville on that weekend marching in favor of the statue were neo-Nazis, because it was a neo-Nazi rally in favor of the statue. This wasn't some pro-statue demonstration coopted by neo-Nazis who showed up unexpectedly. It was a neo-Nazi march, organized by neo-Nazis specifically for the purpose of neo-Nazi unity. (Or white supremacist, at least.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#/media/File:Charlottesville_'Unite_the_Right'_Rally_(35780274914)_crop.jpg

And he expressly said that he was talking about them. Not about other people. "I don’t know if you know, but they had a permit." But who had the permit? The fucking neo-Nazis. Not historical preservationists or sculpture lovers or electrical engineers. The neo-Nazis.
​
​
To be sure, after Trump got pushback¹ at this conference, he tried to claim that he "looked the night before" and saw the non-neo-Nazis. But the "night before" was the "Jews will not replace us" neo-Nazi march. There were no fucking non-neo-Nazis there.
​
​
¹For the second time. The first time, right after Heather Heyer was murdered, he covered himself in glory by denouncing both sides. Then he had to walk that back because of the pushback.

[Sabedi1]

No, he didn't. He said that many fine people support keeping Confederate statues up. And he's right. But no fine people support getting rid of them, because they do so in bad faith, every time.

[David Nieporent]

He said that many fine people support keeping Confederate statues up.

He did not. (And they don't, anyway!) He said:

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis,¹ and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group– excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

...

but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay

…

There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before.² If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call ‘em. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know, I don’t know if you know, but they had a permit.

He is not talking about the debate in the abstract. He is talking specifically about the neo-Nazi demonstration. "They" had a permit. But the "they" in that picture was the neo-Nazi organizers.
​
​​
​​
¹Another lie, unless one wants to be really pedantic and say some identified as white supremacists, others white nationalists, others Klansmen, and others neo-Nazis.
²The "night before" was the "Jews will not replace us" tiki torch march.

[Sabedi1]

Bullshit. Many people showed up purely to protest the statues, having nothing to do with the group that was "permitting."

[David Nieporent]

Bullshit. Many people showed up purely to protest the statues, having nothing to do with the group that was “permitting.”

That is indeed bullshit, yes. The rally was advertised as a Nazi rally. Widely publicized as such. They were originally denied a permit at their intended location, and then sued to get it. It was major news. (Which is why there were so many counterprotesters: because of all that publicity.) And the night before, there was the infamous tiki torch march. Which also got widespread publicity.

But again, if there was one clueless non-Nazi statue suppoter who somehow missed all the news coverage and just happened to wander over to the park the day of the Nazi rally, he would have turned and walked away the minute he saw it was a Nazi rally. I post again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#/media/File:Charlottesville_'Unite_the_Right'_Rally_(35780274914)_crop.jpg

When you see that, you don't hang around. Unless that's your scene.

[Joe_dallas]

DN
The statement you post disproves your point.
Demonstrate some objectivity instead of the constant partisan talking point

[Nige]

Let’s just say Trump would say there were fine people on both sides of this exchange between DN and Sabedi1

[Brett Bellmore]

What they said was that they thought Trump was wrong about their being fine people on both sides, but that he unambiguously was NOT saying the neo-Nazis were the fine people, in fact he expressly said the contrary.

He just claimed there were people who were there who weren't neo-Nazis, who just opposed the statues being torn down. That Snopes and you both think that wasn't true doesn't change one bit what Trump actually said.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That dude even quoted his words and still reads it like a lunatic.

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing that pisses me off is, SEVEN YEARS. For seven freaking years, Snopes let this lie do multiple laps around the world, when they had the proof it was a lie from the start.

That's how Snopes expresses most of their bias, you know: By their choice of what to fact check. This lie was too good to spoil, so they wouldn't touch it before.

Interesting question why they suddenly decided to fact check it just a few days before the debate with Biden.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Same with FactCheck.org. Selection bias.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he didn't, and as I said, even Snopes has finally admitted it.

[David Nieporent]

Well, I'm sure you believe that Snopes isn't always right. And here's one of those times.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because you say so?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hay a post making an argument and providing facts right above this!
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/24/monday-open-thread-59/?comments=true#comment-10613896

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wikipedia... dot dot dot lol el oh el good one

[Sarcastr0]

It was a link to a pretty telling photo, you lazy buffoon.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Woah, an edited, out of context picture is PROOF there was no one else there protesting the tearing down of statues but NEEEEEOOOOO NAAAAAAHHHHHZZEEEEEE'S!

Good call, idiot.

[Sarcastr0]

Easy to tell you got nothin' because you're pounding the table really hard.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You're a government science policy bureaucrat and you believe that picture is proof everyone at the rally protesting was a neo-Nazi.

You clearly can't even know what "science" is.

And you argue like a 12 year old who just got groomed into being a faggot.

[Sarcastr0]

I believe DMN made some pretty good points and you're working very hard to shitpost your way to not engaging with them.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

More idiotic kibitzing and ad hom's.

[Sarcastr0]

"kibitzing?!"

You sound like one of THEM!!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Just in case David didn't bother to look:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/

[myself]

False on a technicality.

The rally was organized by and mostly populated by White Nationalists/NeoNazis/etc.

Trump (falsely) blamed the violence on the left and whitewashed the White Nationalists and NeoNazis by saying they weren't actually White Nationalists and NeoNazis.

So yes, he didn't literally say neo nazis were fine people. But he said that the neo nazis weren't actually neo nazis, and then called them fine people.

[Brett Bellmore]

It wasn't false blaming the violence on the left: Charlotte didn't want to issue that parade permit, they were forced to by a court.

So they encouraged people who'd attack the protesters to show up, and then had the police funnel them together, instead of keep them apart, so that the resulting riot would give them a basis for canceling the permit.

[Sarcastr0]

So they encouraged people who’d attack the protesters to show up, and then had the police funnel them together, instead of keep them apart, so that the resulting riot would give them a basis for canceling the permit.

You just write stories.

[David Nieporent]

It wasn’t false blaming the violence on the left: Charlotte didn’t want to issue that parade permit, they were forced to by a court.

For the record, Charlotte and Charlottesville are totally different places, in different states. And Charlottesville did issue a permit, but it wasn't in the location the Nazis wanted. The Court did agree with the Nazis that they had to be allowed to demonstrate in the park where they wanted to be.

And the rest is fanfic.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is actually something both sides agreed on.

“The police actually allowed us to square off against each other,” Newsome said. “There were fights and the police were standing a block away the entire time. It’s almost as if they wanted us to fight each other.”

[Bwaaah]

Notice how the only directly quoted words in David's argument is "fine people"? The rest is a Trump-related story, TDS, and David doing the TDS shtick.

Trump merely expressed what so many of us felt then, and so many more feel now: that there were two sides (and more) to the "Kill the Statue!" movement. David, in all Trump-related things, sees only through the lens of TDS.

Notice how David goes so far as to declare that *all* people who wanted to keep the statues were neo-Nazis? I wanted to keep the the statues, and David has no problem calling me and every other keep-the-statues advocate a Nazi. TDS is boundless, as are David's hates.

[bernard11]

Trump merely expressed what so many of us felt then, and so many more feel now: that there were two sides (and more) to the “Kill the Statue!” movement.

Not accurate. He was referring specifically to the Charlottesville protestors, not everyone everywhere opposed to removing the statues.

And they were neo-Nazis.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Every single person protesting the removal were neo-Nazis?

[David Nieporent]

Your people, yes.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This is you:

https://imgflip.com/i/8uuli7

[Sarcastr0]

"I'm not Hitler" the antisemite says.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

WITCH! WITCH!! BURN THE WITCH!! WITCH!!!!

You people have been doing this tired old song and dance since the beginning of time...

lmao

[Sarcastr0]

"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : "BURN THE WITCH!!"

The Nazi child throws a terrible-two-grade snit......

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This is grb & sarcrap0

https://imgflip.com/i/8uuli7

[grb]

Oh no! I'm being insulted by a juvenile brat-child Nazi!

(wanna guess how much I care?)

[David Nieporent]

Trump merely expressed what so many of us felt then, and so many more feel now: that there were two sides (and more) to the “Kill the Statue!” movement.

You didn't bother to read what Trump said, and you didn't bother to read what I said. He wasn't talking about the "movement." He was talking about that particular rally that particular weekend.

[David Nieporent]

Notice how David goes so far as to declare that *all* people who wanted to keep the statues were neo-Nazis?

I said probably.

I wanted to keep the the statues, and David has no problem calling me and every other keep-the-statues advocate a Nazi.

I don't have a problem with that, no. Robert E. Lee was a traitor who fought in defense of slavery. There are no non-Nazi arguments for his statue any more than there are non-Stalinist arguments for a statue honoring Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Except they didn't kill 600,000 Americans like Lee did.

[Sabedi1]

He didn't fight in defense of slavery. He fought for the right of the Confederate States to make their own decisions. Slavery just happened to be the decision. But it could have been transgender rights, had the North been prescient.

[Sarcastr0]

Slavery just happened to be the decision
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

[Sabedi1]

Let's take a step back. Why was it any of their business what a different portion of America wanted to do with regard to slavery?

[David Nieporent]

You can tell this person is a good faith interlocutor.

"It wasn't about slavery."
"Okay, maybe it was about slavery, but so what?"

[Brett Bellmore]

Secession was absolutely about slavery: The South could see that it wouldn't be much longer, what with the country expanding and slavery remaining confined to the South, before there were enough free states to have ratified the 13th amendment without any Southern support. So they decided to git while they still had time.

It was the WAR that wasn't about slavery, but instead Lincoln's determination to prove that the US was a roach motel: States could check in, but they could never check out. Lincoln tried to bring them back by guaranteeing they could keep slavery, with the Corwin amendment, before finally going to war to drag them back in.

He only made the war about slavery later, when he needed a cause people in the North were willing to die for, to keep the war going.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “He only made the war about slavery later, when he needed a cause people in the North were willing to die for, to keep the war going”

Thru the first paragraph I was cheering: A Brett comment I can agree with one-hundred percent! Unfortunately things went south immediately thereafter.

The quote above is one of the standard Brett rhetorical tics: He’ll walk a long thousand miles beyond plain fact & common sense to ascribe some action to a secret conspiracy motive. No, Lincoln did not link the war to slavery to reap boundless popular support. Instead, his anti-slavery actions and statements were heistant and always linked to worries about maintaining Nothern support. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation had to wait on (something like) a Yankee victory. It was sold as a blow against the South’s war economy, not a moral measure. The final push for the Thirteenth Amendment was squeezed into the last months of the war so the House vote would benefit from the war effort, not so the war effort would be supported by the House vote.

In short, Brett’s totally bass-ackward here. But – hey – that happens when you wear a tin-foil-hat to keep the Deep State’s evil gamma rays from taking over your brain.

[Brett Bellmore]

I get it: In the interest of Lincoln hagiography, you want to sweep under the rug all his early efforts to get the South back by promising they could keep slavery.

Abraham Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment

Letter in Reply to Horace Greeley on Slavery and the Union—The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object

"DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN."

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “I get it: In the interest of Lincoln hagiography, you want to sweep under the rug all his early efforts to get the South back by promising they could keep slavery”

Nope; not in the slightest. I freely concede all of Lincoln’s half-measures, equivocal statements, and attempts to placate the secessionists with promises on slavery to forestall war. It’s an ironclad fact of history that Lincoln would have traded away any action on slavery to preserve the Union and prevent civil war.

But that’s not our disagreement, is it? Let me describe a Big Picture that is opposite of yours above : Lincoln had an extreme dislike of slavery, but was not an absolute abolitionist going into the war. Aside from prioritizing Union over any cure for slavery, he also toyed with half-measures and quarter-measures that haven’t stood the test of time well.

But he was still anti-slavery and when war’s progress made movement on slavery possible, he took it. And though action on slavery was always secondary to Union victory for Lincoln, it steadily grew in importance over the years of war. But not as you claim – as a cynical measure to build support for the war in the North. That’s mirror-opposite wrong. Instead, Lincoln worried radical action on slavery would damage Northern support, not reinforce it. What you claim was a cynical attempt to pander to Northern voters was actually steps taken in spite of those voters.

Which is our fork in the road: Because you’re Brett, you have to claim Lincoln had no anti-slavery intentions and acted out of cynical self-interest. As Sarcastr0 regularly points out, you have magical telepathy powers to reach into the mind of anyone on your shit list where you ALWAYS find sordid, cynical, or conspiratorial motives.

Apparently Lincoln is on your shit list so he gets the treatment. But the historical record doesn’t support your view.

[bernard11]

He fought for the right of the Confederate States to make their own decisions.

Go read some of the secession resolutions.

He fought for the right of the slaveholders to continue holding slaves.

I mean, who do you think controlled those state governments but slaveholders? I don't know where they got their power, but it wasn't from the consent of the governed. In two of the confederate states slaves were a majority.

[Sabedi1]

And why shouldn't slaveholders in a different country have had that right? Do you get concerned with slavery occurring elsewhere in the world, like in India, Myanmar, or the Congo? If not, why not?

[NOVA Lawyer]

why shouldn’t slaveholders in a different country have had that right?

An irrelevant question given they were not in a different country. They were in the United States of America.

Do you get concerned with slavery occurring elsewhere in the world, like in India, Myanmar, or the Congo?

Anyone with any sense of morality absolutely does get concerned with such slavery.

If not, why not?

That you thought the obvious answer is that people aren't or shouldn't be concerned about some humans owning other humans says everything about your moral sense and character. No, other people aren't amoral assholes like you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" He didn’t fight in defense of slavery. "

This blog attracts a remarkable concentration of ignorant, lying, disaffected bigots.

By design.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit. Not a step beyond. You get to whine and rant about it all you like, but you will comply. Thank you for your continuing compliance with the preferences of better Americans.

[not guilty]

"Robert E. Lee was a traitor who fought in defense of slavery. There are no non-Nazi arguments for his statue any more than there are non-Stalinist arguments for a statue honoring Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Except they didn’t kill 600,000 Americans like Lee did."

The Confederate cause was indeed treason in support of slavery. But Lee did not kill 600,000 Americans. Hundreds of thousands of the dead were Confederates killed by the Union forces.

[Mr. Bumble]

David is in rare form today.

[NOVA Lawyer]

They were still people and still dead. You start/lead a treasonous war, I think you get moral responsibility for the dead. Granted, he gets to share it with Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson and JEB Stuart and others of that ilk, but, like Hitler getting credit for all of the WW2 dead, including Germans, Robert E. Lee is fairly characterized as being responsible, along with others, for all 600,000 Americans dead in the Civil War.

[Nige]

The keep-the-statue people in Charlottesville were neo-Nazis. If you really didn't like them, you wouldn't attack the people pointing it out, you'd attack them.

[Kazinski]

Claim:
On Aug. 15, 2017, then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people."

False.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/

"Trump: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did — you had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status, are we gonna take down — excuse me — are we gonna take down statues of George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay good. Are we gonna take down the statue? Cause he was a major slaveowner. Now are we gonna take down his statue? So you know what? It's fine. You're changing history, you're changing culture, and you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits, and with the helmets, and the baseball bats, you got a lot of bad people in the other group too."

[not guilty]

Donald Trump did not literally say that neo-Nazis are "very fine people." But his juxtaposition of the two -- the false equivalence of supporters and opponents of removing the Lee statute -- was no accident.

[David Nieporent]

There are three possibilities:

1) He knew there wasn't anyone else there on the pro-statue side and was actually intending to call Nazis fine people.

2) He knew there wasn't anyone else there on the pro-statue side, but pretended there was, so he could both condemn and praise out of both sides of his mouth because he mistakenly thought this would win him credit from everyone. ("Abortions for some; miniature American flags for others.")

3) He's delusional, and hallucinated the existence of other people there on the pro-statue side who weren't Nazis.

[Kazinski]

So it’s false right?

This is pretty plain about the pro-statue side:
“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,”

And this is pretty clear about the anti-statue side:
“Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits, and with the helmets, and the baseball bats, you got a lot of bad people in the other group too.”

Seems to me he is categorizing four groups and he is juxtaposing the “troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits, and with the helmets, and the baseball bats,” with the "neo-Nazis and the white nationalists” because both “should be condemned totally”.

And fairly points out that there are fine people on both sides.

You aren’t defending the “troublemakers… with the black outfits, and with the helmets, and the baseball bats” are you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides... and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."

Now maybe he was incorrect that there were fine people out opposed to removing the statue that night, but he clearly wasn't calling neo-nazis very fine people.

[Sarcastr0]

Clearly!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists"

Sounds pretty clear to me.

[David Nieporent]

That statement is very clear. So are the other statements where he says the opposite.

To quote someone in my Twitter feed:

Yes. Trump’s MO is to say a bunch of contradictory things in rapid succession, undercutting the sincerity of any one of them, and giving him deniability for the parts that are objectionable. He does this a lot.

It’s like if I said the following: “Shaun is a really great guy, very honest. Some people say he’s not so honest, and not so great. They say very bad things. Who knows? Maybe they’re right, who knows?”

Then you said “What are you complaining about? He literally said Shaun is a great guy, very honest!”

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That statement is very clear. So are the other statements where he says the opposite."

There are no statements where he said the opposite.

He said that there were fine people in support of not removing the statute, which may or may not be true, but it doesn't contradict "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists..."

[David Nieporent]

"The leadership of the Soviet Union were nice guys. When I said that, I wasn't talking about the communists. They should be condemned. But you had many of them who were nice guys."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The leadership of the Soviet Union were nice guys. When I said that, I wasn’t talking about the communists."

"There were nice guys in charge of the Soviet Union. And no, I'm not talking about the communists."

These are both consistent statements with incorrect premises, although you've altered Trump's formulation in an attempt to make that less clear.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>To quote someone in my Twitter feed:

lmao

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

To quote someone in my Twitter feed:

Really? Holy shit DMN. Trump really did completely break you.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't see the issue here?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, clearly. "And I'm not taking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists"; How much clearer do you want? How much clearer is it even POSSIBLE to be, within the confines of the English language?

[David Nieporent]

How much clearer is it even POSSIBLE to be, within the confines of the English language?

Well, one could try not saying that there were many fine people on that side.

[Bwaaah]

One could try to not be a malicious listener who quite obviously interprets this klutzy speaker's words not for the purpose of understanding him, but for the purpose of disparaging him.

