Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Guardian has reported that Donald Trump is expected to launch a new legal battle to suppress any damaging evidence from his 2020 election-subversion case from becoming public before the 2024 election, preparing to shut down the potency of any “mini-trials” where high-profile officials could testify against him. Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue that the judge can decide whether the conduct is immune based on legal arguments alone, negating the need for witnesses or multiple evidentiary hearings. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/09/trump-january-6-witnesses-election

With due regard for Napoleon Bonaparte’s admonition, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake,” I wonder about the wisdom of any such attempt by Team Trump. For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the indictment must be taken as true. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952). If there are no witnesses called in support of the government’s contention that the unofficial acts pleaded in the indictment are sufficient to require a trial, counsel for Trump would forego any and all opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses that the government would call.

In addition, a plethora of Trump administration functionaries have testified before the grand jury. Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i), the District Court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding. Once grand jury testimony and exhibits inculpating Trump have been so disclosed, they may become part of the record available to the public.

[Frank Drackman]

Na und?

[Kazinski]

Trump checkmated again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Guardian reported -- Really? When they'd start doing that?

[Bwaaah]

I'm not aware of them ever having done so.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Once grand jury testimony and exhibits inculpating Trump have been so disclosed, they may become part of the record available to the public."

Whereas, if they exculpate him, they'll be buried in a deep, dark pit.

[not guilty]

Brett, if they exculpate Trump, why would the Special Counsel offer them in a pretrial hearing?

[tylertusta]

The idea that people will suddenly realize what Trump is all about because of the release of grand jury testimony is whistling past the graveyard.

[not guilty]

Whoosh!

My point is that the Special Counsel is able to offer evidence at the hearing after remand regarding what acts are official and immune, official but not immune or unofficial, irrespective of whether Judge Chutkan elects to hear live witness testimony. Team Trump is not so situated, and for them to forego examination of witnesses is foolish.

[tylertusta]

Whoosh!

I know about the rest of your post. I was referring to the last sentence of your comment: “Once grand jury testimony and exhibits inculpating Trump have been so disclosed, they may become part of the record available to the public.”

When you’ve spoken about this matter in the past, you’ve opined that Smith will be able to use the evidentiary process to highlight Trump’s malfeasance to the public. The inclusion of grand jury evidence into the public record- which was going to happen once this went to trial anyways- was going to be part and parcel of the whole political process behind the judicial process we’re observing.

And thus my reply today: “The idea that people will suddenly realize what Trump is all about because of the release of grand jury testimony is whistling past the graveyard.”

I’m glad I could clear this up.

[not guilty]

No, in the ordinary course of a trial, grand jury testimony is not offered into evidence. Disclosure of such matters requires leave of court and is limited to that authorized by Rule 6(e).

[tylertusta]

We're not talking about the same thing. Have a good day, sir.

[not guilty]

I replied to your comment: "The inclusion of grand jury evidence into the public record- which was going to happen once this went to trial anyways- was going to be part and parcel of the whole political process behind the judicial process we’re observing."

Contrary to what you assert, the trial will not include grand jury testimony. Witnesses who testified at the grand jury may offer testimony before the petit jury on the same subject matter, but that is not "[t]he inclusion of grand jury evidence into the public record".

[tylertusta]

I said good day, sir!

[Riva]

I know you’re very eager to get on with this political prosecution but regarding the “allegations of the indictment” we’re all to be taking as true. More than a few other issues there about what actually survives in that indictment following Fischer and the immunity ruling, wouldn’t you say? In sum, you ain’t going to get your banana republic show trial. Just suck it up and move onto other abuses of the law and constitution.

[tylertusta]

I’m sure our friend Mr. Guilty is writing up an overly complicated message clarifying what he’s talking about, but I’ll try to beat him to the punch here with an ELI5:

Let’s pretend you’re charged with a crime and you want to get the case tossed out because the prosecution is unconstitutional.

What the Judge will do is- for the purposes of only the dismissal motion only- assume that everything the government alleges that you did you actually did.

If you had done everything the government says you did, do the charges still violate the Constitution? If yes, dismiss. If not, deny the motion.

[not guilty]

Tylertusta, if litigation were as simple as you imagine, many more folks would become litigators. In Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337 (1952), the District Court dismissed certain counts of the indictment because the judge deemed a regulation promulgated by the Interstate Commerce Commission to be void for vagueness. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Regulation, interpreted in conjunction with the statute, established a reasonably certain standard of conduct. Id., at 339-340. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, noting in the process:

This case is here to review the granting of a motion to dismiss the indictment. It should not be necessary to mention the familiar rule that, at this stage of the case, the allegations of the indictment must be taken as true.

Id., at 343, n.16.

Contrary to what you suggest, that rule applies more broadly than evaluating a constitutional infirmity in the charging instrument. In United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75 (1962), the District Court dismissed an indictment for mail fraud, finding that the facts alleged in the indictment showed that the mails were not used "for the purpose of executing" the alleged scheme, as required by the statute. Id., at 76. SCOTUS reversed the District Court's construction of the mail fraud statute. opining in the process:

Of course, none of these charges have been established by evidence, but at this stage of the proceedings the indictment must be tested by its sufficiency to charge an offense."

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has expressly cited the foregoing authorities in determining whether a former senator, who was charged with conspiring to make and present false claims for reimbursement of travel expenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, the general conspiracy statute, and with submitting false claims to the Senate in violation of the False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. § 287, was entitled to the dismissal of an indictment on the ground that principles of separation of powers rendered the case non-justiciable. United States v. Durenberger, 48 F.3d 1239, 1240-1241 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling that the defendant was not entitled to separation of powers immunity.

If you can't run with the big dogs, tylertusta, stay on the porch.

[tylertusta]

If you don’t know what “ELI5” is, I suggest you google it.

Since you can’t run with the young dogs, I suggest you stay on the porch.

[Riva]

That’s fine of course but I guess my point is, what charges will remain? Assume whatever one likes, these assumptions would actually have to pertain to an actual valid standing charge. And that question is now open. “Not guilty” is assuming that everything in that joke of a political disgrace of an indictment will now proceed forward and the only questions are evidentiary. I think he should stay on the porch, or just keep him in the house where he won’t bother anyone.

[not guilty]

In the D.C. prosecution, Donald Trump is charged with four distinct criminal offenses. On remand from the Supreme Court, Judge Chutkan is tasked with determining what official acts averred in the indictment fall within the core constitutional powers of the presidency (for which Trump is immune,) as to what other official acts averred in the indictment (to which immunity presumptively attaches) the prosecution has rebutted the presumption by showing show that applying a criminal prohibition to such acts would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch, and which acts averred in the indictment are unofficial (to which no immunity attaches).

Judge Chutkan will not be writing on a blank slate. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has already addressed the framework for analyzing which of Trump's acts are official or unofficial in Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2023). There is substantial overlap between the unofficial conduct for which Trump is being sued for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and for which he is being prosecuted criminally. If Trump is not immune from civil suit per Blassingame, he is amenable to criminal prosecution in the wake of last week's SCOTUS decision.

Some language will no doubt need to be stricken from the indictment, e.g., averments as to Trump's communications with the Acting Attorney General and the Acting Deputy Attorney General. After the official acts are excised, however, if the remaining averments sufficiently allege as to each count "a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense[s] charged," Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1), each count of the indictment should proceed to trial.

[Riva]

Well sure, jacobins (or do you prefer communist thugs?) will not let go easily. But the legal and political realities strongly indicate this matter goes nowhere. Now, I do admit that a democrat victory in November will be quite emboldening to the lawfare thugs and might give you the banana republic farce you want. Probably a lot more similar abuses too.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’m sure our friend Mr. Guilty is writing up an overly complicated message "

Easiest prediction ever.

[not guilty]

Bob, I have asked you before, and you have refused to answer. Have you ever litigated a jury trial to verdict or an appeal to its conclusion?

[Riva]

The subject isn’t your unquestionably impeccable credentials. I mean who would ever exaggerate their background to lend some sort of veneer of authority to a comment? That’s crazy talk.
The question is the course of further proceedings in this politically motivated garbage prosecution. And sorry to disappoint you, but it ain’t going anywhere. Move on to the next democrat orchestrated fraud.

[not guilty]

Riva, I have no need to exaggerate my credentials, having litigated scores of jury trials and hundreds of appeals, both criminal and civil. How many of my critics can say the same? When and where did you get your legal training, if any?

[Riva]

What a coincidence Not Guilty! I also have no need to exaggerate my credentials, having also litigated scores of jury trials and hundreds of appeals, both criminal and civil. Make that thousands. Can we stop this stupid game now?

[Bob from Ohio]

"scores of jury trials and hundreds of appeals"

He seems to have lost a lot at trial. Based on his track record here, unsurprising.

[not guilty]

Bob, every criminal defense lawyer loses more trials than he wins. The prosecutors self select what cases go to trial and plead out the rest. The great bulk of my appellate practice was cases that other lawyers had tried.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Bob. Have you ever litigated a jury trial to verdict or an appeal to its conclusion?

[tylertusta]

I know our dear old friend very well.

[Riva]

That more that is made public the more this lawfare will be exposed as a disgraceful abuse of power. Once the new Trump administration assumes power, justice can be brought to the perpetrators. They’re probably more concerned with finding a non-extradition country than taking advice from lawfare fanatics in a comments section.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"That more that is made public the more this lawfare will be exposed as a disgraceful abuse of power. Once the new Trump administration assumes power, justice can be brought to the perpetrators."

I see your ironectomy has been successful.

[Riva]

Sorry, Jacobin (or do you prefer communist thug?) humour escapes me. Does this mean you’re in favor of the republic ending lawfare abuses?

[JasonT20]

It never ceases to amaze me how Trump and his fans use vernacular terms.

"Lawfare", "fake news", "witch hunt", and so on. Once they find something that they can use as a blanket accusation to dismiss things that they don't want to argue against with facts and reason, they never stop.

[Riva]

Is that like playing the race card? Or the perennial democrat favorite, the nazi analogy?

[santamonica811]

Although I'm a Republican, I fall into that narrow camp that's, "Trump is a racist, a rapist, a pathological liar, and a danger to America. So, I'll support anyone that's not him." Not many of us, I grant you.

Later today (ie, Thursday), he'll have a press conference. Reporters will be asking him tough questions for 30 minutes or so, and he will have to use his brain to respond. No aides helping out; no teleprompters, etc..

Let's put aside the segment of the VC who are whores for Trump. We know your perspective. I'm interested in Dems, Independents, and R's like me who are not willing to sacrifice our integrity. My question: What do you most want to have happen at the press conference?

I am embarrassed and ashamed to admit that I want Biden to really fuck up. I want him to do as poorly as he did during the debate. Because I think that only a truly miserable performance will get him out of the 2024 race. On the other hand; the polls are not out of reach by any means (I'm frankly shocked at how close they still are, given Biden's "worst debate in American presidential history" performance was.). I have friends who-- contrary to my worst angels--are hoping for a spirited and cogent Biden, who answers all the questions accurately and with a bit of energy. A performance that will stop the bleeding, reassure people that he's not 2 weeks from death or a nursing home, and that he's actually quite fit.

What are your thoughts? We know that Trump supporters are hoping and begging that he stay in the race (which makes total sense...who would not want to run against a doddering opposing candidate?). But for the other 55% of the country? What do you want to see happen at this press conference? (I believe it's supposed to be at 2:30 pm, PST. I have to imagine that most or all the cable news networks will carry it live.)

[not guilty]

I am as partisan a Democrat as anyone may find on these comment threads. While I support Joe Biden completing his current term as President, I have recent, grave doubts about his ability to defeat Donald Trump in this year's election.

Biden did not fare well in his interview last Friday by George Stephanopoulos. The sooner he releases his convention delegates, the better. A contested convention would be riveting, and I think that every prospective candidate regards Trump as such an existential threat that they will close ranks behind whoever is nominated. The last nominating convention where the nomination was not a foregone conclusion was the Republicans in 1976.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Why would he release his delegates before the Republican convention?? Let them attack him during their convention and then release the delegates.

[not guilty]

The prospective candidates need some lead time for fund raising and horse trading. Only one Democrat among the prospective candidates can self-finance, although Kamala Harris would have access to money raised for the Biden-Harris ticket.

The Republicans will viciously attack Biden at their convention no matter what he does. Not knowing who the general election nominee will be would likely be more difficult.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The GOP convention starts Monday.

[not guilty]

I forgot that. But there is time for Biden to release his delegates over the weekend.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Seems early…Democrats should use it to their advantage because the bump from VP pick and convention will be on the downslope before August. It’s 2024–we know how all of this works.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How would Her Arse have access to Biden's money?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because it's NOT Biden's money. It's Biden/Harris' money.

[John F. Carr]

According to reporting I read, it is not "Biden's or Harris' money" but "Biden and Harris' money".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Harris as VP, not Harris as P.

It would be one thing (legally) if Biden died, but as long as he is alive, he has legal claim to the money. They may sue each other over it, but I don't see it instantly becoming hers. And the delegates are legally obligated to vote for him.

[David Nieporent]

That's the kind of cogent legal analysis that one expects from a janitor. Biden, of course, does not have "legal claim to the money." It belongs to the campaign, not to him.

And the delegates are not legally obligated to vote for him.

Other than that, great point!

[Magister]

Expert opinion seems to agree that Harris could spend the Biden/Harris campaign money. But the money could be given to party committees, PACs and super PACs which would presumably support the new candidate. And all of the people who used to support Biden and are now hyperventilating over his candidacy would presumably contribute to the new candidate.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/07/09/what-happens-to-bidens-campaign-cash-if-he-drops-out/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/09/240-million-who-gets-joe-bidens-campaign-money/74295593007/

[Riva]

Uh huh. Party elites can unilaterally choose the preferred candidate. To hell with the primary process. Can’t let democracy stand in the way of the democrat quest for power.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

But you agree that Biden can still resign/withdraw if he wants to? "To hell with the primary process", indeed.

[Riva]

He can resign and the democrats can suffer the fallout, good and hard. But that isn’t the nature of the conversation. Democrats want him replaced so the party can remain in power. Democrats don’t really give a rat’s ass about “democracy” or the country.

[Kazinski]

Its not too surprising that the polls are still relatively close, since we are still a 50-50 nation. But as Nate Silver has pointed out, Biden could win the popular vote by a point or more and still lose, and he is down about 3.

By my reckoning the tipping point for victory comes down to about 5-7 states, PA, MI, ME, NH, WI, VA, MN. Biden or his replacement has to have every one of them, since now AZ, GA, and NV are beyond the margin of error, which gets Trump to 268.

And now PA seems to have slipped out of the tossup range to lean Trump (My cutoff is >=5% margin).

I can't see any Biden replacement doing any better.

[Brett Bellmore]

Per Silver, Biden actually has a significant chance to win the EC and lose the popular vote, too. Though the most likely outcome per Silver's model at this point is his losing both.

[Josh R]

I'm not a subscriber, so don't have access to Silver's predicitions. But, it sounds like you have that backwards. As it was in 2016 and 2020, Trump should be the one with a chance to win the EC while losing the popular vote.

[Armchair]

Probability being what it is, both options (Trump wins EC, loses Popular vote and Trump loses EC, wins popular vote) are possible.

In both 2020 and 2016, Trump was losing in the US National polls. Currently, he's winning in the US national polls.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the polls currently, as Armchair points out, have Trump leading in the popular vote. Biden has collapsed that badly.

To be clear, it would probably be a plurality popular vote win if he does do it.

[Josh R]

Yes, Trump leads in the popular vote. But, Silver has stated that if Biden wins the popular vote by 1%-point, Trump is favored to win the EC. That means there must be a greater chance that Trump wins the EC while losing the popular vote than vice versa.

In the 2020 forecast, those probabilities were 8% for TrumpEC/BidenPV and less than 1% for TrumpPV/BidenEC. In 2016 they were 10.5% TrumpEC/ClintonPV and 0.5% for TrumpPV/ClintonEC.

You said the probability of the latter in 2024 according to Silver was "significant." What's the figure that Silver quotes?

[Brett Bellmore]

"That means there must be a greater chance that Trump wins the EC while losing the popular vote than vice versa."

Yes, I only asserted that the chance of the inverse wasn't insignificant.

What's the actual number? I can't get past his paywall either, I just recall reading somewhere that he'd said that. For what admittedly little that's worth, as I can't locate where I read it.

[Moderation4ever]

Because of the way the EC is weighted I find it unlikely that Biden could win the EC and lose the popular vote. It would be interesting to see it happen and then to see the Trump/Republican reaction. Would they be as dismissive of the popular vote as they have been in the past.

[Krayt]

Per Silver, Biden actually has a significant chance to win the EC and lose the popular vote, too.

Now that would be interesting. I believe some states have said they’d pledge their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide. This improvident, feel-good thing felt good as long as it was the Democrat benefitting. What if it threw the election to the Republican?

There would be lawsuits. Also, that, in turn, would smack of one changing the rules after the election to make one’s guy win, a no-no. Most of those screaming the EC is anti-democratic would suddenly discover outrage their votes were being abused. "In an ideal world, the EC would not exist, but it does, and we must follow the rules as designed..."

The rhetoric writes itself.

Such lawsuits should happen now. If you wait for a controversy, that’s too late. Nobody listens.

[Brett Bellmore]

" This improvident, feel-good thing felt good as long as it was the Democrat benefitting. What if it threw the election to the Republican?"

So far, all the states that have joined that compact are states that are reliably going to the Democrats, none of them are swing states. For that reason, it actually has been the case all along that the NPV compact was more likely to benefit Republicans than Democrats, because the only time it would actually be changing any EC votes in those states was when a Republican won the popular vote.

The drive for new members of the compact has stalled as they started going after swing states. Why would any swing state want to volunteer to be ignored in all future elections? A Republican winning the popular vote would be the final straw.

[Josh R]

.

it actually has been the case all along that the NPV compact was more likely to benefit Republicans than Democrats

The NPV compact makes a difference in the outcome of the election (forget about the EC margin) only when one side wins the EC and the other popular vote. In the past 3 election cycles, the NPV compact was much more likely to benefit Democrats (Clinton would have won!). Prior to that, there was no partisan bias.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, maybe I should clarify exactly what I meant by that.

Because all the current states in the NPV compact are reliable Democratic votes in the EC, and the best they can hope for is to pick up just enough swing states to hit 270 and bring the compact live, you've only got 2 scenarios where the NPC makes a difference:

1: The Democrats win the popular vote, and the compact hands them a few EC votes to get them to 270 for the win.
2: The Republicans win the popular vote, and the compact hands them an electoral college sweep, forcing every Democrat voting state in the union to hand all their EC votes over to a Republican.

In the first scenario, a tiny number of voters find that their vote has been subverted.

In the second scenario, half the Democrats in the country might as well not have voted.

Sure, it's not "who wins" significant, but imagine the horror.

[Josh R]

Under the NPV Compact, no one cares what the EC margin of victory is.

[M L]

"the NPV compact was much more likely to benefit Democrats (Clinton would have won!)"

What state(s) did Clinton lose that subsequently joined this compact and would have changed the result?

Or are you just saying theoretically if all/more states joined it.

[Josh R]

The latter.

[tylertusta]

I think a lot (all?) of the Biden replacements will do worse than Biden, not better.

[Jmaie]

"I think a lot (all?) of the Biden replacements will do worse than Biden, not better."

Fair chance I'm just fooling myself, but I'd think there are plenty of voters that lean Republican but dislike Trump enough they'd vote for any reasonably centrist Democrat. Assuming as Stephen Lathrop
mentions below, that the Democratic party is capable of finding and promoting a reasonably centrist Democrat...

[Mr. Bumble]

…and therein lies the rub. Can you name one?
People like Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard would probably fit the bill but both wound up leaving the party.

[AmosArch]

Its not too surprising that the polls are still relatively close, since we are still a 50-50 nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Biden could probably eat a baby on stage and still be close. I'd say the same thing about Trump but I know better given how readily Republicans turn on each other and dumped guys like the one that hit on girls in the mall while the democrats stick with their candidates thick and thin even if they have brain damage or snort drugs on camera.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[Magister]

91% of Republicans voted for Roy Moore, according to exit polls.

You're probably just peeved about the time Republicans abandoned David Duke in Louisiana, preferring a Democrat to a white supremacist Republican (yeah, it was 1991; nowadays the Republicans are more likely to dump those who are not white supremacists).

[not guilty]

I recall that while running against David Duke Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards had a bumper sticker which read "Vote for the crook. It's important."

[Magister]

Edwards was an early victim of lawfare by ... wait for it ... Republicans (well, he claimed the mistrial and acquittal in the 1980s was politically motivated; convicted over a decade later, though.)

[AmosArch]

>>91% of Republicans voted for Roy Moore, according to (exit polls).

If he truly was that popular he would have won handily, Alabama is a long way from Castro. But Repubs stayed home from the special election obviously. How stupid do you think people here are? Lol.

[Magister]

Total votes between Doug Jones and Roy Moore in a 2017 special election: 1348720

Total votes between Katie Britt and Will Boyd in 2022 as a regular election: 1414238

Alabama population increased by almost 200000 between those times. Not seeing a major drop in turnout, especially with other races to drive the 2022 turnout.

Your better story would be that Republican voters in Alabama rejected the candidate endorsed by the party leaders (Trump, Pence, McConnell) with ten times as much spending, choosing Roy Moore over Luther Strange.

Of course, Republicans have stuck by Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan and Donald Trump despite their more significant sex scandals.

[AmosArch]

You're grasping at straws. Turnout for a particular election can be similar to some other random election thats not as controversial but still be affected by boycotts. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The very next election for the exact same seat Moore ran for had almost double the turnout. Also Moore was almost certain to win before the 11th hour accusations. You can't deny that.

[Magister]

The very next election for the exact same seat Moore ran for had almost double the turnout.

Are you really stupid enough to compare turnout between a special election in December 2017 and the regular presidential election in November 2020, with higher turnout than any presidential election for a long time? (Rhetorical question; obviously you really are at least that stupid.) I already compared 2022 with the special election, and the difference is not that big considering the state population grew and there were other races in 2022 to give higher turnout.

