Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[santamonica811]

Congrats to Harris on a historic opportunity. I don't expect her to win in Nov. But another bit of the glass ceiling is giving way, and that's a good thing.

I wonder if Trump will have the guts to debate her.

[AmosArch]

I think the glass ceiling for affirmative action hacks is one that should never be broken.

[not guilty]

Yeah, as we all know, affirmative action is a really crappy idea for anyone whose first name is not Clarence or whose last name is not Thomas.

[AmosArch]

If you think evil conservatives benefit disproportionately from affirmative action why do you fight tooth and nail to preserve it? Do you actually admire and want more guys like Thomas then?

[not guilty]

As any reader of these comment threads knows, I despise Clarence Thomas. That doesn’t mean that affirmative action is necessarily a bad thing.

As far as SCOTUS justices, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra O’Connor, Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson could each be said to be affirmative action selections. It certainly didn't hurt Ruth Bader Ginsburg that except for Harry Blackmun, the seat that she held had been occupied by a Jew since 1932 (Benjamin Cardoza, Felix Frankfurter, Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas. The first Jew on the Court, Louis Brandeis, was succeeded by William Douglas.). All but Thomas have served respectably.

[AmosArch]

In that case since you admit Affirmative Action has helped your side immeasurably more your turnabout is completely nonsensical. You're like a fat glutton saying a thin man eats up food too when called out.

[not guilty]

Don't attribute to me what I haven't said. In my opinion affirmative action per se is neither good nor bad. On balance, it is beneficial to look at folks who have traditionally been overlooked. When standards are so far lowered to benefit an unqualified buffoon like Clarence Thomas, who was never fit to shine Thurgood Marshall's shoes, let alone carry his briefcase, that is a bad thing.

When President George H. W. Bush said in 1991 that Clarence Thomas was the "best qualified [nominee] at this time," that is the most egregious falsehood any twentieth century president ever told. Moreso even that "I am not a crook," and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

[Mr. Bumble]

Yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Could you at least try to have something intelligent to say on occasion?
No?
Well could you try to be less effeminate?
It's off-putting.

[Riva]

[M L]

Clarence Thomas is one of the greatest justices of all time.

[Sarcastr0]

Constant single dissents and aligning with radicals won't make you a great Justice in any way that matters to society at large.

[Bob from Ohio]

John Marshall Harlan says hi!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is the autistic, superstition-addled right-wing misfit perspective.

[Frank Drackman]

Where you been Revolting? fall on that Broomstick in the shower again?

Frank "One in a Million Shot Doc! One in a Million!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A few miles from the precise middle of fucking nowhere.

I advise all disaffected, drawling clingers to visit Branson, though. You’ll probably love it. If you time a trip deftly, mid-November, you should be able to fill the pickup with Trump merchandise for next to nothing.

Try Lambert’s Cafe if you get the opportunity.

[hobie]

By any measure, Yale's affirmative action has made Harlan Thomas a great success. Just look how much money he has earned since joining the court

[Brett Bellmore]

"Affirmative action", as instituted by Kennedy, was a good thing. Remember, it was affirmative action "to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin". They were to affirmatively take action to be race blind in all their actions!

This is rather different from what goes under the name today, which is just covert quotas. Rather different? Diametrically opposed, actually.

You can persuade the majority that racial discrimination is bad. In fact, the majority have been so persuaded, even the voters of California have voted twice to ban it.

You can't persuade them that it's generally bad, but good if it's against the majority.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 6 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
As any reader of these comment threads knows, I despise Clarence Thomas.

Bottom line is you are consumed with hate - Can you name a single opinion he wrote that was constitutionally wrong.

[not guilty]

The most recent clinker is Justice Thomas’s so-called “concurring opinion” of July 1 where he wrote an advisory opinion about whether Jack Smith’s appointment is kosher — an issue that had not been raised before the D.C. District Court, was not litigated before the Court of Appeals, was not included in the question as to which certiorari was granted, and was not briefed by the parties. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf?ftag=MSF0951a18 Supreme Court jurisprudence precludes a grant of certiorari when the question presented was not pressed or passed upon below. United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 42 (1992).

Justice Thomas has also opined that de jure segregation of the District of Columbia’s public schools did not violate due process. United States v. Vaeleo Madero, 596 U.S. ___, ___, 142 S. Ct. 1539, 1544-1545 (2022) (Thomas, J. concurring). I wonder how often he has asked Chief Justice Roberts to order installation of separate “white” and “colored” water fountains in the Supreme Court building.

Justice Thomas opined in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2301-2302 (2022) (Thomas, J. concurring), that in future cases, the Supreme Court should reconsider all of its substantive due process precedents, specifically including Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, (1965), Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). I surmise that Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), hit just a bit too close to home.

In addition to having serious character defects, Clarence Thomas is a loon.

[Joe_dallas]

Thomas objects to the substantive due process jurisprudence because he believes the P&I clause is the correct jurisprudence.
He is not the only constitutional scholar who has criticized the substantive due process reasoning.

See his concurring opinion in McDonald.

The vaello madero case has nothing to do with the the discrict of columbia nor does it have anything to do with schools, public or private.

Substantive due process is used too often to reach the politically preferred answer instead of the constitutionally correct answer.

[not guilty]

"The vaello madero case has nothing to do with the the discrict of columbia nor does it have anything to do with schools, public or private."

Isn't it curious then that Justice Thomas gratuitously suggested there that Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), was wrongly decided?

Thomas is Stephen Warren on the GOP's Candyland plantation.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - You need to do better reading the objections

Thomas is criticizing the use of substantive due process.
Same objection that most constitutional scholars have of Brown. Correctly decided though decided with an incorrect legal reasoning. P&I is the correct legal reasoning, not SDP.

[not guilty]

Joe_Dallas, you asked me to name a single opinion Justice Thomas wrote that was constitutionally wrong. Substantive due process has been the warp and woof of Supreme Court jurisprudence for more than a century. As Chief Justice Rehnquist summarized in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against 'certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them''') (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 301-302 (1993); [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v.] Casey, 505 U.S. [833,] 851 [(1992.] In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid.; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, [v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health, 497 U. S. 261,] 278-279 [(1990.]

Clarence Thomas's blather has not spooked the words off the page, nor the pixels off the monitor. His opinions have indeed been constitutionally wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

Learn the difference between constitutionally wrong, and failing to side with a Court that doesn't want to admit Slaughterhouse was wrongly decided.

There is no question AT ALL that he's right about this one. Substantially the same court as was guilty of Dred Scot deliberately misconstrued the 14th amendment in order to moot it, and then when the Court was ready to start undoing the damage a century later, they couldn't bring themselves to just admit the Slaughterhouse Court had been wrong, because that would have opened the door to the dreaded "Lochnerism".

[not guilty]

Brett, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to court with the law you have, not the law you might want or wish to have at a later time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As any reader of these comment threads knows, I despise Clarence Thomas."

That certainly is true. But for some reason, many of us know a lot less about how you feel about Alito, Scalia, or Gorsuch, just to name a few.

[Mr. Bumble]

Obviously ng is a racist.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, a refusal to genuflect to a particular black man -- particularly a black quisling who is far outside the mainstream of black opinion -- is hardly racist.

When Justice Scalia contrasted his judicial philosophy with that of Justice Thomas by saying "I'm an originalist and a textualist, not a nut," https://www.npr.org/2008/04/28/89986017/justice-scalia-the-great-dissenter-opens-up , was Scalia being racist?

[Riva]

Wow. Yeah, no racism on the left. But apparently they believe everyone who is black only achieved anything because of a racial preference.

[Sarcastr0]

Thomas demonstrably benefitted from affirmative action programs. Getting Holy Cross college, and Yale, were both specifically looking to admit more blacks. And his race also helped getting Marshall’s seat in the Supreme Court.

Which I might argue demonstrates their success. He’s proven to have what it takes intellectually to operate at highest Court in the land, even if his integrity and jurisprudence suck.

[not guilty]

Clarence Thomas made his bones among Republicans as a harsh critic of affirmative action programs despite having benefitted from them himself.

He remained willing to resort to playing the race card when it would be to his advantage, however. When his confirmation for SCOTUS was in doubt, he angrily declared:

This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

If the Senate had denied confirmation to Thomas, he would still have kept a lifetime appointment to the U. S. Court of Appeals, just as Robert Bork did in 1987 and Clement Haynsworth did in 1969. Nice work if you can get it!

If in the next life Clarence Thomas encounters Emmitt Till, James Cheney, Andrew Goodman or Michael Schwerner, I hope they beat the stuffing out of him every day and twice on Sunday for trivializing the horror of lynching. In the struggle for racial equality in the United States, Clarence Thomas is a quisling.

[Don Nico]

"Nice work if you can get it!"
Are you jealous, ng? I think you're the type of lawyer who prefers being a litigator to being a judge.

[grb]

When Thomas was trying to make a name for himself, he hit upon the perfect branding tool. While giving a speak to a right-wing group, he trashed his own sister as a welfare parasite. And it worked: The audience cheered and cheered. It might have been the deciding factor when Reagan offered Thomas an administration position a few months later.

And the sister did go thru three years of hard times while caring for an invalid relative, but has been a upright & productive citizen before and since. Meanwhile, it’s Clarence Thomas who has proved to be the welfare queen. He’s the one who can’t live within his means. He’s the one who goes around palm extended for handouts. He’s the one addicted to freebies.

[M L]

Or, maybe, he just has principled conservative views.

And maybe having a friend over to your house or taking them in your vehicle or boat isn't a handout.

[Estragon]

I don’t know about you but I routinely buy my friends Mom’s houses so she can live there rent free. This is definitely not a handout. Neither are all those tuition payments I make for other people’s kids, and the luxury RVs I buy for other people.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, I hadn't realized that reverse mortgages were so ethically fraught. Being in my 60's I occasionally get offers, didn't realize they were soliciting a crime.

Is there a national hotline I can report these crooks to?

[M L]

"This is definitely not a handout. "

If anything, it was a handout to the buyer. He got a bargain. The expected value of rent was deducted from the price. And the buyer intends to preserve it as a historic site.

[Estragon]

“Reverse mortgage”

LOL, ok Brett

[Sarcastr0]

Brett and ML are playing the most gullible MF'ers on the planet, and it slaps. They should take this show on the road!

[Estragon]

“Historical site”

How is that coming along anyways? Get your tickets for the tour yet?

[M L]

I mean, that's what they said, as I recall. I'm open to evidence to the contrary. Look at all the time you trolls spend commenting online about this. You should easily be able to go through zillow sales histories and pull some comps for us, and run the numbers on rent to show us that the price of $133,363 was too high.

[Estragon]

“He got a bargain.”

LOL on so many levels. You think the nephew’s tuition was factored into the sale price as well? Or just the indeterminate amount of time Mom gets to live there rent-free while he makes repairs and pays for upkeep? How would YOU calculate the dollar value of that versus the sale price, anyways? Crow took on a costly, ongoing financial obligation. Kinda like the tuition!

More broadly— even you don’t claim that the house was sold in an arms length transaction to a bona fide purchaser for value! But, oh no, it’s not a handout. The guy has taken millions of dollars in gifts (that we know about!!!) over the last 20 years. Maybe we should be referring to them as gratuities? He is Justice handout!