Good faith. David Neiporent. Officer of the court. Protector of the town square.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, GFY. I did not misinterpret Trump. He said what he said, and you know it's indefensible so you're just making shit up. Out of the 8 billion or so people on the planet, the person who least deserves the benefit of the doubt in interpreting his words is Donald Trump.

The most charitable explanation is that every single thing he says is BS; he just says whatever comes into his head without knowing or caring whether it's true. He just figured the easiest thing to do was to say that there were good and bad people on both sides, so he said it.

The more reasonable explanation is that he deliberately talks out of both sides of his mouth so that people who want to pretend to believe him can pick the thing they like and claim he didn't say the other thing.

[hobie]

Lol! Have you been actively monitoring Snopes all this time for that change? All meanings of the word 'committed' apply here.

[Kazinski]

Somebody has, I saw at least two articles.about it.

[bernard11]

People who show up to support a neo-Nazi rally are neo-Nazis.

[Kazinski]

So the woman who got killed.was a neo-nazi?

But really at this point in time it doesn't change anything, perceptions on Trump, and Biden are pretty much set in stone.

The one thing it does illustrate is that the media and democrats will lie, and it takes years to get it corrected, so Trump.supports won't believe the next lie, and independents are catching on.

Russiagate
Fine People on both sides
Ukrainegate
Hunters Laptop

All lies, all had about at least a 2 year shelf life.

[Sarcastr0]

So the woman who got killed showed up to support the rally?

The things you believe...

[bernard11]

So the woman who got killed.was a neo-nazi?

She wasn't there to support the rally.

[Nige]

'All lies, all had about at least a 2 year shelf life.'

Brainwashing in action. And I think you're doing it to yourself.

[Nige]

But he did exactly that.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t recall Trump being pugnacious or pugilistic.

Then perhaps you are the one who should be taking the cognitive tests.

[ThePublius]

Give me an example, please.

[Moderation4ever]

I think why Trump supporter miss the pugnacious style aspect because Trump is unlikely to get in a fight himself. What he does is encourage others to fight. No one would go into a bar fight thinking Trump would be there to back you up. He might start the fight but he and his bodyguards are leaving quickly after.

[Martinned2]

Surely not?

If I took this shirt off, you would see a beautiful beautiful person. But you would see wounds all over. I’ve taken a lot of wounds I can tell you. More than I suspect any president ever.

[ThePublius]

But that's all speculation and fantasy. It has literally never happened. Yet, Joe has literally said he can "take" people, multiple times, and challenged people to push-up contests, multiple times.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course he stood up to Corn Pop.

[ThePublius]

Boy, if we could only find Corn Pop - the RNC should conduct a nationwide search for him.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/there-really-was-a-corn-pop–but-critics-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-oft-told-story/2019/09/16/227115c8-d8ac-11e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html

Hardly the only source either.

[Mr. Bumble]

Pay-walled. Try again.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"the RNC should conduct a nationwide search for him"

Does this mean you think it is time to call off the search for Obama's Kenyan Muslim Communist birth certificate, you bigoted right-wing misfit?

[Moderation4ever]

It is doubtful Joe Biden could take anyone one, but at least he is first person. With Trump it is third person. Trump tells you to beat up a capital police officer and he will pardon you.

[Kazinski]

Trump definitely can be "pugnacious or pugilistic", but mostly verbally, however there is the famous instance where he told his supporters to physically throw out a heckler.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey remember how just a few years ago the Left was bragging about CA's projected $100B surplus? Reality came and went and turns outs, it's a $48B deficit.

That projection was as trustworthy as their labor numbers, (which also went poof*) and the government's crime statistics (where crime goes down! --magically -- when Blue Shitholes stop reporting it).

[David Nieporent]

There was no stop in reporting. Why do you lie all the time? Crime is way down.

[ThePublius]

That's not true.

"Some large police departments began to report data to the FBI again in 2022, like the Miami-Dade Police Department. But the two largest police agencies in the U.S., the New York Police Department and the Los Angeles Police Department, are still missing in the federal data."

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/07/13/fbi-crime-rates-data-gap-nibrs

From the NSSF website:

"The Marshall Project reported that 31 percent of the 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the U.S. failed to report crime data to the FBI’s national database after transitioning to a new data collection system, according to the latest statistics from the FBI. That’s a slight improvement from 2021, when 40 percent of law enforcement agencies didn’t report crime data. Still, it’s a glaring blind spot, especially when that data is missing from some of the largest metro areas dealing with rampant, out-of-control crime."

And there's this:

"(The Center Square) - As California Governor Newsom celebrated a 33% decline in reported crime in Oakland, a NBC Bay Area investigation found 97% of Oakland car-break ins were reported but not included in the department’s crime statistics, suggesting crime may be “down” due to data discrepancies, not real decreases.

In May 2024, Oakland Police Department announced a 33% decrease in year-over-year crime, leading NBC Bay Area to investigate “troubling undercounts” in full crime reporting. In one month where OPD said there were 30 break-ins, their analysis of OPD’s CrimeWatch database found 30 break-ins per day, leading them to conclude “weekly reports fell 97% short of the real count.” This database does not include unreported crime, which means real crime statistics are likely even worse."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What does "some" mean to you?

[ThePublius]

Read the linked article.

I take "some" to mean, literally, "not all," and it connotes "less than a majority."

[Mr. Bumble]

You’re starting to sound more and more like SarcastrO and Nige,
the Double Dumbfuck Twins.

[Nige]

You're going to get apoplectic with rage over people not buying your bullshit if you keep this up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

CRIME is way down?!?

Crime REPORTING may be down because reporting it is not worth the effort, but crime itself is NOT down...

[Martinned2]

Cue another round of people not only having their own opinions, but also their own facts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, David is good at that.

[Joe_dallas]

Concur
At one time DN was somewhat objective. That integrity has since left the room.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump broke his brain.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You use at least one sock puppet account, Sonja_T.

You have no place to be chastising the perceived integrity of anyone else.

[Kazinski]

Maybe its just peoples perceptions of crime, but the effect is the same:

"A former Obama fundraiser who assisted in raising millions of dollars in donations for his campaign said that she is leaving the Democratic Party and plans to vote for former President Donald Trump this

Huynh said she has since become frustrated with the Democratic Party, particularly over its stance on crime.

"The Democrats were policing the wrong things," she told Fox News host Jesse Watters. "The things that we need to police are violent criminals that are scattered throughout the streets of San Francisco, people defecating, shooting up heroin in front of me and my kids, and allowing criminals to go in and steal from our grocery stores, shutting down grocery stores."

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/former-democratic-fundraiser-who-helped-raise-millions-obama-says-shes

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe its just peoples perceptions of crime, but the effect is the same

Facts matter.

And if justthenews needs to dig up some random former Obama fundraiser to get the opinion they want, it may not actually be a widely held view.

[Kazinski]

How many multi-million dollar bundlers do you need?

[Sarcastr0]

Zounds, have you uncovered another aspect of the Biden Crime Family?

[Kazinski]

Learn to read, she was an Obama donor and bundler and now a Trump supporter and presumably a donor.

Biden's only role was driving her from the Democratic party.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Facts matter."

And we don't know the facts, although there is evidence from which we can draw inferences about them.

[Sarcastr0]

Unless you want to get epistemological, we do know real fact things about crime being up or down.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. We have various indicators, but we don't know the actual facts.

[Sarcastr0]

So epistemology it is then.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It depends on what you mean. No one knows how many robberies there were last year. If you're referring to that type of epistemology, then sure.

Do you have an actual argument?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you have an actual comment? 'We don't know the exact number, just statistics so there are no facts' is not even epistemology, it's ignorance.

But you're not that ignorant. So why are you acting like it?

[David Nieporent]

There's a reason (besides that murder is really bad) that people often focus on homicide rates. Unlike robberies, murders are basically 100% reported and counted. Police may discourage people who find their car window smashed and things taken from it from filing reports, but they don't/can't do that when people find corpses.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you have an actual comment? ‘We don’t know the exact number, just statistics so there are no facts’ is not even epistemology, it’s ignorance."

It's also not a thing anyone actually said.

[Sarcastr0]

We have various indicators, but we don’t know the actual facts.

This seems to be your thesis, and it's wrong. No, statistical results are actual facts; they are not indirectly observed; they are directly observed. Statistics are not exact; that's it.

Statistical observations are no more or less accurate than any other kind of observation (plenty of which are vulnerable to all sorts of errors and misinterpretations)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, and perceptions are actual facts. When you said facts matter, I assumed you were referring to the underlying facts.

[Sarcastr0]

"perceptions are actual facts. When you said facts matter, I assumed you were referring to the underlying facts."

Do you think all surveys are opinion polls?

[TwelveInchPianist]

So much for facts mattering, I guess.

[Don Nico]

I guess you forgot about systematic versus statistical errors from your physics courses.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair point as to sampling bias, etc. But I'd bet you don't agree with TiP's underlying point.

And yet you take his side so you can quibble at me.

It is a bad habit to jump at any chance to oppose whomever you decide is your Posting Enemy.
It's already got you unknowingly supporting that antisemite around here at least once.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Fair point as to sampling bias, etc. But I’d bet you don’t agree with TiP’s underlying point.

And yet you take his side so you can quibble at me."

It's a fair point, but he shouldn't make it because it involves disagreeing with you? That's exactly what I've come to expect from the science bureaucrats that my tax dollars pay for.

So much for facts mattering.

[Nige]

'Maybe its just peoples perceptions of crime, but the effect is the same:'

That's why you're voting for a grifter! Feelings don't care about your facts!

[Bwaaah]

David Nieporent: "Why do you lie all the time? Crime is way down."

Crime is down substantially compared to the 2022 peak (or 2023 peak in some cities). But it's still up very substantially since before the Democrat-led "Fuck the Police" movement in 2020.

In New York City, I'm seeing crime come down quickly as police are once again allowed to enforce laws. Our Democratic state legislature is once again letting judges imprison incorrigible criminals after their "criminal justice reform," and their wholesale sellout of policing, destroyed the enforceability of criminal law.

It's an election year, and Democrats need to act like they care about the victims of crime, some of whom are voters. Maybe after the election, they can go back to "We don't know why crime went up" and "People are just idiots exaggerating the whole crime issue"?

[Sarcastr0]

1. Fuck tha Police came out in 1988, so you're pretty late on that movement. Or maybe it wasn't a movement at all and you're just being strange again.

2. I hear there was some others stuff going on in 2020 that might have been material to crime rates

3. DMN said crime is down; he didn't say down since 2020 anyhow, so you're just projecting an arbitrary date so you can complain.

4. 2020 is a convenient date. IOW cherry picking, as you do. "The US murder rate has declined since 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic brought with it a surge in homicides across the country. FBI figures showed the number of homicides increased nearly 30% from 2019 to 2020."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/10/us/us-violent-crime-rates-statistics/index.html

5. The rest of your comment is your personal vibes re: NYC and not relevant to DMN's claim.

[Sarcastr0]

As for the vibes bit, just saw this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-10-31/america-s-downtown-weekend-life-is-outshining-weekdays

"Data from 26 of the largest US downtowns show that while median foot traffic approaches three-quarters of pre-pandemic levels on the weekdays, 94% of activity has returned on the weekends. Nashville, Philadelphia and Charlotte are among the cities that are reporting weekends that are even livelier than they used to be, with foot traffic that exceeds 100% of its 2019 baseline."
Midtown is at 102%; lower Manhattan 94%.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Fuck tha Police came out in 1988, so you’re pretty late on that movement. Or maybe it wasn’t a movement at all and you’re just being strange again."

No idea what he could possibly be referring to there. A real puzzler.

[Sabedi1]

Yes, but in 1988, mainstream America was not behind it, meaning you didn't have the media, corporate world and academy on that side.

Leftist ideals were contained to commie university classes and NAACP meetings, not anything influential

[Sarcastr0]

So glad you could join us with your cartoonish ideas about commie universities and the evil NAACP and the civil war really being about states rights.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment. Really contributing.

[Sabedi1]

NAACP is an anti-American black nationalist organization.

[Bwaaah]

Here is a good article that describes recent crime data and crime trends. Since all crime data is locally produced (by states and police departments), federal reporting is only beginning (past few years) to be complete in coverage and consistent in methodology. (What is a homicide? Does it include suicide?) There is almost no useful historical reference data in FBI reporting.

Sarc parrots the unexplained theory that the pandemic mysteriously caused crime to go up in 2020. Interestingly, though the pandemic was global, the United States was the only country in the world that experienced the big spike in crime. It is also the only country that sported widespread “Defund the Police” riots while its Democratic political leaders stood by with their thumbs pointed up (except Joe Biden who needed to win a national election).

Notice how they don’t do the daily Black-Guy-Killed-By-Cop stories on the news like they did in 2020? Is it that the cops are killing fewer Black people (and criminals described using other characteristics)? Or was that a very unproductive race-baiting narrative that’s no longer defensible, since MORE PEOPLE GOT KILLED as a result of the anti-policing movement than were saved?

Come to New York City, Sarc. Talk to people who live in poor neighborhoods about crime. Pretend you’re not an ignorant, detached shmuck who obviously doesn’t live in a major U.S. city, and obviously doesn’t want to know about this issue.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarc parrots the unexplained theory that the pandemic mysteriously caused crime to go up in 2020. Interestingly, though the pandemic was global, the United States was the only country in the world that experienced the big spike in crime.

Notably, there was a major surge in gun sales at the outset of the pandemic. Got tons of news coverage.

[Bwaaah]

Whenever there's social unrest or passing of more restrictive gun laws, there are surges in [legal] gun sales. But there are not surges in gun violence that correlate with those surges in gun sales. Similarly, though violent crime is dropping significantly, there's no evidence that gun possession is dropping.

[John F. Carr]

There is also a federal survey.

The BJS National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 240,000 persons in about 150,000 households. Persons are interviewed on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The NCVS collects information on nonfatal personal crimes (i.e., rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and personal larceny) and household property crimes (i.e., burglary/trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and other types of theft) both reported and not reported to the police. Survey respondents provide information about themselves (e.g., age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, marital status, education level, and income) and whether they experienced a victimization. For each victimization incident, the NCVS collects information about the offender (e.g., age, race and Hispanic origin, sex, and victim-offender relationship), characteristics of the crime (e.g., time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of the injury, and economic consequences), whether the crime was reported to police, reasons the crime was or was not reported, and victim experiences with the criminal justice system.

Somewhere in government files lie a few bits saying that I was not murdered in the early 2000s but I did have some packages stolen. I never reported the stolen packages to local police.

[jb]

Seems totally bizarre to try to blame a huge spike in crime that started in 2020 on Biden. TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT IN 2020, and all of the data shoes that crime has been steadily coming down since he left office.

While it's true that we don't have fully baked 2023 data yet, basically everything we do have shows continuing declines. You yourself acknowledge that crime is way down in NYC despite trying to fearmonger about it. Truly bizarre how anyone would take the data set as anything other than a complete failure under Trump that has steadily reversed itself under Biden.

[Bwaaah]

Criminal justice, with few exceptions, is a local ecosystem, not a national one. Accordingly, I've never considered Joe Biden, nor Donald Trump, nor the federal government to have significantly affected street crime, especially the urban crime (e.g. murder, assault, theft) that grew by 30-50% in 2021 and 2022. (It started coming down significantly in the latter part of 2023.)

How'd you get to national politics there?

[jb]

LOL, I think you mean since the 2020 Trump crime wave. Notably, crime got worse in red states than blue states during that time as we've discussed here in the past.

[Kazinski]

We all know why crime got worse in 2020, it was because of the George Floyd riots, defind the police, and the police becoming afraid to do there jobs or outright quitting.

And Trump did get blamed for it by voters in the fall of 2020 and was a factor in why he lost.

Now the voters have reassessed and it's a factor in why he is ahead.

[Sarcastr0]

We all know why crime got worse in 2020, it was because of the George Floyd riots,

We all know, eh?

[jb]

Were the George Floyd riots worse in red states than in blue states?

[ThePublius]

To David: Ha, ha, ha!

Fact Check: Biden, Democrats Claim Crime Is Down Based on FBI Report Lacking Data from Thousands of Police Precincts

"CLAIM: President Biden and his fellow Democrats claim crime is down based on an FBI report.

VERDICT: False. Biden and his fellow Democrats do not mention that thousands of police precincts are not reporting crime data to the FBI."

[Brett Bellmore]

It appears the FAA wasn't in a mood to delay the Starship test launches enough, so the Watermelons are suing to delay it.

FAA failed to fully assess environmental effects of Starship, lawsuit alleges

I wonder if they're funded by BO?

[David Nieporent]

Bo Derek?
Bill O'Reilly?
Body odor?
Barack Obama?

[Brett Bellmore]

Body Odor; That's what I like to call Blue Origins, because they had massively better funding than SpaceX, a two year head start, and STILL haven't put one ounce into orbit. Pathetic.

[Bwaaah]

"Pathetic" is an unfair term, and only justified in comparison to the near-miraculous performance of SpaceX (also known as "Elon Musk" for all-in haters on the political left).

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think it's a perfectly fair term, because they've put zip, zero, nada into orbit, with more time, and vastly more funding. Not "less", NOTHING.

There are freaking rocket HOBBYISTS who could have done better, with a fraction of the money!

So I stand by that "pathetic". It's genuinely pathetic that they've put nothing into orbit yet.

[jb]

Musk did a very good job with his space company and a very bad job with Twitter. Turns out being good at one thing doesn't translate to being good at everything!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Elon Musk is a reckless, lying, antisocial, bigoted, impulsive, autistic, right-wing sexual predator -- and therefore a hero to the Volokh Conspiracy's target audience of disaffected, socially inept, obsolete, conservative culture war casualties.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose he underestimated the lengths the left would go in their rule or ruin campaign against a non-censoring Twitter. But recall that, once he got the Twitter internals showing how much of their supposed customer base was bots, he tried to get out of the deal.

[bernard11]

A sensible, non-ego-driven, acquirer would have checked that in advance. Ever heard of due diligence? Not verifying a major indicator of performance is even worse than gross negligence.

And if you don't want to bother with that you put some relevant provisions in the merger agreement.

Musk is due no sympathy for overpaying and then having no way out.