Moore was certain to win if he hadn't had a creepy history or had been able to hide it; lots of losing candidates were certain to win if they weren't, for whatever reason, unpopular candidates. Trump in 2016 managed to overcome the Access Hollywood tape in which he confessed to sexual assault, in a fairly evenly divided nation, versus a single very Republican state. (Of course, he had to commit felonies to keep the porn star and other creepy history secret enough....)

[hobie]

Yeah, but most of the states you mention that are in play were the ones that Trump and his henchmen attempted to have their votes nullified via the fake electors fraud. Millions of voters there will not forget that. And if they have forgotten, they can be reminded

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. Don't forget to remind people of what Trump did. You can include that in today's morning reminder, afternoon reminder, or evening reminder, or any of the in-between reminders.

Thank goodness there are so many people left in your world who are too stupid to know, but not too stupid to learn. Keep preaching, smart guy.

Another symptom of TDS: endless feelings of revelation fueled by an elite sense of the ignorance of others.

[Michael Ejercito]

What Trump did was justified payback for the whole Mueller investigation thing!

[myself]

Don't trust the polling on Biden replacements. Even with Harris barely anyone knows who they are (even Harris is mostly just a name and the occasional headline).

At this point any Biden replacement is going to be decades younger, much more energetic, and way more coherent.

That contrast will be important in the next debate, the audience, instead of focusing on trying to understand Biden, will start noticing how rambly and incoherent Trump can be. Not to mention it would give the media airtime for his bizarre gaffes like claims of winning golf championships.

[Kenneth Almquist]

On March 11, 2020, Trump addressed the nation to talk about COVID and couldn't explain his own Administration's policy accurately. Most seriously, he said that he was banning travel from Europe to the United States starting in two days, causing Americans in Europe scrambled to get back to the United States before the start of this supposed ban. He disrupted people's plans and likely created a superspreader events at the New York airports (which were overwhelmed by the volume of travelers coming into the United States over those two days). So if you are wondering why the debated didn't move the poll numbers very much, it's at least in part because we've seen how both candidates actually perform in office. We don't need to try to guess based on performance in a debate.

[Kazinski]

Quite true, that’s one reason I think the polls are more accurate this year than in other cycles, everyone is very familiar with both candidates.

And as I've pointed out a few times it's the 20% of the electorate that doesn't like either candidate that will decide the election, and it seems they dislike Biden more, by about 3 points.

[Josh R]

We won't know if the polls are more accurate until after the election. Perhaps you meant to say "steady" instead? That's an argument for the Democrats changing horses to someone who could move the polls as a relative unknown.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Santamonica811 — Good comment and question. Problem is, absent the Biden disaster you posit, I urge everyone to withhold judgment until there is some clear alternative to Biden—if not an alternative named candidate, at least a promising-looking and agreed-upon procedure for finding one—plus some sign of Biden’s willingness to along with it.

It is tempting to suppose recently bruited blitz-primary proposals ought to be tried. My first impulses after hearing about that notion were enthusiasm and relief. I imagined the possibility for some young and truly-capable alternative to show up, unify the Ds, and take the tension out of the campaign by walloping Trump incessantly, not least by turning the age issue back against him.

Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland, came to mind, as ideally suited to do that. And if not Moore, then one among a plethora of other similarly-situated, young and talented, thoughtful and energetic possibilities, newly emerging in the D party.

Then I remembered that we are talking about the Ds. Given the opportunity, is that how the Ds would run a blitz primary season? Of course not. They would pack the field with an array of previously bypassed mediocrities, chosen to show as a whole—a politically correct identity grouping, maybe high on intersectionality.

Instead of a concentration of raw energy, youth, political ability, and unifying themes, you would see an internally-polarizing array of competing identity-politics offerings—the woman candidate (Harris, of course), the male gay candidate, the lesbian candidate, the black candidate (Moore for instance would qualify, but probably not Moore), the Jewish candidate, the Hispanic candidate, the Native American candidate, the Asian-American candidate, and so on. Plus maybe Newsom, the straight white male from California, who will not quite turn out enough urban blacks in swing states to win the election. The gods willing, Sanders would be left on the sidelines as too old, and with that the prospect of an economically progressive candidate would likely go a-glimmering.

In short, most of the offerings would be familiar throw-aways, picked for their identity representation, with each supplying subtle emphasis for political primacy for their particular group—to the exclusion of youth, new talent. and politically unifying themes. That likelihood gives me pause.

Lawrence O’Donnell, the MSNBC television anchor, is a standout in that line of work by virtue of his many-decades experience of professional political practice. He has steadfastly been holding out for Biden, and denouncing as foolish attempts to replace Biden. O’Donnell seems to recognize Biden’s age vulnerability, but to minimize it—insisting instead that the actual job of a president almost never requires the kind of think-on-your-feet capacity to deliver unreflective and unassisted answers which Biden’s age-impaired and stutter-impaired cognition make so difficult for him.

O’Donnell, both explicitly and implicitly, also emphasizes the value of deep collective connections among political practitioners—the kind of background which makes Biden—incongruously white in this context—the single most potent political actor on the American scene for turning out black voters. Delaware politics schooled that capacity into Biden, starting a half century ago. Biden worked at it for decades, and developed deep connections among black political leaders which have proved durable. It was that capacity which put Biden in the White House in 2021. O’Donnell seems to doubt it is much diminished now.

I remain skeptical of O’Donnell’s take. But find it hard to dismiss entirely, given the lack of specifics that characterize the dump-Biden movement’s advocacy. I am also skeptical of the motives of some of the would-be dumpers, who seem to be more single-candidate advocates themselves—with an emphasis on backing Harris—than true believers in an open process to choose the best opponent against Trump.

I continue to want a more-exciting, and more transformative, race against Trump. But on balance, at this moment, I want more information to justify any particular means to get there. In the midst of a ten-alarm emergency, it can be hard to hold your fire, and wait to see what happens next, but I think that is what this nation needs to do, at least for an interval which I hope lasts no more than a few weeks.

[Don Nico]

Again on this topic, I have to agree with Lathrop.
We don't need the mediocre "internally-polarizing array of competing identity-politics offerings" that the D party elite will serve up.
It is hard to image that Mr. Biden will be doing well 3 years from now, but he is the devil we know. Until there is a realistic alternative willing to step up (for example Mr Newsom), I defer judgement on whether Mr Biden should step aside.

[Mr. Bumble]

How could you find any reason to support Newsom. He is a younger version of the empty suit that Biden has been.
Point to one good thing that he has accomplished.

[Joe_dallas]

I definitely prefer someone other than Trump on the republican ticket. That being said, Newsom, like the majority of the democrat politicians and huge swath of democrat party has become beholden to the racist and anti-semites that dominate the party and dictate the party policies. Newsom is very much front and center of that far leftist movement. Newsome has also been even further left (ie wacko) on economic policies, ineffective and determental covid mitigation policies, immigration policies, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

For a take on Newsom:
https://amgreatness.com/2024/07/10/why-gavin-newsom-must-never-become-u-s-president/

[Joe_dallas]

concur -
Its baffling why anyone thinks the progressive policies of left will every bring prosperity to the masses.

[Kazinski]

Newsome is likely not being talked up more because two critical swing states are Arizona and Nevada, they get a ringside seat of what he is "accomplishing" in California.

It's a hard "no thanks".

[Joe_dallas]

Interesting point on Newsome & two needed states for the EC

Whitmer seems to a semi popular governor (though I dont know how), especially since her covid policies ranked down there with newsome. With a high popularity, it would improve the chances with MI

[Kazinski]

She may have the same problem in WI and Western PA.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It is hard to image that Mr. Biden will be doing well 3 years from now

He hasn't been doing well for some time now.

[Kazinski]

Here is the RCP current betting line on the Democratic candidate:

Democrats
Harris 41.4
Biden 35.6
Newsom 5.6
Obama 5.3

[myself]

Biden will drop out and Harris will run. I'd be shocked at any other outcome right now.

- Virtually everyone on the Democrat side knows Biden needs to step aside, they just want him to go willingly and graciously and to go out and campaign for the replacement candidate. The longer he refuses the more the pressure will increase until he does.

- Harris is the natural successor, and even though her primary campaign flamed out she's been in the administration for the past 4 years which is really good training. More importantly a floor vote / mini-primary to select someone else lacks the legitimacy of a primary and creates terrible optics of passing over black (and east Indian) woman.

The destination is obvious, the question is simply how long it will take to get there.

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious santa.... as to who you will be voting for in the Senate race?

[santamonica811]

Schiff. I thought he was incredibly impressive prosecuting the Trump impeachment. Thoughtful, sober, and fair. He's to the left of what I want, in terms of gun control. I like that he supported the really conservative border bill this year (that Trump and Speaker Johnson blew up for purely political reasons), and he's about where I am in terms of social things like abortion, gay marriage, taxes on the filthy rich, energy policy.

Garvey was absolutely my favorite baseball player as a kid. I think he would be a perfectly fine conservative senator. But he is WAY to the right of where I am on social issues, so he would block legislation that I support, and would advocate for laws that I oppose. I don't penalize Garvey for his disgusting past treatment of women/marriage vows, as I do believe that people in politics can get past mistakes that were made well in their earlier lives. If Garvey were to be elected, I'd be perfectly okay with that. Not at all a "What the fuck were voters thinking?!?" type situation, as it is (for me) with Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for responding but you seem to be very diplomatic.
Can't agree with your take on Schiff but setting that aside, who would/will you be voting for?

[santamonica811]

I'm not understanding your (repetition of the) question. I'll be voting for Schiff. Not a perfect candidate for me. But he seems to have integrity and a sense of seriousness that I respect...even when I disagree with him on the issues. (If you put aside anything related to Trump, I feel much the same way about Rubio...although I grant you that this is a might big "if" and a might be exception carve-out.)

I just think Schiff is a more impressive candidate than Garvey. But Garvey would be just fine, if a massive upset were to occur. (If Garvey were to win, it means a red tidal wave, and Republicans with 60+ seats in the Senate.)

[Vryedni]

Garvey’s teammates hated his guts. Not that I was voting for him anyway, but food for thought.

I agree, Schiff did a masterful job prosecuting the impeachment.

[Josh R]

At first blush, I am rooting for disaster so the Democrats can move on and have a better chance to win. But, there are two things in the polls that suggest it may not help: 1) Biden dropped only 1.5%-points in the polls and there is likely about a 25% chance he wins based on how often the polls are wrong, and 2) no one else is polling better.

Both of the above surprise me. Maybe Kazinski is right and age isn’t what is driving the polls. On the other hand, it seems like a cogent candidate has a better chance to move the polls than Biden does.

Changing candidates risks chaos, but when you are behind, that’s the type of risk you need to take. And that includes more debates, not fewer. I like Trump's idea of multiple Gore-versus-Perot NAFTA-like debates (but not with Biden). Perhaps Harris as a former prosecutor could shine in that format. So far to me, it unfortunately appears as if she graduated with honors from the Ron DeSantis School of Charisma.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only reason Biden isn't hilariously doomed is that the media have spent 8 years now sliming Trump, and that's given him a relatively low hard ceiling that absolutely nothing is going to move up at this point.

That's one of the reasons I thought the GOP should nominate DeSantis, after all: To put all that work the Democrat/media combine have done to waste, and force them to start over.

[Josh R]

You made a funny (Trump's unpopularity is the media's fault).

[Sabedi1]

It is. How many times has the media said "Trump lied and said, without evidence, ___?"

In most of those cases, it was an opinion they didn't agree with.

[Brett Bellmore]

WaPo compiled an extensive database of supposed lies, and most of it was just differences of opinion, or cases where he said something true that they didn't like the implications of.

[CountmontyC]

One thing that counted as six lies in the WAPO list was when the NCAA football champions went to the White House and were fed hamburgers. President Trump said the hamburgers were "stacked a mile high" and because that was not literally true it was a lie and was counted six times because he said it six times. It was standard hyperbole that nobody really should have taken it literally( such as a person saying "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse"). They also called predictions lies because there was no way to tell the future. They twisted the meaning of what a lie is in a very Orwellian way.

[David Nieporent]

[Citation needed] as to the WaPo claiming "stacked a mile high" was a lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/15/president-trumps-extravagant-sandwich-celebration-clemson-university/

"“At two inches each, a thousand burgers would not reach one mile high. Had Trump instead invested his entire net worth — $3.1 billion per Forbes last year — on $5 sandwiches, each two inches high? A stack of hamburgers nearly 20,000 miles high,” the Post noted. "

[David Nieporent]

So, in other words it was a joking aside from Bump in a piece about the cost of the event, not calling what Trump said a "lie" — let alone, as CountymontyC claimed, counting it "six times."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it's not the best example of the WaPo falsely labeling something he said a lie. A better one would be, for instance, them claiming that his promise to renegotiate NAFTA was.

First, as a prediction of what he WOULD do, how could it have been a lie?

Second, he actually went ahead and did it.

[bernard11]

Yes. After a lot of bluster - "Worst trade agreement ever," as if he understood anything about trade - he got some not very significant changes.

Anyway, if that's the best you can do out of 30,000 .....

[hobie]

Opinion? So Trump keeps saying to you that Soros and Ruby Freeman stole the election from him in Georgia. I suppose that is merely his opinion. But if I were you I'd be little insulted that he keeps telling me that. Because, you know, it's kinda a lie......unless of course you believe it!! Then, well, you're all good

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The GOPe had as big a boner for DeSantis as they had for George W Bush. DeSantis has an off putting personality.

[hobie]

I've always marveled at the chutzpah Bush had saying 'compassionate conservatism'. When your brand is so unassociated with compassion that you have to add the modifier it's a little sad. Like when Fox has to add 'fair and balanced'. Heh. What news organization has as its motto 'We absolutely, 100%, are telling you the truth. We swear it!' Then, of course, Hugo Chavez's front company sues them and we find out all they do is lie and then lose a billion dollars in the bargain. Sad. No really, it is sad

[Brett Bellmore]

"When your brand is so unassociated with compassion that you have to add the modifier it’s a little sad."

It's not so much that the Republican brand is unassociated with compassion, as that it was unassociated with compassion in Bush's view. His using that term demonstrated the HE had a low opinion of what was at least nominally his own party.

That's why it so grated on other Republicans, who didn't share that opinion. It demonstrated that Bush had a fundamentally Democratic opinion of what was nominally his own party.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha Bush was popular as hell with the GOP and he liked the Republican platform a lot as well. As governor and as President.

The GOP at the time liked to think of their policies as compassionate tough love. ‘Soft bigotry if low expectations’ hit for a reason.

Trying to retcon MAGA as not a radical shift is not going to play to anyone over 35.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bush was popular as hell, period, right after 9-11. Then his popularity dropped like a rock with Democrats, but it was also plunging with Republicans, too.

Presidential approval graph

By the time he left office he was down to "approval by your own party" levels that only Nixon or Ford had managed to end ball below.

So let's not pretend Republicans loved him. For a little while, sure, but he successfully soured them on him.

[Sarcastr0]

He was quite popular with the right when he left office. 75% approval.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

[Brett Bellmore]

So he got a little "At least he's not the guy who's replacing him" blip at the end. Your own numbers show that his popularity was nothing special relative to most same party Presidents, for most of his term.

[Sarcastr0]

We are talking among Republicans.

If you need to explain away the stats to get your thesis off the ground maybe it’s not right.

[bernard11]

the media have spent 8 years now sliming Trump,

Bullshit. Describing his behavior accurately is not "sliming" him. The guy is a walking talking slime bag.

How do you feel about Trump University, the Trump Foundation, serial bankruptcies, repeatedly stiffing creditors, non-stop lying, etc.?

Don't bother answering. We've all heard your BS.

[Brett Bellmore]

Accurately? Pretending he called Nazis "fine people"? Pretending he tried to take over the steering wheel? Attributing remarks to him at meetings that ALL attendees deny he made, on the basis of anonymous sources?

[Magister]

He said there were fine people on both sides, between a white supremacist rally and a counter protest. Any fine people on the first side would have gone home when they saw the swastikas. Like the time he wouldn't disavow David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacists in the 2016 campaign (blaming a bad earpiece, but he heard enough to say "I know nothing about white supremacists."). Or in the 2020 debate where he wouldn't condemn white supremacists and instead told the Proud Boys to stand by.

The steering wheel story? Trump was reportedly angry that the Secret Service wouldn't take him to the Capitol:

The Post reports that, in other internal emails, [Secret Service] agents said Trump was angry about agents keeping him from the Capitol, suggesting that he didn’t accept their rationale for returning to the White House once it became clear the protest had turned into a riot.

Hutchinson testified that Ornato told her the steering wheel story; he denied it but lamely testified that he didn't recall.

The remarks referenced are probably calling fallen soldiers "suckers" and "losers"; not anonymous sources, since John Kelly has confirmed that (however belatedly). Trump claimed 25 witnesses, but 11 of them weren't even present, and some were rather equivocal. Also consistent with his attack on John McCain's service.

[David Nieporent]

He did call Nazis (or neo-Nazis, or white supremacists, etc.) fine people.

And nobody "pretended he tried to take over the steering wheel." Cassidy Hutchinson testified that she was told that something like this happened. It's possible that the person relating the story to her exaggerated, but nobody ever testified that she was lying about having been told this.

Attributing remarks to him at meetings that ALL attendees deny he made, on the basis of anonymous sources?

Yes, and?

Also, the main supposed example of this was the "suckers and losers" situation, and John Kelly has on the record said he said it.

[Joe_dallas]

that claim has been debunked numerous times
Why do you keep repeating the democrat propaganda machine lie

[Magister]

There were only two sides, and one of them was a white supremacist rally. Hutchinson testified to what she was told; the guy she said told her couldn't recall when he testified. John Kelly confirmed the reporting on the suckers and losers statements.

And all of these are just exemplars of Donald Trump's behavior at other times.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know which claim you're talking about, but none of them were debunked even once. (Maybe you mean the nazi claim, but the debunking is just wrong. It's true that he said "I'm not talking about the nazis," but that was just him lying; he was talking about the Nazis.

"Those Nazis are fine people. I'm not talking about the Nazis."

[David Nieporent]

2) no one else is polling better.

? Everyone else is polling better, though of course except for Harris there's no name recognition and this is really just "Generic Democrat," which always outpolls an actual Democratic candidate.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was a large part of Biden winning four years ago, after all: Covid gave him an excuse to hide in his basement, allowing him to remain a generic Democrat right up to the election.

[David Nieporent]

Joe Biden was a known quantity four years ago.

[Kazinski]

2008-16 Joe Biden was a known quantity four years ago.

2020 Joe Biden, not so much as we are finding out.

Reagan announced he had recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer's 6 years after he left office in 1994, and people have been saying they could see it since he ran for re-election in 84.

And now some of the same people are telling us, Joe just lost it last month, before that he was sharp as a tack.

Reagan was never as bad in office as Joe has been these last 4 years.

[Mr. Bumble]

Biden was NEVER fit to hold Reagan's jock strap.

[David Nieporent]

2020 Joe Biden, not so much as we are finding out.

No, it's 2024 now. Not 2020.

There are lots of Internet randos saying otherwise, but not a single politician or member of the press who actually dealt with Joe Biden in person has said, "Yeah, back in 2020 he had obviously lost it."

[Joe_dallas]

Just shows how well the democrats and the media covered it cognitive decline.

Also shows how easily you were fooled by the propaganda

[David Nieporent]

Or just shows you're a liar.

[Kazinski]

What polls.are you looking at, the RCP average for Trump Newsom is Trump by 4.8.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-newsom

Trump is beating Harris by just 2.6.

[Don Nico]

In no circumstances will I vote for Donald Trump; I am no fan of Mr Biden. However, I do hope that Mr Biden does well today.
I am appalled that D elite and their media lackeys have attacked the President this week during the NATO summit including multiple head of government from NATO and friendly East Asian countries. Given the precarious security situation in the Middle East, Ukraine, and East Asia, Mr Biden deserved better from his party.
As for 77 year-old Sen. Peter Welch, who calls on Biden to step aside, he should lead by example and step down because he is too old to serve his state well in the US Senate.

[Brett Bellmore]

It might be good for the nation if lightning struck, and magically restored Biden's faculties. It's not a reasonable expectation, though; At this point he's even doing badly in friendly interviews where he's been given the questions in advance. (Granted, that describes every interview he's had in years, apparently...)

The natural expectation is that his interview/debate performance will continue to decline, and at this point quite rapidly.

[Riva]

I’m appalled that democrats don’t give a crap that national security, world security, is threatened by having this incompetent corrupt reptile in power.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think Democrats are basically assuming that Biden is just a PR front, and has been for most of his administration, and it's Jill and the Cabinet actually making all the decisions. So they don't think of it as Biden being in power, they think of it as the Cabinet being in power.

[Riva]

Then they should think of it as a coup. Almost insurrectiony one might say.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

As for 77 year-old Sen. Peter Welch, who calls on Biden to step aside, he should lead by example and step down because he is too old to serve his state well in the US Senate.

Stop regurgitating that dishonest and idiotic trope. It isn't about age, and never has been. It's about repeatedly demonstrated cognitive decline.

[Don Nico]

It isn't tripe.
Welch, Pelosi, Biden, Trump, etc. all belong in a retirement home not trying to run other people's lives.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It isn’t tripe.

No, it’s more thoroughly clueless/dishonest bullshit.

Welch, Pelosi, Biden, Trump, etc. all belong in a retirement home not trying to run other people’s lives.

Which is irrelevant. You seem to be having trouble remembering what you’ve said. Let me remind you:

As for 77 year-old Sen. Peter Welch, who calls on Biden to step aside, he should lead by example and step down because he is too old to serve his state well in the US Senate.

None of the Democrats…including Welch…are calling on Biden to step aside because of his age, because none of them had a problem with his age when he was chosen as the party’s current nominee. They’re calling on him to quit because of his cognitive decline (and it's impact on his ability to beat Trump). And yet you keep conflating the two. That begs the question: Are you having cognitive problems yourself? Or are you being intentionally dishonest?