[Estragon]

“I mean, that’s what they said, as I recall. I’m open to evidence to the contrary.”

The historical site thing is so cute. What historical preservation value do you think there was in the two vacant lots down the street that Crow also bought off Justice handout?

[M L]

.

Or just the indeterminate amount of time Mom gets to live there rent-free while he makes repairs and pays for upkeep? How would YOU calculate the dollar value of that versus the sale price, anyways?

I would take the actuarial remaining life expectancy based on known factors and multiply by the market rate rent with an inflation adjuster.

The guy has taken millions of dollars in gifts (that we know about!!!) over the last 20 years.

It's possible that I'm not up to date on all the news. Was any of this millions of dollars actual cash in his bank account, versus the value of a ride on a private yacht or something like that?

[M L]

.

The historical site thing is so cute. What historical preservation value do you think there was in the two vacant lots down the street that Crow also bought off Justice handout?

If you wanted to preserve a historic site, it makes sense that you would want to buy some other properties nearby.

In other words, the fact that this buyer is trying to preserve a historic site in this neighborhood means these properties are actually worth much more, at least in theory.

[Estragon]

“If you wanted to preserve a historic site, it makes sense that you would want to buy some other properties nearby”

Oh heavens to Betsy give me a break. Thomas was openly going around to Fed Soc parties complaining about his finances. Mom’s house was obviously a money pit— as evidenced by the fact that Crow immediately had tens of thousands of dollars of work done on the place to catch up on deferred maintenance!

[Estragon]

“Actual cash”

Oh wow, you’ve really got me there— the $4+ million of gifts that he himself reported (well, ahem, not all of it initially) didn’t actually take the form of stacks of cash in sacks with dollar signs on them!

The self-reported number is 10x what everyone else has taken, combined, over the same time period. How much do you figure the nephew’s tuition came to anyways?

I have heard that Justice handout can really parallel park that luxury RV like a champ though! Don’t worry— we have been assured that “loan” was “satisfied.”

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Was any of this millions of dollars actual cash in his bank account, versus the value of a ride on a private yacht or something like that?"

That's a distinction that only has a difference in your own idiot mind. The law disagrees.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - you are consumed with criticizing the person, yet you cant criticize his work.

Whereas sotomayor has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of judicial temperament with Rici, her dissent in Shuette, her dishonesty in her dissent in the recent immunity case , just to name a few.

Jackson did herself no favors with her misunderstanding and/or distortions of Macomber and pollock in her concurring opinion the Moore case.

[not guilty]

I have criticized Justice Thomas's work on this blog on numerous occasions, most recently upthread today.

When I wrote the earlier comment, I had forgotten how Thomas, during oral argument in Trump v. United States on April 25, 2024 asked whether President Kennedy should have been prosecuted for Operation Mongoose after leaving office. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f2qg.pdf (P. 70)

Good luck serving a capias on him!

[Joe_dallas]

very common for the justices to ask hypotheticals - got something substantive

[Riva]

Well of course Sarcastr0. I mean, he’s black, what could explain anything he’s achieved in his life, up to and including his elevation to the Supreme Court, but racial preferences? Thank goodness for the beneficence of liberals! But I will give you Kamala. Can’t really explain how that vacuous cackling whatever is VP other than by the insanity of DEI.

[Sarcastr0]

You really are like a robot.

Actual facts do not matter for ya, you have your talking point and you're going to play that race card no matter what!!

His is a story of someone who turns out to be very smart, but who would not have been noticed were it not for the explicit diversity push in the late 60s and early 70s.

Learn a bit of history and get back to me.

[Riva]

Communist racists like you wouldn’t notice him that’s for sure, unless they could exploit him somehow. Like you pathetically try to do now.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, robot.

Talking points; not responsive but gotta play that race card.

[Riva]

This isn’t playing the race card. I would expect democrat communists like you to understand that since you guys invented that con.

[Don Nico]

"very smart, but who would not have been noticed were it not for the explicit diversity push"
I think that you are likely correct about that.

[Riva]

[M L]

I didn't know that Thomas' LSAT score, GPA and other credentials were public knowledge and have been compared to other YLS applicants of the time. Link?

[Sarcastr0]

His professors at Holy Cross don’t remember him as a luminary, just diligent.

More importantly, in the 1960s, a black first-time college goer’s small school credentials were not going to be the main issue in his educational destiny.

Looking purely at an intellectual level (because he became a greedy power-abusing radical), it is very hard to deny that his was talent we wouldn’t have left on the table were it not for the affirmative action programs at the schools he went to. And there is nothing wrong with that! Except you've decided there is so you gotta challenge the facts.

[M L]

You claimed it was “demonstrable” but you haven’t demonstrated anything or even provided any evidence at all. And it’s unlikely you could do so without the LSAT score.

[Sarcastr0]

The 1 schools he got into had affirmative action programs. He did not have the usual credentials to get into either of them.

Yeah, it's demonstrated. To all but the very silly. Like you, who seems to have real trouble with the idea that affirmative action ever did anything you like.

And probably for Thomas, who has some personal affirmative-action related issues from his time at Yale.

[Artifex]

"The 1 schools he got into had affirmative action programs. He did not have the usual credentials to get into either of them."

Pretty impressive. A great way to make Thomas's point against affirmative action. When ask for confirmation that Thomas wouldn't have gotten into Holy Cross without AA, the bad faith bozo simply states "He did not have the usual credentials to get into either of them." and he assumes this is true because of the existence of an affirmative action program.

Neat trick for a racist twit such as Sarcastro. Offer affirmative action because there is no way the black man can do it on his own because obviously he is not qualified, then use the existence of the same affirmative action you have advocated to confirm he is not qualified. Just wow.

[Sarcastr0]

Thomas is a piece of shit, but he’s smart and deserves everything he got academically.

It’s your own ignorance if you want to insist saying that counts as denigrating his abilities.

A policy alternative hypothetical:
What if Thomas got in due to affirmative action? Your push is to avoid him feeling bad, you’d deny him all those opportunities.

And if he didn’t, then he still gets to become Supreme Court Justice, but I guess could feel a bit better about what his colleagues thought of him in the 1970s.

Doesn’t seem the cost benefit works out to for AA to be bad in this case.

[M L]

"He did not have the usual credentials to get into either of them."

[citation needed]

[Sarcastr0]

A black kid, raised in poverty in a broken home, first in his family to go to college?

It's pretty ridiculous to argue that's the usual background to get a full ride scholarship to an elite Catholic school in the 1960s.

[Artifex]

"What if Thomas got in due to affirmative action? Your push is to avoid him feeling bad, you’d deny him all those opportunities."

I wouldn't deny him jack. I don't care one whit about the color of his skin. He would get exactly what he had earned. If he didn't meet the criteria, he would go to a different law school, simple as that. I do understand. You don't believe in merit and for good reason. Being a hugely useless mediocrity, it would be very painful to believe otherwise.

My point is that there is a certain vileness and rot to the clowns pushing for affirmative action and then labelling Thomas as such. Hell, your own default is "he must have been an affirmative action recipient". Provide the data or buzz off racist twit.

[M L]

“A black kid, raised in poverty in a broken home, first in his family to go to college?”

Your argument is that because Thomas is black and was poor growing up, therefore he didn't have a qualifying LSAT score ?

Other than affirmative action, law school admissions is based on LSAT and GPA. It appears Thomas had a qualifying GPA.

[Sarcastr0]

Artifex thinks the meritocracy is perfect now, and was perfect in 1968.

He also think admissions is something you earn, not a projection of how well you will do.

ML think they key to getting into Yale in the 1970s was a ' qualifying LSAT score.'

I'm no big Thomas fan, but he has a great and fascinating story. You two are writing some *tales* of 1960s racial equality.

[Artifex]

"Artifex thinks the meritocracy is perfect now, and was perfect in 1968."

Actually, I think your attempts at telepathy are simply an indicator of your own stupidity. This one is called the fallacy of the excluded middle and is in fact one of your favorite. You assert that If I don't believe the first dimwitted Sarcastro assertion then I must instead believe a second dimwitted conclusion. It might not be clear to someone as dim as yourself, but this simply doesn't follow. No one ever said meritocracy was perfect now, in 1968 or ever. It's simply the standard dishonest Sarcastro strawman. I can easily believe that merit as imperfect as it is is simply better than your casual racism.

"He also think admissions is something you earn, not a projection of how well you will do."

I don't believe that either. Yet another dishonest strawman. That wasn't true in the 1960's and that isn't true now. Actually the problem of the 60's was that race mattered as much as merit in admissions. Your brilliant fellow travellers have attempted to solve this by making sure that race still matters as much as merit just you discriminate against a different group. That's the battle cry of the morons: I can't be racist, I am discriminating in favor of the "right" race.

Merit might be imperfect, but it allows a nice objective metric to avoid your usual racist bias.

[M L]

So because Clarence Thomas is black, he didn’t get a good LSAT score?

That’s what you’re saying, Sarcastro? My, my.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“His is a story of someone who turns out to be very smart, but who would not have been noticed were it not for the explicit diversity push in the late 60s and early 70s.”

Now if only you would post some evidence of that, other than assuming he benefited from the diversity push because he is black.

[Sarcastr0]

This lays it out quite well:
https://slate.com/podcasts/slow-burn/s8/becoming-justice-thomas

[Frank Drackman]

Well You're a bigger piece of shit, Sorry my Man Clarence doesn't have the "necessities" you think he required to get into Yale, who the fuck are you, Al Campanis Jr?

Frank

[OtisAH]

That’s very gracious of you but you’re still the big piece of shit around these parts, piece of shit. Let no one forget.

[Estragon]

Yeah but you should see him parallel park a 250k RV! Flawless, every time!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Getting Holy Cross college, and Yale, were both specifically looking to admit more blacks."

Ergo he was an AA admit? That's racist.

"And his race also helped getting Marshall’s seat in the Supreme Court."

Yup. There's no way the Dems were going to block a black man for that seat, no matter how conservative he was.

[Malika the Maiz]

So, you agree that those conservatives who argue that the existence of AA naturally taints the accomplishments of minorities in the places the policies existed are racists?

[Sarcastr0]

It's not racist, unless you think Thomas didn't merit admission.
Which I don't think has been borne out by history. Which shows Thomas as a triumph of the value of affirmative action in elevating talented people who would not otherwise get such an opportunity.

You have another opinion, I guess.

[Frank Drackman]

Hairy KKK Bird (D, WVA) tried, being the answer to the Trivia Question,
"Who was the only Senator to vote against BOTH Thoroughly Bad Marshall and Clarence "Frogman" Thomas"
and it's probably only available in the CSPAN Archives, check out Thoroughly Bad's retirement Press Conference, Deaf as a post, he answers every question "Whaaaaaaa?????????????"

Frank

[not guilty]

Uh, that was Robert Byrd. Harry F. Bryd, Sr. of Virginia was succeeded in the Senate by his son, Harry F. Byrd, Jr.

[Frank Drackman]

Hard to keep your DemoKKKrat Race-ists straight

[kramartini]

Clarence Thomas was passed over in favor of David Souter because he was being held in reserve to replace Thurgood Marshall...