[Nige]

So he alienated a bunch of twitter users. Good job, Musk. Glad he got the bot count down.

[jb]

He underestimated how stupid and impractical a non-censoring Twitter was, despite everyone telling him so in advance.

[Kazinski]

Well he also said he thought a non censoring Twitter is more important to him than a profitable Twitter.

I believe his exact words were "Fuck you, I don't want your money.".

[Sarcastr0]

What a noble man, that Musk.

Oh wait, I meant what a transparently false stand.

https://gizmodo.com/10-times-elon-musk-censored-twitter-users-1850570720?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-musk-silencing-his-critics-as-journalists-are-suspended-by-x/

[jb]

https://www.adweek.com/media/elon-musks-advertiser-apology-tour-begins-at-cannes/

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet X is still alive.

[Nelson]

And Twitter lived before that, despite having similar (possibly superior?) financial performance. I believe Uber still hasn't turned a profit. Using profitability as a benchmark for performance in the tech sphere would end up with a majority of the best-known brands labeled as "failures".

With Twitter, at least there were less Nazis, drug dealers, and radical religious groups.

Elon Musk only censoring the people he doesn't like isn't "ending censorship".

And I say that as an unabashed fan of Elon Musk's brilliance and the incredible success (and importance) of companies like SpaceX and NeuroLink.

[Armchair]

Technically he did a very good job with his space company. And his car company. And his mapping company. And his money transfer company. And his...

[jb]

These days Tesla is not looking so great, but I'll grant you that it advanced what we all thought was possible in electric cars and you can't dismiss its overall success.

Zip2 was pretty boring, and the Boring Company is honestly embarrassing.

All of which to say: Elon does have the ability to create a vision and inspire technical change that truly moves the needle. But he doesn't always get it right, and sometimes doubles down on really dumb ideas. He's put himself into a political frame where now he gets silly polarized political reactions that tend to either dismiss the amazing things he's done or celebrate the garbage. Such is the state of our society at this point, I guess.

[Armchair]

That really undersells Elon.

Most (successful) people get one really good idea or one good break at the right time (often a combination of the two). Whether that be Gates with MS or Bezos with Amazon, etc.

Elon does it, does it repeatedly, and does it in different fields & companies. Zip2 was a success by any metric, being flipped from a $28,000 initial investment to a $307 million buyout in 4 years. Paypal went from a $12 Million investment by Elon to a $1.5 Billion buyout by eBay in just 2 years. Another major success.

Tesla and SpaceX demonstrate that Elon succeeds where other people fail. Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic...essential failures. SpaceX has revolutionized commercial space operations. Tesla...it really can't be understated. It's the first new, major, successful American Car company in more than 100 years. Forget about just electric cars...Tesla has a 4.2% market share out of the ENTIRE US market. That's a higher market share than BMW, VW, or Subaru. That's an amazing accomplishment.

Even the Boring Company has had its market value expand rapidly (look it up).

[Sarcastr0]

Apart from your Obama intimation, watermelons is just another conspiracy theory.

People can be environmental zealots all on their own without communism coming into it.

Same energy: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fba4db8a7use61.jpg.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be sure, they can. Doesn't mean they are, in practice.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah of course. I keep forgetting about your wide-band telepathy.

[Don Nico]

"telepathy."
This has become another of your universal foot-stomping lines along with conspiracy theories and moving goal posts.
They are hardly convincing any one.

[Sarcastr0]

If you have an issue with my pushback here, maybe lay out your specific issue not just yell at me for nothing.

Brett has zero evidence that those suing the FAA regarding environmental assessment of SpaceX’s launch plans are motivated by communism.

But he is still sure it's true.

[Harvey Mosley]

Don't forget his classic "you're just assuming bad faith"!

[Sarcastr0]

A general complaint of 'you ding people for the same fallacies over and over' is not really much of an objection.

If you have something more specific, by all means point it out. Generalized complaints don't have a lot of punch.

[Brett Bellmore]

BTW, "Obama intimation"? You're going to need to explain that, I said nothing about Obama.

[Sarcastr0]

You: “I wonder if they’re funded by BO?”

Intimation: an indirect, usually subtle suggestion, indication, or hint.

Bottom line you think Obama's behind stuff with zero evidence this is the case. As per your usual.

[Don Nico]

"Bottom line you think Obama’s behind stuff with zero evidence "
Now, that is telepathy.

[Sarcastr0]

How do you interpret "I wonder if they’re funded by BO?"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Big Oil?

[Drewski]

B & O Railroad? It's pretty good for cash if you own a couple others.

[Brett Bellmore]

BO, Blue Origins, SpaceX’s hugely funded but under performing competitor.

When you're talking rocketry, BO means only one thing: Blue Origins.

[Sarcastr0]

Better than Obama. But still an unsupported conspiracy theory.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, I think there are some legitimate issues being raised if the facts are as alleged.

[Noscitur a sociis]

so the Watermelons are suing to delay it.

The what now?

[Sarcastr0]

Green on the outside, red on the inside.

[Mr. Bumble]

As an example, SarcastrO as he explains in his comment.

[Nige]

The last time his rocket exploded it rained down a whole load of environmental damage, so fuck 'em.

[ThePublius]

A prediction:

Ultimately the Boeing Starliner at the ISS will have to be abandoned, and cut loose sans crew to make an unmanned reentry, perhaps even burn up in the atmosphere. Musk's Dragon will then go rescue those guys.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You know, stuff that burns up in the atmosphere does not disappear -- it remains as metal oxides and whatnot and how much of that stuff can we have in the upper atmosphere before we start screwing up the climate?

I am not a rabid environmentalist, but I do think that we ought to ask some of these questions. Is the environmental impact of all of this truly de minimums? Does anyone really know?

[Brett Bellmore]

Ed, you do know that kilotons of iron meteors burn up in the atmosphere every year, to land as dust on the ground, right?

[John F. Carr]

According to an article in a one word journal (https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/48/7/683/584575/The-spatial-flux-of-Earth-s-meteorite-falls-found) the global meteor flux is estimated to be 16,600 kg per year.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Of which a smallish fraction will be attributable to iron meteors.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, but what are the non iron meteors made of?

Even regular rocks have lots of metals like aluminum, magnesium, and iron, with oxygen, silicon, phosphorus, potassium, chorine.

[Brett Bellmore]

That sounds awfully low.

220 Proceedings of the IMC, Mistelbach, 2015
Mass accumulation of Earth from interplanetary dust,
meteoroids, asteroids and comets

“Up to a diameter of 1 km the total calculated mass influx is 54 tons per day.”

That’s about 20 KT.

OK, granted, most of them aren’t iron…

Ah, your link was only good for meteors above 50gm. There's a power law, most of the mass is fine dust...

[Dr. Ed 2]

And trees produce smog...

[Longtobefree]

Wouldn't the resulting shade actually 'fix' global climate warming change?

[Krayt]

Ameliorative efforts that don't involve forcing new industries into existence your cronies can invest in, or helping suing lawyers afford megayachts, are not welcome at the table.

[Nelson]

“Ultimately the Boeing Starliner”

It’s a Boeing. At this point the chance that it has been shodily made approaches 1. I would trust the project managers that made the Ford Pinto more than Boeing at this point.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/ford-pinto/

[Martinned2]

UK and EU are still in pre- and post-election (respectively) shutdown, but this did happen today:

Today, the European Commission has informed Apple of its preliminary view that its App Store rules are in breach of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), as they prevent app developers from freely steering consumers to alternative channels for offers and content.

In addition, the Commission opened a new non-compliance procedure against Apple over concerns that its new contractual requirements for third-party app developers and app stores, including Apple's new “Core Technology Fee”, fall short of ensuring effective compliance with Apple's obligations under the DMA.

[David Nieporent]

Sounds like the Digital Markets Act should be repealed.

[Martinned2]

Sure. Why would you want legislation that actually stops someone from doing something they want to do? Everybody knows that the only proper legislation is ineffectual legislation!

[Mr. Bumble]

...or unenforced legislation.

[Bwaaah]

Like everybody else in the world who uses the internet, every time I go to a new website, I have to click away a stupid message at the bottom of my screen to get the website to work properly. It is a reminder to me that, “We are the EU. We are government. We can waste the time of as many people as we want, ad infinitum, for any theoretically good reason, and without concern for whether or not it is of any actual practical benefit.”

[Martinned2]

The EU is a powerful player on the world stage, yes, and the Brussels effect is a real thing. You don't have to like it, but you're stuck with us just like we're stuck with you.

As for cookie permissions specifically, sometimes a law does not work out how you intended. Then you evaluate it and update the law. The Commission made a proposal for an e-Privacy Regulation in 2017, but that proposal seems to have died in 2021. We're expecting a new proposal once the new Commission is up and running in the autumn.

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eprivacy-regulation

[John F. Carr]

I met an American equivalent the other day. A company sending somebody to my home offered to send me schedule updates by text. To get a text message I need to accept a contract waiving consumer rights under a marketing spam act. For one "we'll be here in 10 minutes" I get a lifetime of robocalling. I'll take my chances without a reminder. I expect to be home during the whole time window.

[Kazinski]

The problem is they can't sent you even one text without the waiver.

Hopefully they will use the waiver responsibly.

[Martinned2]

Speaking of the UK elections, the nowcast has the Tories down to 88 seats (losing 284) and Labour on 451 (gaining 251), with 21% and 41% of the vote, respectively. Isn't democracy great?

https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

[Kazinski]

Of course a big reason for that is Nigel Farage and the Reform party surge, it will be a big win for Democracy if the Reform party becomes the 2nd biggest party in the UK.

The Conservatives aren't conservative, why vote for Labour Light when you can vote for Labour.

But of course no incumbent party is doing well now in Europe, or the US, or Canada except in Italy.

[Sarcastr0]

The Conservatives aren’t conservative, why vote for Labour Light when you can vote for Labour.

Nah the conservatives are trying to rebrand but they're like the only party with a clear identity in England, it's just a very negative one. (Well I guess the greens)
The conservatives were so conservative they crashed the economy under the previous PM.

Labour is unpopular because it's Conservative light not the reverse.
Labour's in it's lack of identity decided to go back to Blairist economic austerity alongside social liberalism.

Reform also doesn't have a identity at the moment - it's just populist rhetoric goooo. (don't talk about Brexit).

And the lib dems are still recovering from forming a coalition with the conservatives.

England is in a financial crisis that is partially self-inflicted and partially externally inflicted. None of their main five parties seem to know what to do about it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is the Reform UK party still a private company limited by shares? (As opposed to being a political party on the traditional "unincorporated association" model, I mean.)

I guess you can't exactly corruptly profit from politics if you openly profit from politics...

[Martinned2]

It is, but I don't think that makes any difference whatsoever. Ideally political parties should have broad, bottom-up democracy based on membership, but that's an ideal that no English political party really approximates. Reform certainly isn't making a profit from its activities.

[Kazinski]

Yet the biggest issue seems to be immigration, and the conservatives inability to get a handle on it, Labour is running on being more effective.

Reform is running on rolling it back

[Sarcastr0]

Economy, NHS, housing.

Lots of issues in the mix; immigration is just one.

IMO it's the impact of sluggish economy that's undergirding everything more than higher viz but not as high impact immigration.

Reform is running on every shitty populist stand they can take, of course they're running nativist. Just don't talk about Brexit.

[Martinned2]

There is very little evidence that Reform voters are disappointed Tory voters: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49762-general-election-2024-reform-uk-voters-are-not-benign-toward-the-tories-they-are-belligerent

[Nige]

'Nigel Farage and the Reform party surge,'

What, five seats at the most optimistic, and has Farage has ever actually won an election?

'The Conservatives aren’t conservative'

Well, yes, they tried to Farage themselves, and this is how it worked out.

[DaveM]

RFK Jr.’s speech (https://robertfkennedyjr.substack.com/p/realpolitik-in-the-age-of-multipolarity ) about the foreign policy “realpolitik” of the Nixon era has some interesting applications to the growing influence of administrative law in the US. He writes,

“America has lost its moral authority and a great portion of its stature abroad. These are casualties of decades of unjust wars, regime change operations, support for dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, and suppression of popular democratic movements.

As above, so below. As abroad, so at home. What America did to the world, it did to itself. As America pursued imperial power in the guise of “promoting democracy,” so too has democracy become a mere facade at home. Yes, we still have elections, but so does Iran, so does Russia, so does China. Meanwhile, our government targets its own people with propaganda, surveillance, and censorship. It centralizes power in the hands of a corporate-political elite. It deploys government agencies like the DOJ, EPA, FCC, and IRS to persecute political enemies.

Most significant of all, we have lost faith in ourselves as a good people and a great nation. The authentic patriotism of the post-World War Two era gave way to Bush-Cheney jingoism. American can-do spirit succumbed to a national epidemic of depression and addiction. How are people to believe in this nation, when its government has neglected them,and neglected the high ideals of its founders? The American Dream is now a bitter illusion. The promise that hard work and integrity will lift you out of poverty is broken. The America of my youth boasted the largest middle class and the greatest social mobility in the world. Today we are among the most stratified and immobile. Poor Americans are less likely than the poor of any Western nation to transcend poverty.

I, too, feel that the US has turned some kind of a corner over the past couple of decades with regards to our government. I am beginning to look on the federal government not as a necessary evil, but as an unnecessary one. Why should the government be interested in censoring me? I’m a nobody. Why would they even care?

The growth of the “administrative state” has a lot to do with this. The “state” is too large and indiscriminate. It sweeps everything and everyone up in its reach. At the same time, the law no longer seems to be committed to fairness, but rather to avoiding blame and consequences for bad decisions.

A pretty thought-provoking speech, I thought.

[Martinned2]

“America has lost its moral authority and a great portion of its stature abroad. These are casualties of decades of unjust wars, regime change operations, support for dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, and suppression of popular democratic movements.

Who knew that doing foreign policy on the basis of "whoever holds the White House at any given time can do whatever he likes, international law be damned" might have consequences? But I don't think that RFK jr. is necessarily the right person to make that case.

[Dr. Ed 2]

JFK was running "murder, incorporated" down in Latin America....

And I don't think it is decades of "unjust" wars as much as fucked up wars where we weren't willing to allow ourselves to win.

We should have done it like we did Japan and Germany -- kept a large, secure base and then encouraged Western culture. Bulldozed a few Mosques if necessary, just like we did to the Shinto extremists in Japan, insisted on de-Nazi laws like Germany has to this day, but largely stayed on the (securable) air base in Afganistan and created the George Bush Training Center in the Iraqi Desert.

Headline on Drudge yesterday was "WWIII is inevitable" -- and thanks to Brandon, it well may be...

[Martinned2]

Yes, violating the locals' freedom of religion, that definitely would have improved the US reputation in the world.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We did it in Japan...

[Nelson]

Oh, well then it's OK.

Does that mean we can drop nuclear bombs again? We did it in Japan, after all.

[Martinned2]

Did you though? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why should the government be interested in censoring me? I’m a nobody. Why would they even care?

I’ve got good news for you, DaveM!

[ThePublius]

Nevada Democrats trying to save democracy by removing RFK, Jr. and the Green Party from the ballot.

[Brett Bellmore]

What they mean by "democracy" is just Democrats winning elections. Nothing more.

[Martinned2]

Every Trumpist accusation is an admission...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

[ThePublius]

What the heck does that mean? Your statement is only "whataboutism," meaningless.

My comment was because the Dems, particularly Biden, continue to Trumpet this "threat to democracy" theme, while doing particularly undemocratic things. Like election interference, registering illegals to vote, taking people off ballots, and so on.

[Martinned2]

You're projecting, and pre-emptively justifying an attempt to overturn the election result for the second time in a row.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's not projecting, they're literally trying to disqualify people from the ballot in the name of protecting "democracy".

Apparently "democracy", so defined, doesn't involve voters actually having any choice about who to vote for.

[jb]

You start off with kind of an interesting point (is it anti-democratic to try to kick candidates you think might hurt your team's chances off the ballot?)

Then you just fall back on a bunch of silly unsubstantiated talking points ("election interference" being a particularly silly bogeyman term and "registering illegals to vote" being a right wing fever dream) which makes it hard to believe that you're engaging the conversation seriously.

Personally, I think trying to kick people off the ballot is generally pretty undemocratic. Also worth noting that both major parties do it a lot so it's pretty silly to try to act like it's a tactic primarily used by one or the other.

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

Before going off on Trumpism, what’s your actual opinion on the electoral “strategy” of asking Nevada state officials to kick an opponent off the ballot?

Fine and dandy? Nasty but still acceptable?

My opinion: In this case the “reasoning” behind for the request is obviously bogus; therefore, it’s 100% as wrong as asking Georgia state officials to consider changing the vote totals based on bogus accusations of fraud.

In both cases it’s a case of asking a state official to take an action that would be unlawful if the official chose to comply. Whether the request crosses over from mere misuse of “free speech petitioning for redress” into the crime of “racketeering and conspiracy” depends on state of mind. I see no reason to think the state of mind in one case was better than the other.

[Martinned2]

An election system should approximate majority rule as much as possible. In most US elections the system doesn't do that, and allows people to win with <50% of the vote if they can split their opponents' support. The first best solution for that is to improve the election system. The second best solution is any change that makes it harder for people to get on the ballot who plainly don't have the support of a large part of the electorate.

[Don Nico]

"who plainly don't have the support of a large part"
Martin, I thought in a democracy, it is the election that is supposed to make that measurement.
Removing RFK from the ballot is simply election tampering.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not if he's not legally on the ballot.

[Don Nico]

That is the election tampering. It is done exactly because certain people believe that RFK will receive a significant number of votes.

[Sarcastr0]

Election tampering is a crime.

This is a lawsuit alleging Kennedy is hopping political parties across jurisdictions.

Seems you're coming in a bit hot with that charge.

And 'significant' is doing a lot of work here. If the margin of the general election is thin, doesn't take alot of votes to be significant.

[ThePublius]

It's election shenanigans. First they accepted him. Then they later said, Oh, wait a minute, maybe these signatures are no good! It's obvious that Biden and/or the DNC got to them.

Same with the Green Party.

They know both of these on the ballot are likely to hurt Biden. This is banana republic politics at its best.

[Sarcastr0]

Who is they? Is this the same people now suing?

I doubt it.

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

My definition of majority: >50% of voters voluntarily picking a candidate.