[Don Nico]

I am being very honest.
You are making excuses because at his age Welch would not be able to get another job. I don't need reminding. I stand by what I said: Welch is too old to serve his state at the level it deserves. He should lead by example and step down. Maybe you are in enough cognitive decline that you cannot understand a simple English sentence,
But you are correct about one thing: I can't run a 90 minute soccer match any more

[Bob from Ohio]

As I said on the SCOTUS retirement post, Welch was 76 when elected for the first time!

He doesn't care a lick about "serving his state".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I am being very honest.

That's like getting caught shoplifting and declaring, "I didn't do anything!"

You are making excuses because at his age Welch would not be able to get another job.

Yet AGAIN....Biden's age is not nor has it ever been the issue, nor the reason that anyone is calling on him to step down as the D candidate. You continuing to claim that is IS the issue makes you either pigheadedly dishonest, or as dumb as a bag of hammers...or both.

I don’t need reminding. I stand by what I said: Welch is too old to serve his state at the level it deserves. He should lead by example and step down. Maybe you are in enough cognitive decline that you cannot understand a simple English sentence,

I'm going to go with "dumb as a bag of hammers". Welch stepping down due to his age would NOT be "leading by example", because he's not calling on anyone else to step down because of their age.

But you are correct about one thing: I can’t run a 90 minute soccer match any more

Well now, here's a data point in favor of you being just plain dishonest. I didn't say anything at about your (or anyone else's) physical abilities, or lack thereof.

[Don Nico]

"That’s like getting caught shoplifting and declaring"
You have got to be kidding. Peter Welch is an egomaniac who needs retirement

"That’s like getting caught shoplifting and declaring"
That is a data point that yu are just being a jerk

[Kazinski]

I'm in definite agreement with you there.

Add McConnell, Grassley, Blumenthal, Durbin, King, Risch, and Sanders.

All of whom are 77-90.

McConnell is the only one who so far has said he won't run again.

[Brett Bellmore]

He had to, after he got caught freezing up in public too many times.

[Josh R]

Bernie is a robust 82.

[Don Nico]

Sure and he should retire.
I say that even though my mom did not retire until she was 86 (and she showed no cognitive decline even at her 100th birthday). But she was far too old to work even half a day on a daily basis.

[Kazinski]

He's had a heart attack too.

[Josh R]

Should Democrats in the name of national security laud Biden or STFU? Or, is it OK to tell to truth after the summit?

[Don Nico]

They don't have to laud Biden. They don't have to lie.
They should be quiet for 2 days and let our President do his job at the center of the world stage. Is that so hard to understand?

[AmosArch]

Although I’m a Republican
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

reminds me of two guys I used to know who were hard left on every single topic. The guy consistently further left of the pair claimed to be a centrist while the other one who was actually more centrist admitted he was liberal. And its not like they didn’t know their positions respective to each other since they would talk together about politics. But hilariously the former used his ‘centrist’ identity to attempt to bolster his arguments due to his supposed impartiality as a centrist while acknowledging the other as a liberal.

[Bwaaah]

If you're a Democrat and you're not sympathetic to Hamas, you can call yourself a "centrist" now (not that anything changed). That should feel comfortable, since you couldn't explain why you started calling yourself a "progressive" (when nothing had changed).

Some people think it would be futile to shuffle the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Others would rather dispute that said furniture should be called "chairs."

[hobie]

I feel the same. Biden's inability to be humble and sacrifice for the greater good is really rich considering how he got to be president in the first place. As a Democrat in 2020, Biden was neither mine nor others' first, second, or even third choice by the time of South Carolina's primary (at that point, if you recall, it was Buttigieg/Bernie/Harris and then Biden as the also ran). But by then, Bernie was crushing it, and we all knew that as principled a man as he is, in a nation full of Jew-hating bigots, he was unelectable (as were a gay man and a black woman). So Biden's modest win in South Carolina was the offramp for a centrist candidate. And Buttigieg and Harris fell on their swords for the greater good.

Now it's Biden's turn to return the favor and fall on his sword for the greater good like others did for him. But he won't, and I find that arrogant and vain. Nope. I'm not at all happy with Biden at the moment

[Don Nico]

Not completely correct. Harris was a non-starter before the first votes were cast. Bernie was the real front-runner, who terrified the D elite.

[Brett Bellmore]

Appropriately, too: It's nice to see that the D elite retain at least SOME understanding of just how evil communism is, that they want to keep the dose down to survivable levels.

Bernie is probably the best example in American politics of a genuine "Red diaper baby"; Raised communist, and stayed that way in all but official party label.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

in a nation full of Jew-hating bigots

The left would have voted for him anyway, just to spite Trump.

[David Nieporent]

So Biden’s modest win in South Carolina

Modest 30-point win.

And Buttigieg and Harris fell on their swords for the greater good.

Harris was out of the race before Iowa. Buttigieg and others dropped out because it was clear they had no path to victory.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

On the other hand; the polls are not out of reach by any means (I’m frankly shocked at how close they still are, given Biden’s “worst debate in American presidential history” performance was.).

If you really are shocked by that it's because the other small group you fall into is that minority who has been so willingly blind for the past 4 years that you weren't already aware of Biden's cognitive decline that had been on full display that entire time. Enough of the rest of us didn't fall for the, "Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?" schtick that Dems and most of the media (but I repeat myself) were peddling, and so it was already mostly baked into the polls before the debate.

[DaveM]

No, this is unfair. I was really shocked by the debate because I had been intentionally dismissing, not ignoring, all these signs of aging. I repeatedly asked people to stop policing speech, who cares how someone says something, what matters is what they say, etc.

But at the debate it was plain that we had been seriously lied to. This wasn’t just making allowances for aging, this was outright, in your face, intentional deception.

If I were a Democrat, I would be livid.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, this is unfair.

It is absolutely fair, and accurate.

I was really shocked by the debate because I had been intentionally dismissing, not ignoring, all these signs of aging.

Stop pretending that his age is the issue. It isn't. There are many others who are his age...or older...who do not display his level of cognitive impairment. And in this case, intentionally dismissing and ignoring are functionally the same thing. Again, his gradual decline has been on public display for the past 4 years, and just as publicly pointed out for that entire time. You were either incapable of recognizing the blindingly obvious or just chose to pretend that what you saw wasn't reality.

I repeatedly asked people to stop policing speech, who cares how someone says something, what matters is what they say, etc.

That you think obvious signs of mental decline in a U.S. president don't matter tells us a great deal.

But at the debate it was plain that we had been seriously lied to.

Again, that has been plain for the past 4 years. You're just now deciding to recognize/admit it. Maybe that's because so many Dems have publicly acknowledged it, so now you think it's OK for you to do so as well.

If I were a Democrat, I would be livid.

You have no right to be. You chose to ignore all of the evidence and blindly swallow those lies whole. You have only yourself to blame.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There are many others who are his age…or older…who do not display his level of cognitive impairment."

At Biden's age about 1 in 5 Americans have dementia, so he's not much of an outlier, sadly.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

At Biden’s age about 1 in 5 Americans have dementia, so he’s not much of an outlier, sadly.

Meaning that about 80% of those is age do NOT have demantia.
But again, that's not the point. Although his age is a causative factor for his mental decline, it is that mental decline that is the issue...not his age.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" R’s like me who are not willing to sacrifice our integrity"

It's RINO whores like you who lack integrity and I'd like to see Trump explain how he's going to purge you from the party and screw you with the tax code.

"Trump is a racist, a rapist, a pathological liar, and a danger to America. "

As opposed to Biden, or Clinton, or the Kennedys, or Lyndon Johnson, or FDR?

[David Nieporent]

It’s RINO whores like you who lack integrity and I’d like to see Trump explain how he’s going to purge you from the party and screw you with the tax code.

I, too, would like Trump to explain how he doesn't want anyone in the party who doesn't wear a red hat. In fact, he should demand that they never vote for him or any GOP candidate ever again.

As opposed to Biden, or Clinton, or the Kennedys, or Lyndon Johnson, or FDR?

Yes. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Drewski]

I think you meant to post this from the Bumble account. That's the one that calls people "RINO whores" and drops fabulist whatabouts.

[DaveM]

No one is voting for Biden to be the President for the next four years, because no one expects him to last that long. A vote for Biden is just a vote for Harris.

So the real question here is does the Democratic Party have the cojones to let the people have a fair and open election where they get to vote for the person who will actually be the President, or not.

I’m afraid that based on their behaviors thus far, the answer is no.

Why would George Clooney help Biden raise $30 million while knowing he was mentally unfit? Why is it only now that he is “coming clean”? The answer is, he isn't coming clean at all. What he (and others in his camp) are merely admitting is that Biden is not good enough to even get Harris across the finish line. Something must be done.

So as to the poster’s original question, Biden will continue to be exactly who he is. Time waits for no man. He will be replaced because he cannot win.

[Don Nico]

"Why would George Clooney help Biden raise $30 million while knowing he was mentally unfit? "
Because he is a liar and a hypocrite.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to add married to an anti-Semite.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So the real question here is does the Democratic Party have the cojones to let the people have a fair and open election where they get to vote for the person who will actually be the President, or not.

No, because the part that publicly claims to be the savior of democracy truly does not give a rat's arse about democracy.

[Don Nico]

Here I agree with you.

[ducksalad]

Want to happen: New level of awfulness that finally brings things to a resolution.

Expect to happen: Something awful but not worse than the debate, therefore giving the hangers-on an excuse to keep hanging on.

[David Nieporent]

Let’s put aside the segment of the VC who are whores for Trump. We know your perspective. I’m interested in Dems, Independents, and R’s like me who are not willing to sacrifice our integrity. My question: What do you most want to have happen at the press conference?

Kinda rooting for one of those giant anvils from the Roadrunner cartoons to land on his head.

I do not think that Biden can beat Trump. I am dubious about whether Biden can do the job effectively for the next six months; I am completely certain he can't do it for the next 4½ years. So, yes, anything that gets him out of the race is a good thing in my book.

[Josh R]

OK. But, the next anvil falls on Donald J. Trump, Super Very Stable Genius.

[David Nieporent]

I kinda was hoping for "torn apart by a pack of wild hyenas" for him.

[Jmaie]

Clancy's "Executive Orders" plot came to mind during the debate. Not wishing for anything to happen, but would shed few tears...

[Mr. Bumble]

President Dr. Jill Biden will not be resigning any time soon.
The Ds made their bed when they picked Biden/Harris for 2020, "fortified" the election to insure their victory and now are forced to live with it.

[Bob from Ohio]

No more Vogue covers or Annie Libowitz [sic] pictures once Joe is out of office.

[Kazinski]

Kind of rich that he's talking about integrity, and then starts taking about what politicians to support.

The two topics don't mix well.

[Bored Lawyer]

Kinda rooting for one of those giant anvils from the Roadrunner cartoons to land on his head.

The metaphor is more apt than you realize. Wile E. Coyote kept coming back again and again, despite the disasters. A perfect metaphor for Trump.

[JasonT20]

What are your thoughts? We know that Trump supporters are hoping and begging that he stay in the race (which makes total sense…who would not want to run against a doddering opposing candidate?). But for the other 55% of the country? What do you want to see happen at this press conference? (I believe it’s supposed to be at 2:30 pm, PST. I have to imagine that most or all the cable news networks will carry it live.)

I think I am in the same place you are. If he is suddenly as vigorous and coherent as he was 4 years ago (which is still not very vigorous, at the minimum), then it will be hard for anyone to convince him to step aside. And he should. The defiance he has shown was exactly the wrong way to react to his debate performance. Everyone that would consider voting for him is correct to doubt his ability to serve another term as president. If Biden understood that, he would have acknowledged voters' concerns. Instead, his stance has made it seem more like he is in denial or trying to hang on due to ego.

Perhaps it was reasonable for him to think that he could do the job effectively for another term several months ago, in which case I wouldn't blame him for deciding to run for reelection. But it is not reasonable for him to think he can defy the inevitable effects of aging now that he is clearly displaying the effects of his age for all of the world to see.

[Krayt]

My question: What do you most want to have happen at the press conference?

Heart attack? That’s a bit rough in public. But at least Ukraine would be saved from the rolling tanks of admirable, reasonable, honorable strong men.

[Bored Lawyer]

"So, I’ll support anyone that’s not him."

Curious, how far does anyone go?
Joseph Stalin?
Bernie Sanders?
AOC?
Ilhan Omar?

[JasonT20]

Well, one of those would obviously be worse than Trump. Of the other three...one is older than Biden, even if he isn't showing signs of decline yet, one will be eligible to be President because her 35th birthday is before Inauguration Day (October 13), and the third is not a natural born U.S. citizen, and is thus not eligible to be President.

That makes two that are still better than Trump, despite their own downsides, one that is irrelevant because she is ineligible, and a 4th that is also irrelevant because he is ineligible due to being dead for 70 years, on top of not being a U.S. citizen at all when he was alive. It wasn't even necessary to get to the murderous dictator part to disqualify him.

Of course, there are quite a few points of similarity between Trump and Stalin, so your inclusion of Stalin in this list is kind of ironic.

The term “cult of personality” became prominent in the twentieth century in 1956 when Nikita Khrushchev delivered a mind-boggling Secret Speech, “On The Cult of Personality and Its Consequences,” to the 20th Party Congress of the USSR’s Communist Party. In it he spoke at great length of the harm Stalin had done to the Soviet Union by fostering such a cult around himself: “The cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person.” Khrushchev also criticized Stalin for branding some of his political opponents as “enemies of the people,” and claimed “Stalin originated the concept enemy of the people. This term automatically rendered it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven.” (Long before Stalin, however, the Norwegian dramatist Ibsen used the term, entitling one of his plays “An Enemy of the People.”)

[Commenter_XY]

What are your thoughts?
Run Joe, Run! 🙂

sm811, this is simple. If POTUS Biden is on the ticket, the election is over. He will not win.

[David Nieporent]

I am embarrassed and ashamed to admit that I want Biden to really fuck up.

At today's NATO event, he gave a decent speech (because, contrary to the half-assed medical diagnoses from the VC commentariat, he's not suffering from dementia, so he can read from a teleprompter), but then in response to the very first question, he called Kamala Harris "Vice President Trump."

[Josh R]

Along the lines of the Stephanopoulos interview: no anvil but not to allay fears of where his decline will lead.

His knowledge of the issues reamins strong. But, he can't articulate himself forcefully or quickly, the latter of which is needed to win debates.

He should agree to a neurological exam.

[Brett Bellmore]

In all likelihood he's had multiple neurological exams; There's that Parkinson's expert who keeps visiting the White House, after all.

He's just not making the results public.

[David Nieporent]

This was after earlier calling President Zelensky, "President Putin." Though to be fair, some suggested that was a deliberate ploy to increase GOP support for Ukraine.

[Bored Lawyer]

You simply don't understand what is involved here.

My brother-in-law recently lost his father. His mother is in her 90s and has dementia. That does not mean she is a drooling vegetable. Far from it. A few days ago, at the 30th day anniversary of her husband's death, she gave a 30 minute speech about his life. It sounded coherent and even inspiring. If you heard it, you would never realize she had mental deficiencies.
But my brother in law later interjected that some of her speech confused her late husband with her late father.
And, when my mother and I had paid a shiva call a few weeks before, she openly told us she has no clue who we are, even though she had met and spoken to us many dozens of times, and had considered us part of her extended family.
Dementia is not an all or nothing thing. It comes and goes, and someone can have lucid moments when they seem very coherent. But you cannot rely upon the person being lucid at any moment or remembering what's important at any moment.

I would not trust Biden to do a simple will for me, or even to babysit little children. You have no idea when he is going to lose it or not. I frankly doubt you would, either. Whatever the exact medical diagnosis is for his mental decline, it is clear and apparent. That he gave a semi-coherent speech proves nothing.

[Bwaaah]

All of that comports with my experiences and my analysis of this situation. The problem and its materiality is plainly visible, even if not accurately quantifiable in any particular moment. The moments of clarity don't save us from the moments, and risks, of confusion.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Dementia is not an all or nothing thing. It comes and goes, and someone can have lucid moments when they seem very coherent. But you cannot rely upon the person being lucid at any moment or remembering what’s important at any moment."

Yup. And it becomes inexorably worse.

[Kazinski]

Rather interesting conversation between NY Times columnist Ezra Klein and Tim Miller on Miller’s podcast.

Klein is asking “Top Democrats” why they are still supporting Biden when they are saying privately that Biden can’t win. ‘I can live with Donald Trump winning’.

“‘Ive had top Democrats say to me basically something like ‘I know why all the Democrats who think Donald Trump is an existential threat to Democracy are acting the way they are. But the reason I am acting the way I am is because I don’t think that.”

https://x.com/SteveKrak/status/1811161320483434803?t=cKHII6cNZ0Kjdgf8fJvhGw&s=19

[Michael P]

People who think a second Donald Trump term would be an existential threat didn’t learn anything from his first term. Unless they mean it's an existential threat to the Democrat party's rule.

[santamonica811]

I think you are not understanding the meaning, in context, to "existential threat." Or, you have a very rosy (delusional??) gloss on what the 4 years of Trump # One were actually like.

Or (the most disjointed from reality take possible): "Yeah, Trump was awful and evil in his first term. But I'm really convinced that Trump Ver. 2 will be lawful and will be respectful of American values, and that he'll never actually do any of the things he's warned about and bragged about and threatened to do." Sure, in the existential sense, this IS a possibility. But I wouldn't want to place a bet on it.

[Kazinski]

Let me just reiterate, when Trump left office inflation was 1.8% gas prices were 2.36, mortgage rates were 2.5%, and the SP 500 was up 42% over his four years.

So the country was in good shape and better off after Trump's first term, whatever your personal perspective.

Now you can play pandemic games with unemployment, and GDP, but people remember what was going on, and what was going on before the pandemic hit, so those numbers are not comparable.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump inherited the Obama economy and didn’t screw it up for a whole 3 years!! For an old white guy that gets you a memorial in DC!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

As opposed to Biden who inherited the "Trump economy" and screwed it up on his first day in office and hasn't stopped yet.
How's that "transitory" inflation treating you?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Uh, Trump failed to stop Covid and the economy in 2020 sucked other than Trump and Pelosi splooging dollars all over America. Shocker—you like not working and getting dollars splooged at you!?! Dollars probably aren’t the only thing you like getting splooged at you! 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

…and who in this big wide world was able to “stop Covid”?
As to splooging dollars, that would apply to all politicians at all levels. Bread and circuses has always been the politicians answer.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody stopped Covid, but a few countries managed to endure it without tanking their economies, primarily by not over-reacting.

If I have any complaints about Trump's Covid related performance, (And I do!) it's that he didn't push back hard enough against the lockdowns.

[tylertusta]

He didn't realize his mistake until it was too late. It's probably his third worst mistake he made as President.

[Don Nico]

"Trump failed to stop Covid"
Look around the world and tell us who did.
What stopped COVID-19 was viral evolution.

[Joe_dallas]

Concur -
What stopped covid is the same thing that has stopped every viral pandemic through out world history which was developing immunity through out the population.

The mitigation policies could slow the spread ( and did partially slow the spread), but those policies were never going to stop the covid spread. It was fortunate that a marginally effective vax was developed that reduced the severity for a portion of the population.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Polio was a viral pandemic that was eradicated through vaccination.

[Guten]

Mr. Bumble may be referring to Biden opening the border, reducing the capacity of US to produce energy, and increasing government spending through the Green New Deal. These actions may have exacerbated the COVID problem. That is not to say that Trump did not print a lot of money which put Biden in a hard spot to start.

[bernard11]

As opposed to Biden who inherited the “Trump economy” and screwed it up on his first day in office and hasn’t stopped yet.

And how exactly did Biden screw it up?

[Sabedi1]

I take issue with the idea that the stock market is a barometer of "how the country is doing." It's basically a barometer of "how the rich are doing," as the top 1-2% own most stocks.

It'd be one thing if the stock market was up because of a strong economy. These days, and basically since the Greenspan dies, the stock market does what it does because they're convinced of the Fed put. Nearly all of Trump's gains were multiple expansion, and nearly all of Biden's gains over the past year are the same. NVDA at a P/E of 80? MSFT at a P/E of 40? Housing prices at 10x income in many places?

Give me a break. You can't tell me with a straight face that asset bubbles created by reckless fiscal and monetary policy are a good thing for the country as a whole.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

On X someone posited the question how the free market reduces home prices like it does with soap or TV prices. I would argue the free market doesn’t because there are perverse incentives to want home prices to always increase. So people want to get a good deal on a house but ultimately they want their home to be more valuable than the house next door.

[Joe_dallas]

Sabedi1 4 hours ago
"Give me a break. You can’t tell me with a straight face that asset bubbles created by reckless fiscal and monetary policy are a good thing for the country as a whole."

Concur -
Your comment also points to one of the misconceptions of 2008 housing crash. The common misconception is the crash was caused by the risky lending. Yet what is overlooked is the risky lending was a result of too much money being pumped into the system by the Fed, the result being too much money available to be loaned out, thus the lowering of credit standards in order find sufficient borrowers. Its the which came first question - the chicken or the egg. In the case of the housing bubble, it was the excess funds available for lending that came first, not the lower credit standards.

[bernard11]

A big part of the crisis was simple overleveraging in the mortgage market by Wall Street.

You can talk about "risky lending" all you want, but you can go broke with a portfolio of treasuries if you start leveraging up into the high 90's.

[David Nieporent]

It’d be one thing if the stock market was up because of a strong economy.

Growth is good, inflation is way down, and unemployment is incredibly low.

[Mr. Bumble]

Figures lie and liars figure.

[Kazinski]

1st qtr GDP was only 1.3, that is hardly robust growth. But it is what’s needed to get inflation completely tamed.

There is a small chance that we tipped into a recession this quarter, we will know in two weeks, when the first estimate comes out.

[Jmaie]

“I take issue with the idea that the stock market is a barometer of “how the country is doing.” It’s basically a barometer of “how the rich are doing,” as the top 1-2% own most stocks.”

70% (or thereabouts, I don’t have a handy source) of corporate retirement plans are invested in the stock market. The top 2% do indeed own a majority, but a whole lot of folks have a stake as well.