[David Nieporent]

Thomas only had roughly 4 months on the bench when Souter was nominated; I don't think anyone would have confirmed him to SCOTUS with that little judicial experience.

[kramartini]

How much judicial experience did Kagan have?

[Sarcastr0]

Thomas was solicitor general?

[Frank Drackman]

So that's "None" first step is admitting you're an Idiot

[Kazinski]

How much Judicial experience did William O Douglas have.

As I’ve said before, Thomas had the thinnest resume of any Supreme Court Nominee dating back to Douglas, which was even thinner.

[not guilty]

"As I’ve said before, Thomas had the thinnest resume of any Supreme Court Nominee dating back to Douglas, which was even thinner."

Several members of the Court since Douglas have been appointed without prior judicial experience. Elena Kagan, William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas, Arthur Goldberg, Byron White, Earl Warren, Sherman Minton, Tom Clark, Fred Vinson, Robert Jackson, James Byrnes and Frank Murphy. Several of these had considerable political experience.

[David Nieporent]

And SDO'C's pre-SCOTUS judicial career didn't exactly amount to much either.

[Kazinski]

I said thinnest resume, not least judicial experience, Warren was a two term governor of California, O'Connor was in her 50's and both a state judge and and in the State Legislature for 6 years each. Fortas was under Secretary of the interior in 39, served six years then founded his own law firm and practiced law 20 years. Nothing thin about any of those resumes.

Douglas was only 40, and Thomas 43 when they were appointed. They weren't old enough to build resumes like that.

[not guilty]

At the time of their SCOTUS appointments, Sandra Day O'Connor had served longer on the bench than John Roberts or Clarence Thomas, albeit on less influential courts.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

J.D. Vance is an affirmative action hack. Most of the Volokh Conspirators were affirmative action hires. Donald Trump is a lifelong silver-spooner. You are just a white, male, right-wing bigot and disaffected culture war loser.

[Frank Drackman]

Ah, Revolting's still mad he couldn't get in Yale, or any Law School most likely, Arthur Fonzarelli had a better chance.

[Joe_dallas]

Glass ceiling?
One of the least qualified individuals ever to be nominated.

Though woke dei should be proud

[AmosArch]

The bulk of her career is in California and the most leftwing parts of it. Dems might as well pull a crown out and put it on the head of whoever they choose with how easy they have it over there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She doesn't have a chance BECAUSE of that -- B. Hussain lost his first race and learned a lot from that.

She got where she is the way women used to -- she slept with Willie Brown. She hasn't earned any of this.

[David Nieporent]

Not only does racist Dr. Ed not know Obama's name, but he does not know how to spell it.

I encourage him to keep claiming that successful women are all sluts, though. I encourage Trump to make that his campaign strategy, in fact.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You have once again revealed yourself to be either a racist, a misogynist, or both.

Bravo, you spineless piece of shit.

[Commenter_XY]

Heels Up is incompetent, and weak. I look forward to the debate, assuming she doesn't find a lame excuse to bow out.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is far more likely to bow out of debating than Kamala Harris.

[Commenter_XY]

🙂

We'll see, NG. It will be an interesting convention.

I wouldn't be too too quick to puff up VP Word Salad's debating skills. She is certainly a fitting standard bearer for that political party.

[CountmontyC]

As I recall that is what a large number of people were saying before the Trump-Biden debate and we know how that turned out.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Heels Up"

What is this childish, misogynistic stuff?

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.creators.com/read/dick-morris/03/19/kamala-harris-got-her-start-through-her-affair-with-willie-brown

[Malika the Maiz]

She got some appointments from someone she was dating? Well, we all know how much you hate nepotism, but that doesn't justify such puerility.

[Krychek_2]

Given what we know of Donald Trump's sexual history, the idea of the GOP campaigning on Kamala Harris' sexual history is beyond rich. And every time some Republican raises it, a million female voters will see the blatant misogyny and vote Democrat.

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, there is plenty of fertile ground to explore the depths of Kamala's incompetence from her stellar record of accomplishment as VP.

[Krychek_2]

If that's true then why are you guys harping on the claim that she slept her way to the top? That's the argument you make when you don't have anything else.

[Corve5]

Huge difference. Trump's inappropriate sexual history was to get this dick wet, not to get political favors.

[Krychek_2]

In point of fact, there is a long list of reasons why people have sex. For that matter, it's probably true that in general, the reasons men have sex are often different than the reasons women have sex. So while you can draw that distinction, to most women it's just going to sound like a rationalization for treating men and women differently. Men can do what they want but women are expected to be held to a higher standard.

[Corve5]

That's bullshit and you know it. If Harris had merely had an affair with someone in San Francisco, no one would have cared. But the fact that she did so with a political operative 30 years her senior makes it clear what she was doing.

[Krychek_2]

Men don't sleep their way to the top because they don't have to, and also because as a practical matter they have fewer opportunities. You may not get the realities of the situation, but I assure you women voters will.

[Corve5]

Most women I know are extremely judgey of women who sleep with their bosses. This is especially true for women who earned the careers the old fashioned way, through hard work.

[Krychek_2]

Are they also judgey of double standards? It's one thing to judge another woman in a vacuum; it's another thing when she and a man who both have sexual pasts are competing for the same position, and she is judged for it but he is not.

But go ahead and try to prove me wrong. Make it a campaign issue. See how it goes for you.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Most women I know are extremely judgey of women who sleep with their bosses."

Was he her boss?

[bernard11]

Most women I know are extremely judgey of women who sleep with their bosses.

Also of married men who are serial adulterers.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Most women I know

Speaking of referring to facts not in evidence...

[Malika the Maiz]

Is it supposed to be better that Trump fell out of the right vagina (inherited his wealth)?

[Brett Bellmore]

As a matter of fact, Trump was managing his dad's money for him for a quite a long time before he inherited. So he was largely responsible for a lot of the wealth he inherited.

[David Nieporent]

As a matter of fact, he wasn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, what is it with you just flatly denying easily verified information?

[David Nieporent]

What about that link do you think supports your claim that "Trump was managing his dad's money for him"?

[bernard11]

What the link says is that he went to work for his father, sometimes acted as a front because his father had a lousy reputation, and hadc a few projects of his own financed generously by his father who, among other things, was giving him $1M/year.

He also was found to have discriminated in his rental property and, along the way, was involved in a Broadway flop.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore “As a matter of fact, …..”

Sigh. Trump’s daddy gifted Donald a few tens of millions. He blew it all. Then daddy staked him again and Trump had success for a while. This was the period of Trump Tower and the highlight of his business career. But soon DJT was buying football teams, starting airlines, and bankrupting casinos. It all came unraveled in an orgy of meglomania.

Afterward, daddy kept Trump on a short lease. This was when DJT refined his huckster skills to make money on two-bit side scams. It also brings us to the point where Fred began showing dementia and Donald tried to get his sick father to sign away control of the family business to him alone. Trump’s mother heard about the scheme and intervened to stop it, but what a family, eh? I guess the monster of a father should have been proud his broken soulless boy learned his lessons so well….

Only when Fred died did the floodgates of cash open.

[Mr. Bumble]

Try this link:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/07/did-donald-trump-inherit-100-million/

[grb]

Or these. Money quote:

"The New York Times reported Tuesday that President Donald Trump received at least $413 million from his father over the decades, much of that through dubious tax dodges, including outright fraud. The 15,000-word Times report contradicts Trump’s portrayal of himself as a self-made billionaire who started with just a $1 million loan from his father.

The Times says Trump and his father, Fred, avoided gift and inheritance taxes by setting up a sham corporation and undervaluing assets to tax authorities. The Times says its report is based on more than 100,000 pages of financial documents, including confidential tax returns from the father and his companies."

https://apnews.com/article/0452d29cd2564eaf97605ab90acc3a67

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

[Krychek_2]

By the way, in 2020 when Pete Buttigieg was running for president, I asked in the comments section of a fundamentalist Christian blog mainly made up of Trump supporters why they thought Buttigieg's sexual conduct was disqualifying but Trump's was not. The rationalizations I got back were hilarious. And it's the same thing: All you're doing is showing your hypocrisy.

[Corve5]

That's because you think homosexual sex is just as morally legitimate as heterosexual sex.

[Krychek_2]

Ooh, both a misogynist and a homophobe. You're a twofer.

That’s because it is, and your side has completely lost the culture on that one.

[Malika the Maiz]

To be clear, you think a married man having sex with a porn star is less morally questionable than a man having sex with another man in a monogamous relationship?

[Corve5]

Yes. One is at least the form of what nature intended. The other is not.

[David Nieporent]

Nature isn't a person, and does not have intentions.

[Corve5]

Do you think the human bodies were designed for homosexual sex?

[Krychek_2]

If we did as nature intended we would stop eating dairy products since nature intended cow's milk for baby cows. We would stop practicing agriculture. We would stop wearing clothes. We would stop living in houses. If you're going to invoke nature, then you need to be prepared to do a full job of it -- let's go back to living in a state of nature and see how you like it.

As for human bodies being "designed" for gay sex, were they designed for air travel? For working in coal mines? For playing football? Again, be careful what you argue since you are then stuck with wherever that argument ends up taking us.

[Corve5]

If the anus was meant for insertions of objects, real or artificial, why does it not self lubricate?

[Krychek_2]

If humans were intended for surgery, why do we not self-anesthetize?

If humans were intended to get up and go to work, why do we need alarm clocks?

If humans were intended to die why don't graves just dig themselves?

I disagree with the whole line of "intended" argument because it's based on the flawed premise that someone intended it. But even granting it, again, be careful what you argue because you are then stuck with the results in other contexts as well.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think human bodies were designed at all.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Do you think the human bodies were designed for homosexual sex?"

Penises fit in there pretty well. You've never had any gal offer you that? I'm sorry.

What about blow jobs? Fit's naturally there, right?

[not guilty]

Corve5, do you believe that your dick is so sophisticated that it can discern whether the person sucking it is male or female?

Do you get as upset about male/female fellatio as you do about male/male?

[Krychek_2]

Not Guilty, there is a comedian who made the following observation: Straight guys like getting blow jobs. Women in general do not like giving blow jobs, but gay guys do. So the obvious, make everybody happy solution is to put straight guys together with gay guys. That way, straight guys will be happy because they're getting blow jobs, gay guys will be happy because they're giving blow jobs, women will be happy since they're not being bothered, so what's not to like?

[Randal]

Do you think the human bodies were designed for homosexual sex?

Obviously, yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose the most cogent argument is that nobody was claiming that Trump's sexual conduct was one of his qualifications, quite the opposite: It counts against him, just not decisively so.

While the left is big on treating sexual deviance as a plus factor, rather than simply an irrelevancy. Which is why the Biden administration has so many prominent weirdos like Levine or Brinton in it. They go out of their way to hire them.

[Krychek_2]

I'm not aware that either Buttigieg or any of his supporters argued that being gay was a qualification for the job. The closest thing to that argument that I heard was the diversity argument that we're better off with a wide range of experiences.

But what makes you think heterosexuals don't campaign on their heterosexuality? How many candidates publish photos of themselves with their wives and children and pass themselves off as good family men? What is that if not running on traditional values being a plus?