Your definition of majority: Set up the ballot so that several million people are forced to vote for someone they don't support, count their votes to get >50%, then do a hip waggling "Mandate! Mandate!" dance even though you don't really have a mandate at all.

[Martinned2]

Like I said, that's the second best. The first best is an election system that fully takes into account voters' first, second, third, etc. preferences.

[David Nieporent]

As I'm sure you know, there isn't any system that can fully do so.

[Martinned2]

I am. Arrow was a pretty extraordinary guy.

[Krayt]

Boys, boys! You both suck and are engaged in using the power of government to hurt political opponents!

One side more than the other, currently. 25 years ago?

[Sarcastr0]

You are not above it all

[Bwaaah]

Brett Bellmore: What they mean by “democracy” is just Democrats winning elections. Nothing more.

I think they mean [D]emocracy.

(hat-tip to Commenter_XY)

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, it is [D]ifferent because [R]easons, Bwaaah.

[Martinned2]

Kevin John Heller, my go to specialist on international criminal law has posted a quick explanation on what's going to happen next at the ICC wrt the arrest warrants that the prosecutor has sought in relation to the situation in Palestine.

https://opiniojuris.org/2024/06/24/a-brief-note-on-arrest-warrants-and-summonses-at-the-icc/

[Commenter_XY]

There is no palestine. There is Israel.

[Martinned2]

Take it up with the ICC (and its pre-trial chamber). That's what the case is called: "the situation in Palestine".

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, I take it up with the antisemites as I run across them.

[Martinned2]

Go ahead. Let me know if you see any.

[Sarcastr0]

Wait, is your thesis that believing that Palestine is a thing means you're antisemetic?

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

Apparently even Theodor Herzl himself was an anti-semite:

"Zionism demands a publicly recognized and legally secured homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. "

[Don Nico]

Palestine has referred to roughly the same part of the world since the Roman Republic.
That do not mean that is or isn't a political entity.

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

Exactly. Which makes it mystifying when someone in the US claims there is no such place, or that there is no such person as a Palestinian. I believe many people in Israel use both words.

[Bob from Ohio]

No State of Palestine and no separate group called "Palestinian Arabs". They are just Arabs, no different than those in Jordan or other places colonized by Arab settlers.

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

About like saying there’s no such thing as a white South African; they’re “just” Dutchmen and Englishmen.

I suppose in some contexts, e.g. some kind of academic language distribution survey, that would be fine.

If the context was an ANC supporter in the middle of serious racial unrest, we’d all know what the speaker’s implied point is.

So, Bob from Ohio. When things finally break down in the US and our political differences become intolerable, where should we send your family “back” to?

[Martinned2]

For the avoidance of doubt, when the ICC refers to the "situation in Palestine" they use "Palestine" in the geographic sense. Many, many questions of jurisdiction and geographical boundaries remain to be sorted out.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"There is Israel."

For now, sure.

After America withdraws the skirts Israel has been operating and hiding behind for decades, because most Americans dislike war-crimey, superstition-addled, bigoted, right-wing belligerents?

Maybe, maybe not.

Anyone have a good bacon cheeseburger recipe?

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

Nobody cares about your opinion Nazi martin.

[Nige]

Has Trump called him a very fine person? No? Then there's a mistake in there somewhere.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm sure there's a great story about why you (of all people) think Martin (of all people) is a Nazi.

Shame I missed it.

[apedad]

Supreme Court Sides With US and Blocks Rio Grande Water Deal (2)

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the US government’s challenge to a consent decree among Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado, forcing those states to rethink how they’ll divvy up water in the Rio Grande River Basin to account for federal interests.

The ruling also gives the federal government greater control over agreements struck between or among states, including interstate water compacts.

In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the high court ruled that the US has valid claims in the Rio Grande Compact and set aside the consent decree. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanuagh joined in the majority opinion.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/supreme-court-sides-with-us-in-rio-grande-water-case

Got to ensure those pesky states remember who the boss is.

Art I, Sec 10, Cl 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

[apedad]

Looks like there are currently about 80 approved interstate compacts.

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

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are way more than just 80 -- Maine and New Hampshire alone have at least that many, including dual-state school districts, three bridges, and an agreement that lets police officers follow suspected drunk drivers across the river into the other state and stop them there.

[John F. Carr]

The police chase law might not be a formal compact. It can be implemented by paired unilateral acts. Massachusetts towns often appoint officers from adjacent towns as special unpaid police officers so they can pursue suspects, work traffic details, etc. In border towns police from New Hampshire can get the same deal. Only rarely does the legislature step in. An example is a law from about 20 years ago allowing officers in Boston, Brookline, and Newton to go 500 feet into the next city. I have heard of New Hampshire officers pursuing into Massachusetts and no acts of Congress were cited.

There is a common law rule, or at least a common and ancient rule dating to the times when territorial jurisdiction was important, expanding the authority of an officer in hot pursuit of a felon. This would not apply to somebody "swerving within his lane" but could apply to a serious high speed chase.

[Dr. Ed 2]

One or both AGs felt this was necessary.

[Kazinski]

That also includes the state popular vote electoral vote compact.

[Krayt]

That has created a series of predictions that may take decades to verify or disprove, like what if such a scenario actually happens, and a state population scheduled to vote for the actual electoral winner has to sit there while their politicians hand their determinative vote to the other side.

Remember, it only makes a difference if it makes a difference. At that point, all the pontificating politicians will get behind lawsuits to thwart their own improvident behavior.

If you think they will brazenly virtue signal it's the right thing to do anyway, when their jobs, and hence their oddly skyrocketing fortunes are on the line, go ahead. That's a prediction, too.

Lessee!

[Krayt]

Honestly, this is the kind of thing that should go to the Supreme Court before it can happen. After such an election, there’s the added rule you shouldn’t change the rules after the vote to make your guy win.

"We were fine with it as long as it had no effect, or made our guy win. But the other guy? No! Sue sue sue!"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If the Feds ban our healthcare freedom, White people will die.

Discuss.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think things will get really ugly should Trump not win this fall.

Ugly like it got a century ago...

[Mr. Bumble]

The Roaring Twenties was ugly?

[Longtobefree]

That depends on if you are a Baptist or a bootlegger

[Bwaaah]

Nothing of the happy-drinking (and dancing) partiers themselves?

[Dr. Ed 2]

25% of the voting-age men in Maine belonged to the Klan -- I'd say ugly...

[BrotherMovesOn]

It's the Maine way.

[SRG2]

Because it will mean that the election was stolen, or because there is a significant minority of right-wing voters who only respect democracy as long as their guy wins?

[Bwaaah]

Well, amongst about 350,000,000 citizens, if any more than a few hundred protest, it'll be a whole damned INSURRECTION (again).

I'm terrified. You?

[Nige]

But by definition anyone who votes for Trump does not respect democracy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, voting for the candidate of your choice is undemocratic in Nigebot world.

[Bwaaah]

It's an arbitrary little ninny, that bot. It has an inference rule that says who you vote for implies what you believe.

"If you vote for [blah] [blah], then you believe [blah] [blah]."

Is that rule correct? Of course it's not.

There is not a single belief that can be reliably ascribed to a person solely based on who that person votes for. One need only look out from under a rock to know that when it comes to "respect for democracy," significant numbers of yeasayers and naysayers vote for both Democrat and Republican candidates.

Nige pretends his How-You-Vote-Tells-What-You-Believe rule is valid. It is not. It is demonstrably fallacious.

Only a dummy or a bot could be so lacking in reasoning capability as to be unable to see that rule as being fallacious.

Does Nige know his rule is demonstrably false? If not, then he's a dummy (human or bot).

But if Nige *does* know his How-You-Vote-Tells-What-You-Believe rule is false, and yet treats it as true (as he does here), then he clearly isn't bothered by being wrong. What kind of person is so lacking in concern for self-image that he doesn't care if he's wrong in the eyes of pretty much all smarter people? Sounds like some kind of sociopathy to me...a pathological lack of concern for what others think.

But I don't think that's Nige. I don't think he really knows that his rule is wrong. And even if he does, he doesn't grok that if his rule is wrong, *he* is wrong. (Get it: for Nige, being wrong doesn't mean you're wrong, if you're Nige.)

No sociopathy. Just dummy...human or bot.

[Ed Grinberg]

As I've said before, being a libertarian does not mean that you have to support open borders.
(Prof. Somin, take note.)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/06/22/rand-paul-illegal-immigrant-criminal-behavior-should-be-enough-to-disqualify-biden-from-consideration/

[Martinned2]

On the other hand, doves on immigration aren't necessarily libertarians. Like Trump, for example, who wants to give green cards to all non-citizen college grads in the US: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/20/trump-foreign-graduates-green-card-idea-00164359

[Brett Bellmore]

That's actually a sensible "cream skimming" policy. So long as it excludes "studies" majors, of course.

[Martinned2]

I think it's sensible too. I just don't think that the typical Trumpist would like it. (And therefore I don't think it's an idea we'll ever hear from again.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you misunderstand your typical "Trumpist". (Not that I'm really one, but I know quite a few.) They object to illegal immigration, and flooding the country with unvetted illegals and unskilled labor.

Bringing in more engineers and doctors hardly upsets them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Even brown ones?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not the conservative Trump supporters of my experience.

Granted, most of my friends I've met through the local Phi-Am association, either directly or indirectly, so the odds of any of them actually objecting to immigrants being "brown" (As opposed to "illegal") is pretty slim.

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

Well sure, the Phi-Am association.

Not in the mood to go hunting through old comment threads but I’ve seen multiple complaints here about H1B visas, which of course go primarily to engineers, doctors, programmers, etc. I guess you could say those are “no true Trumpist” commenters but they’re clearly not non-existent. Either way, whether they are doctors or day laborers, or even legal vs illegal, isn't their main objection.

And you know there are at least a couple commenters here who openly oppose immigration on the grounds that they want a homogeneous monoculture. At best that indicates an implicit false belief that immigrants can’t or won’t assimilate to American values, at worst it’s just a straight up desire for a white ethnostate.

[Nelson]

“They object to illegal immigration”

Sure, if you define “illegal immigrant” as “someone not born in America or to American parents”. Remember, Steven Miller was a Trump favorite.

And most of them want to get rid of the "born on America" part.

[David Nieporent]

Pro tip: Donald Trump does not "want[s] to give green cards to all non-citizen college grads in the US." Like pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth, it's just something he said. He'll say the opposite next week, and he'll never do anything about it either way. He 'wants' approval from whoever he's talking to at the moment.

[grb]

Trump is promising the chumps and dupes he’d stop all federal monies to any school with a vaccine manidate. Two points about that:

1. Almost every school, public and private, has a vaccine mandate. It’s been that way forever, starting way back in the 1800s. But rational, truthful and sensible campaign pledges have no place in today’s Right. They want cartoon theatrics and pro-wrestling grade fireworks. They want their reality-TV-style entertainment.

2. You still see Trump’s lickspittles defend his wretched record on COVID with the quick development of vaccines. That’s a fair point. It happened on his watch so he deserves credit. But the rest of his record is much more Trumpish: Examples include promoting junk cures, demanding less testing, using health officials as cheap political targets, and claims that infection and death numbers were falsified. Plus there was Trump’s usual half-ass lying and brat-child theatrics in the place of national leadership (bleach-injections included). If you want to review a long sequence of irresponsible Stupid, see the link below.

But vaccines were a triumph. Unfortunately, the rest of Right-wing-world followed the remainder of Trump’s covid playbook, targeting vaccines for cheap political gain too. Now Trump has to run from his own record on that one stellar thing he did. All to give MAGA the entertainment they demand.

https://progressive.org/latest/donald-trumps-actual-record-on-covid19-lueders-20240405/

[Armchair]

I'm endlessly amused by the TDS here.

David argues at length above that Trump is supporting Neo-nazis by saying they are "very fine people"...despite Trump condemning Neo Nazis in the same speech.

But now, Trump says something some consider positive, and it's not serious at all, it's "just something" Trump said.

When you can pick and choose and manipulate what Trump is "serious" about and what he's not serious about, with no real logic behind it, it just makes a mockery out of any serious thought.

[Bwaaah]

That is why I mock rant, like an idiot, "MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS)."

It's like a recitation that he does, that TDS people do, that they have to do, "All Trump Wrong Bad!!! All Trump Wrong Bad!!!"

It's almost as if they are locked in a feedback loop with Trump's unresolvable capricious rhetoric, struggling to make authoritative declarations while stuck with him presenting no sensible basis to do so. They need to say something when they have not something.

TDS.

[ThePublius]

Sometimes you even have to quote someone in authority or of notoriety to state the obvious:

"The former Democrat Governor of New York just admitted live on air that the Trump case would've never been brought if Trump wasn't running for President

"I'm telling you, that case would have never been brought. And that's what's offensive to people. And it should be.""

https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1804381656486203707?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804381656486203707%7Ctwgr%5E2400d3b0eec88382e6f82e3ebe01ae68127b2f3b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F654905%2F

[David Nieporent]

Yes, the disgraced ex-governor who resigned in scandal is absolutely an authority on this. By the way, Cuomo wasn't talking about the criminal prosecution. He was talking about the civil suit against the Trump Organization for defrauding banks.

[ThePublius]

You know, you're lying again! Watch the video. Cuomo's comment was specifically about the hush money case.

We should keep score on you, David, you just contradict people on here with lies, constantly!

[David Nieporent]

Nope. His quote was "The attorney general's case in New York, frankly, should have never been brought, And if his name was not Donald Trump and if he wasn't running for president – I'm the former AG of New York – I'm telling you that case would've never been brought. That's what is offensive to people, and it should be because if there's anything left, it's belief in the justice system that case would never have been brought. And that's what is offensive to people. And it should be."

But Alvin Bragg is not the attorney general. The attorney general is Letitia James. The AG's case — Letitia James' case — was the civil suit. Alvin Bragg — the Manhattan DA — was the criminal prosecution.

[Bwaaah]

You write very well for a person who usually has so little to say. And I mean that.

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

Well, neither of them should have been brought, so it's easy enough for anyone to mix them up.

[ThePublius]

Bill Maher and Cuomo Admit Something We've All Known About the Trump Hush Money Trial

[Krayt]

CNN today was breathless with their concerns of Trump trying to “needlessly delay the trial”. I don’t even know what one.

This is literally no concern for anyone who maintains concern for rule of law. It is only a problem if you are worried he will delay past the election. But that is a political thing, proving it is about getting a political opponent.

And it is! He plays a political game to delay. You play a political game to not delay, so you can hurt a political opponent before an election.

And so what, for those concerned with rule of law! If you want to get a scofflaw miscreant, it makes no difference in the grinding gears of justice.

[Krayt]

His delay attempts are sketchy. Your attempts to rush things before the election are vastly sketchier still.

All human history, and the state of vast swaths of humanity across the globe, are mass murdering disasters (mostly by needless deaths due to shitty economies and delayed development) plagued primarily by misbehaviors of those in power, who have no problem using the power of government against an opponent.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Krayt, I've been reading you for over a decade. Our views regarding political economy differ. You're obviously not a nihilist. And I know you don't owe but I wish you'd let me ask one favor from you.
Can you square your trashing of the legal prosecutions of Donald Trump, thus, maybe only even imperceptibly, boosting his campaign, with your (and my own) grave concern about the "Russian tanks rolling west of Poland" ?

[Mr. Bumble]

NY has quite a group of "disgraced former governors" to choose from. Can Hochul be far behind in joining the list?

[Krayt]

You men the one that emulated kings of olde expropriating the estates of irritating noblemen.

[Sarcastr0]

Cuomo's going for a media job. I expect lots more hot takes from him.

[Don Nico]

Nice ad hominem

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Did you expect anything else from him?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Since the only point of ThePublius’s post is that Cuomo is the one saying it, I think Cuomo’s credibility is fair game. (Though the fact that ThePubliuss didn’t understand what Cuomo was talking about is also relevant.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Relevant? Nah. Amusing? Obviously!

[Ed Grinberg]

In November we'll have a referendum on the question: Do we want to be a banana republic?

[Sarcastr0]

With that dramatic take, what will you do if Trump loses in November?

[Ed Grinberg]

That depends. How much cheating do you guys plan to do?

[Sarcastr0]

Seems you're already committed to lots of cheating being the case.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Right. They got away with it last time. They'll do it again. It's human nature. Just look at the criminality of the FBI and CIA.

[Nige]

How much cheating do you need to invent to justify the loss?

[Moderation4ever]

Let us be clear, the prosecution had the evidence and that resulted in a jury verdict finding the former President guilty. So, this was a good case. The question is should we allow a case like this to slip away uncharged? Normally no one care if a rich man is paying off a mistress, but when that rich man is trying to hide the fact, it does bring up questions. And when the payoffs are hide in business records it also raises questions. Trump case is unique in many ways and we don't have another case of a politician paying off a mistress and it going uncharged. While the prosecution lost the John Edwards case they did charge a crime.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The outcome being your preferred one does not make it a "good case".

[Moderation4ever]

I was basing my assessment of the case on the results. The prosecutors were able to make their case to the jury. The American legal system is based on the idea that both sides make their case and the correct result will win out. Based on this idea it was a good case.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hear that guys? Our system being jury based means it's inherently good.

Not racist. Not biased. Not two-tiered. Those are impossibilities. The Feds winning 96% of their cases doesn't suggest a thumb on the scale at all! They're just super good at prosecuting cases! Even though they aren't good at anything else...

I wonder why organizations like the Innocence Project exist, or the American Bar has programs to address "racial disparities in criminal justice"? Weird.

[Moderation4ever]

This was a state case not a Federal case.

[DaveM]

It was rigged. To this day no one knows exactly which secondary crime the jurors unanimously (?) found Trump guilty of so they could then find him guilty of the primary crime. And the judge made sure no one would ever know.

People aren't idiots. We know when the fix is in.

[David Nieporent]

I'll help: the jurors did not "find Trump guilty of" any "secondary crime." They found him guilty solely of the one crime he was charged with: falsification of business records. (Well, 34 crimes, but all the same offense.) This primary/secondary crime thing is based on a misunderstanding¹ of the operation of New York law.
​
​
¹Well, in theory. But given that the issue has been explained many times and you keep repeating this over and over, it seems more like lying about the law rather than misunderstanding it.

People aren’t idiots.

Some of you are!