[Life of Brian]

Back of the napkin, looks like there's currently about $24T in IRAs/401(k)s out of about $50T in total US stock market cap.

So your 70% estimate (no source here either, but sounds like a reasonable ballpark) would put about $17T in stocks, or about a third of the total market.

That said, I would expect overall IRA/401(k) contributions to skew toward upper-income earners -- perhaps dramatically so. Not landing any immediate data points for that.

[Jmaie]

No doubt 401k owners skew higher on the socio-economic scale, most fast food companies don't offer benefits. On the other hand, a lot of folks with retirement plans may not have other stock-related investments.

That 70% figure was percentage of folks with retirement plans, not necessarily the amounts in said plans...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski —The incomparability of the numbers is sort of the point of those who dismiss your argument. Sure, after you tank the economy, inflation gets suppressed. Which leaves a choice. Let the economy stay in the tank, or stimulate it to get it off life-support, and take the delayed inflation in a nasty-looking aggregate. Biden wisely did that, and the nasty interval turned out to be brief.

As for:

So the country was in good shape and better off after Trump’s first term, whatever your personal perspective.

My personal perspective includes recollection that there were literally thousands of corpses piled in the streets of New York, (albeit tastefully concealed in refrigerator trucks), while Trump lied about what was happening, and struggled mightily to avoid involvement, lest his blundering result in blame.

My personal perspective includes sudden, unexpected, forced retirement for both me and my wife, because our jobs went away. My personal perspective includes forced sale of a house we had lived in for nearly forty years. My personal perspective includes almost breaking my body—because no help was to be found—filling three 30-yard dumpsters with personal possessions accumulated over decades. And doing that in the midst of an insane hunt for less-costly alternative housing, which took my wife and me far afield for months, in the midst of deadly pandemic risk for both of us. A risk not diminished by repeated encounters with Trump-inspired pandemic minimizers, who refused to mask while they dealt with us.

Before that interval you so admire was over, more than 1.2 million Americans—mostly concentrated in a single small-fraction demographic—had died prematurely. At least hundreds of thousands of them died needlessly, because of Trump's insanely feckless political opportunism.

What happened next? The lying about what happened began. When you associate yourself with incompetent performance—including even criminal performance, of course you lie about it. You are doing it now.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Republicans didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012. And Bush failed to get the economy back to Clinton levels in 2004 and yet Republicans came out of the woodwork to vote for him.

[Kazinski]

Sorry the pandemic was so rough on you, but it certainly was not all Trump's fault.

He wasn't blameless, he should have followed the Swedish model of no lockdowns, but nobody knew for sure.

But you are wrong about inflation during the Trump administration his four years were:
2.1
1.9
2.3
1.4

Only the last year was affected by the pandemic.

And if you are going to accuse me of lying, just exactly what did I say that was untrue?

Or is just the mood wrong?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I live in a very desirable city and the housing market started getting out of hand before the pandemic. I think the Trump Tax Cuts were causing shelter inflation before the lockdowns.

[Krayt]

I think inflation caused problems, but indirectly. It didn't take a genius to see dumping that much cash into the economy would cause inflation, so a ton of people with free cash bought an extra house as a hedge. No matter what happened with inflation, you'd pop out the other end with an extra house.

Value: one house.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinsky, you need more realistic accountability standards for inflation.

Assume that for a one-term president, or for a president in his last term, the inflation numbers going forward lag the effects of whatever policies the administration puts in place. Assume that lag falls somewhere in the range 18–24 months.

Now extend your list forward and back, to include the last two years of the Obama administration, and the first two years of the Biden administration. Then adjust your reckoning, to assign yearly results appropriately to whichever presidents can plausibly be blamed or credited for lagging numbers.

On that basis it looks like Obama gets credit for falling inflation in Trump's first and second years, Trump gets blame for a rise in inflation in his third year. And the economy tanked and took down inflation in Trump's fourth year.

[David Nieporent]

And if you are going to accuse me of lying, just exactly what did I say that was untrue?

Well, you claimed that there were lockdowns in the United States.

[Kazinski]

They locked up the bars casinos and restaurants, and even the gardening section in Home Depot in Michigan.

They arrested people jogging or paddle boarding on the beach alone in southern California.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/paddle-boarder-arrested-in-malibu-after-flouting-coronavirus-closures

[Bob from Ohio]

No funerals, other than St. Floyd's of course. No nursing home visitation. Schools closed. Church services stopped, sometimes after police raids.

[JasonT20]

He wasn’t blameless, he should have followed the Swedish model of no lockdowns, but nobody knew for sure.

The "Swedish model" is still debatable as the better plan (Sweden's mortality statistics were worse than other Scandinavian countries), and "no lockdowns" is not taking into account the voluntary measures and social distancing that the population implemented. That kind of plan in the U.S. might have been better if: Trump and all state and local officials took the risks seriously and encouraged people to take precautions, even if they didn't mandate and enforce them; testing and contact tracing was handled better than it was (not all on Trump himself, as experts in the CDC botched some of the early testing attempts, if I recall correctly. But, the buck is supposed to stop on the President's desk, right?).

Instead, we got battles over masks, conspiracy theories about the data being exaggerated and more, people claiming religious suppression when they couldn't gather by the hundreds in enclosed spaces, people being encouraged to take medications with no validated research to support their effectiveness, and much, much more.

[Kazinski]

Don’t talk about testing. Remember the CDC refused to let anyone else roll out tests during the critical first few months of the pandemic, and then it turned out the CDC’s test didn’t work a full third of the time.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/06/929078678/cdc-report-officials-knew-coronavirus-test-was-flawed-but-released-it-anyway

The CDC lied to us and to Trump about it.

[Magister]

If the 33% errors were failing to detect the virus, then Trump would have been quite happy; he wanted less testing so that we would appear to have less cases.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — No. The CDC was forthright about its troubles, and about the perils of Covid. It did blunder in its attempt to continue its own floundering testing program. But it kept informed both the NIH and the Trump administration. When one CDC senior officer circulated to the NIH and Trump administration a prescient, accurate, and hence extremely downbeat, prediction about where the pandemic was headed, in late February of 2020, Trump immediately replaced her.

[Sabedi1]

So your position is that it's always better to debase the currency than it is to actually suffer a recession and cleansing of bad businesses?

[bernard11]

"Cleansing of bad businesses?"

You're nuts. Recessions are not a good thing, and they don't "clear the rottenness out of the system."

[Sabedi1]

Nearly all of the COVID deaths were very old, very sick, or very fat.

At most, the 1.2 million died a year or two before they may have died otherwise.

Did you do any research on the thousands of corpses in NYC? Most were obese blacks and Mexicans.

[hobie]

Jeesus

[Sabedi1]

Truth hurt, fuckface?

[hobie]

My bad. I wasn't aware what you said was the truth. I withdraw my 'Jeesus' remark and offer apologies.

[Don Nico]

Lathrop, blaming Trump for COVID is simply dishonest. Your understanding of the epidemiology of this disease is minimal.
Having made a major move recently after decades in CA, I do sympathize with that part of your post.

[hobie]

Damn, Lathrop! That fucking comment was a beatdown

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Damn, Lathrop! That fucking comment was a beatdown

You're one of those mouth-breathing window-lickers who eagerly clicks on videos with "and instantly regrets it!" in the title, aren't you?

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 4 hours ago
"My personal perspective includes recollection that there were literally thousands of corpses piled in the streets of New York, (albeit tastefully concealed in refrigerator trucks), "

Lathrop - you keep stating you are a student of history - yet your statement is pure junk history.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you're going to dispute him, you should at least have the capability to specify which part you claim to be false.

[Joe_dallas]

Jason - the average daily death rate pre covid is approximately 195-210 - About 6k per month.

the trailers sent to nyc was the first week in april 2020. As of April 1st the cumulative deaths in NYC was on 2600.

In other words, the story told by Lathrop is hyped.

[Magister]

The death toll ramped up throughout April and May, and they didn't send trucks one time. The trucks were still there in 2021, with hundreds of bodies remaining in them. In early May, New York City had a peak of at least 799 deaths in a day from COVID, but also had to deal with non-COVID deaths for which they didn't have morgue space or mortuary/crematorium capacity.

Did the trucks not hold 2000 bodies at some specific time? It's both unlikely to be true, and in any case a stupid quibble; Lathrop's statement can be read as thousands of bodies during that time rather than at a given moment, which is indisputably true.

New York City expands morgue capacity by 75% — can now handle 3,600 corpses at a time

It has added mobile morgues and trucks because of the number of coronavirus casualties

That's from March 30, 2020; FEMA sent more trucks later.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-68c9762a4420094d300f9cbada0186f8

In other words, Lathrop's story is at worst, slightly exaggerated. Hardly "junk history."

[Kazinski]

It certainly wasn't bad enough to use the hospital ship Trump sent to NY.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nor all the ventilators, nor the hospital built in the Javit's Center.
NY just sent the old and sick back to the care homes.

[Commenter_XY]

Cuomo and Murphy should be behind bars for their arrogance and stupidity.

[Magister]

The hospital ship that was sent would not take any patients with COVID, excluded many other medical conditions, and was largely useless. The 1000 bed ship ended its mission less than a month later, having treated 182 patients total. During that time, hospitals were overrun with COVID patients and had few other patients to send to the ship, with the city running short of body bags and other space converted for use as hospitals.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas —True and readily verifiable. It is a matter of record that FEMA sent 85 refrigerator trailers to NYC to store corpses, each capable to hold 44. Do the math.

Those were added to others already in service. At the peak of the crisis, there was a mini-crisis, which required unloading some of the trailers into warehouses, to make room for more. Everyone in NYC knew what was in those trailers. I saw a photo of a dusty trailer parked by a curb across from a playground. On the side of the trailer someone had scrawled in the dust, "Dead People Inside."

On what basis, or more accurately, on what impulse, do you indulge in unfounded denials? Plainly, you made no effort to follow in detail what was going on.

[Don Nico]

The Feds did a similar thing after 9/11

[Joe_dallas]

Don N - Separate question - you indicated that you had authored a couple of covid studies - can you provide a link. Thanks in advance
Joe

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, I am very sorry all those things happened to you during the pandemic. I mean that. Hope you recover.

[JasonT20]

Let me just reiterate, when Trump left office inflation was 1.8% gas prices were 2.36, mortgage rates were 2.5%, and the SP 500 was up 42% over his four years.

Yeah. Fuck the effect he had on our standing with our allies, the way that he made it clear that the U.S. doesn’t have other countries’ backs against aggressive authoritarian regimes if they don’t have anything to give us, all of the people in his administration that left and tried to tell the world what an amoral moron he is, the virtual destruction of Republican voters' confidence in and acceptance of election results that don't go their way, and the sheer ridiculousness of 4 years of the Trump Show. I got mine with a decent economy, and that is what matters!

[Magister]

Trump lost 2.9 million jobs, so not really a decent economy. Those various numbers were down because of Trump's disastrous COVID response; and even after vaccines were approved, he put his effort into a coup rather than vaccinating people. (Biden managed 200 million doses in his first 100 days, despite skepticism about 100 million, his original goal.)

[Kazinski]

Like I said play pandemic games.

They shut down all "non essential" businesses, in almost every state.

Nevada shut down their casino's, restaurants nationwide could only provide curbside service. NJ and most other states closed gyms.

We were there, we saw what happened. When you play games with the numbers like that it makes everything you say suspect.

If you want to say they shouldn't have closed non essential businesses, parks, beaches, theatres restaurants then say so, it's a legitimate beef.

As for the vaccine rollout, it wasn't even announced they had a vaccine until after the election. How fast do you think they can manufacture half a billion doses?

B

[Magister]

There was no plan, and the numbers I provided are correct.

[Magister]

I should add that there would have been no point to Operation Warp Speed with no plan to distribute the vaccines, and not likely that any competent administration would wait until vaccine approval to start planning. And the Trump administration had no vaccine distribution plan. Lying and stupidity are apparently sacraments for the Trump cult.

[Joe_dallas]

Trump didnt lose 2.9 million jobs - The overreaction to the covid pandemic is what caused the lose of the jobs. You can neither credit or blame trump for the effects from covid, just the same as you cant praise or condemn biden for his covid response. keep in mind bidens covid response was set in motion during the trump administration, and the subsequent effectiveness the biden administration was nearly identical as would trumps administration would have been had he won the 2020 election. ie virtually no difference between what would have been either administration.

[Magister]

Trump failed to handle the pandemic. Panicked everyone into rushing back from Europe, with no plan to quarantine anyone. Held back supplies from states with blue governors for political advantage. Did no planning to distribute the vaccine, because after the election all he cared about was holding onto power. (Of course he wouldn't plan for after the election, since he was sure the pandemic was a hoax that would disappear; projection from the usual Republican claims of disease carrying terrorist migrant caravans, which evaporate after election day.)

[Michael P]

Trump was not remotely as bad as you claim, and almost everything he tried was thwarted by Swamp creatures. Unless you think that good second term will be radically different on both counts, it will not be an existential threat to democracy.

On the other hand, the behavior of those Swamp creatures over the last five years has created an existential threat to their perceived legitimacy across the country and around the world.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Republicans seem to hate his surrender to the Taliban…I think it was great but I’m not invested in the Bush/Cheney legacy like Republicans.

[JasonT20]

Republicans seem to hate his surrender to the Taliban...

I haven't seen any Republicans even acknowledge that.

[Michael P]

Republicans aren't big on "acknowledging" fantasy.

[NvEric]

The tedious and dismal negativity of far too many people is a true threat to the USA along with the sabotage in education, the military, and most all big cities.

Your "Trump is a racist, a rapist, a pathological liar, and a danger to America." is beyond reality.

These coming years will be difficult; overcoming the irrational pathos of those indoctrinated with "modern" theories will also be difficult.

The dictatorship will continue no matter who becomes the next president, and if you desire more dictatorship, then don't vote for Trump. Choosing the right path is not for the elected to do, so voting for anyone is only a temporary stop-gag if done for those who will do the least damage. Forging a way out of our being a virtual empire or this latest thing, a dismal third-world dump, is up to everyone to work on.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

PPP fueled the violent crime spike. Giving free cash to thugs just enabled them to buy guns and drugs.

[Sabedi1]

Thugs were business owners collecting PPP cash?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

There was almost no oversight—apparently “barber shop” was the business that thugs said they were in.

[Joe_dallas]

Note that Sam BF is delusional

[tylertusta]

Trump is an existential threat to Roe.

Oh. Wait.

[Krayt]

As the Democrats fought him to a standstill on almost everything, it wasn’t the worst, because from a libertarian point of view, a do nothing government at least isn’t making things worse. Like inflation.

But even if that could be guaranteed, I still cannot abide by tanks rolling through Europe under some misguided combo of wanting cut red tape for business in Russia and some pseudo-libertarian claim libertarians are fine with other countries getting ground in the steel treads of dictators.

[Brett Bellmore]

How about tanks rolling through Europe under some misguided remarks about permitting some degree of invasion so long as it didn't go too far?

[DaveM]

The "existential threat" of Trump is that Team Blue will lose power and Team Read will gain it. Horrors ensue. It's the end of civilization.

Team Blue is exactly as sincere as Team Red.

[Krayt]

Arguably a whisker less sincere. The biggest complaint against Republicans is supporting business. In a sense, the proper response is, “So?”

Business, i.e. capitalism, as corollary of freedom, is why we have such a powerful economy. Where do people think the tax base comes from?

Democrats claim to help various downtrodden. But is that to win to block business, for corruption reasons, as around the world and throughout all human history?

[JasonT20]

The biggest complaint against Republicans is supporting business. In a sense, the proper response is, “So?”

There is "supporting business" and then there is "supporting business at the expense of workers and consumers." I'm sure that you understand that the criticisms of Republicans for their support of business uses that latter framing. It is not honest to mischaracterize an opposing argument that way. You can disagree with the accuracy of that framing, but the proper response to that is definitely not, "So?"

Business, i.e. capitalism, as corollary of freedom, is why we have such a powerful economy. Where do people think the tax base comes from?

Everywhere in the world that has relies on capitalism for economic success is actually a mixed economy to some extent correct? Regulation, direct spending on goods and services by government (even when there are no nationalized industries, government spending makes up a significant part of the nation's GDP), social safety nets, public education, support for basic scientific research... Laissez-faire capitalism hasn't been tried since the Gilded Age. There's a reason they call it that.

[Martinned2]

Given how many people around these parts seem to think that the US is the richest country in the world, I thought I'd share the Economist's latest ranking of richest countries, which covers both the unadjusted GDP per capita and GDP per capita on purchasing power parity basis and PPP/hours worked basis.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/07/04/the-worlds-richest-countries-in-2024

Take America first. Its gdp has been the largest at market exchange rates for over a century. But by income per person it falls to sixth, behind Luxembourg (first) and Switzerland (second). Adjusting for America’s higher prices pushes it down to ninth; accounting for its long workdays and limited holidays, to tenth.

Basically Norway and Switzerland are at or near the top no matter how you measure things, but otherwise there are some countries that pop in and out of the top 10.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Why isn’t Norway by far #1 with its sovereign wealth fund?? I don’t understand how Sweden can be so close to Norway and even Denmark without oil or Novo Nordisk!?! Norway seems to underachieve to me.

[Martinned2]

As you can see, Norway has high prices and low hours worked. Whether that is underachieving is a matter of opinion, of course.

[Frank Drackman]

I could handle summering in Zurich, but their German is different than German German, my retirement dream is to rotate between Malibu (OK Santa Monica, I’m not that rich), Zurich, and Haifa

Frank

[Armchair]

Sigh...

Always a fun exercise.

The US is the world's richest "large" economy. That's an important caveat, because a large economy is, to an extent, self supporting and contains all the important pieces (poor and rich) to keep a fully functioning economy.

Now, you can get smaller "sub-economies" that can be richer, by exclusively focusing on one aspect, while outsourcing all the other critical parts of the economy. Usually this will be finance of some sort that is focused on. These economies work by doing much of the financial work, while importing critical services, electricity, and even workers. (Keeps GDP per capita high if you import the workers, but don't include them in the actual "per capita" part by sending them home at the end of the day).

To use the US example, that would be like treating Manhattan as its own economy. If you do that, Manhattan would have a GDP per capita of $489,243 (2017 numbers). That would easily shoot Manhattan to the top of the list. Manhattan can't exist on its own as an economy, much like Luxembourg. It just acts as a focus for financial services.

[Krayt]

I’ve been saying something like that for years. Places like NYC got their starts as primary ports, and large industries built up around them. This in turn attracted corruption and bloated government like parasitic moss on a tree. The parasites then declare themselves the cause of the success.

Meanwhile it’s that they were the center of a gigantic nation’s finances and other industry HQs setting up there for convenience.

[Martinned2]

How big does an economy have to be to be a "big" economy?

[tylertusta]

I don't think there's an objective rule that can be applied here as the answer is subjective:

I'm of the opinion that you can only have a "big" economy if you are also a great power.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, you can have a "big" economy if you are both prosperous AND populous. Which tends to MAKE you a great power...

The US is the country with the 3rd largest population in the world, (Though both India and China have so much larger populations that it's kind of deceptive to say that without qualification.)

India: 1,428,627,663
China: 1, 425,671, 352
US: 339,996, 563
Indonesia: 227, 534, 112
Pakistan: 240,486,658
...

Neither India nor China are really all that prosperous on a per-capita basis, while the US is more prosperous on that basis than all but a handful of extremely small countries. So we end up ahead on size of our economy, except that China has a bigger economy by not being totally poor, and having a LOT of people. (But they can't do as much with it as they could if they had the same wealth and were our size, a much larger fraction of it is spent just staying alive due to their huge population.)

Thanks to our size, we can capture basically all the gains from economies of scale internally, unlike prosperous small countries, our wealth is not fundamentally dependent on external trade. (Though it is contingently dependent on external trade, something Trump proposes to change.) We also have the advantages of relatively small exposure by land borders to potentially hostile states, and a nice mix of natural resources.

[tylertusta]

Which tends to MAKE you a great power…

Yes. Exactly. We're saying the same thing.

When you are a great power, suddenly the economic comparisons melt away because the scales are so massively different. How you get to be a great power involves several of the factors you just brought up.

By virtue of being a great power, your economy is already "big."

[bernard11]

our wealth is not fundamentally dependent on external trade. (Though it is contingently dependent on external trade, something Trump proposes to change.

WTF? Trump's tariff plans will reduce our wealth and increase inflation. He has no clue about how trade works or why it is beneficial, or the effects of tariffs. Neither do you, apparently.

[tylertusta]

I think Armchair is mostly there with his rebuttal: When the entire economy a country fits within just the defense budget of the United States, then it's not an apples-to-apples comparison any more.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Basically Norway and Switzerland are at or near the top no matter how you measure things

Availability of driers, air conditioners, or cars?

[Krayt]

Tiny fridges, washers but no driers, brown tap water you simply do not drink.

But you might have stop lights just for bikes! So you weight that kind of stuff heavily.

[tylertusta]

When measuring the number of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, Norway and Switzerland have zero while the US has 11.

Checkmate!

[Bob from Ohio]

Neither has won a SEC championship either.

[Kazinski]

Let's at least compare apples to apples.

The largest futbol stadium in Europe (Wembley)would be the 7th largest football stadium in the SEC (after Sanford Stadium, Athens Georgia).

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a twitter meme/joke.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, so is the football stadium thing.

Iowahawk pointed out that the largest futbol stadium in Europe wouldn’t make the top 10 college football stadiums.

But true.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Availability of driers, air conditioners, or cars?"

Size of houses too.

[ducksalad]

"no matter how you measure things"

One measure of real, secure wealth is how cautious you have to be to avoid downfall.

Norway and Switzerland are insecure in their wealth, so they are forced to elect sober-minded, responsible technocrats as their leaders to maintain their standard of living

The US is so secure in its wealth that we have the luxury of electing a senile incompetent, after previously electing a lying blowhard, while still living a first-world lifestyle.

[Martinned2]

LOL, I like that. I don't think it's right, but it's amusing, and that also counts.

[Bob from Ohio]

Very cute when jealous Euros try to talk down the USA.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

This whole thread has sounded a lot more like jealous Americans trying to talk down Europe.