[Joe_dallas]

Krychek_2 34 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I’m not aware that either Buttigieg or any of his supporters argued that being gay was a qualification for the job. The closest thing to that argument that I heard was the diversity argument that we’re better off with a wide range of experiences.

As buttigieg has demonstrated, we would better off with someone with experience which provide actual expertise and compentency to do the job.

[Sarcastr0]

the left is big on treating sexual deviance as a plus factor

[Don Nico]

Actually there is no upside for Trump to debate Harris.

[bernard11]

Well, I'm not so sure.

If he's such a genius and she's as dumb as some of the commenters claim wouldn't it lock up the election, and maybe help some down-ballot Republicans, making his agenda easier to pass.

Also, if he doesn't there is the "what is he afraid of" issue.

Of course, since the first point is hypothetical maybe he would rather deal with the cowardice issue than debate.

The thing is, Trump's performance in the first debate was abysmal, rescued only by Biden's disaster. He dodged issues, lied nonstop, and was generally incoherent. Does he want to risk that again?

[Don Nico]

I agree that he did poorly but he was outshone by Bidens lack of performance.

If he does debate, it is to his advantage to schedule the debate late in the campaign.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She’s incompetent and weak.

You are a right-wing fringer, a superstitious bigot, and part of the reason Israel is headed toward demise.

Everybody has problems.

But someday you will have a bacon cheeseburger, my treat. Maybe someday soon.

[Frank Drackman]

Again with the Threats, Internet Tough Guy, maybe one day you'll have your mouth surgically separated from Mick Jagger's Penis, maybe someday soon. (Like when one of a pair of Conjoined Twins dies, the other goes within a day or 2) Mark my words Conspirators, when Mick finally assumes Room Temp the Revolting Reverends posts mysteriously cease.

Frank

[AmosArch]

Since Kamala is black and a woman (the definition of woman suddenly becoming clear in this case) and joedallas criticized her he is automatically a racist and a misogynist. I guess that must mean notguilty is a racist too since he/she/zhe/zhe/zhir/xe/xem/xyrs/ver/vir/vis/te/tem/ter/e/em/eirs/they/it criticized Thomas. And openly on this very same thread. What a shameless display.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why is she "black"? She's 50% Indian on her mother's side, and mixed ancestry on her father's side, and anybody who looks at her can see which predominated.

I find it hilarious that the foremost proponents of the one drop standard today are Democrats. Though I guess I shouldn't, they were its proponents during Jim Crow, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

She is black for the same reason Barry is black; you get a "get out of jail free" card for being a racist.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you ever read David Bernstein's posts on race in America?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and the last time I had to fill out paperwork, (Online, actually.) with a new doctor, they not only asked me for my sex assigned at birth, my gender, and my pronouns, they also asked for my race, to be selected from a drop down list of something like 200 options.

It's still really stupid that Harris gets treated as "black" when she's obviously Indian. But I guess it was the most politically advantageous fraction of her ancestry to acknowledge.

[Sarcastr0]

If you understood David Bernstein than you'd understand that race in America is very much about vibes, especially when it comes to mixed race.

You can insist she's obviously Indian. But obviously isn't going to sway anyone. And saying she's only black because it's 'most politically advantageous fraction of her ancestry' is too steeped in racial grievance to play with anyone who isn't just looking for reasons to hate on Harris.

[M L]

"David Bernstein demonstrated that the federal government's racial classifications are farcical nonsense, so that gives me permission to racially classify people in whatever way is politically convenient even if it makes no sense."

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not classifying her as anything, ML.

[M L]

“David Bernstein demonstrated that the federal government’s racial classifications are farcical nonsense, so that gives me permission to defend my side's racially classifying people in whatever way is politically convenient even if it makes no sense.”

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty sure she's seen as black to most everyone but you few weirdos on here.

The oppo push is going great, guys!

[not guilty]

Brett, why do you fault a doctor for wanting to avoid making a new patient uncomfortable, even inadvertently? I suspect that the doctor's purpose in seeking that information was to facilitate open communication with a patient, which can be critical in providing better health care. That's hardly like Dr. Gregory House ordering burglaries as a diagnostic tool.

Perhaps P.C. stands for plain courtesy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would you think that failing to ask a patient about things that are completely irrelevant to medical care would make them "uncomfortable"?

In fact, I chatted with the receptionist while waiting on my appointment, and she told me they'd just changed office software, and were actually kind of embarrassed about some of the stupid things it defaulted to asking people about, that they had no use for.

[not guilty]

Brett, do you really think that a patient's race is "irrelevant to medical care"? That is stupid even coming from you. Race (in some cases) can be highly relevant to medical diagnosis and treatment.

And some patients are indeed uncomfortable if they are misgendered. The biological sex can be relevant, especially if different from the patient's gender presentation. Consider, hypothetically, a patient who had undergone surgical sex change. Don't you think that a physician would want to have that information, whether the patient volunteered it or not?

[Mr. Bumble]

So what's Obama's race? What's Kamala's race?
Like Dr. House used to say: Everybody lies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I think a patient's "race" is irrelevant. More to the point, so do they! They didn't ask for the software to interrogate incoming patients about all this crap, it just came as a default on some new office software, unasked for, and they think it's ridiculous.

It's an ENT office, not a psychiatrist's office. They're going to fix my broken nose so that I can finally breath through it, not treat my delusions.

[Sarcastr0]

Look up the history of medicine and it's perception of black pain tolerance, Brett.

Race - as in the perception-based social construct, matters.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are literally using a history of wrongfully conditioning treatment on race as an excuse for why doctors need to know race. Do you even realize that's what you're doing?

[Sarcastr0]

Making explicit what is implicit is one great way to avoid that kind of nonsense.

Pretending to be colorblind is a great way to just ignore how much you care about race.

E.g. your 'She's obviously Indian' push. How objective of you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, yeah, "We need to know your race so that we can make sure we don't take it into account!" Not, you know, so that the quotas can be hit.

The stupid thing is, you probably actually think that makes sense.

[Sarcastr0]

It is! Plus if you’re going to talk about stuff like pain tolerance or vaccines or other stuff with a racial history, how someone identifies is part of what you should pay attention to.

Just on a human level.

You and I are white and don't see that kind of thing because we are the default. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

[Don Nico]

ng,
You know that is not the reason for the question on the forms.
If you or I asked that question of an interviewee, we'd be in trouble and rightly so.

[not guilty]

Different racial groups are more or less susceptible to certain illnesses or injuries. That is important information for a treating physician to know and to take into account where applicable.

[bernard11]

Why not take ten seconds to answer te questions instead of getting yourself lathered up about it?

I mean, there might even be situations where some of that matters, even though you didn't learn about them at the Bellmore School of Medicine.

[Don Nico]

I agree that one should not get "lathered up." Just decline to answer.

[Malika the Maiz]

It's certainly not uncommon for Americans who are part Irish to refer to themselves as Irish.

[Frank Drackman]

Well we do change our names occasionally (it was O'Drackman in the old country)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

If the subject comes up, I call myself French/German/Irish. Except on St. Patrick's day, of course.

Why would I slight 3/4 of my ancestors?

[Malika the Maiz]

That's nice you do that, but are going to try to argue that it's not common for people to refer to a part of their actual heritage?

Also, Harris herself often references the other parts of hers.

[Don Nico]

Sure, because she is a child of privilege.

[Malika the Maiz]

What do you mean by this comment?

[Joe_dallas]

Don Nico 33 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Sure, because she is a child of privilege.'

Malika the Maiz 4 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"What do you mean by this comment?"

Malika - Nico's comment is valid - are you unaware of her family history?

[Sarcastr0]

She can't say she's African American because she didn't grow up poor?!

Someone said that with Harris out in front, the right will be unable to avoid making it weird...

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the idea is that publicly identifying as "black" rather than Indian was her way of making up for growing up privileged.

[bernard11]

Once again, when someone Brett dislikes says something it must be part of some devious scheme, not just an ordinary statement.

[Don Nico]

"She can’t say she’s African American because she didn’t grow up poor?!"
The typical bs I have come to expect from gaslight0.
Is he suggesting that she is not a child of privilege. Or does he think only whits are to be subjected to that comment?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm struggling to figure out what you mean by your 'Sure, because she is a child of privilege' comment in reply to 'it's not common to people to refer to a part of their actual heritage' (or I think that's the salient part of the comment you were replying to.

You're right - I probably got what you meant wrong. Because I really am trying to parse what you said.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - - of course you are struggling with basic concepts.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "...was her way of making up for growing up privileged"

On the other hand, this country has a long tradition of holding people as black even if they're only partially so. What do you think her classmates in school considered her while growing up as a child? I'm guessing she's had people see her as black her entire lifetime, despite the Indian ancestry.

And most right-wingers would be first in line to do so, despite this sad attempt to mine a little countervailing snark.

[Joe_dallas]

Jason Cavanaugh 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"You have once again revealed yourself to be either a racist, a misogynist, or both."

Strong words coming from the person (and the political party ) that believes you have to be racist in order to prove you are non-racist.

[Malika the Maiz]

Recognizing reality includes racists, racial stereotypes and such =/= "being racist"

[Joe_dallas]

malika - Its one thing to be aware of the history of races and racism, Its another thing to consumed with racism which has become a badge of honor in the woke democrat party. The democrat party was repeatedly required near total allegience to racism in the the form of CRT, DEI , quotas, etc.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So to be clear, since none of what you just wrote is true, and I've denounced political parties easily one hundred times over the years on this blog, you're not just some combination of a racist or a misogynist as proven by your lies about Harris, but you're also some kind of inbred retard?

No wonder you refuse to post under your own name, and instead run a series of sock-puppet accounts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Joe_dallas:
She hasn't been nominated yet and she was assigned the second spot in 2020.
Remember, she pulled out in 2020 even before Iowa because she had no support.

[Riva]

But such charisma. And intellectual depth.

[Malika the Maiz]

How is she one of the least qualified candidates to be nominated? Former DA, AG, Senator, VP. What were Trump's qualifications in 2016?

[Don Nico]

Let's start with she is not very smart.

[Mr. Bumble]

As witnessed every time she opens her mouth.

[Malika the Maiz]

And Trump was very smart (Bumble infra, as usual unwittingly, helps here)?

[bernard11]

How smart do you think Trump is? Listened to his speeches lately? Mostly incoherent BS, and when he says something coherent it’s generally extremely stupid.

[Frank Drackman]

makes perfect sense to me, of course I'm only a Physician who in a field that requires a mastery of Physiology, Pharmacology, Fluent in 2 Languages (English(open to debate) German), Imbecile level in 3 others (Hebrew, Spanish, Italian) unlike Pete Booty-Judge I don't claim to be fluent in an obscure language by reading a Novel, maybe you should stick to a Candidate more your level, like Shiela Jackson Lee

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"Former DA, AG, Senator, VP.

Credentials are not qualifications.

[jb]

So...how else would you propose to measure qualifications?

[Bob from Ohio]

Accomplishments in those offices that can by traced to the effort of the office holder. Failures [like being the "border czar" for instance] being deducted.