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

You should probably relax a bit. You seem high risk for an aneurysm or stroke. Well, another one on top of the rest of the brain damage you appear to have received in the past several years.

He was charged with a misdemeanor, enhanced to a felony, which required the misdemeanor to be as part of covering up another crime. What crime? Causing your first aneurysm isn't Trump's fault.

[Sarcastr0]

The way this law operates has been explained ad nauseum. You at this point have no excuse to be this ignorant.

You refuse to learn how our systems and institutions work because that's what supporting Trump requires.

[David Nieporent]

1. He was charged with a felony, § 175.10. He was not charged with a misdemeanor. They're separate crimes, not some "enhancement."

2. You are incorrect about the elements of § 175.10. The statute does not require "covering up another crime." The element of § 175.10 that is not present in § 175.05 (which is indeed a misdemeanor) is the defendant's intent. Not the commission of any other crime.

[Josh R]

The jury unanimously held there was a cover up of an intent (*) to commit the second crime of NY 17-152: conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by unlawful means.

(*) There is no requirement of being found guilty of committing the second crime.

[not guilty]

"It was rigged. To this day no one knows exactly which secondary crime the jurors unanimously (?) found Trump guilty of so they could then find him guilty of the primary crime. And the judge made sure no one would ever know."

The jurors unanimously found Donald Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating the statute charged in the indictment. They did not find him guilty of committing another crime. The actus reus of the charged offense is falsifying business records; the mens rea is having the intent to defraud which includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. The prosecution need not prove actual commission or concealment of another crime.

[ThePublius]

Are any in the U.S sincerely concerned that within the next decade or so the federal government will:

1. seize all or some of 401k and IRA funds for whatever purpose, for example, for redistribution?
2. severely reduce Social Security payments?
3. Tax unrealized capital gains?

[Commenter_XY]

No
No
and No.

But your question was 'are any in America...' so the correct answers are: Yes, Yes, and Yes because there is at least one dumbass in America who will believe that.

When you withdraw, you do get taxed (from before tax accounts like 401K, IRS)...is that seizure?

SSA does need modernization.

[ThePublius]

"When you withdraw, you do get taxed (from before tax accounts like 401K, IRS)…is that seizure?"

No, that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to seizing accounts, as in taking control of them, deciding how much you get regularly, and redistributing some of the funds, for example.

[Bwaaah]

No. No. No.

The communists aren't taking over. The Democrats just taunt us with symbolic acts of fealty to their left-of-left compatriots. But they too have their money in retirement accounts. *Most* of their non-elite constituents, i.e. normal people, rely on Social Security benefits for retirement. And their proposals to increase capital gains taxes, while part of their Fuck-the-Rich fever dream, hurt everybody in reality.

[ThePublius]

Note that Argentina did this in 2008. They nationalized $30B in retirement assets.

[Bwaaah]

The expression "nationalized $30B" is like saying "slowly destroyed $30B." Bernie and Pocahontas like those what's-yours-should-be-ours[-becomes-nothing] strategies.

[Ed Grinberg]

Hey, that $1 million in your retirement account? You didn't earn that!

compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

[Bwaaah]

That's a blast from the past that still stings.

It's like Obama's "The Life of Julia" portrait of how government makes a successful person, including the undeniably economical student loans. (It even includes Julia using her SAT score to prove her suitability for college.) "She makes her payments on time every month, keeping her on track to repay her student loans."

Barackobama.com pretty quickly removed their Life of Julia page. (It was there for a bit.)

[Ed Grinberg]

"1. seize all or some of 401k and IRA funds"

Like this:
https://www.heritage.org/americas/commentary/kirchners-make-grab-private-pensions-bail-out-argentina

[Nige]

2. If the Republicans have their way.

[EscherEnigma]

1 seems exceedingly unlikely. Whatever party does so will lose retirees (and near-retirees) for the rest of their lives, and by definition those will be the wealthier (near) retirees... you know, the ones most likely to vote. So they'd better do something awesome and dramatic to win over a different crowd, or they're out of power for decades. So yeah, doesn't seem like a realistic concern.

2. Last time I looked at projections, once the SSA trust runs out, incoming funds will only be sufficient to cover 70% of outlays. Which is to say, absent congressional action, you're looking at a cut to 70% of SS checks (meaning a 30% cut). If congress takes action this burden may be shifted, reduced, etc., but that's the baseline. So I suppose the question is whether this counts as "severely reduce" to you, but it is very likely to happen.

3. Less likely then 2, more likely then 1. The block that would be upset about this is less sizable then the 401k holders of 1, but they are individually more influential. I'd rank this as pretty low, unless it's part of a much larger (and very dramatic) change in tax law.

[ThePublius]

Trump's clever "Santa Claus" campaign tactic: no tax on tip income.

What I would really like him to propose is to roll back income tax on Social Security income, which was brought to you by, guess who? I think it would be brilliant, and I would welcome it!

Also, I'd like to see no income tax on 401k and IRA distributions after you're a certain age.

[Commenter_XY]

Since this blog is occasionally libertarian....why have income taxes at all. Tax consumption, not income.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what tarriffs do, essentially.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and how the government was funded before the income tax was instituted.

[Don Nico]

No, that is what the VAT and sales tax do

[Mr. Bumble]

Aren't tariffs a form of VAT?

[Brett Bellmore]

But not visa versa, since VAT also operates internally.

[Bwaaah]

Commenter_XY: "Tax consumption, not income."

I admit to being a fan of our "progressive" tax system that, in some measure, takes more from those who have more money than those who have less. Note that, currently, the lower 50% of taxpayers only pay around 4% of all income taxes. ("The rich don't pay taxes" is B.S.)

I like the simplicity and general fairness of consumption taxes, but regret their regressive effects on poorer people. If you create a tax credit system for lower income people to recover some of their consumption-based tax losses, I'd probably be interested.

[ThePublius]

So, you're saying you're a socialist, right?

Why should wealthy people pay more for receiving the same services - in fact, fewer services - than poorer people?

That's why tariffs are the best way.

[Bwaaah]

"So, you’re saying you’re a socialist, right?"

I don't know whether to be offended, proud, or just confused. Give me your definition of "a socialist" and maybe I'll be less confused.

[Don Nico]

Tariffs are a poor way that only serve as weapons in economic "warfare" between nations. VAT and sales taxes are the internally consistent was to tax consumption especially with some sort of tax credit and/or exemption of food purchaces.

[Mr. Bumble]

Once you start granting exceptions everyone will want one for what they think is important or necessary.
Of course if you set the rate low enough it might work.
Wonder what a 1% federal VAT would generate if everything was taxed?

[Brett Bellmore]

The general problem with any 'progressive' tax on income is that it gives the government a strong incentive to pursue policies that make income inequality worse, since under a 'progressive' tax system the same total income yields more tax revenue the worse income inequality gets.

So the government sets out to create a society where you have a lot of poor people whose votes can be bought cheaply, and a few ultra-rich who are convenient for harvesting taxes, and useful for kickbacks, too. The middle class are just a waste: Too well off to be cheaply bought, too poor to give your failson a nice board position.

Of course, the original point was to make higher spending levels than the average person could pay enough taxes to support politically feasible, by arranging for most voters to be only paying a fraction of the cost of the services they got.

[Nige]

Oh sure, the poor not starving and getting access to health care is 'bribes' but lucrative billion-dollar contracts for the super-rich and making their luxury yachts tax-free is vital to reducing income inequality.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wasn't that the basis of Forbes's Fair Tax?

[M L]

I agree. No income tax needed.

Fund the federal government with tariffs and excise taxes like we did before 1913.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8PrRW6uG1B/

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we can reach the heights of technology and innovation of 1900 without an income tax!
Assuming the American economy is not materially different from 120 years ago.

Just incredibly badly thought out takes from an account for homeschooling your kid with this kind of nonsense.

[bernard11]

US imports in 2023 totaled about $4 trillion. Individual and corporate income taxes brought in about $2.5 trillion.

Just how big a tariff do you want to charge? Bear in mind that your tariff is going to reduce imports substantially.

[Brett Bellmore]

That is, of course, a secondary purpose of tariffs, favoring domestic production.

[Sarcastr0]

They also, of course, kill domestic consumption at some point.

[Mr. Bumble]

If a product is necessary or desirable enough, domestic production will rise to satisfy consumption.

[bernard11]

At prices the inflation hawks will despise. All the more so when the cost of imported components goes up.

And some domestic production is for export. What do you think will happen there when other countries retaliate?

[bernard11]

My point is that tariffs, even without the attendant (severe) downsides, have no chance of raising adequate revenue.

The idea is innumerate.

[Mr. Bumble]

Our current systems doesn’t “raise adequate revenue” according to the pols and hasn’t in decades which is why deficits and debt are so high.
Time to get spending under control, eliminate pork and waste and just do only those thing the feds are supposed to do per the Constitution.

[M L]

Right. What is "adequate revenue" according to these wackos? Limited to X number of trillions in debt and deficits? There is no amount of spending increase they have ever opposed.

Talk about being "innumerate."

[Sarcastr0]

You want a modern government that is vastly smaller than any other modern government.

It's utterly impractical at a moment's glance; to extreme for just about everyone else on here but those who care only about owning the libs, not about substance.

[M L]

It's not just tariffs. It is excise/sales taxes generally. Of course spending should be reduced as well. But yeah, tariffs are fine, much better than income taxes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump proposes a lot -- but not taxing tip income would exacerbate the conflict between those who are tipped and those who are not.

During the Wuhan Hysteria, a retail establishment (Ocean State Job Lots) attempted to add a "voluntary" 4% surcharge to customer's bills to pay employees. I notice that ended.

[ThePublius]

Yea, I hate that kind of stuff, like retail establishments soliciting charitable contributions at check out. Why don't the corporations make charitable donations if they feel so strongly about it?

[Mr. Bumble]

Corporations should not be in the business of making charitable donations but should be paying their shareholders and letting them decide if and when to contribute to charities.

[Martinned2]

I'm not necessarily a fan of a strict shareholder model (call me on the fence on shareholder vs. stakeholder), but I've always been suspicious about corporate charitable donations too. The only loophole I see is that some charitable spending does actually generate a return for the company, either as marketing or because owning a politician or two can be helpful.

[Brett Bellmore]

But most corporate charity is just a way for upper management to increase their personal incomes at the expense of stockholders without being called on it.

I mean, suppose somebody said to you, "I'm going to let you increase your income arbitrarily, and you won't pay any taxes on the extra income, but with the condition that all the extra goes to charities of your choice."

You'd jump at it, wouldn't you? I sure would.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"(call me on the fence on shareholder vs. stakeholder)"

A big fan of the workers controlling the means of production, I see.

Personally, I'm a big fan of stakeholder sexual autonomy.

[Martinned2]

That is literally the opposite of what I said.

[Moderation4ever]

I would put Trump's no tax on tips with Mexico paying for the wall and a health care program better than the ACA and cheaper. All are fantasies pitched to the gullible.

I do like the idea of not taxing SS payments. The government should not give you a payment and then turn around and tax it. Just reduce the payment and leave it at that.

As for the IRAs/401K the idea is that you take them out when your older and have a lower tax rate. That might not be the case for many seniors these days.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they're all feasible, but under conditions you don't like.

Mexico could easily have been forced to pay for the wall by simply putting a heavy tax on remittances, perhaps refundable on proof that you're a citizen. Suddenly all those illegals sending money home would be paying for the wall! Not that the wall was terribly expensive; The US-Mexico border is only about 3/8" per American, you could build an utterly impregnable barrier for the cost of a pack of bubble gum per American.

Didn't happen because Congress didn't WANT a wall getting in the way of illegal immigration, they just can't say so, so they settle for under-funding border enforcement.

Similarly, it's easy to get a better and cheaper health care system than the ACA, that's what we had prior to the ACA. The key here is recognizing that the ACA is an off-budget entitlement program: The insurance companies are forced to offer below cost insurance to politically favored groups, and must fund this by charging politically unfavored groups, (Trump's constituency!) worse insurance at a higher rate.

Get rid of the entitlement program, go back to people paying for their own insurance, and a few minor reforms, and presto: Cheaper, better insurance. Except for the people who are presently getting it subsidized, of course. Make the case for openly paying for their insurance, instead of hiding it in regulations.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Mexico could easily have been forced to pay for the wall "

Then why didn't it happen? Does Trump enjoy being proven a liar?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Seems like a pretty damning indictment of Trump!

[bernard11]

Mexico could easily have been forced to pay for the wall by simply putting a heavy tax on remittances, perhaps refundable on proof that you’re a citizen. Suddenly all those illegals sending money home would be paying for the wall!

I don't suppose you can imagine that there are Mexicans who are here perfectly legally but are not citizens?

And how do you propose to tax remittances, anyway? It's a simple-minded nonsensical idea.

[Sarcastr0]

Man, we have had some crazy tax takes recently. As to the law, the Constitution, what's politically viable, what's a good idea, what's moral, what's for sure going to happen...

I guess for the most part the tax madness probably resides in big Reason, not around here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. It's really no different from the student loan giveaway. There's no underlying economic basis for it, it's just a ploy to buy votes.

[DaveM]

He’s pandering and buying votes. How is this any different than buying votes with student loan forgiveness? Answer: it isn’t.

[ThePublius]

It's a lot different.

First, student loan forgiveness is a huge amount of money out of the federal coffers, and benefits primarily fairly well-off people who willingly entered into debt to pursue degrees that are essentially worthless.

Tip income is earned primarily by people at the lower tiers of society who are WORKING FOR A LIVING. And, while it does reduce tax revenue - marginally, at best - it's not an immediate and enormous outlay from the treasury. It won't exacerbate inflation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"He also needed to have an obvious sort of virility, and that’s a problem in Russia. I don’t know how much you know about Russian history, but there is a long history of war, starvation, gulags and also extreme problems with alcohol and mental illness. All of that and, statistically, there are less men than there are women in Russia"

Hmmmmmm..........

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/an-oral-history-of-schastlivy-vmeste-the-russian-remake-of-married-with-children?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

[Dr. Ed 2]

And in the Karen Read lynching: https://howiecarrshow.com/plow-driver-only-honest-man-in-karen-read-case/

[SRG2]

I hadn't come across it before, but when I read a summary of the case, what struck me as suspicious was that apparently an initial search didn't find broken glass but a later search did.

Whenever that happens, that should create a strong presumption of police tampering. Larry Swearingen was murdered by the state partly because of evidence only "discovered" on a repeat search.

[ThePublius]

It's worse than that. The prosecution says that the wounds on O'Keefes arm were from the broken tail light; yet, there was no blood on the tail light pieces. And the e-room doc said the wounds were dog bites.

And on and on and on. The most crooked cops and prosecutor on memory.

[grb]

The case stinks to high heaven.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Arrogant cops who have never faced a competent defense attorney before.

[loki13]

Periodically, Massachusetts gets swept up in something that the rest of the country doesn’t know (or really care) about.

Charles Stuart.
Louise Woodward.
Karen Read.

(FWIW, I think the case against Read is corrupt as heck from what little I know. But I know very little.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

I rarely trust media accounts of contentious court cases, and about the only people I hear discussing it are MAGA nutcases like Dr. Ed and ThePublius, which I’ll admit makes me instinctively assume she’s guilty. If there’s an objective, intelligent, evidence-based summary of the story I’d definitely be interested in reading it.

[loki13]

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/karen-read-trial-timeline-john-okeefe/

That's about as objective as you'll find.

Essentially, the whole thing is bizarre. IMO, if Read did it, the whole thing exposes the issues with LEO and zealous focus. And if she didn't, there's something really dark going on. But, as I wrote, I know very little.

[ThePublius]

"the only people I hear discussing it are MAGA nutcases like Dr. Ed and ThePublius, which I’ll admit makes me instinctively assume she’s guilty"

That's a really stupid position to take. Why don't you do a little research, read up on it. It stinks to high heaven, it's a frame up, and it couldn't be more obvious. It's been carried on TV, too, if you want to search for video.

[loki13]

To build on what I said, Publius, I think that outside of New England ... this isn't a story except for certain MAGA types. In Boston, however, it's all anyone is talking about (so I hear from a friend, who tells me that it's the alpha and omega of all conversations).

I'm not sure why. It doesn't seem to have any particular "MAGA" theme to it. But I can understand why NS is looking for some unbiased sourcing, especially if he hadn't heard of it...

[ThePublius]

I confess I don't get the MAGA connection, at all!

[hobie]

Whether its vaccine nanochip trackers, 5G, Hugo Chaves voting machines, Don Biden's crime syndicate etc., you MAGA rubes only seem to latch on to things that lack objective reality. Comes now the latest MAGA cause celebre: Karen Read. So, color us suspicious, because, you know, priors

[David Nieporent]

You forgot chemtrails.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Me neither!

[Nige]

' Why don’t you do a little research,'

Well, the point is, not to trust a word you guys say WITHOUT doing that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why don’t you do a little research, read up on it.

When I've tried to research it, the only results I found were: either mainstream new coverage, which I find to generally be superficial and unreliable, and MAGA goofballs who sound like crazy people (e.g. your links). (Admittedly, I didn't try that hard.) I'd certainly be interested in reading about it, which is why I asked if anyone had some reliable sources.

[bernard11]

The Boston Globe has had extensive coverage.

[ReaderY]

Over the weekend, Ukraine sent some drones to Russian targets in Crimea. Russia shot some down. Debris fell on a breach and killed some beach-goers. Russia is of course accusing the United States and Ukraine of war crimes over this incident, taking exactly the position often seen on this blog with respect to Israel’s obligations, that Ukraine simply shouldn’t do military activities that involve a significant risk of civilian casualties regardless of intent or fault.

Do those who believe Israel has this obligation also believe Ukraine does as well? Are Ukraine and the US committing war crimes? Should Zelensky and Biden be indicted?

[Martinned2]

Of course the same rules apply to Israel and to Ukraine. But I don't think that the situation you're describing involved a significant risk of civilian casualties. Ukraine attacked legitimate targets, and it could not control or foresee what might happen with the debris of drones that Russia shot down. That stuff might literally have landed anywhere.

[John F. Carr]

Both sides' PR teams treat civilian deaths as intentional terrorist acts. It's part of the noise of war.

[grb]

ReaderY has a tired-old strawman shtick: He pretends objections to Israel’s conduct of the war are solely because civilians have died. Now, this is as obvious a lie as anyone could imagine. It’s not remotely close to being true.