[Bob from Ohio]

Refuting Euro nonsense is not jealousy.

[Michael P]

Petrostates and secret banking havens aren't really scalable economies. They both rely on other economies to actually produce most of what they use.

[Frank Drackman]

What would you ask Parkinsonian Joe today if you just had one Question? (HT J Osborne)
I’d stick with something simple like his name, amazing how early that goes in Dementia.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

If today is yesterday's tomorrow, what will today be tomorrow?

[Kazinski]

I think what makes America the Richest Country, but not necessarily the most affluent, is we are the 3rd largest country in the world. The measure isn't really just per capita income, its total income, and per capita income, lets call it total disposable income.

Luxembourg is number 1 per capita, but it has 0.2% of America's population. I'm happy for them but they are not consequential.

All the countries ahead of on the list have what, a combined 5% of our population?

How many billionaires with their own space programs does Luxembourg have? We had at least 3 until Paul Allen died.
You have to go all the way down in to the 50's to reach any other countries with populations of even a 6th of ours.

[Martinned2]

Usually when this comes up it's because someone says "we have the greatest democracy/economic system/constitution/whatever in the world, and you can tell because we're the richest country in the world". If that's the argument, it should be GDP/capita, not total GDP that is the proof point.

[Kazinski]

Yeah well, I don't have to tell you comparing 330 million Americans to 650k Luxembourger might be ok for entertainment purposes, but has little real world value.

Luxembourg has about a 86 billion national GDP, Elon Musk just got his 59 billion pay package approved by Tesla, and that's only one of his companies, SpaceX which is privately owned is also having a very good year.

That's probably not a good comparison either.

[Martinned2]

Yeah well, I don’t have to tell you comparing 330 million Americans to 650k Luxembourger might be ok for entertainment purposes, but has little real world value.

...which is why I didn't pull out Luxembourg as an example of a country ranked consistently above the US, even though (as you say) it is.

[Sabedi1]

America is largely living on its past coattails. How "rich" would America really be if we didn't have the reserve currency and the ability to incur seemingly unlimited debt in order to pay for all of the things we "deserve?"

[Martinned2]

And absolute oodles of land that somehow didn't belong to anyone before the white people arrived, and that are full of natural resources?

[Mr. Bumble]

Now tell us about how your homeland and adopted home achieved their wealth.

[Martinned2]

1. By literally raising it up from the sea by the sweat of our brow.

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

2. By pioneering a system of free market capitalism that we subsequently spread across the world, including to our former colonies in North America.

[Frank Drackman]

Nice way to describe buying Manhattan from the Indians for a few dollars worth of Wampum

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

In no way denigrating the work ethic of the people of the Netherlands which continues even today with their high ranking in agriculture and technology.
Only pointing out that much of their historic wealth was the result of their colonization across five continents.
Bonus question: Did the Dutch "steal" land from American Indians?

[tylertusta]

Get out of here with those inconvenient facts about the Dutch colonial empire.

[Kazinski]

What really put the Dutch in the map was trade, and a lot of it the slave trade.

[Sabedi1]

Land doesn't "belong" to anyone unless they have the might to keep it.

But yes, the natural resources America had were instrumental in its becoming a superpower.

[Krayt]

Those theories neglect economic freedom. Many resource-rich nations (Brazil, Russia) struggle, while others with little (Japan) prosper.

But if your goal is to rhetorically buttress command and control (a necessity for corruption) you cannot allow that consideration as a variable input.

[Krayt]

It’s why Simon called his book The Ultimate Resource. He meant people, economically free people, not iron and trees and cobalt for batteries.

[Sabedi1]

Having natural resources helps, but it's not necessary nor sufficient to be successful.

[Mr. Bumble]

See Russia past and present.

[Jmaie]

"But yes, the natural resources America had were instrumental in its becoming a superpower."

That and coming out of WW2 with an intact manufacturing sector...

[Kazinski]

Yep, but its still true that when the US economy gets a cold, the economies in the rest of the world get pneumonia.

[Brett Bellmore]

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

Notice something? All the countries ahead of the US are either banking/tax havens, or small petro-economies. With the solitary exception of Singapore, which pulls it off by being more of a free market economy than the US. Props to them!

However, the US is coasting on past performance; The US stopped being a global outlier in terms of growth rates back in the 80's, we've retained our advantage on momentum: We're growing as slowly as the rest of the developed nations, but from a higher baseline.

So, looking at the US TODAY for the secret to our success is probably a mistake, you'd need to look at what we were like 50 or more years ago.

[Martinned2]

If only I’d provided a better source than Wikipedia…

(But seriously, you should try sorting it by some of the other columns for a change.)

[Brett Bellmore]

If you use the CIA instead of the IMF rankings, you get pretty much the same result: ALL the wealthier per capita countries are tiny, and almost all of them are either banking havens, tax havens, or petro-economies.

The US and Singapore are about the only ones achieving it with diversified economies.

[Sabedi1]

And we can borrow 7% of GDP to further juice "growth."

That's why government spending should not go into GDP.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, America is exceptional in lots of ways, economic prosperity is one of them.

Let’s not fuck it by insisting on radical attacks on our institutions out of inchoate fear and resentment.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I pointed out above, the US economic advantage was gained at a point when our institutions were different from today; For 40 years or more, we haven't had faster economic growth than Europe, we've just kept our lead on account of having a similar growth rate from a higher starting point.

That starting point was achieved at a time when our institutions were rather different, and the attacks on our current institutions are motivated to a desire to return our institutions to their former exceptional status.

[Sarcastr0]

You have done no work. You just took a lot of words to say the past was better. In kind, somehow.

I’d say ho hum but I also know you and this is not what you actually believe,
You don’t want to go back, you want to do stuff like end public schools.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I actually a few days ago linked to a graph of economic growth rates by country, which demonstrated that until the 1980's, the US had a growth rate about twice that typical in Europe, but since we've had about the same growth rate.

So that all our present advantage is inherited from the growth we experienced BEFORE adopting our current economic policies! Since then we've just been maintaining our lead, not expanding it.

The past WAS better in some ways, and worse in others. I don't think we have to give up the ways we've improved in order to retain the things we've lost. I think it's possible for us to have the best of both worlds.

"You don’t want to go back, you want to do stuff like end public schools."

How's that not going back? You think this country always had government run public schools?

[Sarcastr0]

Time correlation does nothing to prove policy causation.

I’m sure policy is in the mix, but we have a ton of other advantages, geographical and historical.

And our exceptionalism is far from only economics; don’t reduce to a single number.

If you say 50 years but want to end public schools you are picking the wrong date.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nothing proves policy causation when you want to deny it.

[Sarcastr0]

You haven’t done the work so don’t complain that I am unconvinced.

[OtisAH]

So you’re saying that prior to the Reagan Revolution, our economy was double that of Europe but has retracted considerably since Saint Ronaldus Magnus and the Rise of the Unhinged Republican? Fascinating.

[David Nieporent]

similar growth rate from a higher starting point.

As I pointed out last week when you first said this, "similar growth rate from a higher starting point" is more impressive. The lower the starting point the easier it is to grow rapidly.

[bernard11]

Maybe you could provide some examples. Because I don't think your story holds up.

Among other things, it's hard to maintain a high growth rate when you are already extremely large, and also when your competitors regain their strength.

What policies do you think we should revert to? Segregation, sexism, environmental degradation?

[tylertusta]

So, you agree that the 'fiery but mostly peaceful' protests in 2020 were a mistake?

[Sarcastr0]

That of course would depend in what the protesters wanted, eh?

Unless you want to argue that civil disobedience is defintionally radical.

[tylertusta]

So your radical attacks on our institutions out of inchoate fear and resentment might be OK, but my radical attacks on our institutions out of inchoate fear and resentment are not?

Glad we understand each other, Peanut.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read what I said? Because this doesn’t seem like you read what I said.

Do more work. Either name the radical thing the protesters wanted, or argue that all protests are radical.

Because you won’t find me arguing for the riots as good.

[tylertusta]

Did you read what I read?

I was just about to ask the same of you. I asked if you thought the 2020 riots were a mistake.

You said "it depends."

No, you don't get to pretend that I didn't read what you wrote, Peanut.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah we need a meeting of the minds on what happened in 2020 or what’s the point.

You clearly have a narrative of radicalism in your head but I can’t tell what it is.

As for what I think the 2020 protests were for…it was all sorts of stuff.
More highlighting a problem than a particular policy.
The left is not know for pulling together very often of a single mind.
The defund the police stuff was radical and bad and dumb.
The police do too many non law enforcement things was a good point. But does not seem to be adopted with any kind of policy in the US.
The police are too violent with unarmed blacks is a decent point though statistically it’s less racial than many think.

Sorry it’s a mishmash. We can’t all be a lockstep cult of personality.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As for what I think the 2020 protests were for"

He SAID, "2020 riots". Don't you ever get tired of pretending that, whenever somebody mentions the riots, they're actually talking about the protests?

[Sarcastr0]

No Brett he said “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” first.

He brought up riots as a new goalpost and after I’d already said they were bad.

Read more jerk knee less.

[David Nieporent]

That's rich, coming from the person who routinely says "BLM/Antifa," and sneers at phrases like "mostly peaceful."

[Brett Bellmore]

"No Brett he said “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” first."

You'd think a guy who uses the handle "Sarcastr0" could recognize sarcasm.

[David Nieporent]

Do more work. Either name the radical thing the protesters wanted, or argue that all protests are radical.

Well, there was the small contingent of Defund The Policers. But they were small, and (contrary to what MAGA pretends) accomplished nothing; no major politician embraced them, most denounced then, and nobody defunded their police.

[Kazinski]

They wanted to defund the police.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty small they if that’s your push.

[Michael P]

They fell behind the banners of self-described trained Marxists. Not having learned from the experiences of China, Cuba or the USSR, they still want to replace American culture and government wholesale.

[Bwaaah]

They argued in the streets, in the universities, and in the law that any and all race-associate disparities in statistics (e.g. higher rates of crime associated with "black" Americans, lower numbers of STEM students associated with "black" Americans) are prima facie evidence of racial bias, a.k.a. "systemic racism."

[Sarcastr0]

This they is getting more diffuse and disconnected from the summer of 2020 all the time.

Hey! This is just an assortment of stuff that makes you ticked off that people say about race, not about 2020 at all!

[Brett Bellmore]

In case you thought the phrase, "The personal is the political" wouldn't be followed to it's ultimate implications,

Deconstructing Desire

"In the final chapter, Professor Maldonado suggests legal solutions that will diminish the constraints on interracial intimacy. While recognizing that attraction is complicated, and race might play a role –regardless of the law -- in people’s intimate choices, Professor Maldonado argues that laws can make a difference. For example, statutes could “prohibit dating platforms from facilitating discriminatory conduct” (p. 132). In accordance with the book’s theme that our intimate preferences are shaped by numerous types of law, other solutions address breaking down transportation and education barriers to interracial connections."

They're seriously proposing prohibiting racial discrimination in the private sphere; Who you make friends with, who you date, who you marry. Because, after all, the personal is the political.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, there was this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_German_Girls

🙂

[Kazinski]

From what I've heard, the racial demographic most inclined to stick to there own race on dating apps is black women.

So let's pass a law making it harder on black women to find what they are looking for.

[Frank Drackman]

What sane Caucasian or Oriental male would date a Black woman? I know, “it’s all pink on the inside” but seriously folks. OK I know, D-blaw-sio, Barry Hussein, the “Second Gentlemen” just makes my point, I said “sane”. There’s a reason 90% of Afro-Amurican MLB/NFL/NBA players have white wives, and the few “Black” ones aren’t exactly Stacy Abrahams, feel me? Nome Sane?
Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Just for shits and giggles, saw this Insane Afro-Amurican DNC Chairman blathering on Morning Schmo about how everyone needs to support Parkinsonian Joe, Googled him, of course he’s married to an Asian, so maybe he’s not totally Insane

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Surely the camps for conservatives are soon to come.

[Frank Drackman]

Steve Banyons already in one

[Commenter_XY]

So is Peter Navarro

[Brett Bellmore]

It's extremely foolish to not take people seriously when they tell you outright what they plan to do to you.

[Sarcastr0]

A person wrote this. He thinks he’s being serious. His language is that of someone pretty far up their own ass. But sure take him seriously if you want.

But you went from a dude to ‘they’ just like that.

Any silly nut can be paranoia fuel if you let it.

[OtisAH]

The guy who regularly explains what Convicted Felon Trump and his MAGA stooges *really* meant when they said what they said wrote that, Sarc.

[David Nieporent]

It’s extremely foolish to not take people seriously when they tell you outright what they plan to do to you.

Agreed. Trump and his ilk have talked about concentration camps. People should believe them.

[Michael P]

FDR actually put them into practice. And his Supreme Court upheld their use.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah and that sucked so let’s not do it again for fucks sake,

[bernard11]

Which is why I take Project 2025 seriously.

[David Nieporent]

They’re seriously proposing prohibiting racial discrimination in the private sphere; Who you make friends with, who you date, who you marry. Because, after all, the personal is the political.

So this is perfectly Brett. The book review he cites — I haven’t read the actual book, and I’m betting Brett hasn’t either — doesn’t say anything like that, but Brett manages to read between the lines and see that. Something he can always do, except when Donald Trump is involved.

The one concrete example of prohibiting discrimination that the review mentions is that a law could “prohibit dating platforms from facilitating discriminatory conduct.” (Emphasis added.) Whether that’s a good idea or not — I would say not — banning match.com from allowing people to search based on the race of people they want to date is not remotely the same thing as banning discrimination in dating.

(The post also says “other solutions address breaking down transportation and education barriers to interracial connections.” Either of which is even less remotely the same thing as banning dating in discrimination.)

[bernard11]

They’re seriously proposing prohibiting racial discrimination in the private sphere;

No "they" are not. You give your usual paranoid interpretation of what you read.

[Mr. Bumble]

Condolences to ng and the other TDS sufferers for not having Trump's sentencing to celebrate today as was planned.

[Frank Drackman]

They think they’ve finally belled the Cat but nobody wants to be the one to put the Bell on him

[tylertusta]

It’s unfortunate that Trump has caused so many legal professionals (current and former) to lose their damned minds.

I think we need a better term for this than “lawfare” or “TDS.”

[John F. Carr]

Conventional wisdom says he won't go to prison, meaning the only celebration would be of his conviction becoming official.

If he is convicted in D.C. or on the classified documents counts in Florida a prison sentence is to be expected. Obstructing the attempt to retrieve documents, on its own, might get him a below-guidelines non-custodial sentence.

[tylertusta]

I don’t know who takes part in this this “conventional wisdom,” but I don’t agree with it.

If Merchan sentences Trump, he’s going to give him jail time.

Merchan was unable to resist temptation in his handling of this and other cases previously, so I don’t expect him suddenly restrain himself now.

[David Nieporent]

He might give him home confinement. He's not giving him jail time. The logistics alone are untenable.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump didn't do himself any favors by deliberately antagonizing the judge who would be sentencing him.

[Mr. Bumble]

If he didn't say a word it would have made no difference.

[not guilty]

Actually, lack of remorse and refusal to accept responsibility are important considerations in criminal sentencing -- especially when considering whether an alternative to confinement is appropriate or not.

The ten separate criminal contempts won't help Trump at sentencing.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're ignoring what I said:
"If he didn’t say a word it would have made no difference."
Judge Javert Merchan wouldn't have it any other way.
Why would he have remorse for a crime he didn't commit?

[ducksalad]

Well, that's pretty much what Mr. Bumble said. The judge wouldn't have been likely to interpret sullen silence as evidence of remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

[Michael P]

There was no actual crime to accept remorse or responsibility over.

Not that Judge Merchant (justice sold in servitude to the Democrat Party) would have accepted anything short of dropping out of the race as proper remorse or responsibility. That's what Mr. Bumble meant.

[Riva]

And being the leading opposition candidate in the presidential election must also loom high on the creepy conflicted judge's list.

[not guilty]

If Donald Trump hadn't said a word, he would not have been held in criminal contempt ten times.

Trump reminds me of Ron White's trenchant comment: I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability.

Trump showed no respect for the judicial system. He need not have expressed agreement with the jury's verdict, but disagreement can be expressed in a manner respectful of the judicial system and the judicial process.

Any sentence not involving active confinement is a matter of grace. Trump has shown himself to be undeserving of that kind of favor.

[Mr. Bumble]

…and the judicial system showed no respect for the rights of the accused, starting with the bogus indictment and Judge Javert’s failure to recuse.

Let's see what September 18th brings.

[OtisAH]

You’re a fucking idiot. But you know that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned response.
You are a credit to asshats everywhere.

[tylertusta]

Bragg is going to swear up and down that the government can make it work. I'm sure they're preparing an entire wing of state prison just for this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's time to repeal the portion of the Voting Rights Act that mandates majority-minority "set aside" districts. All that has done is create embarrassing candidates who could never win in a competitive district while silencing legitimately qualified minority candidates who aren't crazy enough to win in these "rotten boroughs."

Occasional Cortex, otherwise known as Delta Charlie, is perhaps the most visible example of this. She wants to impeach Justice Alito because he *doesn't* beat his wife.

That's what it comes down to, she does something that reflects badly on him, and instead of using domestic violence to stop her, he instead points out that she has a legal right to do it. That she has a half ownership in their properties and hence has the right to fly whatever flags she wishes until he can negotiate their removal.

And Rep Delta Charlie wants to impeach him for it.

[David Nieporent]

I assume that Dr. Ed means some sort of racial slur with "Delta Charlie," because that's who he is. But just to be clear, what AOC — who is a lot smarter than Dr Ed. — "actually wants"¹ is to impeach him for not recusing himself.
​
​
¹It's of course silly to interpret this as anything other than performative; she "actually wants" to call attention to herself and the issue, not to impeach Alito.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think "dumb cunt" is a racial slur, just an accurate description of Sandy (the bartender) from the Bronx.

[bernard11]

Dr. Ed calling someone else dumb is like Donald Trump calling someone else a liar.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your profound pronouncements inspire us all.

[bernard11]

Glad you're paying attention.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yeah, Bellmore, it came as a shock to me in the early 1970s, when I first learned that personal stuff becoming political was a new norm.* I think the shock lasted a couple of hours, before I realized I would have to accommodate, and get over it. Sorry you are still struggling.

*Not new in history, of course, just new to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you'd need a bit more than a few hours to get over being told that you weren't allowed to racially discriminate in who you dated or married.

[bernard11]

Except that's neither happening nor proposed, you ox.

[not guilty]

Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Ron Wyden have sent a letter to the Attorney General asking his to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate possible violations of federal ethics and tax laws by Justice Clarence Thomas. https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-07-03-Letter-to-AG-Garland-re-Special-Counsel-FINAL.pdf

My first blush impression was that much of the misconduct identified in the senators' letter, if charged as substantive criminal offenses would be time barred. Thomas has a sordid history of flouting financial disclosure requirements, and to this point he has gotten away with it.

The period of limitations for prosecution of several tax offenses, by conspiracy or otherwise, is six years per 26 U.S.C. § 6531. For a conspiracy offense, the limitations period begins to run after the last overt act in furtherance of the main goals of the conspiracy. Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 396-97 (1957); United States v. Fletcher, 928 F.2d 495, 498 (2d Cir.). cert. denied 502 U.S. 815 (1991). Acts for which stand alone prosecution as substantive offenses would be barred can be considered as overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud, provided that the last overt act occurred within six years of commencement of prosecution.

At this point I don't know whether Clarence Thomas did or did not conspire with anyone (Mrs. Thomas, perhaps) to defraud the United States regarding taxes. There is, however, enough smoke there to warrant careful investigation to see whether there is fire.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that the rules were written in the 1970s when wives did nothing more than sit home and bake cookies.

BOTH sides now have 2 career couples....

[Frank Drackman]

Again, if you ever get out of the Ed-Jew-ma-cation racket, you could be Pooty Putins Minister of Misinformation.
My mom worked almost the entire 1970s, Military ICUs mostly, or the sad excuses for AF “Hospitals” (I’m talkin bout you, Minot) that are now all clinics, still had time to teach me and my sister Math/Science/History(Ok maybe Engrish not so much) how to throw/hit a curve ball, hit a topspin serve, cross over dribble, drive me and my sister to hundreds of baseball/basketball/tennis matches,
Dad? Umm he was busy, he had a “real” job dropping bombs on yellow people.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Whitewhore and Weird-en? Couldn’t they get someone with more progressive Boner Fides like Bob Menendez or Poke-a-hontas?

Frank

[tylertusta]

Sen. Whitehouse has made taking over the Supreme Court his life's mission it seems.

Good for him. Everybody needs a hobby, even if it's something you're bad at.

[JasonT20]

Sen. Whitehouse has made taking over the Supreme Court his life’s mission it seems.

I think you're confusing Sen. Whitehouse with Sen. Mitch McConnell. And Mitch succeeded in that mission.

[Michael P]

Why do leftists have no real argument except "I know you are, but what am I"?

[JasonT20]

That's not at all a "I know you are, but what am I?" moment. The claim that Whitehouse "has made taking over the Supreme Court his life's mission" is offered only in response to Whitehouse (and Ron Wyden) sending a letter to the AG suggesting an investigation of Justice Thomas for possibly violating ethics and tax laws. That isn't how one goes about "taking over" the Supreme Court, since the AG doesn't have to do anything with the letter, nor would he need such a letter to launch an investigation if one was warranted.

McConnell, on the other hand, definitely is personally responsible for the Supreme Court being 6-3 in favor of conservatives as opposed to being 5-4. He sat on Merrick Garland's nomination when there was 10 months available to hold confirmation hearings and process prior to the election (I think the average for the Supreme Court was around 2 months.) Garland, at the time was viewed as moderate, and being in his early 60s, would not be expected to stay on the Court for much more than 10 years. There is little doubt that he would have been confirmed had a vote been held. (Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) had even said that Garland would be a good pick for Obama to choose, a few years earlier.) And, of course, RBG's death gave McConnell the opportunity to have Amy Coney Barrett confirmed a few days before the 2020 election after about a month of vetting.