[Don Nico]

Let's see. How well did she do on the CA Bar Exam? Why did she only get into Hastings and not Boalt Hall?
But more than that, I see her performance for the many years I lived in the Bay Area.

[Frank Drackman]

By Height, pretty sure "45" has her there

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is how Backwater Bob wound up proofreading downscale residential deeds in Dumbass, Ohio despite holding a law degree.

[FivebySixThree]

Some really suspect Joe did this without permission, he was only supposed to step aside and let the DNC select the nominee at the convention but being annoyed to say the least at being pushed aside he threw them under the bus.

[not guilty]

Uh, whose "permission" do you surmise that Joe Biden needed, FivebySixThree?

[Malika the Maiz]

"Some really suspect"

Lot of people are saying!

[Riva]

Fortunately, Democrats, the guardians of democracy, don't give a crap about the democratic primary process. But how else could they save democracy but by disregarding it and installing the party elite's choice?

[Malika the Maiz]

No one has been installed. Biden said he endorsed Harris and she said she would win the nomination. She is not the nominee currently, the delegates have to vote.

[Riva]

Didn’t say they would chose to install her sport. Apparently that’s for the party elites to decide.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Didn’t say they would chose [sic] to install her sport."

"installing the party elite’s choice"

Lol.

[Riva]

Yeah. Hilarious. Almost as funny as the basket of deplorables joke. How’d that work out for last time?

[Frank Drackman]

Still love how Art-sy Fart-sy Hillary Rodman had to have a "Basket" of Deplorables, most people would say a "Shit Can" "Ball Sack" "Cock Holster" but Hillary had to have her "Basket". Almost as blue-blood pretentious as Willard Romeney in 2012, I hope he's fucking Hillary behind William Juffuhson's Back (You know he doesn't want to) They deserve each other

Frank

[Don Nico]

Even you are not that naive.

[Riva]

Although, in the end, I suspect democrat greed will decide it. If she happens to be the only candidate who can keep all the donations, she’ll be in. What is in the best interests of the country will not even factor into the elite’s analysis.

[Kazinski]

I wonder if she will last long enough as the nominee to make a debate with Trump.

She's got 4 weeks until the convention, and she has to show she has more of a chance than Biden did, or she may be out too.

But one thing she's got going for her, the topic has been changed from Biden's debate, and the Trump assassination attempt, but that is nowhere near enough, but one or two halfway decent polls would be good.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, what about Heels Up has fundamentally changed where anyone thinks she can attract voters. She repelled Democrat primary voters last time, they went with the empty-headed vessel.

Her support is evanescent. It will dissipate the moment she opens her mouth.

[Jonathansingletary]

I don't understand "Heels Up," can you explain it to me?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don’t understand “Heels Up,” can you explain it to me?

Is it comfortable in that cave you've been living in for the past 4+ years?

[Jonathansingletary]

Very!

[Jonathansingletary]

Also, can you explain it to me?

[Kenneth Almquist]

It’s a sexual reference. We probably don’t want to delve any deeper into Commenter_XY’s sexual fantasies.

[Kazinski]

Well I have to say I’m not really enamored with the Heels Up nickname either. First of all I’m not into slut shaming.

But second as a native of the Bay Area, Willie Brown is a legend, and I won’t criticize her relationship with him. And not just a legend of the left, back in the 70’s he was one of my favorite politicians right up there with Jerry Brown. And even after I became more conservative there was the time he made a few back room deals with the Republicans to maintain the assembly speakership when he was on the outs with the new Democratic leadership.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is like when you wondered if Crooks was Chinese?

[Kazinski]

I didn't wonder at all, the NYpost reported it, as often happens in a chaotic situation with differing eyewitness reports. Probably because Crooks was slight of stature.

[David Nieporent]

She’s got 4 weeks until the convention, and she has to show she has more of a chance than Biden did, or she may be out too.

The Dems scheduled a virtual convention to pick their nominee by early August. They still intend to hold the in person convention, but the nomination will have already been determined.

There is nobody else. Harris has the organization, the money, the name recognition, the vetting. Nobody else is going to launch a national campaign from scratch within 2 weeks. (Not to mention that pretty much every plausible option has endorsed her.)

[Frank Drackman]

Virtual: (adj)
1: being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted
"a virtual dictator"
2
: being on or simulated on a computer or computer network
print or virtual books
"a virtual keyboard"
: such as
a
: occurring or existing primarily online
"virtual shopping"
b
: of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality
"a virtual tour"
3
: of, relating to, or using virtual memory
4
: of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence
"virtual photons"

I'll give you that, Common-Law's about as "Virtual" as you can get

Frank

[Kazinski]

They said it was too late to replace Biden too. Nate Silver also says, the early August deadline is not a hard deadline anyway.

Nothing says confidence like we have to rush this through, before anything else happens.

“To be thus is nothing, but to be safely thus…”

- Kamala Harris

[Theendoftheleft]

The glass ceiling of openly anti-democratic shifts in puppet leaders?

Yes, bravo Yankee Doodle. The world is REALLY impressed by your recent machinations.

[Malika the Maiz]

What's your country?

[Frank Drackman]

Glass ceiling sounds like a bad engineering design, like Screen doors on a Submarine.
Oh, "45" won't be the reason Common-Law-Willie-Brown-Harris won't debate, she did so well in the 2020 Cam-pain, and I'd love to hear her talk about how well she did(does?) as "Border Czar"

Frank

[David Nieporent]

I wonder if Trump will have the guts to debate her.

He will not. He is already trying to back out of the debate he previously agreed to.

[Mr. Bumble]

You realize she is not the Dems candidate for president yet?

[Malika the Maiz]

You might want to point this out to so many conservative commenters here like Theendoftheleft, Riva, etc.

[Riva]

Don’t drag me into this, that’s a choice for the democrat party elites. They’ll install who they want, for the benefit of the party of course.

[Malika the Maiz]

Mr. Bumble 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You realize she is not the Dems candidate for president yet?

Riva 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Fortunately, Democrats, the guardians of democracy, don’t give a crap about the democratic primary process. But how else could they save democracy but by disregarding it and *installing the party elite’s choice*?

[Riva]

My comment speaks for itself. The party elites will install their choice, be it Kamala or someone else. I suspect it will be Kamala for money reasons alone if only she can keep the donations but that’s beside the point. Nothing in my statement says the elites will chose that cackling DEI hire. You’ll have to deal with your own reading comprehension skills in the future because I’m not going to explain it to you again.

[Theendoftheleft]

How are you dragging me into this either? All I did was point out how your regime is shifting puppets, irrespective of who the incoming one is.

Your institutions (political, media, etc) propped up a non-compos mentis geriatric as POTUS for well-nigh two years, gaslighting the world about his mental state. Now, after an ugly-but-necessary 'public debate', they pulled the rug on his running again, only a few months before the election. There will be no REAL democratic input into who the candidate shall be, which is no surprise.

Who is supposed to believe in the credibility of your institutions after this? Who is going to believe YOU?

You're discredited, globally.

I don't give a damn about your American 'conservative', 'liberal', and 'progressive' labels, and certainly don't believe for one moment they have any real explanatory power when it comes to how your core institutions actually operate.

Make the world an objectively better, and more just, place by blowing your brains out. Don't be selfish; don't make your fellow Americans do so after the November election.

[Malika the Maiz]

Mr. Bumble 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You realize she is not the Dems candidate for president yet?

Theendoftheleft 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
The glass ceiling of *openly anti-democratic shifts in puppet leaders*?

[Armchair]

"He is already trying to back out of the debate he previously agreed to."

Well, he agreed to debate Biden. If Biden's no longer running for president, there's not much point in debating Biden.

[jb]

Oh look, and they've already got the talking points out to justify it.

[Don Nico]

There is no need for talking point, only for cold calculation. At present there is little or no upside for Trump.

[David Nieporent]

The upside for him is that he is rightly going to be deemed chicken if he refuses. If I'm Harris's campaign team, "Donald is scared to debate me" is said in pretty much every single campaign event, every single ad, every single medium from now until November (Obviously the downside for him if he does debate is that he acts like he usually does and reminds people why he's so unpopular.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope she calls him a p_ssy and has a guy in a chicken outfit follow him around. Have the chicken carry two enormous KFC buckets and yell ‘snack delivery for a fat old man.’

[Armchair]

And Trump simply says...

"Call back when you're actually nominated, I've already debated one fake nominee."

[Theendoftheleft]

How do you justify, to the world, Biden’s having been POTUS for the last couple of years, given his actual mental state?

How do you justify your corporate and alternative media’s treatment of your commander in chief, given his obvious decline? (Does it render valid an inference that your media might have systematically lied to the world, or omitted key matters from us, about other important things as well?)

Who is meant to trust or believe you, ever again? We, your allies in the rest of the West, certainly cannot.

Indeed, why would your Trumpians give a shit what you think about anything ever again—including about your desire for you and your loved ones to live a peaceful life in the USA?

[Malika the Maiz]

What country are you from/in?

[jb]

Cool non sequitur, bro.

[Theendoftheleft]

God, you're dumb. It's about the talking points you need...

Do you even know what 'non sequitur' means, Yankee Doodle dipshit? (Not that you can answer any question honestly...)

[jb]

The topic was talking points for Trump skipping the debate not talking points for the debate you're having with yourself.

[Theendoftheleft]

Keep providing evidence of your stupidity. The replacement candidate NEEDS talking points viz why Biden was only replaced NOW, after all this time, and why nothing was done long beforehand. This, let alone how his image was protected...

The world will be a better, smarter place when those Trumpians finally go after you and your family.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Oh look, and they’ve already got the talking points out to justify it.

Even you can't be that stupid.

[Malika the Maiz]

I know you are, but what am I?

[jb]

Remember when you got offended last week when I pointed out you're all ad hominem and no substance?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, because I didn't get offended. I simply pointed out how stupid and hypocritical your comment was...which is not an ad hominem, by the way.

[Theendoftheleft]

The irony here being that you don't know what an 'ad hominem' fallacy is either.

Not that you understand irony, of course, Yankee Doodle simpleton.

[CountmontyC]

As I said above a lot of people on the left thought that Trump would chicken out of that first debate against Biden. How did that turn out?

[Malika the Maiz]

Turns out he seems to be trying to chicken out of one with Harris...

[Don Nico]

"chicken out"
Grow up.

[Malika the Maiz]

Out of all the juvenile things on this thread you think "chicken out" is the hill to die on?

[Don Nico]

It is no hill. It is your chicken shit.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The absurdity of clutching pearls over that with everything else flying around here, Malika the Maiz isn’t even the one who said it first!

[CountmontyC]

When did he agree to debate Harris? Shouldn't Harris get the nomination first before there is any negotiation for debates between the two? And do you really believe that a man who stood defiant against an assassin would be afraid to debate Kamala Harris?
https://images.app.goo.gl/M4kx9gSWZ9wftJ5q8

[David Nieporent]

I think Donald Trump is one of the biggest pussies in American history, and that he "stood defiant against an assassin" in much the same way that he served in Vietnam.

[CountmontyC]

One guy gets shot and stands defiant. Another guy gets a bad cold and drops out of the race.
https://images.app.goo.gl/gN5sP2db45eFuGLU8

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, you stand downrange and have someone shoot YOUR ear off and then you can call him a pussy.