The reason the U.S. has held-up delivery of 2000lb (very-dumb) bombs isn’t because they might sully the morally pristine battlefield with an occasional civvy death; it’s because the IDF was dropping scores of these bombs in densely populated urban areas and indescrimately killing hundreds of women and children. Israel hasn’t been criticized for accidental civilian deaths; they’ve been criticized for killing civilians at a rate many times higher than seen in other wars over the last decades.

Given ReaderY knows this, why does he bother with nonsense like this Ukrainian crap? Because it allows him to peddle the claim Israel is facing a double-standard and not allowed to defend itself. And the only way to sell that B.S. is with blatant strawman "arguments" like above.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trying to defend Israel's war-criming right-wingers is tough work. Not only because guys like Smotrich occasionally get caught telling the truth about their unlawful and immoral, bigoted and superstition-driven conduct, but also because most Americans don't want to be complicit in Israel's right-wing misconduct.

[ReaderY]

Appreciate the support and completely agree. The NAACP’s job defending blacks against all the charges of savage attrocities black people commit whenever they’re permitted to run a government was incredibly difficult, and mostly a losing battle for more than half a century.

Completely agree Israel’s job isn’t any easier. You should see the atrocities Hitler accused Jews of committing. People like you just aren’t going to be willing to change your entrenched beliefs. And the evidence doesn’t even have to be manipulated very much to keep folks like you going.

Time and again, Hamas has shoved civilians in front of its guns, and time and again, people like you join it in raging at Israel when they get killed.

If Hamas had given some of that civilian-use concrete it got to build bomb shelters or even done a fraction of the things to protect civilians that your comparator countries with lower civilian casualties did, if it hadn’t repeatedly chosen to hide in crowds of civilians to anbush Israeli soldiers, if it hadn’t deliberately made maximizing civilian deaths for the propaganda power a central part of its soft-war strategy, you would at least be just wrong and not deliberately trying to blow smoke up my ass.

[Nige]

'You should see the atrocities Hitler accused Jews of committing.'

Have you paid attention to the atrocities you're accusing people of committing?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The NAACP was fighting for justice.

Israel's right-wing government is stealing land, terrorizing people based on silly superstition, committing war crimes, abusing American support, and propping up a corrupt jerk.

The NAACP won. Israel will lose.

[ReaderY]

You’ve consistently taken Hamas’ position in treating all casualties as Israel’s fault. But the causalties here are different from those of Raqaa only because the IS did things like building bomb shelters for its citizens which Hamas has pointedly refused to do. Israel isn’t doing anything different from what the United States did. But Hamas has deliberately maximally exposed its civilian population so that its shills, e.g. you, can to build a bogus propaganda case that Israel is deliberately killing civilians.

You are, like Russia with Ukraine, making Israel responsible for what Hamas does.

[grb]

I have NEVER taken the position all Palestinian casualties are objectionable or wrong, much less a “war crime”. You just made that up. And as I pointed out in our last exchange, there is no comparison between any recent U.S. war and the IDF in Gaza. The most commonly used talking point is the urban Battle of Fallujah. But civilian csualities from the U.S. military action there were a small percent of what has happened in Gaza.

You keep the strawmen coming, one after the other, and refuse to engage with the real objections to Israel’s tactics. As for Russia, it's funny you bring that up: There was been scorching criticism of its indescriminate bombing and missile attacks against Ukrainian cities. But in a speech at the begining of the year, a smirking Putin laughed at that. You dare criticize us? Look at what Israel is doing! As loathsome as Russia's thug leader is, there's no response to his taunt. Trying comparing the things the U.S. & world criticized Russia for with the IDF's conduct. It's not a pleasant comparison.

[zztop8970]

I’ve already shown you this is false the last time you brought it up.
But to repeat:
1. We don’t know how many of the casualties in Gaza are civilian vs. combatant, so the only meaningful comparison is total casualties.
2. Total killed in Fallujah (civilian+militants) = ~2800 (high end of estimates)
3. Population of Fallujah – ~250000
4. killed as percentage of population: 1.12%

Gaza:
Killed (total) ~ 38,000 (if you believe Hamas numbers) or 23,000 if you use AP’s analysis of actually identified casualties
Gaza population: ~2,375,000
Killed as percentage of population: 1.6% (high end) to 0.96% (AP numbers)
The numbers are very much comparable.

[grb]

Really? The IDF has killed civillans into the tens of thousands, but you claim 2800 (civilian+militants) is somehow higher because “something, something, something – percentages!”

If that’s the best you can do, you shouldn’t even bother.

[grb]

(I guess if three people lived at a crossroads and a stray bomb took-em all out, zztop8970 would find that the ultimate in war crimes! We need a better class of right-wingers here. Nonsense like this is way too easy)

[zztop8970]

You scoff, but just expose your lack of understanding of how the rule of proportionality works in IHL.
Killing people unintentionally, by accident ("stray bomb") is not a war crime
If you deliberately drop a bomb on 3 civilians and kill them, with no legitimate military objective in their vicinity- that is absolutely a war crime.
Conversely , if you target an enemy weapons depot storing 500 artillery rockets and destroy it, killing 10 civilians who were nearby in the process, that is most likely not a war crime at all, even though you killed 3 times as many civilians.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe if Hamas did away with open carry there would be fewer "civilian" casualties.

[zztop8970]

I guess percentages are to hard for you to follow, so I'll spoon feed you:
If you are comparing a 6 week battle in a city of 250,000 people to an 8 month war in a region of nearly 3 million people, absolute numbers are meaningless - of course the longer battle in the larger target space will have higher numbers. The only meaningful metric is some ratio of the casualties to either the population or duration of the conflict.
And when you normalize the numbers, to account for population sizes, then 2800 out of 250K is comparable to 38k out of 2.375 million.

[Mr. Bumble]

With apologies to ZZ Top:
He's got brains, he knows how to use them....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"You’ve consistently taken Hamas’ position in treating all casualties as Israel’s fault."

That sounds like bullshit. What is wrong with you (in addition to whatever inclines you to try to defend the indefensibly by lying)?

[Martinned2]

Speaking of Ukraine: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-sergei-kuzhugetovich-shoigu-and

On 24 June 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (...) issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu and Mr Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov, in the context of the situation in Ukraine for alleged international crimes committed from at least 10 October 2022 until at least 9 March 2023.

Mr Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu, born on 21 May 1955, Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation at the time of the alleged conduct, and Mr Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov, born on 8 September 1955, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and First Deputy Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation at the time of the alleged conduct, are each allegedly responsible for the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects (article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute) and the war crime of causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects (article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute), and the crime against humanity of inhumane acts under article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute. There are reasonable grounds to believe they bear individual criminal responsibility for the aforementioned crimes for (i) having committed the acts jointly and/or through others (article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute), (ii) ordering the commission of the crimes (article 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute), and/or (iii) for their failure to exercise proper control over the forces under their command (article 28 of the Rome Statute).

[Kazinski]

It looks like there is one significant change in RCP's Battleground State index, Trump is no longer ahead in all 7 States they are tracking.

But its not because Biden has moved ahead in one, its because they removed NC where Trump is ahead by 5 and substituted VA where Biden is up by 2:

Battlegrounds Trump Biden Spread
Arizona 48.2 43.4 Trump +4.8
Nevada 48.5 42.8 Trump +5.7
Wisconsin 47.4 47.1 Trump +0.3
Michigan 47.1 46.9 Trump +0.2
Pennsylvania 47.8 45.5 Trump +2.3
Virginia 43.3 45.5 Biden +2.2
Georgia 48.2 43.2 Trump +5.0

Probably the next change will be removing NV, and substituting MN, where Trump is down by 2 in a 2 way poll, and up by 1 in a 5 way race, or basically tied.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/minnesota/

Counting NC, Trump has 235 EV in states he took in both 2016, and 2020, which means he needs 35 more from the states listed above.

[Commenter_XY]

Polls are meaningless this far out, Kaz. Polls measure 'mood' at this stage, not votes. After Labor Day, that changes.

[Kazinski]

Maybe a normal election, but not with the two guys that have been in office for the last 7.5 years.

For instance one of the big look-fors in a presidential debate is do they look presidential, not an issue in the debate. We know how they look.

[myself]

So, I haven't seen any updates. How is Blackman's attempt to help Judge Cannon stall Trump's document trial with frivolous legal hearings going?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If Judge Cannon can be partisan and manipulate the system in favor of Trump, is it possible that other judges can also be partisan and manipulate the system to harm Trump?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does Judge Cannon's husband work for a mobbed-up Trump contributor?

[hobie]

I think the immunity hearing is today. So we should get a full play-by-play of Blackman's derring dos from the man himself in a few hours

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Federal and State agencies are registering illegals for federal elections while it is also illegal to verify citizenship for an upcoming election that has no ballot security, weak to none signature verification, election counting done in secret, and government agencies "lose" ballots and refuse to cooperate in any audits or voter roll cleanups, or any other form of election integrity.

Why do Democrats believe this is how you build trust in our elections?

[Moderation4ever]

While neither a Democrat or Republican my faith in the election is based on knowing the procedures used and that these are procedures which anyone can access to improve their knowledge of how elections are conducted. Also knowing the procedure means I know that all your accusations are BS.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Federal Court Blocks “Proof of Citizenship” Voting Requirement
https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/federal-court-blocks-proof-citizenship-voting-requirement

There rest of my claims are as true as that one.

[Moderation4ever]

Federal and State Agencies are not registering undocumented person. There are plenty of checks on people registering. The court blocked the law because it provided too onerous requirements. Why don't you work the polls and find out what really goes on in an election.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>Federal and State Agencies are not registering undocumented person.

How would you know? How would anyone know?

>There are plenty of checks on people registering.

Not citizenship checks. Those are illegal.

>The court blocked the law because it provided too onerous requirements.

Such as verifying your citizenship...

>Why don’t you work the polls and find out what really goes on in an election.

I was an observer in Milwaukee a few years ago. I know what really goes on. They move you so far away and keep you cordoned off so you can’t see what the cheating Democrat vote counters are doing. It was truly sickening, but atleast they didn’t block the windows so you couldn’t see a thing. I could atleast watch these old biddies act all guilty and sweating when they were in the act of their cheating, I just couldn’t see what they were doing because they had us so far away.

[Moderation4ever]

Well, if you want to get closer to the action work the polls and find out how the system really works because you don't seem to know that now.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How much prison time do you think the Democrats will give those little kids for riding their scooters on that homo mural?

More or less than what they gave the BLM protestors tearing down historical monuments all over the country?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A day at the Volokh Conspiracy without right-wing bigotry is like . . . a day that never occurs.

Carry on, clingers.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's bigoted to point out a biased Justice System?

Haven't you clowns been doing that for decades (while y'all also operate the institutions of the system)?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's bigoted to use the type of slurs that you and former professor Volokh seem delighted to use.

That's not the only way right-wingers exhibit their bigotry, but it is a vivid one.

Carry on, bitter and bigoted clingers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, misappropriated academic
veneer — dedicated to creating and
preserving safe spaces for America’s
vestigial right-wing bigots — has
operated for no more than

TWO (2)

days without publishing at least
one explicit racial slur; it has
published racial slurs on at least

THIRTY (30)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 30 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 30 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 conservative thinking, here is something worthwhile. Likely the best roto tom-alarm clock song you will find.

This one is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling GemStones:

First, this one has no alarm clock but offers Charlie emulating a second hand and presents some of the best Mick Taylor fret work you will encounter. It's a slightly longer version than the one on It's Only Rock 'n' Roll.

Next, as the Stones head to Chicago for a doubleheader, a reminder from an earlier Chicago show that the right key (and song) should never be taken for granted.

[ThePublius]

I heard they've rewritten the lyrics to one their hits as
"Hey, hey, you, you, get off of my lawn!"

[Noscitur a sociis]

Comedy's not easy. Better leave it to the professionals.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's generally unsightly when conservatives and on-the-spectrum misfits attempt to emulate normal human interaction, especially in the context of humor.

There is a reason the strong comedians -- writers, performers -- are not movement conservatives.

[loki13]

Reminder-

If you are feeling crazy because you are spending so much time getting your blood all angry over things you have no control over ...

Just chill out. Do something in your community that is good. Volunteer. Help out. Watch how you can make a positive contribution, and see that it works.

The other stuff? It just makes you angry, and you aren't changing it. It's better to feel good.

Also? Eat some mangoes while they are in season!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Loki13,

There is a farm in South Africa, https://jamaka.co.za/farm/mangoes/, that is the only mango farm (IIRC) that produces organic mangoes in the off season. Their micro climate enables this.

The farm is beautiful and the cottages are awesome and very affordable. I’m not sure if you can order them offseason direct to consumer, but if you’re so inclined, they have a way to contact them.

[hobie]

Yep. I regularly cook gourmet for the negroes in my hood. It has had a noticeable effect on my general safety. Also loaded up on mangoes yesterday [my favorite fruit]

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>I regularly cook gourmet for the negroes in my hood. It has had a noticeable effect on my general safety.

Can you elaborate on how giving free food to blacks makes you more safe "in da hood"? Can you unpack your assumptions a little? I'm a little lost.

[hobie]

It's a rather simple concept, therefore it eludes you: make friends, be nice to people. The gangbangers next door - armed to the teeth - now watch my house like a bunch of black hawks

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

blacks = gangbangers.
blacks = armed to the teeth.
Once fed, blacks = "black hawk" protectors.

Have you tried some Grape drank, a pack of Kools, or some watermelon, fried chicken, or offered to find their missing fathers to befriend the local gangbangers?

Do you speak to them in ebonics, and put up Happy Kwanza or Happy Juneteenth posters?

Did I leave out any other gross stereotype from your list?

[hobie]

I must admit I like mentioning my black neighbors in this blog, and especially referring to them as negroes. Nothing makes the racists such as yourself clutch their pearls faster and cry bigotry. And y'all never fail to disappoint. It's like I have a remote control programmed for your brains

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'm the racist for calling out your racism.

Love it. How Jewy of you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Profs. Bernstein and Blackman and former professor Volokh will take a break from their strenuous search for opportunities to pin claims of antisemitism (real or perceived) on liberals and instead issue yet another pass on antisemitism with respect to that comment to their fellow right-winger.

As usual.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What's hilarious is that you and I share the same views. As has been demonstrated several times on this site.

lol

[Mr. Bumble]

So have they honored you by calling you nigger yet?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This seems an opportune time to congratulate UCLA on its campus and faculty improvement project.

[hobie]

Oh, absolutely. And because I am now a nigger, I have been given the N-Card as well. By common agreement, I can now say and call people niggers as much as I want. One of the highest honors of my life so far.

[Sarcastr0]

...You've never tried watermelon or fried chicken?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You sound triggered. Are you okay?

[Sarcastr0]

You sound like you didn't read the comment you replied to.

"The anti-Semites have the right to play."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You trotting out Leftist online tropes and stalking my comments = you being triggered.

Next up, you'll puff up and crow about the Paradox of Intolerance in between your no-value ad hom's and lies.

But really, today has been pretty rewarding. It feels kinda good in a shameful way to know how much power my thoughts have over your real physical world. I'm like an Internet Wizard. I can clickity clack and hit 'submit' and magic flows through the internet into your brain and controls you and manipulates you IRL.

It's kinda cool knowing I can control another human being's actions like that with just a few keystrokes... I wonder if I could cast some magic that would make you stop bootlicking authority or being a degenerate DnD player.

[Sarcastr0]

You say funny stuff like implying you've never had fried chicken.

how much power my thoughts have over your real physical world
My physical world? You're not really part of that, chief. If I wasn't having a good time I'd just put you on mute.
Though your overly wordy attempt at the puppetmaster defense is pretty sad.

[hobie]

Looks like you're appropriating the same mind control savage burn I applied on you a few comments above, Jesus. Lame. Doesn't work like that. Come up with your own damn material; mine is copyrighted

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How on Earth did I imply I never had fried chicken or watermelon? I’m half-black myself (from the waist down, thankfully, and not the neck up…), so of course I’ve tried watermelon, fried chicken, and as well as chitlins, pickled pigs feet, collard greens, grape drank, Newports, Maddog 20/20, and even malt liquor.

You're as delusional as you are a bigot.

[loki13]

hobie-

While I can't see what you're replying to, all I can say is ... it's hard to explain the concept of a party pooper to someone who can't understand the concept of a party.

Anyway, MANGOES! AMIRITE! I'm still at the stage of, "Every day a mango, yum yum yum."

Unfortunately, the "big drop" is about to occur, and then I'll be like, "WTF am I going to do with all of these mangoes?????"

[Brett Bellmore]

The normal thing to do with surplus fruit: Mango wine!

[loki13]

I'll have to look into that. Usually, I freeze the excess for smoothies later on.

[Bwaaah]

My next trip to the store, I'll get mangos. And I'll report back. And it'll all be on you. (But it'll probably be about sweetness and not ... .)

[Bwaaah]

I went mango hunting. Where for good fresh produce? Citarella is a quality food market. Walking, it's about a mile round-trip walk on this beautiful, mild, breezy, sunny day.

I've never bought a mango in my life, nor eaten a fresh whole one. (Maybe slices on some fruit plate?) I wouldn't know how to select a ripe one. I asked the produce grocer if he could help me select one, and he gladly came to help. (That made two firsts for me today: buying a mango, and asking a grocer for help with produce selection.)

I told him I wanted a mango to eat today. As he sifted and felt through a pile of mangos, he gave me commentary about differences and what to look for. "Yellow is good," he said. But he eyed a more reddened one. "You want to eat it right away?" he asked hopefully.

It was quite red on one side, and even soft to the touch at its darkest red point. "Yes," I answered. "Is that a today mango?"

"They all came in this morning, so they have some ripening time in them. But, yes, this is a good today mango," he laughed.

I hurried home with my today mango. I think the price was $3.59 per mango. (That's some expensive fruit, NYC priced.)

At home, I tried to cut it in half, and unexpectedly encountered a hard, pit-like center. I mutilated the thing pulling it apart to get at its fruity inside. (Before my next mango cutting, I'll be watching a video on "how to cut a mango.")

But what did I think of my first fresh mango?

WOW!!!! BABY WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE???!!!!