But hey, what are facts when there is the opportunity to bash liberals?

[tylertusta]

One of them succeeded. Care to guess which one?

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah. The left loves to use criminal law against their political opponents.

[JasonT20]

And Republicans like to talk a good game about being tough on crime and the "rule of law" until people on their side are accused of crimes. Then, treating a Republican politician like any other criminal defendant is "lawfare." Strike that, no other criminal defendant would have gotten the deference and light touch Trump did. Any other criminal defendant that said the things Trump did about the judge, the judge's family, court staff, and witnesses would have spent time in jail for contempt, not be made to pay a few thousand dollars in fines.

[ducksalad]

So, the claim is there is a history so well-known, for so long, that a much of it is time-barred.

Given that, are we supposed to believe the timing is just coincidence, and has nothing to do with recent debate and polling indicating that the Democrats’ ability to choose a replacement and get her/him through the Senate on a 51-vote nuclear option is likely to expire in January?

A hopeless Hail Mary, but not quite so hopeless as AOC’s also coincidental impeachment resolution against Thomas and Alito.

[David Nieporent]

We are quite certain of that, because Democrats know with 1,000,000% certainty that they cannot remove any of these people from office. Thomas could rape babies on national television and the GOP wouldn't go along with his impeachment.

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

Racist.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's easy to assert, knowing that it's not going to happen.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's even easier when you look at the spineless lack of morality in the current GOP.

They're all cowards, afraid to do anything which might upset their favorite felon's apple cart. If you don't recognize the cult that the GOP has become, then it's only because you either don't want to, or the tenets prevent you from admitting anyone is a member alongside you.

[ducksalad]

You know what, you’re right.

Perhaps the strategy is to get felony convictions with imprisonment, and let the court operate with 7 members and a much more favorable 4R-3D breakdown?

Therre must be some strategy. Because it’s inconceivable that US senators would engage in meaningless grandstanding, right?

[Michael P]

It's not meaningless. It's an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the third branch of government, in an expectation that the Democrat Party will have a majority of the popular vote -- either naturally or by importing illegal voters, who they don't want to block from voting -- long enough to enshrine themselves as permanent rulers.

[SRG2]

If a justice (unnamed) or a president (unnamed) or a senator (unnamed) were in receipt of millions of dollars of gifts, forgiven loans, expensive vacations, etc. and initially didn’t declare them, and then took many years in disclosing some, with no certainty he disclosed all of these, we would agree that even if there were no violation of the letter of guidelines, and that some likely associated offences were time-barred, the unnamed justice, president or senator was a corrupt POS who should be thrown out of office forthwith.

That the person involved is the senior Republican justice and that the people who formally want him investigated are (mostly) senior Democratic politicians should not change that determination.

[ducksalad]

"we would agree"

No one here is sucker enough to agree before knowing the name.

[SRG2]

They may not publish their agreement. Many things will not be admitted in public but agreed on privately.

[Bob from Ohio]

"agreed on privately"

Its the votes [and public comments somewhat] that matter, not agree privately.

Most GOP senators agree privately that Trump sucks but how many voted for conviction. Most Dem senators probably agree privately that Biden should go but few are announcing it.

[SRG2]

Slightly away from my point that Thomas is a corrupt Oedipist but his corruption is not generally accepted publicly

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anyone in DC notice what has become of the bike rack riot fencing that had been around the SCOTUS building?

[Kazinski]

The North Carolina Elections board, which is dominated by Democrats has voted not to allow third party access to the ballot for RFK and Cornel West.

"Chairman Alan Hirsch insisted that their organizations were “problematic” in how they gathered signatures and how Republicans may be supporting their efforts to allegedly “take away votes from Joe Biden.”

They also said that they were concerned that the third-party candidates were using the new party rules to gain an easier path to ballots."

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/07/10/north-carolina-democrats-vote-to-block-third-party-candidates-from-ballots/

[Sabedi1]

Alan Hirsch. Shocker.

[Don Nico]

Exactly, voter suppression is a new feature of Democracy.

[Michael P]

Doesn't one of their major newspapers say "Democracy Dies In Fairly Administered Ballot Access Laws"?

[Commenter_XY]

Why bother voting if the choices are curated by corrupt political parties?

[Bob from Ohio]

"how Republicans may be supporting their efforts to allegedly “take away votes from Joe Biden.”

Seems like admitting your naked political motivation is dumb when defending such a decision.

[ducksalad]

The Democrats have filed a challenge to Kennedy and Stein petitions in Illinois, also.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/elections/2024/07/01/robert-f-kennedy-jr-candidacy-challenge-illinois-ballot-president-biden-aligned-group

[David Nieporent]

So Turley is unreliable, but reading between the lines, the elections board people seem to be saying that there are two avenues to ballot access: one for independents and one for parties. The avenue for parties is easier. And these candidates are really independents, but are pretending to be parties to make it easier for themselves to get access. I have no idea what the legal merits of the situation are, but it doesn't look good.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's pretty common, though. Perot was an independent, created his "Reform party" purely as a vehicle to achieve ballot access.

I'm not bothered by it, because the whole idea of incumbents curating the voters choices by controlling who can be on the ballot is illegitimate to begin with.

[David Nieporent]

I just want to clarify that when I said "it doesn't look good," I meant "the actions of the elections board don't look good."

[ducksalad]

Policing the motives for why people want to form a political party seems like an obvious violation of freedom of association.

[DaveM]

Out: "Democracy Dies In Darkness"
In: "Democrats Die In A Democracy"

[Sabedi1]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/07/10/ignoring-parents-objections-virginia-countys-school-board-unanimously-oks-gender-ideology-lessons/

Time for parents to start doing what sensible parents did when the integrationists forced them to send their children to school with thugs and criminals. Pull your kids out.

[Frank Drackman]

Did Barry Husseins daughters ever go to Pubic Screw-els? He’d have been a horrible father if they did, given his residences in Chicago and DC,
Jimmuh Cartuh sent his daughter Amy to one, albeit with a Squad of Uzi carrying SS Agents, Jeez, what a horrible man.

Frank

[ThePublius]

A fourth juror in the Karen Read trial has come forward to assert that the jury was unanimous in acquitting Karen of the first and third charges, murder 2 and leaving the scene of an accident with injury, and was hung on the second charge of vehicular manslaughter.

The juror said they didn't know that they could acquit on some charges if not all. The judge didn't poll the jury on the individual charges.

Some local analysts have said they have never heard of such a thing. Some also assert she can't be re-tried on the first and third charges as that would be double jeopardy.

Is this normal?

[Frank Drackman]

A State that let Ted Kennedy beat a Murder rap? Erected Barney Fag over and over? Tip O’Neal? Still hates Bill Buckner for 1 misplayed ground ball? Haven’t you seen “The Departed”??

Frank

[Ska]

That was one costly misplayed ground ball, and I'm a Yankees fan.

Granted, in 1986 as a Yankees fan in Queens in elementary school, you can understand why the Mets winning would have been worse to me than the Sox. At least back then.

[Dr. Ed 2]

UMass Amherst had a race riot over it.

Seems a few Black activists wanted an incident -- and got a bigger one than anticipated.

[Frank Drackman]

I believe MLB teams have this thing called a “Manager” who decides who gets to play, I’ve even heard of this thing called a “Late Inning Defensive Replacement” As a fellow Lefty, I blame Steve Garvey, who still throws like a girl, couldn’t play third or outfield so Billy Buck had to play Outfield (played it great BTW) until he fractured his ankle, and had to go back to his natural position at first, seriously, the only position where lefties are preferred and he gets screwed by that phony Steve Garvey

Frank

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts generally prohibits jurors from testifying about deliberations. The case should proceed on the existing record.

A key prosecution witness has been suspended without pay. It looks like a good time for a generous plea bargain.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Town of Canton outright fired another, and the FBI is very much involved. I think it would be rather stupid for her to accept a plea bargain.

Question: can/has the RMV brought drunk driving license suspension yet? Can it before trial?

[John F. Carr]

I don’t know if her license is valid.

It used to be the press would report on that sort of thing. The law allowing illegal immigrants to have driver’s licenses makes drivers’ records secret. At least, not public records. I did not check whether the RMV is allowed to release them.

There is a routine suspension when a driver fails a breath test. The RMV can also suspend the license of anybody deemed an “immediate threat” to public safety. Since the RMV faces no consequence for improperly invoking the immediate threat power, it is used liberally. In practice, any police chief can have your license suspended.

It is common when a person is charged with a serious driving offense for the judge to order the person not to drive as a condition of pretrial release.

One of the services a good DUI attorney will provide is getting all the different license suspensions to run concurrently. If you have a New Hampshire license you get the "administrative" suspension from Massachusetts, the judicial suspension from Massachusetts, and the reciprocal suspensions from New Hampshire. That's four separate suspensions and they can drag on for years.

[ThePublius]

She shouldn't plea to anything, it's clear she was framed by a deeply corrupt police force (plus an ATF agent!). He was beaten to death in that house and dumped in the snow. He was never hit by any car, never mind Karen's car.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In my experience, it is common to explore whether the jury has decided any counts before discharging them for being unable to reach a verdict, although this is highly jurisdiction-specific and they may or may not be able to return some verdicts depending on how the case was charged.

If they were discharged without returning a verdict, I would be surprised to learn that the defense can obtain relief from jurors' statements about what they've decided now. But I don't practice in Massachusetts.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks, man. I always appreciate your practitioners perspective in what’s normal and what’s surpising.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What surprised me was some of the objections from the prosecutor that the judge allowed. For example, asking the snow plow drivier if there had been a body on the front lawn, would he have seen it.

Also the ruling keeping the FBI's involvement from the jury. If the FBI paid for her accident investigators, I think that is relevant.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If the FBI paid for her accident investigators, I think that is relevant.

...thereby conveniently illustrating the reason for excluding the information.

[David Nieporent]

I have not closely followed the trial — pretty much not beyond what I see in the VC comments section, but didn't we establish that Dr. Ed's claim didn't happen anyway? That it was actually just that the FBI had previously used this investigatory firm, not that they paid for them in this case?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Based on my own very limited knowledge, you are correct.

Also, of course, lol @ Dr. Ed now looking up to the FBI as dispensers of impartial justice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

According to Howie Carr of the Boston Herald, they did.

That's called a "published source" -- a major newspaper.

If he's wrong, take it up with him...

[ThePublius]

It was reported elsewhere, too. I referenced it in a previous thread.

[SRG2]

Wasn't there a recent case - possibly mentioned in Short Circuit - where with multiple charges, the jury stated its intention to acquit on some charges, the judge declared a mistrial, and it was ruled on appeal that a retrial on all charges did not constitute double jeopardy because no formal acquittal had occurred?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That does sound familiar, although I couldn't find anything when I tried to look. But the seminal case is Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012). There, the jury reported that it was deadlocked. There, the jurors reported they were deadlocked, and later clarified that everyone thought the defendant was guilty of the highest-level charges but that they were divided on the lower ones. The judge found a mistrial without actually receiving any of the not guilty verdicts, and the Supreme Court held that that meant the defendant could be retried on all the charges. Here, if I'm understanding correctly, the jury didn't report anything before they were discharged: some of them are just telling the media now that everyone was going to acquit on some charges. Unless there's a very unusual rule about these things in Massachusetts, that's not going to get the defense anywhere (except, of course, as in illustration to the prosecution about the strength of their evidence as they're assessing what to do).

[apedad]

Art III, Sect 2, Cl 2:

“The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Since most of the cases are appellate and not original jurisdiction, Congress has the authority to severely restrict how the Court addresses these cases.

For example, "Congress has the power to reverse the Loper Bright decision’s refusal to defer to agency expertise in implementing the law. Chevron was a judicial doctrine. It was reversed this term on the theory that it contravened the Administrative Procedure Act. But Congress can amend that act to say that courts 'must defer to the expertise' of an agency’s fact determinations and the agency’s application of law to fact and further shall 'presume that an agency’s statutory interpretation is entitled to presumptive validity' if reasonable judges could or have disagreed about its meaning, and the statute is silent or ambiguous on the application."

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4762238-reform-courts-democratic-rule/

Congress really does have the ultimate power in our country - if they chose to use it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I frequently say that the US constitution didn't establish a government with 3 co-equal branches, it established a system of moderate legislative supremacy. It's just that the supreme legislature is run by extremely risk averse people who let the other two branches mostly run things, in order to avoid being blamed for anything.

But it's not clear to me that Congress can take an issue entirely out of the reach of the courts. Article 3, section 2:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

"ALL" cases. Not such cases as Congress deigns to allow them.

A better reading of the clause you cited is that Congress has the option of giving the Supreme court expanded original jurisdiction.

[apedad]

" . . . giving the Supreme court expanded original jurisdiction."

But wouldn't that itself be unconstitutional?

The Court only has original jurisdiction in the scenarios you listed above.

Congress can't add to the Constitution and give more power to the Court.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the Supreme court is only constitutionally given original jurisdiction in the listed cases. Nothing stops Congress from statutorily giving them original jurisdiction in other cases.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Nothing stops Congress from statutorily giving them original jurisdiction in other cases."

Marbury v Madison says otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

Aren’t you anti Marbury?

[Bob from Ohio]

I am.

But its the law and the courts like the power it gives them so its not being reversed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The only thing better than the BrettLaw authoritative pronouncement directly contrary to everything everyone in American government has believed for the last 235 years is its complete irrelevance to apedad's point.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's the best reading of that language, I'm not under the delusion that it's currently the prevailing reading. Though it does not lack for defenders. Historically, Judge Story, more recently Calabresi and Lawson. You may have heard of Calabresi, I think.

OTOH, let Congress start going hog wild with jurisdiction stripping, and the judiciary might change their mind on the topic.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you even read apedad’s post?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. Didn't you understand my reply?

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure what your reply has to do with the APA setting standards of review, no.

[Brett Bellmore]

Which is a form of jurisdiction stripping, which is what I was talking about.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think standard of review is the same as jurisdiction.

[Brett Bellmore]

Keeping a court from hearing a case is keeping a court from hearing a case, Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not what standard of review does.

[Ridgeway]

Apedad's post was a non sequitur.

Legislatively reversing Loper Bright has nothing to do with the scope of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. IIRC, Lily Ledbetter was a recent example of Congress "overruling" a statutory interpretation decision.

The scope of jurisdiction issue would come up if Congress wanted to lock a decision in stone. For example, prior to Dobbs, Congress could have passed a law stating that the SCT would have no jurisdiction to hear appeals relating to the constitutional right to abortion. That (in the fantasy world where such a law could pass) would have kept Dobbs from being heard.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think it’s the best reading of that language, I’m not under the delusion that it’s currently the prevailing reading.

It's not only not currently the prevailing reading: it's a reading that has never been implemented into law at any point in the entire history of the United States.

Does that fact make you think for even a moment that you might want to rethink your position?

[David Nieporent]

A better reading of the clause you cited is that Congress has the option of giving the Supreme court expanded original jurisdiction.

Brett is now deciding that he has the "better reading" than Marbury vs. Madison.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Please recall, when evaluating Mr. Bellmore's observations, that most of those observations are just the autism, brain-pickling chemicals, and disaffected, bigoted ignorance talking.

[Martinned2]

Congress really does have the ultimate power in our country – if they chose to use it.

Well, the power to make laws anyway. Or at least that's what we thought before the Supreme Court decided that Congress can't make laws to regulate what the President does.

[tylertusta]

Congress is still the most powerful branch. It's not even close.

[Martinned2]

Let's hope so.

[Brett Bellmore]

But Congress can still remove a President or judges/justices from office for anything they want, as long as a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate agree to it. That's pretty decent supremacy in terms of dictating government policy; It's not like the President or Judiciary have any legal means of returning the favor.

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

Congress can’t make laws to regulate what the President does.

With regard to powers granted by the US Constitution solely to the President/executive branch? Abso-fucking-lutely.

As to powers statutorily granted? Well, the Congress can take them away, the same way they granted them.

Poor Nazi Martin's bleating on this blog is like people yelling at the TV when the ref makes a call they don't like, or the coach calls a play they don't agree with. Absolutely futile.

[David Nieporent]

As to powers statutorily granted? Well, the Congress can take them away, the same way they granted them.

Irrelevant. If the president can't be prosecuted for violating the law, it doesn't matter what Congress gives or takes away.

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

And?

What official acts can Congress regulate? Let me guess, “SCOTUS gave Trump immunity to cold blooded murder!!!!”

Trump broke you. It’s kinda sad, in a pathetic way.

White Leftists think all of "MAGA" should be locked up or killed by Biden. All Biden has to do is write an EO that calls them terrorists, and then he can just kill them all, right? /s

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's all in how one defines "official acts." Do you really not get that?

[Bob from Ohio]

"If the president can’t be prosecuted for violating the law, it doesn’t matter what Congress gives or takes away."

You are really acting crazy these days. Criminal law is a blunt instrument to check a president. It might be 4 or 8 years until a prosecution will even start.

[David Nieporent]

Criminal law is a blunt instrument. But (a) the GOP proved that impeachment is a non-instrument; and (b) Trump doesn't want to accept any other limitations on his power. For example, he has recently announced that he would violate the Impoundment Control Act because it was his opinion that it was unconstitutional.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which would then lead to an immediate challenge in the courts up to the SC to settle the question.

[Bob from Ohio]

He announces a lot of things.

And what happens when he "impounds" and the courts order the money released?

[Commenter_XY]

The best check on Executive power is the power of the purse, not criminal law. Don't like what the POTUS does? Cut off funding.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Supreme Court decided that Congress can’t make laws to regulate what the President does."

You need new reading glasses or a guide dog maybe.

[Martinned2]

If the President can't be punished for his "official acts", Congress's laws that regulate those official acts are just suggestions.

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

Congress likely can't make laws to regulate those official acts to begin with.

[Bob from Ohio]

Criminal law is not the only [or best] check on a president's acts. No president's DOJ is indicting him, so the check will be years later at best.

Lots of [most probably] official acts are done per statutory authority, Congress can still repeal or amend the statute. The courts can still rule that the official act exceeded his authority. Impeachment still exists.

[Martinned2]

Congress can still repeal or amend the statute. The courts can still rule that the official act exceeded his authority. Impeachment still exists.

How is that working for you so far?

[Ed Grinberg]

(deleted)

[John F. Carr]

Judge Joshua M. Kindred of the District of Alaska resigned without explanation last month. This week the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit released the explanation. He was told in May he could resign or be impeached.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/misconduct/22-90121.pdf

Three thoughts competed for my attention while reading about him: "that's bad", "I'm jealous", "he was born 60 years too late".

The impeachable conduct was lying to investigators. In case of impeachment Congress would skip right past that to the sexual misconduct. Kindred was recently divorced and showing it. He had sexual contact with at least one of his law clerks and an Assistant US Attorney and sexualized conduct with several more. The clerk was upset enough to make a complaint.

There is no ethics rule against a judge sleeping with an AUSA but it can't be kept secret when cases might be affected. The general guideline about avoiding sex with subordinates is older than former Judge Kindred (born 1977).

[hobie]

What two things are shared by Joshua M. Kindred, Brett Kavanaugh and Harlan Thomas?

[Frank Drackman]

I know 2 things you don’t have

[Noscitur a sociis]

Kind of remarkable that the blockquote function has yet to be fixed.

[Josh R]

.

Kind of remarkable that the blockquote function has yet to be fixed.

It works, but you have to preceed the first blockquote by some character.

[Magister]

It works, but you have to preceed the first blockquote by some character.

You can also precede a leading blockquote by <a></a> which doesn't show anything and distracts the comment system from the blockquote.

[Josh R]

You can also precede a leading blockquote by which doesn’t show anything and distracts the comment system from the blockquote.

testing

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm aware. "You can find a way to circumvent the brokenness if you remember" is not the same as "fixed".

[Mr. Bumble]

Now if only there was a fix for blockhead commentators.

[Ridgeway]

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the FTC rule banning non-competes (and potentially more, depending how it is interpreted), and the litigation against it.

Right before the holiday, a judge in the NDT (not Kacsmaryk) preliminarily enjoined its application, but only with respect to the parties.

https://www.uschamber.com/cases/antitrust-and-competition-law/ryan-llc-v.-ftc

Personally, I have no issue in principle with abolishing employee non-competes. They have been illegal in CA for a long time, and it has not stifled innovation. Taxes and regulations, on the other hand....

I am more concerned if the rule were to be interpreted broadly to limit the scope of non-solicitation clauses.

I am agnostic on the merits of the challenge, but I lean toward thinking that the rule did exceed FTC's authority.

[Martinned2]

I mentioned the rule a couple of times, including the arguments against its lawfulness. Given the literally centuries of common law case law about non-compete clauses, which has often disapproved of them, I have no difficulty with the idea that they are the kinds of "unfair competition" that the FTC could regulate. But of course if you don't think the FTC has any rulemaking power at all, despite Congress saying clearly that it does, all sorts of arguments are possible.

[Ridgeway]

Well, Congress has only said that the FTC does have the authority to create substantive laws regarding "unfair and deceptive trade practices," but that it just does not not have authority to create substantive laws regarding "unfair methods of competition."

I am not hanging my hat on this being a winning argument on appeal.

[Martinned2]

Apologies, I was quoting from memory.

[bernard11]

In my experience, non-competes are largely useless anyway, and may even hurt the company somewhat by causing resentment.

They strike me as the sort of thing corporate counsels at big companies value as protecting the company somehow, but I think it's all just empty bureaucracy.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The Democrats in Michigan have made it illegal to contest an election if you suspect fraud.

That's pretty weird. It's the election security version of banning the Gay Panic defense. It hurts too many Democrat feelings if election verification and security resulted in them losing an election.

[apedad]

That's pretty weird since they did no such thing.

Instead, "Senate Bills 603 and 604 would, among other changes, eliminate the board of canvasser’s investigative powers, instead requiring the board to refer any allegations of fraud to the relevant county prosecutor, rather than conducting a recount."

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's asinine -- recounts are routine in very close races, and the Prosecutor is set up to do one???

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they can still do recounts, they can't do investigations.

[Longtobefree]

The "prosecutor" is set up to determine no charges need to be brought.