Fuckhead.

You know, heel spurs would make his shoes come off -- and prevent him from hiking through the jungle.

[David Nieporent]

OK, you stand downrange and have someone shoot YOUR ear off and then you can call him a pussy.

Shoot his ear off? I've gotten worse injuries from papercuts.

[Sarcastr0]

It was a bandage-at-the-convention level injury, not a bandage-on-the-golf-course level injury.

[CountmontyC]

Which candidate was taken out by a cold and which one is still going despite being shot at by a would be assassin?

[Noscitur a sociis]

OK, you stand downrange and have someone shoot YOUR ear off and then you can call him a pussy.

Huh? Are you saying that you think Trump knew that he was going to get shot ahead of time?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He will not. He is already trying to back out of the debate he previously agreed to."

Huh? Seems like Biden backed out of that one when he backed out of the candidacy.

[Malika the Maiz]

I agree, people should hold that backing out against Biden and reconsider their vote for him, and likewise for Trump.

[M L]

"He is already trying to back out of the debate he previously agreed to."

Trump is trying to back out of debating Biden?

[Josh R]

Once she is the nominee, Harris should immediately accept Trump's previous challenge to Biden to debate with just the two of them sitting next to each other, ala Gore/Perot (NAFTA debate, 1993). If necessary, we can dig up Larry King from the grave.

[Corve5]

I expect her to win. Stealing the election again wouldn't have been believable with Biden as the candidate, but with her it is.

I'm sure Stacy Abrams is already getting ready to harvest black votes all over Georgia again, and the Democrat Party controlled supreme courts are working overtime to make sure harvesting, ballot stuffing, unmonitored boxes, and other cheating tactics will be allowed.

[Sarcastr0]

Stealing the election again

Oh you're one of those nutters.

Well, off to mute with you!

[Don Nico]

"another bit of the glass ceiling is giving way"
It was by default. Had Harris won a single delegate I'd be more impressed.

[hobie]

For anyone who paid attention, Trump's singular drive for running for president was to get revenge on the mean negro that made jokes about him and hurt his feelings at the Correspondents Dinner in 2011. It would be a nightmare for Trump if he lost to a black woman (women also being a group of people he has special antipathy for)

[Frank Drackman]

Besides Killing Bin-Laden, incentivizing "45" to become "45" were Barry Hussein Osama's biggest accomplishments, I'd put him on Mount Rushmore (not a carving, actually banish him there) just for those alone.

Frank

[Joe_dallas]

I am all in for Harris. She helped make San Francisco the wonderful place it is today. She was instrumental in passing an essentially “free shoplifting law” in CA that gives deserving people up to $950 a day. This really helped the poor drug users.

[David Nieporent]

She was instrumental in passing an essentially “free shoplifting law” in CA that gives deserving people up to $950 a day.

Wow, that voter fraud is getting extreme. Kamala Harris personally submitted 4.2 million ballots?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh come on. Sonja T didn't even say she was a but-for cause or anything, just that she was instrumental. Clearly there were people instrumental in getting the initiative passed: it certainly wouldn't surprise me if Kamala Harris wasn't one of them, but the concept of her doing so isn't inherently ridiculous.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This seems like a more substantive rebuttal.

(To be clear, my point is that if this is the best they could come up with to ding her in connection with it, I don't think there's much room for criticism.)

[myself]

From the day after the debate I thought Harris v. Trump was close to inevitable.

I now think she'll likely win.

Trump has gone two cycles seeming energetic against terrible candidates. Hillary hated the media and had terrible charisma (and campaign managers, "I'm with her"). Biden was visibly old with a raspy voice last cycle, and still beat Trump.

I don't think Harris is the most talented politician, but she's young and sharp and a break from the current drama which I think is more than enough to beat Trump.

[Joe_dallas]

It’s been known by honest observers that Biden’s was suffering from serious levels mental decline for the last four years. Yet the msm & the democrat power brokers covered for him while most lefty commentators on this blog were fooled

[AmosArch]

Libbies up until a couple months ago: Joe is undeniably the absolute best qualified person in the entire world to be President, and if you disagree at all you are a dangerous right wing conspiracy theorist extremist!

Libbies today: Joe who? Kamala is undeniably the absolute best qualified person in the entire world to be President and if you disagree at all you are a dangerous right wing conspiracy theorist extremist!

[Sarcastr0]

Haha not many said Biden was the best in the country. Lack of enthusiasm within his constituency was a well known issue with Biden.

By contrast look a the cult of personality worship of Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think Trump is the best in the country for the job. My top choice for ideology would be Rand Paul, and for mixed ideology/relevant experience, DeSantis. And there are probably a hundred utterly obscure people out there who'd be better than both at BEING President, but lack the skills to BECOME President.

I just think Trump beats all hollow anybody the Democrats might plausibly nominate. If they nominated Gabbard I'd really have a tough time saying Trump would be better, but we all know that isn't happening.

Incidentally, the original purpose of the EC was to avoid the chief qualification for President being your campaigning skills; The EC was supposed to be figuring out themselves who'd be a good President. Obviously never worked that way...

[Mr. Bumble]

Tulsi's take on Kamala and endorsement of Trump:

https://x.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1815122213479276897

[Sarcastr0]

We all know you're 'just the tip' on MAGA, Brett, even as you think the 2020 election was messed with by courts ruling bad and January 06 was an FBI put-up.

You're your own special brand of politically crazy; most of MAGA is full-on cult down to Trump's weight and golf scores.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You’re your own special brand of politically crazy;"

Well, at least you got one thing right. Very few Trump supporters are disillusioned anarcho-capitalists who came to the GOP from the LP.

[Currentsitguy]

My support comes from an entirely different place. I am thoroughly convinced Washington is broken beyond repair and cannot be reformed or repaired as currently constituted without utterly destroying the systems and institutions that operate and service our government. For the very reason some of the most extreme criticisms and warnings about Trump is why I support his election. I think he is well suited to bring it all down so we can start rebuilding with a figurative clean slate.

I am reminded of Jefferson;
"Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."

[Sarcastr0]

Nah the tree of liberty bloodthirsty thing is center mass MAGA. Nationalist-populist-authoritarian claptrap.

You've chosen not to be special; you've chosen to be the exact same kind of truly vile human most MAGA tend to be when the post on the Internet.

[Currentsitguy]

Actually the part that interests me is:

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion."

We are long overdue for a house cleaning and then some. No one, public or private, should be able to build an entire lifetime career from government, either in it, or supporting it.

[Brett Bellmore]

His point there was not that rebellion was good for government, but rather that a complete lack of rebellion would not indicate that everything was fine, but instead that the people were apathetic. Because even if everything WAS fine, people would mistakenly rebel occasionally if they retained any sense of independence.

And an apathetic people would not retain their liberty. He was right about that, we didn't.

[Sarcastr0]

Currentitsguy, Permanent Revolution was tried; it turns out to be bad.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you generally agree with the idea that organizations should not value experience? If not, why is government different?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I think he is well suited to bring it all down so we can start rebuilding with a figurative clean slate."

Yeah, I had really hoped that he'd pull a Samson in the Temple after the 2020 election. I really don't have any such hopes at this point.

[Currentsitguy]

You're missing my point. I think it will happen in spite of his intentions. Between the absurd hysteria of many in DC, the utterly intransigent "movers and shakers" who never change, and Trump's inability to get out of his own way, especially now where rightfully or not, he is pissed off, I just see, or at least hope to see, Washington destroy itself.

[Sarcastr0]

House cat.

Dependent on institutions he does not understand but hates them and still thinks he's independent.

Till he needs something.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"House cat."

Why am I not surprised that bureaucrats see citizens and taxpayers as pets.

Government workers actually think their roll is equivalent to going out, earning money to buy cat food, and pouring some in people's bowls.

Talk about depending on institutions you don't understand.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t mention myself as part of that at all, TiP.

Currentsitguy hoping Washington destroys itself is silly independent of anything I’m doing.

I’m not in an institution that anyone relies on other than some university science departments.

So quit doing some strawman telepathy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It still speaks volumes about your attitude between the relationship between citizens and the government.

It's precisely the attitude that I expect from bureaucrats.

[Sarcastr0]

It still speaks volumes about your attitude between the relationship between citizens and the government.

That I think it is stupid and ignorant to wish Washington destroys itself?

No, it means I'm a normal sane person.

And you are looking to pick a fight.

[jb]

You know the guy was already President for 4 years, right? And basically did a bad job of implementing bog standard Republican policy with a little dose of trade protectionism built in.

Like I said in last week's open thread, for some reason people confuse the fact that the guy breaks norms of civility and think that's going to translate into breaking the norms of governance. Since he's a billionaire who bigly benefits from the fundamental structures of America's society and economy, that seems pretty naive. But I guess you can get off on him being rude to people at least.

[Corve5]

I'd rather have a rude boorish man than an evil man or woman trying to implement the left's agenda, which is outright dangerous.

[Malika the Maiz]

The problem with breaking everything is assuming things will be built back better.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem isn't just that things are bad, but that they're trending worse. And when things are trending worse, you need to break up the status quo, if only so that the crash comes before things have gotten so bad it's unsurvivable.

Sure, breaking up the status quo creates the possibility things will get a lot worse, but it introduces the possibility they'll get better.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Sure, breaking up the status quo creates the possibility things will get a lot worse, but it introduces the possibility they’ll get better."

Conservatives!!!

These people are Jacobins.

[bernard11]

How are things trending worse? That's an utterly bizarre statement.

What are you talking about?

[Corve5]

It depends on what you define as better. I'd prefer a right wing military dictatorship that brutally subjugates anyone who is deemed a threat to the regime over full Democrat Party control.

[David Nieporent]

I think he is well suited to bring it all down so we can start rebuilding with a figurative clean slate.

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

[Krychek_2]

If you want to compare the two, can anyone imagine Trump putting the interests of the country and his party ahead of his own ambition the way Biden did yesterday? Ha ha no.

And if that shoe were on the other foot and Trump had had to drop out because of his health, I have no doubt Biden would have found something gracious to say about him, unlike Trump's comment that Biden is the worst president in US history.

Biden is going out classy. Trump just redefined juvenile.

[Commenter_XY]

President Trump was nearly killed by an assassin's bullet, incited in part by rhetoric from POTUS Biden. A real class act. You're right.

[Sarcastr0]

The evidence is that this guy was not incited by anything either side said, actually. His phone looks to include searches for both candidates, and Trump was coming closer to where he lived. (as well as a search for "major depressive episode").
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/rally-shooter-had-photos-of-trump-biden-and-other-u-s-leaders-on-his-phone-sources-say\

It was as apolitical as this kinda stuff can get. But won't stop you from fact- free blaming Biden.

You're pathetically grasping at straws.

[Brett Bellmore]

Assassins are usually some kind of crazy, and it wouldn't shock me to find he was a nutcase like Hinkley.

OTOH, you can certainly blame the current administration for Trump's security being 2nd class. It's now been learned that they've been shorting his security of resources for at least two years now.

[SimonP]

It's all a massive conspiracy! I mean, until you look at the details.