I've been eating peaches, not knowing they're the half-assed cousin of the mango. Mangos have so much meaty, almost creamy fruit. (Can I say it like that?) The sweetness, OMG, the sweetness is so ripely balanced. A mango is saturated, satiating fruit heaven. (Is this just the seasonal greatness I'm witnessing here, or are good mangos like this all the time?)

This was a great experience. I see mangos in my future. Thanks for the fun suggestion.

[loki13]

You are most welcome! Once you've had good mango, it's hard to quit.

As for cutting mango- I put them on the end (to determine the center). Make one cut down it, cutting around the pit. Then repeat down the other side. You'll have two great mango halves. If you want, you can eat the flesh that's clinging to the pit (or cut it off- but beware, mangoes are slippery).

Once you have the two halves, you can either eat it or scoop it out directly with a spoon, or "score" it if you want those cool mango cubes- you can find videos on that.

Again, welcome to the cult of mango!

[Bwaaah]

It turns out they charged me $2.99 for the mango.

Happy Mango!

[hobie]

$3.50/mango. Godalmighty. They are $1/ea here in Cleveland at the moment

[Commenter_XY]

Brett nailed this....Mango wine. Maybe mango vodka infusion?

[Brett Bellmore]

Currently making some Anisado wine. Won't be able to report on the taste for a few weeks yet.

Have to admit, I'm chiefly making it due to it being a key ingredient in many Filipino dishes, such as longanisa or tocino. But I'll certainly try a sip along the way.

[Mr. Bumble]

Serving up Uncle Bosie?

[Sarcastr0]

Also don’t sleep on fresh avocados if you live in a place with the right climate!

[hobie]

I have learned, and confirmed, that you can freeze avocados with no ill effects on them whatsoever

[Commenter_XY]

Wait....serious? They don't get mushy when you thaw them out?

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently they do, but it doesn't mess with the taste, so they're fine for things like smoothies.

Martha Steward: Can You Freeze Avocados?

Shocked me a bit, too: About the last thing I'd expect you could freeze.

[hobie]

Get er done

Trump Campaign Promises 2016
1. Build Wall/Mexico Pays (No)
2. Lock Her Up (No)
3. Pull out of Iran and TPP treaties (Yes)
4. Bring back coal (No)
5. Repeal/Replace Obamacare (No)
6. 1 Trillion on Infrastructure (No)
7. Cut Taxes (Yes)
8. Overhaul immigration (No)

Biden Campaign Promises 2020
1. Get COVID under control (Yes)
2. Get rid of AR-15s (No)
3. Strengthen Voting Rights (No)
4. Protect Abortion access (No)
5. 1 Trillion for infrastructure (Yes)
6. Chips and green energy (Yes)
7. Overhaul immigration (No)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

8. Tried to ban menthols from your homies in da hood (Yes)

[hobie]

So The Federalist went after the third rail of American culture: Dolly Parton. Bashing her for supporting LGBT people. Dolly - a devout Christian - responded by saying Jesus commands that she love everyone. Really hillbillies? You actually want to attack Dolly Parton?

[grb]

Really ?!? I recently saw a Dolly Parton for President bumper sticker and thought that's the closest to a national-unity ticket possible in this country. And though I'm nowhere close to a fan of her music, she's still a righteous big-hearted generous wholly-admirable great-souled human being.

Yet The Federalist paused briefly from bootlicking Trump's shoe leather spotless to attack her? Quite the contrast there!

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to mention she has big jugs.

[Nelson]

To be fair, she bought big jugs. I don't think anyone knows what her actual boobs looked like.

[hobie]

"There’s Nothing Loving About Dolly Parton’s False Gospel"
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/06/theres-nothing-loving-about-dolly-partons-false-gospel/

"Parton’s version of love, which includes condoning immoral sexual behavior (“be who you are,” she’s said), is unaligned with God’s vision for humanity."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Be careful -- former professor Volokh doesn't like it when liberal or libertarian commenters call his blog's hillbilly fans hillbillies. Are you trying to get banned?

[hobie]

LOL!

[apedad]

Supreme Court will review Holocaust survivors’ lawsuit against Hungary

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether a group of Holocaust survivors and their heirs can haul Hungary into an American court to answer for confiscating property from Jews while carrying out mass extermination during World War II.

Federal law makes foreign nations generally immune from lawsuits in the United States, but the survivors claim their suit falls under the law’s exception for the expropriation of property.

At issue before the Supreme Court is the exception’s requirement that the property have a “commercial nexus” with the United States. The survivors claim Hungary commingled the proceeds of their stolen property with other funds, and some of the proceeds are now present in the United States in connection with Hungary’s commercial activity.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4736546-supreme-court-holocaust-survivors-hungary/

"(S)ome of the proceeds are now present in the United States in connection with Hungary’s commercial activity," seems like an awful tough thing to prove especially after almost 75 years.

[hobie]

IIRC, at the time the Hungarian government completely screwed over its Jewish population and sent half a million of them to their deaths.

[M L]

Several commenters here expressed ardent support for the Biden DOJ’s prosecution of a whistleblower who disclosed records allegedly showing that a Texas hospital was engaged in illegal transgender procedures on minors.

The hospital had publicly claimed that it had ceased such activities. The whistleblower revealed that this was a lie.

A fundraiser for the doctor’s legal defense has raised $844k: https://www.givesendgo.com/texas_whistleblower

A key part of the story is it appears the doctor did not disclose any individually identifiable health information. But the DOJ has obfuscated this fact and pushed a false narrative, while carefully only charging him with wrongfully obtaining such information.

The leftist commenters here claimed that the doctor did disclose individually identifiable health information, and pigheadedly refused to acknowledge what the indictment says (surprise).

As an editorial in National Review noted, the prosecution is politically motivated and would never have happened if a whistleblower revealed other types of illegal or objectionable activity. But because it involves transgender ideology, the Biden DOJ is again seeking to use violence and lawfare against political opponents.

[apedad]

" . . . while carefully only charging him with wrongfully obtaining such information."

Ok and the "key part of the story" has nothing to do with what he's being charged with.

So . . . why even bring it up?

[M L]

You could ask mainstream media and the DOJ that question. As NR noted:
“Contrary to many public reports, DOJ does not allege that Dr. Haim disclosed any patient’s private medical records. . . . DOJ seems happy, however, to propagate the false, but politically more appealing, notion that Dr. Haim disclosed private patient information.”
Or the commenters here arguing the point. It seems people think it's a relevant part of the story because leaking individually identifiable health information is a lot worse than... not doing that, and it goes to the general purpose of HIPAA.

[Nige]

But he did.

[M L]

In what way do the leaked documents include individually identifiable health information?

[Nige]

He released their private health information. Whether his efforts to hide identities were sufficent or not deesn't change that.

[M L]

I take it you are conceding and abandoning the claim that the leaked documents include individually identifiable health information.

[Nige]

I absolutely am not, I'm pointing out that in the unlikely event that he actually managed to anonymise the information it was still *their* private health information.

[M L]

So you are no longer claiming that the leaked documents include individually identifiable health information?

Good. Because they don't.

[Nige]

So you are no longer claiming that your head is a toaster? Good. Because it isn't. It might be a waffle iron.

It sounds as if there was, in fact, individually identifiable health information left on them, actually.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you splitting hairs between 'individually identifiable health information' and 'protected health information?'

For fuck's sake, man.

[M L]

Argue with HIPAA not me.

[Nige]

He disclosed the info.

[David Nieporent]

The leftist commenters here claimed that the doctor did disclose individually identifiable health information, and pigheadedly refused to acknowledge what the indictment says (surprise).

I am not leftist, and I actually read the indictment and quoted it, and (surprise) it doesn't say what you and National Review claimed.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Weird how you don't support your assertion with any proof.

[David Nieporent]

That was last week; try to keep up.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is that what you expect? Everyone to memorize all your comments?

I've got some news for you...

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/20/thursday-open-thread-196/?comments=true#comment-10611128

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You should've linked to the part where ML slaughtered his argument.

That would've been more honest, but that's clearly not in your character.

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

And ML is trying for the same 'and/or' argument below. It's not going great for him.

[M L]

In what way do the leaked documents include individually identifiable health information?

I'll wait.

Crickets from Nieporent so far.

[Nige]

Oh, are we gving the benefit of the doubt to people who steal other people’s private health information and release it to the media now? Sure, there’s no way a joker like that could have half-assed their redactions.

[M L]

No, we're looking at the facts. Biden DOJ conspicuously did not allege that he disclosed individually identifiable health information. Do you acknowledge this?

[Nige]

You're leaning quite heavily on that and/or, aren't you?

[M L]

Contrary to what many have claimed, DOJ did not allege that he disclosed individually identifiable health information. To prove that point, one must rely heavily on the fact that DOJ did not allege that he disclosed individually identifiable health information.

Or you can always look at the leaked documents yourself and see.

[Nige]

So the DOJ did not allege that he disclosed the information but the DOJ also allege he disclosed the information. You have tied yourself in such a knot of outrage.

[Sarcastr0]

'by your lack of reply I can only presume you can't respond to my incredible argument' is silly when not guilty pulls it and it's silly when you do so.

[M L]

What’s incredible about my argument?

If you have no response then you have no response, ipso facto. But that's not how I know you're wrong, I know you're wrong because of the documented facts.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That wasn’t a new goalpost, just calling you out for your, now expected and routine, lack of integrity.

And his "and/or" argument is looking pretty great to me. What a slimy thing to do for the Democrat DOJ. It's up there with Bragg and Merchan's jury instructions of "anything goes as a predicate crime when Trump is on trial, none of you have to even agree anything occurred"

[not guilty]

“It’s up there with Bragg and Merchan’s jury instructions of ‘anything goes as a predicate crime when Trump is on trial, none of you have to even agree anything occurred’”

As has been explained repeatedly on these threads, commission or concealment of “a predicate crime” is not an essential element of NY Penal Law § 175.10. Having intent to defraud at the time business records are falsified, which includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, is such an element.

The assertion that Justice Merchan instructed the jury that “anything goes as a predicate crime when Trump is on trial, none of you have to even agree anything occurred” is a barefaced lie. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

The court instructed the jury as to a single intended object offense: a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. (See pp. 30-33 of the instructions.) The court instructed:

Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.

Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed.

(Id., at 30.) Donald Trump’s intent to commit or conceal a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152 was an essential element of New York Penal Law § 175.10, which the jury was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Merchan further instructed the jury:

Although you must conclude unanimously that the
defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any
person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be
unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

(Id., at 31.) There is no substitute for original source materials.

When a commenter puts material in quotation marks -- such as “anything goes as a predicate crime when Trump is on trial, none of you have to even agree anything occurred” -- that indicates a verbatim quotation of another source. It unfortunately appears that JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes regards truth as such a precious commodity that he uses it sparingly.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

TLDR

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : "Weird how you don’t support your assertion with any proof"

Another Nazi child post disproved in mere seconds. But I actually feel a little sympathy for our pubescent fascist here. Given he wouldn't know "proof" if it was thousand-ton meteorite dropped on his head from above, ya can't expect him to get this detail right.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You seem to enjoy my content, would you also like to subscribe to my substack or my patreon? It's only $10/mo.

[Nelson]

No thanks. I can get equivalent false information from Dr. Ed for free.

[M L]

From the indictment:

“the defendant…did obtain and/or wrongfully disclose individually identifiable health information with the intent to cause malicious harm to TCH’s physicians and patients.”

This doesn’t allege that he disclosed individually identifiable health information. It alleges that he either obtained, or disclosed it, or both. Basic reading comprehension.

As you know, NR and others have corroborated that the defendant redacted individually identifiable information from the documents.

[Sarcastr0]

"In or around May 14 through May 16, 2023, HAIM and Person1 talked on the phone numerous times. On or about May 16, 2023, Person1 published HIPAA protected information obtained by HAIM via X (formerly known as Twitter) and other online media outlets.
The HIPAA protected information had partially redacted out name of the pediatric patients but kept the dates of service, diagnosis, procedure codes, and physician names visible"

Are you claiming those are not HIPPA protected information?

[M L]

Again, from NR:

DOJ also confusedly contends that “Person1 [evidently Rufo] published HIPAA protected information obtained by Haim” and that although the “HIPAA protected information [published by Rufo] had partially redacted out name of the pediatric patients[, it] kept the dates of service, diagnosis, procedure codes, and physician names visible.” This contention is gibberish.

HIPAA defines the term “individually identifiable health information” to be limited to information that (among other things) “identifies the individual” or “with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify the individual.” (42 U.S.C. § 1320d(6).) Haim entirely (not “partially”) redacted the names of the patients, and there is no reasonable basis to believe that the remaining information could be used to identify the patients. Indeed, it is DOJ itself that discloses far more revealing information about the patients, as it identifies them by their initials (M.S., K.B., and G.H.). In short, the information that Rufo published was not “HIPAA protected information."

(At the risk of getting too deep into the weeds: A HIPAA regulation (45 CFR § 164.514(b)(2)) provides a sort of “safe harbor” that allows a health-care provider to determine that health information is not “individually identifiable health information.” The fact that qualification for that safe harbor require dates of service to be removed cannot and does not override the statutory definition of “individually identifiable health information.” Indeed, the very same HIPAA regulation restates the statutory definition: “Health information that does not identify an individual and with respect to which there is no reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify an individual is not individually identifiable health information.” In other words, information that does not fall within the regulatory safe harbor does not automatically become “individually identifiable health information.”)

Seems pretty straightforward to me. The DOJ's statement here is gibberish.

One question is when the DOJ says "partially redacted out name [sic]" and NR says it's entirely redacted, who is right? Care to wager? And what does partially mean - was there a half circle from the dot of an "i" showing? Certainly that wouldn't make any different to the legal issue.

[Sarcastr0]

NR is either stupid or lying and you are falling for it because you gave away your judgement long ago.

Seems pretty trivial to derive the identity of patients from dates of service, diagnosis, procedure codes, and physician names.

[M L]

Oh, is it? Provide us with a demonstration of how you can identify a patient from that information.

[Nige]

Release your health information, we'll give it a go.

[Sarcastr0]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20442151/

"The disclosure of diagnosis codes can breach research participants' privacy"

Results: More than 96% of 2800 patients' records are shown to be uniquely identified by their diagnosis codes with respect to a population of 1.2 million patients. Generalization is shown to reduce further the percentage of de-identified records by less than 2%, and over 99% of the three-digit ICD-9 codes need to be suppressed to prevent re-identification.

[M L]

What does this have to do with anything? There's no "three-digit ICD-9 codes" in the leaked documents.

[jb]

Since your quote above says that he leaked both the diagnosis and procedure codes, if it wasn't the "three digit ICD-9 codes" it was the functional equivalent.

[M L]

Doesn't look like it to me. But I'd like to understand this. Say you know a procedure and diagnosis. How do you go about identifying the patient? If you already have access to other personal medical records that makes sense, but otherwise how does it work?

[grb]

M L : “Oh, is it? Provide us with a demonstration of how you can identify a patient from that information”

How soon they forget. Indiana’s medical board reprimanded Dr. Caitlin Bernard because she stated a ten-year old was pregnant and seeking an abortion. She provided no other detail. Her comments did not include information such as patient’s name, date of birth or date of hospital admission. Nonetheless, just a statement such a patient exists was held to violate medical privacy regs.

[M L]

That's a nice new goalpost, first we had the claim that DOJ alleged that individually identifiable information was disclosed. Then it was, well maybe they didn't, but the whistleblower didn't totally redact names. Now it's OK, he redacted the names, but here's another case involving a different issue about disclosing more general information.

I see that Dr. Caitlin Bernard got a letter of reprimand and a $3,000 fine from the Indiana Medical Licensing Board and kept her license. Out of curiosity, (1) do you agree with the Board about this result? (2) Do you think the DOJ should to pursue federal criminal charges against Dr. Caitlin Bernard, including charges carrying punishment of up to 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine? And (3) do you agree or disagree with the NR article that "If a whistleblower did what Dr. Haim is alleged to have done to expose, say, that a hospital had committed racial discrimination or Medicaid fraud, it is unfathomable that DOJ would threaten the whistleblower with a life-destroying criminal prosecution. The only reason that Dr. Haim is being targeted is that he has run afoul of the transgender ideology that dominates the Biden administration."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The law doesn't say "with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used by Sarcastr0 to identify the individual.

Remove the bolded part and you have the actual text of the law. Then ask yourself why you're a such a dipshit as to swallow every word of a partisan trash website.

Here's the rest of "individually identifiable health information" as defined by law:

(6) Individually identifiable health information The term “individually identifiable health information” means any information, including demographic information collected from an individual, that— (A) is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse; and (B) relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual, the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual, and— (i) identifies the individual; or (ii) with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify the individual.

That blows the shit out of your first paragraph, and NR's (and your) claim that the contention was "gibberish."

[David Nieporent]

X (formerly known as Twitter)

When are people going to stop with this silliness? Just call it Twitter.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or X.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A whistleblower would have alerted hospital, law enforcement, or medical authorities.

This bigoted asshole went to a bigoted right-wing polemicist.

I hope he loses his medical credentials.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's bigoted to want to protect children from illegal, permanent harm!!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What's bigoted is the Volokh Conspiracy (like its target audience of right-wing misfits and deplorable culture war casualties).

Has a single Volokh Conspirator been able to muster the character or courage yet to address the daily stream of bigotry published by this white, male, right-wing blog?

Didn't think so.

#Bigot-Embracing
#Cowards

[Bob from Ohio]

"prosecution is politically motivated and would never have happened if a whistleblower revealed other types of illegal or objectionable activity"

The nut of the matter. Its a feature, not a bug, to all the lefties here.

Trump wins, he'll get a pardon.

[NOVA Lawyer]

DOJ’s prosecution of a whistleblower

What was he blowing the whistle on? The people on whom he "informed" were doing nothing illegal. Also, he never filed any official complaint, probably because they were doing nothing wrong. Not a whistleblower.

You don't have to accept people's self-characterization.

other types of illegal...

In illegally accessing and obtaining health care information to which he had no legal right and which did not involve his patients and then disclosing that information, he did not reveal anything illegal. The care he "exposed" was entirely legal.

...or objectionable activity...

Yeah, so, it's not okay to lie to health care institutions to get access to PHI so that you can disclose that information (allegedly sanitized to remove info from which the individuals could be identified) to the public because he found the decisions of the patients, their parents, and the treating physicians objectionable? This is the conduct you are defending and that you think no one would have a problem with unless it touched a politically sensitive subject?