[Brett Bellmore]

Michigan Senate Bill 604

Michigan Senate Bill 603

"(3) It is the ministerial, clerical, and nondiscretionary duty of each board of county canvassers, and each of the members of the board of county canvassers, to certify election results based solely on the statements of returns from the election day precincts, early voting sites, and absent voter counting boards in the county and any corrected returns."

"(5) It is the ministerial, clerical, and nondiscretionary duty of the board of state canvassers, and each of the members of the board of state canvassers, to certify election results based solely on the certified statements of votes from counties."

"Sec. 872. (1) If a board of canvassers conducting a recount has good reason to believe that any fraud or a violation of the law has been committed in the canvass or return of the votes, then that board of canvassers shall, subject to subsection (2), refer any matter the board of canvassers believes warrants investigation to the following:
(a) For a recount conducted by a board of county canvassers, the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the board of county canvassers is appointed.
(b) For a recount conducted by the board of state canvassers, the attorney general.
(2) The board of state canvassers shall refer a matter for investigation to the attorney general as provided under subsection (1) only if at least 1 member of each political party appointed to the board of state canvassers concurs in the decision to refer the matter for investigation."

That last sounds like they've precluded any investigation of vote fraud unless both parties consent to the investigation. I find that a bit troubling.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s about a particular mode of suggesting an investigation, I think you are over reading.

[Brett Bellmore]

And IF an investigation can be requested at all. The board can’t request one unless the vote to do so is bipartisan; So long as a party doesn’t break ranks, the investigation is blocked. And the board is mandated to rejected all outside requests to call for an investigation:

"If a board of canvassers receives a petition to conduct an investigation or an audit of the conduct of an election, a petition to assess the qualifications of electors participating in an election or the manner in which ballots are applied for or issued to electors, or a petition to do anything other than conduct a recount as described in subsection (2), the board of canvassers must deny that petition."

There’s no getting around the fact that this law does make it a lot more difficult to get allegations of fraud investigated.

[Sarcastr0]

Is the board requesting one the only way to get an election investigated? I don’t see that at all.

You have scoped down who can make allegations so you can be mad.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's not the only way to get an investigation. But this law absolutely reduces the opportunities to get an investigation, and routes them all through the incumbent power structure which the elections themselves generate.

And so makes it "more difficult", not "impossible", to get allegations of fraud investigated.

[Sarcastr0]

Based on past history if such prosecutions, I don’t think the board of state canvassers is load bearing in terms of investigations of voter fraud.

[David Nieporent]

That last sounds like they’ve precluded any investigation of vote fraud unless both parties consent to the investigation. I find that a bit troubling.

Prosecutors do not need referrals in order to investigate potential crimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me be a bit more detailed about the concern, then.

The real concern about vote fraud isn’t fraud in favor of Republicans in Democrat controlled areas, for fraud in favor of Democrats in Republican controlled areas. It’s fraud in favor of Republicans where Republicans are in control, in favor of Democrats where Democrats are in control.

We have, regrettably, local partisan control of the election machinery in this country. And nobody is better positioned to commit election fraud than the people controlling the election machinery. So you expect local fraud to favor the locally dominant party.

And we have local, partisan control of prosecutor's offices, too.

So, say you have an election in an area controlled by party A. Where the local prosecutor is a member of party A, and the election offices are staffed with members of party A. Who’s going to be worried about fraud here? Party A members? Of course not, it’s party B members. So the election office, run by Party A, has no interest in looking at what it itself did, neither does the prosecutor, who is a member of Party A.

The Michigan board of canvassers has a structure similar to the FEC, where you have equal numbers of members of both parties, rather than control by which ever party is in power. So, IT has people on it who will actually CARE if party A commits fraud in a district it controls: The Party B members!

The new law makes sure that the Party B members have no leverage to get an investigation in a Party A area unless Party A wants one.

[Brett Bellmore]

A long time proposal of mine, by the way, is to create a volunteer Election corps, where people who are interested can get training in best practices, and then be assigned to assist in running elections in random precincts far from home. To break up these local party monopolies on election administration, and make sure all elections offices have people in them who are unlikely to join in any local partisan mischief, or stay silent about it, because they're not from the local area.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Brett, I'm genuinely curious whether or not you have ever worked as an election judge or assistant. I think you would be quite surprised at the level of non-partisanship that exists at all levels of the system, at least in all the places I have worked. I think you would also be surprised at the safeguards built into the system. It would be a real eye opener for you or anyone else who thinks the election system in this country is partisanly tampered with on a regular basis.

[not guilty]

"The Democrats in Michigan have made it illegal to contest an election if you suspect fraud."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, JHBHBE?

What original source materials support your claim?

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW this is the only article I could find on this matter.
Unfortunately the links in the article only bring up bill 604 and not 603.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/michigan-passes-laws-restricting-election-recounts-for-fraud-allegations-
and-wide-margin-victories/
Posted after Bellmore's post above.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, JHBHBE.

Here is the full text of Michigan Senate Bill 603: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2023-SEBS-0603.pdf

Please specify what provision(s) of the bill "ma[k]e it illegal to contest an election if you suspect fraud." A ctrl-f search shows that the word "contest" appeared six times in the former language which the instant bill repeals, but not at all in the bill as enacted.

Do you find it difficult to type with your pants on fire?

[hobie]

Since when did you start lying, Jesus? This isn't like you.

[Frank Drackman]

About the same time you started diddling young boys

[Estragon]

Ever take a moment to reflect on why this is such a go-to insult for you? It’s almost as if you have diddling on the brain

[hobie]

Quiet you! I've finally made it to the Rev's level in his fantasy league and you're gonna blow it

[Frank Drackman]

You're probably one of the Revolting Arthurs alter-egos, I see a lot of similarities.

[Estragon]

I’ll take that as a no

[MoreCurious]

If your goal is to convince all the VC followers of your stupidity, it's working.

[Martinned2]

The other day Ian Buruma (former editor in chief of the New York Review of Books and generally one of those intellectual types) had a very nice article in my Dutch newspaper explaining why the radical right and the centre are miscommunicating so much whenever they "debate". Because it's a) paywalled and b) in Dutch, I'll offend against normal comments section etiquette and copy/paste the Google Translate version in its entirety:

America wants a democracy where the leader decides

Americans who are for Trump consider themselves democratic. But in a 'direct democracy', where the leader is the boss and immigrants are the enemy. Such demagogues also fuel the fears of 'native' citizens elsewhere, believes Ian Buruma.

Anyone who recently saw Joe Biden in his TV debate with Donald Trump will agree that Trump's chances of becoming president again have increased. Trump lied like crazy, but did so with verve. Biden made some good points, but came across as a confused old man. And those points may not even matter. Frank Luntz, a well-known Republican consultant, recently wrote in The New York Times: “The debate between Biden and Trump is not about the facts, or the political programs, but about the feelings among voters.”

That feeling among Democratic voters was clearly bad. But that does not mean that Biden's warning that Trump is an existential danger to American democracy is incorrect. There are at least three conditions for the proper functioning of a liberal democracy: an independent judiciary, a free press, and an impartial civil service. Naturally, a candidate must also accept a free election result. Biden believes in these principles. Trump doesn't.

Authoritarian populist
Trump could not accept his defeat. He is hostile to the judiciary, he wants to fill the bureaucracy with his own supporters, he hates the press, he wants to use the Justice Department to take revenge on his opponents, and he is eager to incite the mob to violence hit.

In short, if democracy is in danger - and I think it is - then you would think that a worn-out old Democrat would still be better than an authoritarian mobster. And even if Biden calls it quits, the danger has not passed.

There are of course plenty of people, especially among Trump supporters, who believe that American democracy is long outdated, that it is a corrupt system in which elites pass jobs to each other without caring about the common man. Not only the predominantly white people with very big bellies and red baseball caps who adorn themselves in the American flag at Trump rallies believe something similar. Many young people are also convinced of this, and they are certainly not all white. It is not without reason that a significant number of citizens feel cheated by politicians who promise everything and then fail to deliver.

Do those people no longer believe in democracy? According to recent opinion polls, the opposite appears to be true. In the so-called 'swing states', where Biden won in 2020 but where Trump now has a small lead, more than 50 percent believe that democracy is in danger. It sounds incredible, but 44 percent of voters see Trump as a better guardian of democracy than Biden. 33 percent prefer Biden.

The question then is what people understand by democracy. In a representative democracy, people elect politicians, or political parties, to represent their interests. A majority of votes gives the right to govern, but not to dictate policy. The interests of other voters also play a role. Conflicts of interest in a well-functioning liberal democracy must be challenged in open debate and resolved in compromise. Joe Biden is an old-school politician who knows how to bargain; a tap on the shoulder here, a word in the right ear there. If all goes well, a settlement will be reached.

But for people who have a completely different idea of ​​democracy, this looks like a corrupt system in which selfish elites have their way. According to them, the voice of the common man does not count, leaders cannot make decisions, promises are not kept and radical changes are unattainable. People who think this want a 'direct democracy', where leaders represent the voice of the people and can make decisions without the annoying interference of parliamentarians or members of Congress.

Fascism is an example of direct democracy. The leader decides. In Nazi jargon this was called Dezisionismus. And that is democratic because the leader is the personification of the people. The law does not rule, because the leader is above the law. In his legitimization of the Third Reich, German lawyer Carl Schmitt wrote: “The Führer makes the law by virtue of his leadership as the supreme judge.”

But communism, which presented itself as the greatest enemy of fascism, is also a variant of direct popular democracy. The party is the sole representative of the people, or the proletariat, and the leader is the embodiment of the proletariat. Fascists and communists wanted to get rid of class contradictions, not by resolving conflicts of interest peacefully, but by imposing a monolithic state, if necessary by force. Class enemies in a communist state must be eliminated. Only the proletariat survives. In Nazi Germany too, there were no longer any classes, but only a people of blood and soil.

Weird ideas
Most Americans who see Trump as the best guardian of democracy may not be fascists or Nazis, but they do have a fixed idea of ​​what they see as the “real” American people: Christian and predominantly white. They feel threatened by immigrants, with their strange religions and customs, who would also take away their jobs. They are also afraid of all kinds of strange ideas about gender, race, and sexuality that are spread by the left-wing elites in the big sinful cities.

America is of course not unique in this. We see exactly the same outbursts in other Western countries, and the same kind of demagogues who deliberately stoke the fears of the 'native people'.

Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán and others play this game. But Trump is the master. His canard that the 'left' judges are targeting him today, but tomorrow they will target every true American, is very effective. To people who see this as the true voice of the people, Trump is the pure democrat. The question is whether liberal democracy can survive another four years under Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

"America wants a democracy where the leader decides"

Where the elected leader decides, at worst.

"and immigrants are the enemy."

And illegal immigrants are the enemy. Not all immigrants.

"Trump lied like crazy, but did so with verve. Biden made some good points, but came across as a confused old man."

Biden also lied like crazy, only with less verve.

"There are at least three conditions for the proper functioning of a liberal democracy: an independent judiciary, a free press, and an impartial civil service."

But we in America don't have an impartial civil service, that's the precise problem. We have a civil service that's aligned with one specific party whether or not it's in office at any given time.

"A majority of votes gives the right to govern, but not to dictate policy. "

WTF? What's even the point in democracy, if electing a majority doesn't let you dictate policy?

"But for people who have a completely different idea of ​​democracy, this looks like a corrupt system in which selfish elites have their way. According to them, the voice of the common man does not count, leaders cannot make decisions, promises are not kept and radical changes are unattainable. "

No, where radical changes are imposed, not unattainable. We don't WANT radical change! But it's being thrust on us anyway.

[Bob from Ohio]

Why bother with a point by point rebuttal? Its just the usual lib drivel from some washed up nobody.

[Sarcastr0]

If that’s your standard, why do you post comments here at all?

[Bob from Ohio]

To annoy you?

[Sarcastr0]

On the contrary, your posts do wonders for my self esteem just by the comparison.

[Bob from Ohio]

Glad to be of service.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Ok, that amused me enough to laugh out loud.

Thanks for that.

[Martinned2]

It's fascinating that you didn't even realise that this argument is giving people like you the benefit of the doubt. I'd been assuming that you simply hate democracy. Buruma's argument is basically that people like you don't hate democracy, but simply don't understand it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Biden also lied like crazy, only with less verve."

There is no universe in which a valid equivalency can be made between Trump's pathological lying and whatever you're upset with Biden about.

It's not even fucking close.

[Frank Drackman]

What the fuck is up with Parkinsonian Joe still claiming Bo Biden "Died in Iraq"?
He died in Bethesda Maryland.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/listen-joe-biden-says-first-092638248.html
🙂

Oh, and Uncle Bosie sends his regards.

[Longtobefree]

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/08/heres-the-full-list-of-every-lie-joe-biden-has-told-as-president-part-three/

[bernard11]

And illegal immigrants are the enemy.

No. Illegal immigrants are not "the enemy." Not at all. In fact, they are probably quite friendly towards the US, since they risk so much to get here.

What they are is illegal immigrants and they are generally well-meaning.

[Frank Drackman]

Laken Riley would probably disagree, if she hadn't been raped and murdered by an Illegal Alien, who was detained at the border and released, detained in New York and released, raped/murdered Laken Riley in Athens Georgia, not released (and most likely will be executed 30-40 years from now)

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Laken Riley would probably disagree, if she hadn’t been raped and murdered by an Illegal Alien,

How do you know who killed her?

[Frank Drackman]

Because her Rapist/Murderer confessed, if he had any honor he’d hang himself in Jail, but he’s an Illegal Alien Rapist/Murderer, a Georgia County Jail is like a Hilton in his view

Frank

[M L]

Looks like Hillary Clinton is in the lead now.

Poll finds Biden damaged by debate; with Harris and Clinton best positioned to win

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/09/biden-clinton-harris-democrat-poll-00166937

[Bob from Ohio]

Please, please, please, please, please.

[Moderation4ever]

Hillary Clinton is 76 years old. How about we just go with someone young. How about Kamala Harris vs Nicki Halley? Biden, Trump, Sanders, Clinton what the hell is the matter with this country that we cannot find younger candidates?

[M L]

Two words. Tulsi Gabbard.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Kamala Harris vs Nicki Halley"

Who is the GOP going to nominate?

[ducksalad]

There’s already an option who is 38 years old. Won the nomination and everything.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, didn't realize Hilary Rodman was that old, just thinking of that shriveled up (redacted) Common-Law's Labia wrinkled like an old Catcher's mitt, and Nicki Halley's Vaginismus closing up that snatch like the lens on an old 35mm camera,
Go ahead and laugh, but a MTG could win in 2028, she's run a business (still running it I believe) unlike 99% of the fucks in Congress (and I'm including the Repubiclowns)

Frank

[Life of Brian]

The raw poll data is fairly interesting. One notable example: the 18-29 bracket leans surprisingly heavily Trump (48%!) in a Trump/Biden matchup, and with only 8% undecided compared to ~15-25% undecided for the other matchups.

Gives me hope that the young'uns are starting to drift toward pragmatism and away from principled suicide.

[hobie]

The young like rock and roll and starting some shit, chaos. Always have. With the prurient tendency - if properly nurtured - to watch the world burn. Today's right is a better fit than old-school democrat idealism

[PaulS]

Do you think President Biden (or his family) holding out for a cash payout (legally done of course) to discontinue his campaign? How much would they be expecting?

[M L]

$50 million "book advance" would probably do it.

Sweetener of various parties buying pallets of said book for storage filler (probably with tax or nonprofit dollars).

[Bored Lawyer]

Sweetener of various parties buying pallets of said book for storage filler

No need for that. It's the digital age. They can buy $ 50 Million worth of Kindle copies and save a bunch of trees.

[hobie]

Offer him 200M shares of Trump Media then wait for September...will be wild

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a vanishingly thin academic veneer
— dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for America’s vestigial
bigots as modern America and better
Americans pass them by — has
operated for no more than

ZERO (0)

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

THIRTY-TWO (32)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 32 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 32 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

This blog not only is outrunning
its remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions but indeed
is headed toward becoming
the Babe Ruth of Bigotry.
.
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, ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile, with Steve Lukather contributing guitar.

This one is good, too. That's Rick Derringer on bass guitar -- and Dan Hartman, who not only wrote this one but also co-wrote "Living In America" with James Brown, fronting at guitar and vocals.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today’s Rolling GemStones:

First, a side — and range — of Keith Richards you might not have observed yet, in the context of celebrating Gram Parsons with Norah Jones.

Next, a song the Stones have not performed yet on this tour but which might appear soon on a setlist (emphasis on the soon, with but a few shows remaining). Mick Jagger and Nicky Hopkins on the keyboards in this alternate (non-album) version.

Enjoy!

[Mr. Bumble]

Today's Rolling Stone Gemstone is the reaction Mick got in Canada when he brought up Trudeau.

[Bwaaah]

Mick Jagger expressing his affection for Justin Trudeau at a Rolling Stones concert in front of a Vancouver audience

[Frank Drackman]

They're both well known Homos

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These bigots are your fans, defenders, and target audience, Volokh Conspirators. . . and the reason your stale, ugly right-wing thinking is doomed by the modern American culture war.

May the shedding of Federalist Society clingers by mainstream law school faculties accelerate.

[Theendoftheleft]

I just learned about that lawsuit regarding a prominent American law school a concerning the exclusion of faculty candidates ostensibly on the basis that they’re white males.

What do you reckon hoi polloi will do once they realise that their children are being excluded from top jobs, from top schools, etc based on their race? What do you think will happen to YOU?

One really ought to wonder what will become of the professors named in that suit who clearly discriminated, on SOME ground or other, against the named white male candidates. If you take Foucault’s notion of episteme, couple it with Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm, and use it to explain how American unis are excluding based on ideology (to control what is said and taught, in order to police and control discourses, NOT to advance knowledge production or truth), it’s a wonderful synecdoche of how American liberals and progressives are ruining the world—including their own academic institutions! You’re real McCoy totalitarians.

You’re not just on the side of the bigots, AIDS. You’re a totalitarian imbecile who is ruining your country. Your side of the American culture war isn’t just an enemy to civilised people everywhere, it’s a threat to our higher institutions! You aren’t merely dumbing your institutions down, you’re turning them into places that prioritise ideological conformity over knowledge production. You’re legal Lysenkos!

You’re inclusive, diverse, progressive march towards Idiocracy could, of course, only succeed if (a) your birthrates weren’t absysmal and (b) were your culture war not about to turn hot!

Exciting times, no, AIDS? Choose reason, AIDS: your values are a blight upon the world and a real threat to civilised people who prioritize reason, science, education, and genuine progress. (You’re a blithering American idiot, so I won’t bother to note the irony in all of that.)

[hobie]

Are you counting the racial slurs I use? Remember, my neighbors gave me the N-Card so I'm authorized. Besides, when I use them the bigots here clutch pearls

[Frank Drackman]

So you're not only a Valor Stealer, but you're that white guy who can say "Nigger" around Niggers? I can see you as a Wigger, but even they don't get that privilege. Only Bigots that get their panties in a wad over anyone saying Nigger are ones like the Revolting Reverend Sandusky.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It likely was inevitable that a white, male blog operated by Eugene Volokh and a number of other Federalist Society members would become a blog that publishes vile racial slurs weekly.

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will let you know how far and how long you will be permitted to do so, as has become customary.

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, who are you kidding at this point? Your American betters are sitting on their hands till November and then they're going to blow your brains out. You have no future.

Certainly no one in the rest of the world, from the left to the right, from the rest of the West and across the Global South, believes your superficial, hypocritical dogmas. You're ruined.

Carry on clinger, till your American betters advance progress by removing the filth that is your person from the world.

[M L]

Who should Trump pick to replace Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor? They're all getting into retirement age.

[Bob from Ohio]

James Ho, Kyle Duncan and Britt Grant.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That might incline better Americans to add eight positions to the Court . . . and limit the Court's jurisdiction, expand the House of Representatives, and admit a few states (and therefore enlarge the Senate).

Sounds like a sound plan to improve America.

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds good Revolting, 8 more former Clarence "Frogman" Thomas Clerks, or maybe if you want someone more moderate, Texas Senator Rafael Cruz. And Congress can admit states anytime they want, I propose "East California/Oregon/Washington" "West New York/Massachussetts/Pennsylvania/Colorado" and "Southern Illinois"
Seriously, Revolting, it's obvious you need to do a daily "Cognitive Test" like Parkinsonian Joe
Test #1, count backwards from 21, (without taking off your pants)

Frank

[Theendoftheleft]

Will you pretend that the American Constitution 'evolved' to mean that today, such that those changes could be implemented unilaterally?

Real progress is happening, however. It is taking the form of civilised jurists, globally, ignoring what their American liberal and progressive counterparts say about ANYTHING. For, at this stage, they all know (and don't merely believe or suspect) that everything out of those American practitioners and scholars' mouths is either a lie or instead just a poorly/non-researched intuition.

[Bob from Ohio]

Opens up slots for Cannon and Kacsmaryk on CoA too.

[Commenter_XY]

I think some VC heads would explode at the mere thought of elevating Judge Cannon to the circuit court, BfO.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Lucky for you, you have no integrity or redeeming principles, so you'd be immune from the normal human reaction to putting such an incompetent judge in a position demanding even more responsibility.

Her behavior is not to be celebrated.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not convinced that either Thomas or Alito are ready to retire.
Sotomayor's health might cause her to leave.

[Bored Lawyer]

Depends when and who's president. If a Republican is president, in a few years I can see Thomas retiring.

[Frank Drackman]

and a Chief Justice Rafael Cruz??? (not sure, is he too old?)

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Didn't Justice Stevens go until age 90? 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

unfortunately

[hobie]

Harlan Thomas will never retire. The day he does the gravy train stops. Or do you think all these rich neo-Confederates really enjoy his companionship?

[Frank Drackman]

They probably don’t. Like the young boys you proposition. Oh, man, that was such a burn, such a put down, I cut you so low, you (insert old "Cut you so low" put down here) Did you never have any friends who would bust your balls? I almost feel like I'm slapping Dr. Steven Hawkins around when I take advantage of your imbecility.
OK, please don't tell me you're a Quad.