I agree that one of the mistakes that the Secret Service made, for the Trump shooting, is designating part of the area (including where the shooter positioned himself) as local police's responsibility. Local police proving once again that they're incompetent, right?

Like - this is the argument you're actually making, Brett. This administration didn't grant all of Trump's security requests! What did they do instead? The provided cheaper alternatives and coordinated with local partners on security. Which is what they did for Trump's rally. So you're left actually pinning the blame on the brave boys in blue, you know?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Is that the Biden administration mantra? The buck stops with local law enforcement?

[SimonP]

No, I don't think it should be. I think the head should resign.

But that's the essence of Brett's criticism. The Secret Service let Trump down by not itself securing the roof where Crooks positioned himself? Sure, I'll buy that. But they didn't because they trusted local cops to do it. Oops!

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. There's no way a roof 120 yards away should have been outside of the USSS perimeter.

2. The House Dems are currently trying to extort an anti-gun soundbite out of Cheatle, and she's not giving it to them, so it looks like she'll have to resign.

[Sarcastr0]

By all means investigate and reform the Secret Service. There seems bipartisan support for that.

That does not mean Brett's 'they were intentionally negligent hoping Trump would get shot' theory is anything other than his usual hogwash.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A roof 120 yards from the opposition candidate was left unsecured by the current president's security apparatus.

That doesn't prove malfeasance, but the possibility should be investigated and hopefully ruled out, not dismissed out of hand.

[Sarcastr0]

Me: "By all means investigate and reform the Secret Service. There seems bipartisan support for that."

You: "the possibility should be investigated and hopefully ruled out, not dismissed out of hand."

????

[TwelveInchPianist]

You conveniently omitted from your quote the part where you dismissed the possibility out of hand.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, you really do mean *organizational* malfeasance. Not that the Secret Service is messed up, or badly organized, or some toxic culture or anything like that.

You mean it should be investigated not just that the didn't do a good job, that that they didn't do a good job trying to get Trump killed.

Yes. I don't think you should investigate stuff that there's no evidence of other than vibes and paranoia.

In general, if you find yourself going all in to endorse some Brett speculation, you should probably check yourself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, what's the point of the investigation if you already know the answer.

The evidence of malfeasance here is the level of risk to Trump, plus the inadequacy of the official explanations "We couldn't put people on the roof because it was sloped", etc.

[Sarcastr0]

The evidence of malfeasance here is the level of risk to Trump, plus the inadequacy of the official explanations
Yeah, vibes.

what’s the point of the investigation if you already know the answer.
You're excluding a lot of middle between 'SS did nothing wrong' and 'SS tried to get Trump killed.' The gulf in between is where we are, and calls for an investigation even if you think the 'SS tried to get Trump killed' is nonsense without some actual evidence beyond appeals to vibes.

But you know all that. You're just fucking around I guess.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"calls for an investigation even if you think the ‘SS tried to get Trump killed’ is nonsense without some actual evidence beyond appeals to vibes."

That's just your vibes. That's why we investigate.

But the fact that Biden's incompetence almost got his political opponent killed is still pretty bad.

[Sarcastr0]

“The evidence of malfeasance here is the level of risk to Trump, plus the inadequacy of the official explanations”

This is an appeal to incredulity based on arbitrary thresholds, nothing more.

When I say vibes, this is what I mean.

The burden is on Brett (and you, I guess). So I'm not the one that needs to worry about vibes-based evidence.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is an appeal to incredulity based on arbitrary thresholds, nothing more."

No it's not. You should learn what these phrases mean if you're going to use them.

But your elimination of potential malfeasance as a cause of the failure is based on an appeal to incredulity, and nothing more.

Malfeasance is a potential cause of the USSS failure, and the burden is on you to rule it out before claiming it shouldn't be investigated.

[Sarcastr0]

Conspiracy by passive voice and misreading articles.

Call yourself an anarcho capitalist all you want, this tin foil nonsense is your bread and butter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The evidence is that this guy was not incited by anything either side said,"

Are you using the actual definition of incitement, or the much looser one that you used to defend the NYT?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm using what appears to have been the motive. If new evidence comes to light, I'll change my opinion.

What I won't do is write fan fiction and play semantic games because I ached to blame the other side and can't.

[David Nieporent]

incited in part by rhetoric from POTUS Biden.

There is no evidence of that — unlike evidence that Trump incited the J6 insurrection.

[Commenter_XY]

David...Time will tell. Of course, we have no daily update from an investigation telling us more about Crooks, or his history, or his motivations. Amazing to me the paucity of information about an assassination attempt on the leading candidate for President (if polls are to be believed).

There has been incessant incitement against Pres Trump for years. You can't credibly tell me the rhetoric didn't play a small part, David.

[not guilty]

"Of course, we have no daily update from an investigation telling us more about Crooks, or his history, or his motivations. Amazing to me the paucity of information about an assassination attempt on the leading candidate for President (if polls are to be believed)."

How gracious of you to acknowledge that. Based on the dearth of information currently available, it is reckless in the extreme to blame Joe Biden for Crooks's conduct.

[Commenter_XY]

How interesting there is a dearth of information, NG.

[Sarcastr0]

The proof is the lack of proof!

[not guilty]

Commenter XY, if you were an LEO investigating whether Crooks had accomplices, would you rush to put investigative details before the public?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, any assassination attempt on a leading presidential candidate would have wall-to-wall coverage with the MSM screaming for answers. And there would be daily updates from the LEOs. But I realize it is (D)ifferent with President Trump.

The MSM and a fair number of those DC jackals and hyenas and vultures are sorry Thomas Crooks missed, and have said so, gleefully. And a goodly number of VC commenters, too. FTR, I do NOT include you in that group. You're a dedicated partisan, and I respect that. I have close family who are dedicated D partisans. They (and you) draw the line at killing presidential candidates.

Do you trust the FBI to conduct an impartial and thorough investigation and go wherever the evidence leads them? I do not. There are (R)easons to believe they will lie, obfuscate the truth, misrepresent material facts to judges. Look at their (the FBI, and other assorted alphabet agencies) track record when it comes to President Trump.

Biden's rhetoric contributed, NG. There is no getting away from that.

[David Nieporent]

Biden’s rhetoric contributed, NG. There is no getting away from that.

There is, in fact, getting away from that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Biden’s rhetoric contributed, NG.”

This used to be a very common position on the left.

But even if Biden’s rhetoric contributed, so what? The fact that some rando might overreact can’t prevent people from criticizing each other.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Time will tell" or are you already sure of it? We know you're already full of it.

With your utter lack of principles, it is no wonder that you support Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

There is support, and then there is holding your nose and voting for the least worst. That is where we are, as a country. Is anyone happy with that state of affairs? No.

If the choice is Chase, Kamala or President Trump....which of that group has actual job experience as POTUS?

Maybe the Democrats can stick a political shiv into Kamala and come up with a better, more compelling candidate to vote for. They've already had practice with the empty-headed vessel (sticking him with a political shiv).

[jb]

Trump has experience doing a terrible job at POTUS. I'm not saying this from a policy perspective, but other than being in office to nominate three Supreme Court justices, what do you think the guy actually accomplished?

(I actually think he did two things well, one of which was rapid development of COVID vaccines, but somehow I doubt that's why many Republicans are voting for him.)

[Commenter_XY]

jb, give me an economy where the lowest 40% on the socioeconomic scale have real wage increases greater than the top 10% on the socioeconomic scale. Give me low inflation, low interest rates. Cheap gas and low energy cost was wonderful. And a world where we are not having to spend national treasure on war, but instead talking to adversaries and making peace. Our border was a hell of a lot more secure. Nobody was snatching Americans hostage. And btw, my investment portfolio did far better in real terms under Trump; yours probably did too (2022 was disastrous for investors with bond holdings).

Contrast with the mess we have presently. The poor are losing ground. Interest rates are quite high. Inflations cumulative impact has made life even harder for the poor. Gasoline is up nearly 50%. Hamas mocks POTUS Biden and abuses our American hostages. Nobody fears him, or respects him; they laugh at him (Putin, Khameni, Un, and others). The Houthis are taking on the USN, and beating them; the USN efforts to stop the Houthis have utterly failed. We cannot even build a temporary pier that works right.

And Kamala can run on that record.

[jb]

I asked what Trump did, not what magical circumstances he lucked into. You did highlight the one other things he did well, which was to put pressure on the Fed to keep rates low even as unemployment decreased, which resulted in some real wage growth. Of course, this was a bit of a risk in terms of inflation, but COVID insured we didn't end up finding out one way or the other.

As for the rest: Trump spent a bunch on COVID relief, just like Biden. Domestic oil production is up under Biden. What do you think Trump was doing to keep inflation and gas prices down? The higher crime you are worried about indisputably started under Trump and has come down under Biden. Trump inherited a great situation from Obama and turned it into a dumpster fire by the time he left office.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's mostly about what Trump DIDN'T do, such as not trying to suppress domestic energy production.

[jb]

LOL, domestic energy production is way up under Biden, as is permitting. (This may be yet another example of even if you agree with Trump's policies he was terrible at implementing them, but the results speak for themselves.)

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter: "Time will tell."

Commenter later in the comment: "You can’t credibly tell me the rhetoric didn’t play a small part, David."

Fact free and all over the map!

[BrotherMovesOn]

"The Houthis are taking on the USN, and beating them;"

Where else do you do 'stand-up'?
Hysterical clown

[Malika the Maiz]

"Time will tell."

But XY will boldly declare it until that time comes!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Crooks was a white, male, disaffected, downscale Republican. A misfit and loner. A gun nut. A loser living with his parents in a tiny house with 20 guns and explosives inside, Trump/MAGA signs outside on the lawn. A natural Volokh Conspiracy fan.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah.

One way to tell what a good act this was is how all the liberal places I read are pretty happy and unified and buzzing basically as though there had just been a convention.

And all my righty places are full of angry, frustrated people.

And Trump's still attacking Biden. Breakups are hard.

[David Nieporent]

Did you see where Trump ranted that the GOP had been "defrauded" by the Democrats because Biden stepped aside? (His ghoul/associate Stephen Miller did the same.)

[Armchair]

Well, if you have a debate in good faith against the Democratic nominee for President, held early at the Democratic nominee's request...

Then the nominee suddenly says "whoops, it's not me anymore".

There's a reasonable case to be made that a bait and switch was pulled.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"There’s a reasonable case to be made that a bait and switch was pulled."

Only if you're an absolute partisan dipshit who ignores the reason why the candidate pulled out.

[Armchair]

And what reason is that? And did that reason exist before the debate, that you deliberately scheduled early?

[OtisAH]

Nobody is surprised you missed the past three-plus weeks of media stories across all platforms reporting polls showing and otherwise announcing Biden hemorrhaging support, including near daily instances of the most recognizable Dems saying he should step down.

This is why you removing “Lawyer” from your appellation was a bigger decision than simply admitting you know fuck all about law, even for an amateur. It was you also admitting you’re little more than an empty piece of furniture.

[Armchair]

So "losing support in the polls" is the reason Biden is pulling out of the race? Really?

[David Nieporent]

So “losing support in the polls” is the reason Biden is pulling out of the race? Really?