Just because he is a physician, he doesn't have the right to rummage through the records of people who aren't his patients..

The fact is: You wouldn't be defending this creep if he had done this to disclose any other legal treatment.

[Estragon]

“No water in your faucets. You ever try buying a new home and you turn on. You want to wash your hair or you wanna wash your hands. You turn on the water and it goes drip, drip the soap. You can’t get it off your hand. So you keep it running for about 10 times longer. You trying, the worst is your hair. I have this beautiful luxuriant hair and I put stuff on. I put it in lather. I like lots of lather because I like it to come out extremely dry because it seems to be slightly thicker that way. And I lather up and then you turn on this crazy shower and the thing drip, drip and you say I’m gonna be here for 45 minutes. What? There’s so much water. You don’t know what to do with it. You know, it’s called rain. It rains a lot in certain places. But, now their idea, you know, did you see the other day? They just, I opened it up and they closed it again. I opened it, they close it, washing machines to wash your dishes. There is a problem. They don’t want you to have any water. They want no water…”

[not guilty]

It is crunch time for Judge Aileen Cannon in the prosecution of Donald Trump. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.605.0.pdf On Friday and today she is hearing argument on Trump's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith. This afternoon she will hear the Special Counsel’s Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release. Tomorrow she will hear argument on Trump’s Motion for Relief Related to Mar-A-Lago Raid and Unlawful Piercing of Attorney-Client Privilege.

A ruling in Trump's favor on any of these issues will likely be immediately appealable as of right by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has twice reversed Judge Cannon at the investigative stage of this case. In other cases where that court has reversed the same district court multiple times in the same case, the Court of Appeals has ordered that upon remand the matter be reassigned to a different judge. United States v. Plate, 839 F.3d 950, 958 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 892 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Remillong, 55 F.3d 572, 577 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); United States v. White, 846 F.2d 678, 696 (11th Cir. 1988).

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Goal seeking, motivated analysis = trash.

No one cares but TDS'ers, ng. You might as well go comment on reddit where you'll 100x more e-cred and e-karma by the smooth brains over there.

[not guilty]

What statement of fact or assertion of law that I have made here, if any, do you claim to be incorrect, JHBEBH?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

*yawn* try reddit, they love pedantry over there. They think being a pedant is smart too. Us normies think it's more of a sign of being on the spectrum.

[not guilty]

Do you dispute that I have correctly described the scheduling of argument on pending motions?

Do you dispute that any ruling in Trump's favor will likely be immediately appealable as of right by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731?

Do you dispute that he Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has twice reversed Judge Cannon at the investigative stage of this case?

Do you make any claim that in any of the six cases I cited, the Eleventh Circuit did not order that upon remand the matter be reassigned to a different judge?

[apedad]

C'mon ng . . . don't bother.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol he can't help himself, he thinks he's respected

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It seems at least slightly unfair to assume that the damning evidence establishes that Judge Aileen Cannon is trying to help former Pres. Trump by delaying the prosecution of charges he criminally mishandled government documents.

It seems reasonable to consider that her failures might merely derive from being an overmatched, inexperienced, incompetent judge.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, these sound like complex issues that Judge Cannon needs to decide. What length of time is reasonable for a decision (weeks, months), and what length of time would have to pass for you to say that Judge Cannon is being dilatory.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Perhaps you could take a look at the numerous other courts which have already decided these issues in a prompt manner, and without any need for scheduling hearings on the issues months (or more than a year) after said motions were filed?

These are not complex issues (well, for *most* people they aren't.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Since modern DNA studies are beginning to strongly suggest that the modern Jew isn't from the tribe of Judah (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews), but are instead descended from Canaanites and Caucasians, does that mean their millennial-long claims to being God's "chosen", that Jerusalem is their ancient homeland, and their current Palestinian genocide is the greatest Jew hoax in all of human history? Even greater than some of their other, more famous, hoaxes?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Profs. Bernstein and Blackman and former professor Volokh will issue the standard pass to this commenter with respect to antisemitism. Those three are interested only in antisemitism (real or alleged) they can try to ascribe to people who are not movement conservatives.

#Partisan
#Hacks

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Stop being a Science Denier. The science of DNA isn't controversial, AFAIK.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Powerful stuff from a prominent legal thinker and former SCOTUS law clerk.

https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1804602139324653696

Merrick Garland is prosecuting Trump for presidential records he’s allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act.

While protecting Biden for stolen classified records he shared with his ghostwriter on an $8 million book.

Garland prosecuted top Trump presidential advisors Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon for contempt, after Trump’s valid claims of executive privilege.

Yet Garland blocked prosecution of himself for contempt, after Biden’s legal frivolous claim of executive privilege

And Garland refused to prosecute Hunter Biden for contempt, after he held a drive-by political press conference at the Capitol and refused to comply with a subpoena.

Garland politicized and weaponized the FACE Act to persecute Christians and protect bigots.

Garland sicced the FBI after parents protesting at school-board meetings, while coddling Hamas supporters terrorizing Jews on college campuses and across America.

Garland is prosecuting the leading presidential candidate for lawfully objecting to the last election under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, while Garland wages his own unprecedented, republic-ending lawfare and election interference—Garland’s own criminal conspiracy against rights. under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.

Garland belongs in prison.

The House must give him his first taste of that by holding him in inherent contempt of Congress and ordering the House sergeant-at-arms to arrest and jail him.

````
Very powerful.

[apedad]

FYI in case anyone is curious about Inherent Contempt.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4736798-anna-paulina-luna-detain-garland/

[jb]

So much LOL.

"Merrick Garland is prosecuting Trump for presidential records he’s allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act."

Even Trump-friendly judge Aileen Cannon has has ruled that this argument is stupid. The PRA has nothing to do with the case, and Trump isn't being prosecuted for having the records, he's being prosecuted for lying and refusing to give them back.

"Garland prosecuted top Trump presidential advisors Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon for contempt, after Trump’s valid claims of executive privilege."

False. Navarro and Bannon claimed Executive Privilege, but the claim was never supported by Trump. Which is why they were prosecuted.

"And Garland refused to prosecute Hunter Biden for contempt, after he held a drive-by political press conference at the Capitol and refused to comply with a subpoena."

Hunter Biden was never held in Contempt of Congress, so why would Garland be prosecuting him for that?

You should maybe try reading sources that aren't just telling obvious lies.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, I know responding to the Nazi troll is pointless, but:

Merrick Garland is prosecuting Trump for presidential records he’s allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act.

No. The Presidential Records Act has nothing to do with the case, and Trump is not actually allowed to have any of these documents under the PRA, let alone the Espionage Act, which is what the case is actually about.

Garland prosecuted top Trump presidential advisors Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon for contempt, after Trump’s valid claims of executive privilege.

Trump never claimed executive privilege, you moron. Navarro and Bannon tried to do it on their own even though Trump never invoked it.

And Garland refused to prosecute Hunter Biden for contempt, after he held a drive-by political press conference at the Capitol and refused to comply with a subpoena.

Hunter Biden fully complied with the subpoena. He produced documents and testified, as required.

Garland politicized and weaponized the FACE Act to persecute Christians and protect bigots.

Gibberish.

Garland sicced the FBI after parents protesting at school-board meetings,.

Never happened.

Garland is prosecuting the leading presidential candidate for lawfully objecting to the last election under the Electoral Count Act of 1887,

Of course no such thing is happening. The 1887 law specified how members of Congress could resolve disputes over electors. It gave no power to a president, let alone a candidate, to do anything. Let alone to forge documents, threaten state elections officials, or send thugs to storm the Capitol.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Did you law clerk for Justice Gorsuch too? Is that why we should believe you?

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you get your balls caught in your zipper today? You are unusually testy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Irony is truly dead.

[grb]

Think a soft cheese left for weeks out in the hot August sun until it’s reeking, rotten, and swarming with maggots. That’s Trump’s brain at this point. The latest quote leaves the electric boat and sharks be. He seems to be talking hair….

“No water in your faucets… The worst is your hair. I have this beautiful, luxuriant hair… They put on restricters where there’s so much water you don’t know what to do with it. It’s called rain.”

[ThePublius]

Think a soft cheese left for weeks out in the hot August sun until it’s reeking, rotten, and swarming with maggots. That’s your brain at this point. It's called TDS.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile back a Camp David the man(?) who has been President for 3 1/2 years, a Vice-President for 8 years and a Senator for 36+ years is boning up for a debate against a man with a "reeking, rotten, and swarming with maggots" brain.

Keep the faith grb.

[ThePublius]

Yes! A week of abandoning his presidential duties to train for a debate. Holy cow. And I'm sure his docs are working out what is dope dosage will be to keep him pumped and going for 45 minutes.

It's laughable. Trump could do this debate with zero notice.

[grb]

ThePublius : “Trump could do this debate with zero notice”

Well, Trump’s bootlickers have created excuses for his incoherence, lifelong criminality, neverending lying, gross stupidity, loathsome ethics, nonstop corruption, attempts at election fraud, and sicko desire to fluff every dictator who crosses his star-struck eyes.

Why am I not surprised they have an excuse for his laziness?

[ThePublius]

"Trump’s bootlickers have created excuses for his incoherence, lifelong criminality, neverending lying, gross stupidity, loathsome ethics, nonstop corruption, attempts at election fraud, and sicko desire to fluff every dictator who crosses his star-struck eyes."

All of those things are much more true of Biden than Trump! There's tons of evidence in the case of Biden, too.

Talk about projection!

[NOVA Lawyer]

All of those things are much more true of Biden than Trump!

Other than Trump is a convicted felon. Biden is not.

Trump was found liable for sexual assault. Biden was not.

Trump was found liable for defrauding gullible Trump University students. Biden never found liable for defrauding anyone.

Trump brags about grabbing women by the pussy. Biden does not.
Trump brags that he never asks for forgiveness. Biden, as a lifelong Catholic, undoubtedly does and considers it, as any non-sociopathic human, a decent and required thing to do when you've done someone wrong.

Trump took the side of a hostile foreign dictator (Putin) over that of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Biden has never sided with an enemy over U.S. agencies.

Trump sent love letters to another hostile foreign dictator. Biden has not.

Yeah, those things are all more true of Biden other than, you know, they actually described things Trump has done whereas Biden has only done them in your imagination.

[Nelson]

"It’s laughable. Trump could do this debate with zero notice."

He got his ass handed to him in 2020. Neither of them has gotten any sharper because they're both as old as dirt.

I think it'll probably devolve into an ad-hominem food fight. But if it remains substantive and Trump loses again, it'll be interesting to watch the fallout.

The danger of pushing a dementia theory for 4 years is if your candidate loses to the "dementia guy", there's nowhere to hide.

[Commenter_XY]

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/06/pro-hamas-mob-attacks-sprays-jews-with-bear-spray-outside-l-a-synagogue/

Sad sign of the state of this country. It is signal, not noise.

[Don Nico]

Of course the demonstrators are anti-semetic. Otherwise why demonstrate outside a shul?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Any developments concerning whether former professor Volokh has attempted to oppose pseudonymity in the case of that guy who assaulted pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia with a chemical spray?

#Unprincipled
#Partisan
#Hack

[ThePublius]

Boeing is toast. Here’s the corporate bio of the new CEO (emphasis mine):

“Stephanie Pope is chief operating officer of The Boeing Company and executive vice president, president and chief executive officer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, with primary responsibility for leading the commercial airplanes business and strengthening safety and quality across its operations. Commercial Airplanes specializes in the design, production and delivery of airplanes to customers worldwide with more than 13,000 Boeing jetliners in service today.

Prior to this role, Pope served as chief operating officer for the company since January 2024. Before that, she was president and CEO of Boeing Global Services, from April 2022 to December 2023, with responsibility for leading Boeing’s aerospace services business supporting commercial, government and aviation industry customers worldwide.

Previously, Pope was vice president and chief financial officer of Commercial Airplanes, from December 2020 to March 2022, with responsibility for the financial management and strategic, long-range business planning for the business unit.”

It’s over. They needed to turn the helm back over to the engineers.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/suppliers-think-pope-will-be-next-boeing-ceo-survey

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

DIE strikes again. Love it.

[jb]

Yeah, noted white men Dave Calhoun and Dennis Muilenburg did such a great job up to this point...

I agree with ThePublius in this case. As with too many companies these days, Boeing has decided to focus on short term profits over long term engineering and innovation. Seems like there's a reasonable chance they'll be charged criminally at this point, and regardless they've torched their credibility with both passengers and airlines. Hard to imagine how they think this is the right succession plan.

[ThePublius]

The defense rests in the Karen Read murder case. Closing arguments tomorrow.

You should hear today's testimony, wow. Expert says there's no conceivable way John O'Keefe's injuries could have been caused by being hit by a car.

Read's expert witnesses weren't hired by her; they include FBI investigating the whole thing and the State and Canton police.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Read’s expert witnesses weren’t hired by her; they include FBI investigating the whole thing and the State and Canton police.

See, this is what I'm talking about. The news coverage explains exactly who Read's witnesses were:

-A snowplow driver
-A retired ER doctor from Los Angeles
-A cell phone forensics expert from a private company
-A retired medical examiner from San Bernadino
-An expert from a private accident reconstruction company
-A different expert from the same accident reconstruction company

The defense did not call anyone from the FBI, or from the state or local police.

If you can't even describe who the witnesses were, how can you expect anyone to trust anything you say about the case?

[ThePublius]

"Next came forensic crash reconstructionists from the Pennsylvania-based consulting firm ARCCA. The firm was initially engaged in the case by the FBI, a detail that emerged during direct questioning by Judge Beverly Cannone during a hearing without the jury present last week. They also said that neither O’Keefe’s injuries nor damage to Read’s vehicle indicated a vehicle strike."

[Noscitur a sociis]

A private company previously hired by the Department of Justice to do an accident reconstruction is not the “FBI investigating the whole thing”. And who is it that you’re claiming is with “ the State and Canton police”?

Not to mention where you’re getting the claim that the experts aren’t being compensated.

This is obviously a very complicated case where the details matter. If you can’t even get the details of who the witnesses are correct, how do you expect to have any credibility on who is or isn’t guilty?

[NOVA Lawyer]

I never take ThePublius seriously, but holy shit. What a gross misrepresentation of the witnesses.

It all looks disturbing and, from the little I've read from credible sources, there shouldn't be a conviction. But ThePublius......dude.

[ThePublius]

"Her defense called three witnesses on Monday before concluding their case.

Daniel Wolfe, director of accident reconstruction at ARCCA, was retained in the case by the FBI as part of a federal probe. Judge Beverly Cannone has ruled that the jury does not need to know that in order to evaluate the merit of his testimony."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How stupid and/or deluded must one be to die in dogged pursuit of a fairy tale?

More than a thousand people -- some unprepared, some unfit, some elderly, all too dumb to avoid deadly heat for no sensible reason -- answered that question with their gullible lives recently. Substandard people and fervently believed nonsense are a bad pairing.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think religious practices often are as much about cultural traditions.

Muslims channel secular ends (aiming for a good life, charity, etc.) through the prism of Islamic beliefs. A pilgrimage, a group event that has value to people for that reason alone, is part of this.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Democrats are pure evil.

https://aflegal.org/exclusive-new-docs-reveal-the-brennan-clapper-led-dhs-committee-proposed-americans-report-neighbors-to-the-feds/
EXCLUSIVE – New Docs Reveal the Brennan-Clapper-Led DHS Committee Proposed Americans Report Neighbors to the Feds

"Disturbingly, the meeting notes go on to discuss reclassifying political dissent as a “public health” crisis."

Just like they have declared "voting" a "determinant of health" so doctors can nose in your political business.

"Indeed, the Brennan-Clapper Intelligence group suggested that the best way to combat domestic extremism is to get mothers and teachers to turn in their children or students to the federal government under the guise of “public health.” "

Absolute monsters. Evil, vile, subhuman monsters.

"The group went on to discuss how “most of the Domestic Terrorism threat now comes from supporters of the former president,” i.e., Trump supporters."

https://aflegal.org/exclusive-new-docs-from-disbanded-dhs-deep-state-group-reveal-the-biden-admin-views-trump-supporters-as-domestic-terrorism-threats/

Democrats and their hold on the Federal government have become a clear and present danger to the lives of 1776 patriots and other Whites.

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump says that Nazis are very fine people — something JHBHBE agrees with anyway — and MAGA fall all over themselves to pretend he didn't say it. But then they just make up shit like

“Indeed, the Brennan-Clapper Intelligence group suggested that the best way to combat domestic extremism is to get mothers and teachers to turn in their children or students to the federal government under the guise of “public health.”

Which of course is not anywhere in that link.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There are two links you filthy liar.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"He is expected to return to Australia after his plea and sentencing, which is scheduled for Wednesday morning, local time in Saipan, the largest island in the Mariana Islands. The hearing is taking place there because of Assange’s opposition to traveling to the continental U.S. and the court’s proximity to Australia."

I guess this whole thing has gone on long enough.

https://apnews.com/article/assange-plea-deal-wikileaks-justice-department-d329ba4614dbfa77b5eb968d07fd9bd0

[hobie]

Good news for Trump too. If you can just stall long enough, stealing and disseminating state secrets (far worse than what Assange did) eventually gets tiresome to the DOJ

[JoeFromtheBronx]

When will Trump find refuge in an embassy and spend years in a British jail?

[not guilty]

A group of parents of public school children today filed suit in United States District Court against various Louisiana officials seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief as to the recently enacted statute mandating that one version of the Ten Commandments be posted in all public school classrooms. https://www.laaclu.org/sites/default/files/3-24-cv-517_roake_v._brumley.pdf

This suit should be a slam dunk for the Plaintiffs in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals. Compare Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980). Should the case reach the clowns of SCOTUS, however, all bets are off.

[David Nieporent]

Should the case reach the clowns of SCOTUS, however, all bets are off.

I think there are only two culture warriors on the court eager to overrule decisions like this. (Thomas/Alito, of course). Assuming the 5th circuit doesn't FifthCircuit things up and rule in favor of the law, there's no reason that SCOTUS needs to take it, and it won't. If the 5th does do that, though, then SCOTUS will have to grant cert, and I wouldn't want to bet on what it would do.