Frank

[Michael P]

Is Dr. Steven Hawkins another gas-passer? Or did you mean Stephen Hawking? Slapping Hawking around would probably be a bit messy now that he's six years in the grave.

[Frank Drackman]

I know it’s “Hawking” I just like to say it wrong ironically, so that Saps like you think they’re gonna get me with a witty Obloquy. You fell right into my trap, now put the lotion in the effin basket! Jeez-us, don’t any Amurican’s play Chess anymore? other than Prisoners and kids with no friends? In Roosh-a it’s a popular past time, like Poker in the US. Mom used to take me to Griffith Park in the Summer and I'd play these old Jewish guys, I never won, but did learn the King's Indian.

Frank "Where's my Horsey?"

[Bored Lawyer]

Hilarious spoof of Biden at the debate:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lAqoKLVCDkk

When you can't tell reality from comedy, it's time to retire.

[Commenter_XY]

It was hilarious, esp the laser pen.

[Mr. Bumble]

In case you missed it Olive Oyl (Shelly Duvall) has passed away at age 75. Complications of diabetes.

[ThePublius]

R.I.P. I really liked her.

[Frank Drackman]

I might have rubbed a few out thinking of her.... well OK, her role in "Roxanne" (Only lacking A Daryl Hannah/Shelley Duvall "Britney/Madonna" kiss? a remake? count me in!)
OK, yes, "Roxanne" is one of my favorite Steve Martin movies, because I have a similar physical feature to C.D. Bales,
a 12 inch Penis.
I mean Schnozz
I now return you to your regularly scheduled Homo programming.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

So, Trump is VP. Wow, a heartbeat from the Presidency, and we haven't even had an election!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He also declared Putin was President of Ukraine.

[Frank Drackman]

He is, for all practical purposes, or soon will be.

[Longtobefree]

Was it a lie, or prophesy?

[Michael P]

Biden was introducing Zelensky at the NATO summit, so maybe it was a Freudian slip or a Kinsley gaffe, but it wouldn't have been a prophecy in the sense you probably meant.

On the other hand, since Biden's bag man and Russia-aligned influence seller is now more or less his acting chief of staff, maybe Putin's "investments" are finally paying off.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd vote for a Biden/Trump ticket, probably get "45" into Orifice faster than if he wins the regular way on November 5.

Frank

[David Nieporent]

So, Trump is VP. Wow, a heartbeat from the Presidency, and we haven’t even had an election!

It's a unity ticket: Biden-Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

It is totally sad watching POTUS Biden embarrass and humiliate himself (and this country) on the world stage.

[Don Nico]

I think that Mr Biden did well. Even though NBS immediately wrote "Biden stumbles in high stakes press conference."
Their writer watch something different than I did. His stumbles or stutters were very minor. He was clear in his answers and made the points that he wanted to get across. I did not see him get flustered.
By the end of the hour, he was ready for the press conference to end.

[Vryedni]

Indeed. He had decent command of the issues, and the name flubs the usual suspects here are high-fiving about were of a kind Trump commits regularly. The problem is, if you aren’t conversant with the substance, and most voters aren’t, Biden couldn’t be less confidence-inspiring. He looks and sounds awful. I’m convinced he can do the job, but I can’t imagine him winning the election.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I will agree he didn't implode, if that's your bar for doing well. He just did badly, if you're not grading on a 81 year old curve. If he were currently engaged in a regular schedule of shuffleboard and long naps, you'd say he was fully qualified.

Problem is, he's not retired, he's President.

It was just about ideal from Trump's perspective: Biden didn't do so badly as to get immediately hit with the 25th amendment, but he didn't do well enough to actually relieve concerns.

I suppose if he's going to argue he was just having a bad night at the debate, this was him at the top of his game, and the top of his game sucks.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
He did as well as any President has done in a press conference. I may disagree with many of his policies in international affairs, but he has a clear coherent position that he described clearly. That is not a low bar.
I expect that is regularly works a longer day than you or I. I also expect that his day is filled with more stressful activities.
I do doubt he will survive 4 more years and think that Ms Harris would be a disaster as POTUS. However, I can still judge his performance at the press conference without stupid biases about shuffleboard or naps.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sorry, I've seen enough Presidential press conferences to laugh at that claim. The guy was running out of energy halfway through the Q&A session, and that was with predetermined friendly reporters!

He might be acceptable as a President if the world were at peace, and everything was totally boring. (I mean, aside from his horrific policies, just in terms of competence.) Because he'd never be confronted with anything urgent in that scenario.

He's not acceptable for a President who might need to handle the proverbial 3am call.

Not that Trump is a lot better, Trump is about where Biden was 4 years ago, and I doubt I'll like his condition by the end of the coming term. Who he picks as VP is critical here.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, the VP choice is critical. That is one reason that I would never vote for Biden.

I watch an interview with David Patreus this morning. The sad thing is that except for a stupid affair and sharing "secret" information he would have been an unbeatable Presidential candidate, far better than the two old farts that we have to choose from

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm hearing a lot of talk in conservative circles about Tulsi Gabbard. I don't like her positions on everything, but she has an unusual willingness for a politician to respond to evidence and change her mind.

It could be a smart move by Trump, while she's on the outs with the fanatics running the Democratic party, I expect a lot of moderate Democrats would find it a reassuring pick.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, the VP choice is critical. That is one reason that I would never vote for Biden.

Um, I'm old enough to remember a few days ago, when you said you'd vote for RFK Jr., so please spare me the pretense that you care about competence.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The Democrat Military has declared The National Right To Life a Terrorist Group.

https://twitter.com/samosaur/status/1811198101522391419

And having a Pro-Life license plate a terrorist activity.

When do you think the Pentagon will send in their homo-goons to start murdering American civilians?

[Frank Drackman]

Did he just say Israel was "Less than Cooperative" with arming Ham-Ass?? and he knew Golda Meir? was that before or after he beat up "Corn Pop" with a Bicycle Chain? You think he ever remembers who "Corn Pop" was at this point?

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

"More Girls are killed by a Bullet!!!!"??
Ooooh, he just lost Alec Baldwin's vote.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

I'm not a Journalist, drew an (Obscene) Comic for my 6th grade class paper and then gave away childish things.
But I'd have asked one question
"President Biden, have you been diagnosed with Parkinsonism, or Parkinson's Disease?? (there's a difference) or prescribed any medication for those conditions??"
and if he answers "No"

"Why not?"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Can anybody suggest a good reason why the press conference started so late?

My theory is that the meds took longer than expected to take effect.

[Mr. Bumble]

From what I've heard they never did take effect.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett: It is over for POTUS Biden, after that press conference. He has lost the confidence of the American people. This country is in real danger, the risk for war is going up quickly.

The autophagy of Team D is amusing to watch.

[Josh R]

I think you are quite wrong. Had the debate gone like the press conference, there would be no talk of replacing him. But, the debate happened and the press conference did not erase that disaster.

[Don Nico]

"Had the debate gone like the press conference, there would be no talk of replacing him"
That is certainly correct.

[Josh R]

But given his decline, the possibility it will worsen to affect his ability to do the job in the next 4 years, and what appears to be knowledge of that decline in his inner circle months ahead of the debate, it would have been better for Team Biden to let someone else have the mantle much earlier.

That is, even if the first debate had gone like the press conference, somewhere along the line the truth of his decline would be apparent to the public (but perhaps after the election).

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately, Mr Biden sees himself as being on a mission. His policies are consistent being the savior of Ukraine, with trying to bring about regime change in Russia, and with try to be the great wall against Chinese expansionism. He is determined to be successful. He said so tonight.
Stepping aside was never going to happen.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Stepping aside the week before the RNC would be dumb. The best time for him to step aside would be right after the RNC.

[not guilty]

A presidential candidate can recover from a bad debate. After Ronald Reagan's first debate in 1984, there was chatter about whether he was too old (at age 73) for the office. At the second debate he quipped, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." He went on to win by a landslide.

That having been said, I still have doubts about Joe Biden. After 48 of the past 52 years in office, it is time for him to pass the torch.

[Commenter_XY]

I remember that debate vividly, and the time. It was a very different time.

[Brett Bellmore]

They were both worlds above either Trump or Biden, even Mondale was more coherent than either.

It was also back when Presidential debates were actual debates, moderated by the League of Women Voters.

[Commenter_XY]

All true.

[Jmaie]

"I remember that debate vividly, and the time. It was a very different time."

Indeed it was Ron and Tip would go at it hammer and tongs publicly, then have a beer and work through the issue at hand...

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is this the same press conference with his Vice President Trump or the new President of Ukraine, Putin?

[Josh R]

The Putin slip was earlier int he day. The Trump one began the press conference. Those slips are not indicative of someone who doesn't know the issues or can't do the job. They are normal, old-man things.

[Vryedni]

They are normal, old-man things.

...which Trump does on the regular.

[Commenter_XY]

Another Senator has asked him to step down. You're swimming in de' Nile, Josh R. For POTUS Biden, the 2024 race is over. He just doesn't know it yet.

[Josh R]

Biden's chance of winning isn't good, perhaps 25% (assumes the polls do not move from here). Given he is unlikely to improve in the polls, that may be his ceiling. But, he does not have a 0% chance of winning.

[Don Nico]

He has actually improved over the past two weeks despite the backstabbing from his fellow D's. The Marist poll actually has him beating Trump by 2%

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, that 25% is as good as it gets. Open your eyes, man. The NYT and AJC have both thrown POTUS Biden under the bus (and backed the bus up over the writhing body). That is as good as it gets, for POTUS Biden. It will not get better.

This is like Bones (Dr. McCoy) in the Original Star Trek...."He's dead, Josh R". (cue in music)

After denial comes anger and bargaining. Just saying.

[Josh R]

25% is not dead (which assumes he does not drop out).

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
I am no fan of Mr Biden. But he did well in articulating his policies present and future. He did not give any of our enemies a reason to think that he is incapable of responding decisively.
If the country is in real danger it is because his foreign policy is based on playing a dangerous game.
But if one tries to explain why that is, certain commenters here label one as a tool of Putin or a tool of Xi or a tool of Kim. Nonetheless, that danger is what the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists shows in its minutes to midnight clock and what most analysts outside the US think and write.

[Commenter_XY]

Watch the Philippines. Now Japan has entered into the mix.

The calculation that Xi or Putin or Un make: when they say, "it is now or never' - I think now means now. Meaning, between now and inauguration, we are at the highest risk of war. And that goes up if POTUS Biden runs and loses to Pres Trump.

The interregnum period is the time to make the move. Maximum confusion on this side.

[Don Nico]

Un is a given. Mr. Kim is who you meant.

You don't have to convince me that this is a time a very great peril. We are playing a game with 3 nuclear armed adversaries, including China which is facing a demographic collapse over the next two decades. Mr Xi may understand that and feel that the time to act is now

[Brett Bellmore]

Russia is also facing demographic collapse. Not as urgently as China, but bad enough that they've been kidnapping Ukrainian children to supplement their birth rate.

[Don Nico]

Maybe he lost your confidence Brett, But more likely he never had it.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, of course he never had it. But he's lost a lot of people he DID have.

[Michael P]

Perhaps Joe dozed off and they couldn't wake him up.

I don't have a seriously held theory, but "why the delay" is a good question, and that kind of delay should raise the bar for what was expected from him.

[Don Nico]

"Perhaps Joe dozed off and they couldn’t wake him up. "
What a childish speculation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Its the sort of event that should at least have prompted a question itself. But I think we all know why it didn't: Both Biden AND the reporters were following a script.

Learning that Biden gets to dictate what questions get asked at his interviews and press conferences is the sort of revelation that doesn't go away.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next debate, assuming Biden agrees to one.

[Don Nico]

He had a full day of high pressure work.
It was stupid of his office to schedule the press conference at 5:30.

[Michael P]

God forbid the US president ever have a workday that extends into the early evening, huh?

[Don Nico]

I doubt you could manage it.
Moreover why would he take a political risk with no upside?

[Michael P]

You don't have an actual response to the point that the President is expected to have more energy than Sleepy Joe, and even be able to wake up and respond quickly and lucidly when getting an emergency call at 3 AM. You only have vapid personal attacks based on your ignorance.

Joe Biden should have demonstrated that he has that ability. He instead showed us that he doesn't. As for why he should take the risk of showing that: If he didn't even try, the whole country and world would have -- correctly -- inferred that he doesn't.

[Don Nico]

My response is simple. Mr Biden is too smart to rush onto the press stage when the NATO meeting ran overtime and when he wanted time to focus on the press conference.
You are the one making a vapid personal attack, betraying that you wanted Mr Biden to fail. He was not appearing to satisfy the likes of you.
All you are spinning out of your head is what you wanted to see on your time schedule. Sorry the world does not work that way.

[Michael P]

We can see what you wrote, and it consisted of nothing more than a personal attack alongside an ignorant question. It's really sad that you are trying to rewrite the past like that -- very reminiscent of how Brandon claimed he was not ready to talk to Putin, and less than a minute later he claimed he was ready to talk with any world leader that is ready to talk, including Putin. It doesn't work for Brandon, and it doesn't work for you.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
You began with a stupid question.
My guess is that even at his age Mr. Biden works a longer day every day than you do. You made a childish comment about the staff being unable to wake him, when you know absolutely nothing about his schedule after the formal close of the NATO summit. What is sad is your arrogance in thinking that the President must stick to your narrow concepts.

BTW, as I have written before, under no circumstances will I vote to re-elect Mr Biden. I do respect his office and his determination to continue to do the job he was elected to do.

[Don Nico]

The President works on his schedule not that of the press. You may have noticed that he actually complained that his staff often books him in too crowded a fashion. It should have anticipated that the NATO summit commitment would not end sharply and that there was a high probability that appointments linked to that event would have to be fit in.

[Rossman]

I have a suggestion to change the name of the blog to make it more accurate. Perhaps the Josh Blackman Blog, since 90% of the content lately is Josh spamming the blog. Or maybe the Josh Blackman Personal Gripes Blog or the Josh Blackman Beats a Dead Horse Blog.

Let me know your thoughts.

[Bored Lawyer]

My thought: Skip what you don't like. Including Blackman. If there is not enough left to interest you, skip the whole blog.

[santamonica811]

I love Orin’s Fourth Amendment cases (a subject that interested me almost zero in law school, which I now see–in retrospect–was due to the quality of the instruction in that particular Con Law section I was placed into). Enjoy Eugene’s First Amendment posts, as well as his non-law musings.

Even if I disliked every single post, the blog would be worth it for the 5-10 times a year that people post about book recommendations. There have been almost 100 books I’ve read, over the years, that I checked out of the library strictly because of this blog. (As an aside, I have observed that there is no correlation between the value of comments [IMO] for a particular person, and the quality of books she or he suggests. There have been some fantastic books recommend by posters I’ve long since relegated to the “Obvious Russian Troll” or “Lickspittle for Trump” dustbins. Their politics suck. But they have great taste in books!!!)

Sadly, most of the recipes or cooking suggestions that are occasionally posted here tend to involve dead animals of one sort or another; so, not really suited for vegetarians like me. But for you carnivores, those recipes would be a second reason to keep coming by.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, you're a vegematic? Really? I never knew that.

For you, I will post some veggie recipes. No joke. You will have another reason to come back.

I also really like when Professor Kerr posts here. His discussions about geofencing were eye-opening. We don't have a 4th amendment, anymore. 🙁

[Don Nico]

SM,
I urge you to look up the many eggplant recipes from Italy ( as well as from the middle east). I had a favorite restaurant in Sicily that had at least a half-dozen different eggplant dishes every day.
For example , try https://www.billyparisi.com/caponata-recipe/
and pasta alla Norma:
https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1014832-pasta-alla-norma

[santamonica811]

Thanks for the links. Eggplant is one of my favs, and I'm always happy to play in the kitchen with a new recipe. I'll stop by the market this afternoon and buy some eggplants. My local place has Italian, Japanese, and Chinese varieties. I'll buy them all...when trying a recipe, I like to experiment with different types of eggplant, since they can yield such dramatically-different results.

[bernard11]

You know, I very much dislike eggplant. Whenever I mention this in polite company I am told, invariably, that I have never had it prepared properly.

When I try the proffered preparation I inevitably discover that I just don’t like eggplant.

What do you have to offer in defense of this vegetable?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the tofu of vegetables, basically, has very little flavor of its own, and so is pretty versatile. But "very little" is not the same as "none", and if you don't like the taste of eggplant, well, you just don't.

[Jmaie]

I was never a fan, a textural issue, but two spectacular versions changed my mind. First was an Afghani recipe, thin slices of eggplant coated in a chickpea batter and deep fried. Serve with red chutney.

Second is a Japanese soup called Nasu Agebitashi, tempura eggplant is added to a soup made with dashi, shoyu grated daikon.

https://www.justonecookbook.com/eggplant-agebitashi/

Or if you just want the protein, my wife makes a tomato based soup with chunks of eggplant that break down and become unrecognizable...

[Frank Drackman]

Parkinsonian Joe left out this little nugget

Racial and ethnic differences in gun deaths among kids are stark. In 2021, 46% of all gun deaths among children and teens involved Black victims, even though only 14% of the U.S. under-18 population that year was Black. Much smaller shares of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021 involved White (32%), Hispanic (17%) and Asian (1%) victims.

Best I can tell there were fewer than a 1,000 "Girls" shot to death the last year I can find stats for (2022) and you know at least a few were shot by "Migrants"

Frank "Someone has to say the Baby's Ugly"

[JasonT20]

I'm wondering where the textualists on the Supreme Court will come down if the Court takes up the inevitable appeal to this decision. (Electric Energy, Inc. v EPA)

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DF47CF8284B1A9DC85258B4A004FBEEA/$file/22-1056.23-1035.pdf

What do you think the definition of "liquid" is?

[Jmaie]

So maybe too late to get a response here but too long to wait until Monday...

Heard a tidbit about the Baldwin dismissal, apparently "special prosecutor Kari Morrissey had called herself to the witness stand."

IANAL, how is that even possible?

[David Nieporent]

IANAL, how is that even possible?

It was a hearing about evidence handling, not in front of the jury. You're right that — except in the most unusual circumstance — it would not be possible at the trial itself.

[Brett Bellmore]

Another entry at Balkinization, in that symposium on Solangel Maldonado's " The Architecture of Desire: How the Law Shapes Interracial Intimacy and Perpetuates Inequality"

Desire in the Absence of Discrimination

Further doubling down on the basically totalitarian suggestion that anti-discrimination law be extended to ALL relations, prohibiting people from racially discriminating in their selection of room mates and even romantic partners.

Setting aside the merits or demerits of the idea, this raises a question about symposia I've had for a while now. I've noticed that the symposia at Balkinization never seem to include anybody who actually rejects the thesis of the book.

Is this a normal and accepted practice?

[David Nieporent]

Brett further doubling down on this dishonest misreading. At no point is there even any hint that the author is suggesting prohibiting people from racially discriminating in their selection of romantic partners.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why in the world do you persist in this rhetorical tic of denouncing as lies easily confirmed facts?

"She proposes prohibiting dating platforms from providing users with race filters as the harms associated with this practice are parallel to the ones caused by allowing property owners to advertise their racial preferences or using third parties to sieve applicants based on race, which is outlawed. Or as others suggest, treating dating platforms as public accommodation spaces as they serve the same purpose as their nonvirtual counterparts (e.g., bars) in which race discrimination is prohibited. Maldonado understands that erasing this separation and segregation in the dating space is insufficient if we still allow it in other spaces. Thus, she advocates for other reforms such as eliminating the Mrs. Murphy exception which exempts live-in landlords with four or fewer units from the anti-discrimination mandates in the Fair Housing Act.

She is arguing fundamentally for prohibiting race discrimination in private spaces. While reading Maldonado’s compelling arguments, I wondered whether it would be more effective if the harmful distinction between the private and the public were to be erased. [2] This strategy seems more imperative after Maldonado’s discussion on the constitutional challenges and limits to her proposal based on association and speech rights and the recent Supreme Court trend of placing liberty interests above equality. Perhaps, instead of a vertical application of the Constitution, we should push for a horizontal one, in which the state action requirement is eliminated, and rights are enforceable between private citizens."

"[2] The private and public divide has been an essential part of sex, sexual orientation, and gender discrimination."

Sure looks to me like a proposal that people be prohibited from racially discriminating in room mates and romantic partners.

[Voize]

The article proposes applying anti-discrimination laws to businesses that provide dating services, not to the selection of romantic partners.

According to the Ninth Circuit roommates who rent rooms in a dwelling shared with their landlord, rather than renting a dwelling in a shared building, are out of scope of the Fair Housing Act anyway. The housing exemption the article proposes removing (42 U.S.C. §3603(b)(2)) additionally allows you to exclude Blacks and Jews from the other three units in your quadplex, if that is what you want to defend. If you do, keep in mind that you may still run into other difficulties if you actually advertise that preference.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course I'll defend that. You don't actually believe in liberty if you're not willing to let people make choices YOU wouldn't make!

Yes, I know that the first step is forbidding dating services from letting you sort by race. And when that totally has no effect on outcomes, except to make using a dating service a bit less efficient? Think people who think like that would stop there?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I'm guessing the election was just decided. This is what happens when you tell people somebody is an existential threat to democracy, and they believe you... An inch to the right and he'd be dead.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Do we know the motive of the now-deceased shooter? I hadn't heard that.

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure, but I think he wanted to kill Trump

[Bwaaah]

That's what I was thinking.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not that I've heard. But I'm surprised that no social media trail has yet been uncovered. A 20-year old with no social media?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The assassination attempt does not reduce the threat Trump poses to US democracy; indeed, it may have increased it.

We shall see.

By the way, will this be a new reason why Trump "cannot have lost the election" if he loses the election?

[Bwaaah]

Problem almost solved, eh? Or would 70 million supporting voters have to go with him?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, if successful it would have triggered a very ugly response in the US--much worse than merely having to endure another 4+ years of Donald Trump. Does that clear things up for you?

[Bwaaah]

Yes it does. How would a sudden fatal heart attack do?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nice try. I just hope Trump goes to prison, where he belongs.