Really. Though indirectly, of course. He pulled out of the race — past tense — because he lost support from his supporters. And he lost support from his supporters because he lost support in the polls.

Not gonna pretend that the Dems are saints or anything; if Biden were up by several points in all the relevant polls and had that same debate performance, they'd have overlooked it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"if Biden were up by several points in all the relevant polls and had that same debate performance, they’d have overlooked it."

Absolutely. This is all about the concern that Biden wasn't just going to lose, but would drag the House and the Senate down with him. Which is a perfectly reasonable consideration in politics!

The only thing pathological here is that they were concealing Biden's true condition through the primaries. If they'd been honest about it, the primary voters could have picked this year's nominee, rather than the party bigwigs.

Maybe they wanted to avoid that, but I suspect it was just about Biden being in deep denial about his condition, and not wanting to have the fight to get him him out of the way be public.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Really. Though indirectly, of course. He pulled out of the race — past tense — because he lost support from his supporters. And he lost support from his supporters because he lost support in the polls."

Huh? Candidates support fluctuates in the polls all the time. Normally, a presumptive nominee who is behind goes out and runs a campaign, to try and increase his support. He doesn't pull out after the primary and before the campaign.

Is there any reason that the party thought such an approach wouldn't be effective for Biden?

Biden won the primary, although very few primary voters had an opportunity to vote for anyone else. Why would they suddenly change their minds, unless information was being withheld from them?

[not guilty]

"This is why you removing 'Lawyer' from your appellation was a bigger decision than simply admitting you know fuck all about law, even for an amateur. It was you also admitting you’re little more than an empty piece of furniture."

The late Conway Twitty sang:

So don't call him a cowboy
Until you've seen him ride
'Cause a Stetson hat and them fancy boots
Don't tell you what's inside, no
And if he ain't good in the saddle
Lord, you won't be satisfied
So don't call him a cowboy
Until you've seen him ride

Armchair, f/k/a Armchair Lawyer, is just one of a passel of dilettantes, each of whom has never tried to persuade a judge or jury of anything, that this blog's comment threads attract. Their blather about what they suppose to be the law is as useless as teats on a boar.

[David Nieporent]

Is there any reason that the party thought such an approach wouldn’t be effective for Biden?

Sure: because his debate performance (and subsequent attempts to rehabilitate himself) made it appear that he was no longer capable of vigorously defending his record or attacking Trump's.

It's one thing to have to play catchup; it's another to have to do so when you've torn your ACL.

[Armchair]

Sorry David....

You're missing the reason WHY Biden why losing all that support. Or avoiding saying it, for cutesy reasons. That reason is ultimately why Biden pulled out.

[Don Nico]

Mr Biden was not part of some bait & switch. He was humiliated, stabbed in the back by his political friends, and in the end, he was broken. Moreover, he was objectively not up to the job.
Give the guy a break

[David Nieporent]

You’re missing the reason WHY Biden why losing all that support.

No, I'm not missing it. I explained it above: because people no longer had confidence he could make the political case for himself/against Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the kind of childish 'it's not fair!' MAGA butthurt that has me momentarily optimistic.

[Armchair]

"Biden is going out classy."

Biden is being forced out. Don't kid yourself here.

[Malika the Maiz]

I would think Trump supporters might have some trouble with the concept of someone leaving as opposed to being forced out...

[Krychek_2]

The point is, though, that there isn't enough force in all of physics to get Trump to do the right thing under comparable circumstances. With his own ambition at stake, he'd have stayed in the race to the end and then claimed the results were stolen.

Biden is going because he saw the writing on the wall, yes, but once he had been persuaded that leaving was the best thing for everyone, he did it. It was one of his final acts of leadership.

[Armchair]

Whenever you claim what you think Trump would do...it's really a poor argument.

It just lets you put your preconceptions in. Evidence based arguments are far better.

[Krychek_2]

All right, what do you think Trump would have done under similar circumstances? And don't you dare respond that you don't know because there isn't enough evidence; lack of evidence has never in the past kept you from taking positions.

[Armchair]

I think, that under similar circumstances, the media would not have covered for Trump nearly as well as it covered for Biden.

I think if Trump was in the same mental state that Biden appears to have be in today, there would've been 25th Amendment articles running non-stop for the last year.

I also believe Trump didn't have nearly the same level of support from the Administration that Biden has, and the leaks would've come non-stop. And that if Trump, when President, gave the type of debate performance Biden did...he would've have been told to resign or 25th Amendment-ed out by the end of June.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, great dodge. You did everything except answer my question, which was what do you think Trump would have done under similar circumstances.

[David Nieporent]

I think if Trump was in the same mental state that Biden appears to have be in today, there would’ve been 25th Amendment articles running non-stop for the last year.

Trump has been in that state for 8 years now; it's just that his supporters don't care.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Trump has been in that state for 8 years now

You're not even pretending to have a grip on reality anymore.

[Malika the Maiz]

"You’re not even pretending to have a grip on reality anymore."

I know you are but what am I?

[Joe_dallas]

avid Nieporent 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User

I think if Trump was in the same mental state that Biden appears to have be in today, there would’ve been 25th Amendment articles running non-stop for the last year.

"Trump has been in that state for 8 years now; it’s just that his supporters don’t care."

Typical dishonest statement from DN

[Kenneth Almquist]

Trump has been in that state for 8 years now.

Some examples:

1) May 10, 2017: Trump provides information about an ISIS terrorist plot to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and gives them the name of the city where Israel obtained the information. Israel had provided the information to the United States under an agreement where the United States would not share the information without permission. Trump either had a mental lapse or intentionally undermined security cooperation between Israel and the United States.

2) October 6, 2019: Trump agrees that Turkish leader Erdogan can attack the Kurds. October 19: Trump announces sanctions against Turkey for assuming Trump meant what he said in the Oct. 6 phone call.

3) March 11, 2020: Trump addresses the nation from the Oval Office to explain his COVID policy. Quoting Kevin Drum:
President Trump said that (a) we would ban all travel from Europe, (b) we would ban some or all trade with Europe, and (c) insurance companies had agreed to waive copays for coronavirus treatment. All of this was mistaken. The travel ban applies only to foreign nationals, not US residents. No trade is being banned. And insurance companies are waiving copays only for coronavirus testing, not treatment.

[David Nieporent]

Trump has been in that state for 8 years now; it’s just that his supporters don’t care.

You’re not even pretending to have a grip on reality anymore.

I rest my case.

[Armchair]

Under similar circumstances, Trump would've been forced to resign, and he would have.

[not guilty]

"Under similar circumstances, Trump would’ve been forced to resign, and he would have."

Trump would have been forced to resign by whom? And by what method of coercion? What consequences would have attached to his refusal to resign? Please be specific.

[David Nieporent]

Under similar circumstances, Trump would’ve been forced to resign, and he would have.

Empirically false, since he wasn't forced to resign under those circumstances. Trump wasn't even forced to resign after he committed outright crimes.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Armchair. Trump would have been forced to resign by whom? And by what method of coercion? What consequences would have attached to his refusal to resign?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Trump is too old to be President. For one thing, I hear his ears are shot.

[Don Nico]

"what do you think..."
Why is that question relevant to anything?

[David Nieporent]

All right, what do you think Trump would have done under similar circumstances?

The MAGA response to the events of yesterday reveals the answer: they were clearly caught totally flat-footed by Biden's decision, utterly unprepared to respond, because they knew that Trump would never do the same and therefore assumed other people wouldn't either.

[Malika the Maiz]

They'll work out a consistent talking point in a few days.

[Don Nico]

"because he saw the writing on the wall"
He left because he was driven out by the rich and powerful in the Dem party.
Doing so was not an act of leadership; he was broken by his "friends."

[Sarcastr0]

Looks to me like Biden waited to see if the furor would die down, and it got worse, so he dropped out.

Reporters with insider access are writing about a lot of opinions and a lot of chaos.

All part of the elaborate set-up by the Khive, I guess.

[OtisAH]

His getting Covid was the rotten cherry on top. I think even without it his support was unrecoverable. But he might’ve been able to keep his chin up, ignore the noise, and perhaps people would have finally shrugged and got on board. But take him out of the public eye for a week with Covid while Convicted Felon Jesus Trump sleeps his way through the convention, and any possibility of that evaporates.

It’s just too bad he didn’t announce a half hour before Convicted Felon Donald Christ took the stage Thursday. But Dems always miss those opportunities.

[Corve5]

You realize that the "convicted felon" BS doesn't sway anyone outside of die hard liberals, don't you?

[Krayt]

Right or wrong, legally, it wouldn't have happened but for deliberately going against a political opponent, as one of many initiatives. Kings of yore went on fishing expeditions because they knew if they looked hard enough, their opponents, often themselves wealthy and powerful, and their fingers in many enterprises, almost certainly violated something.

This is why fishing expeditions are denied, and not really to protect yokels in the street, though it does that, too.

[Corve5]

Isn't that my point?

[OtisAH]

Whether you’re just another alt for one of the regular band of shit birds, high school dropouts, and/or propagandists, or some new rando who’s popped up to say more stupid shit, I have no interest in “swaying” you towards anything. If you support Convicted Felon Trump, you’re un-reachable.

[David Nieporent]

You realize that the “convicted felon” BS doesn’t sway anyone outside of die hard liberals, don’t you?

We shall see.

[Corve5]

I'm not saying people won't vote against Trump. I'm saying the show trial done in New York by a racist black Soros DA isn't going to be the determining factor.

[David Nieporent]

We shall see.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, worthless right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war roadkill.

Carry on, clinger.

[Don Nico]

Going out classy? You're kidding. He was broken by being backstabbed so many times in the past 3 weeks; it was pathetic.

[David Nieporent]

It’s been known by honest observers

Objection: you're unqualified to discuss what honest observers think.

As evidenced by the fact that you're lying here.

[Joe_dallas]

I said Honest observers - everyone knows that doesnt include you

[FivebySixThree]

I wonder how long before they sycophants in the MSM trot out he is too old to be President for Trump. With Biden stepping aside they have no further use for him which means his failings are no longer to be protected if the same can be applied to Trump

[Krayt]

Some of us had already long arrived there with both. But that's just a second reason to vote against Trump. And Biden. You can see the reasonable person's dilemma. They even coined a new term, "double haters".

Sigh. Let tanks roll through Europe, or reward people who took 20% of your savings.

[Corve5]

Which side is which of your choices? Who is advocating to roll tanks through Europe?

[Krayt]

Why Donald Trump wants tanks rolling through Europe! I am shocked this is news to you!

Doesn't he, and his talking heads, bring up shameful reasons to abandon Ukraine? Like "soooooooo much money, fuck 'em!"

The Russian state TV once said, "Thanks, Gramps!" to the Republicans doing Trump's bidding. Actually, they've said it twice, now.

[Krayt]

"It wouldn't have happened under Trump!"

1. Maybe. Probably not, given rhetoric.
2. So what? A wise man once said, "You get the country you get, not the one you wish you got." when taking power. Abandon now, then?

[Corve5]

Most Americans are isolationists now. You're behind.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Are the Americans who are now flying Israeli flags next to their Trump flags isolationist?

[Don Nico]

"commentators on this blog were fooled"
They deceived themselves.

[Bob from Ohio]

"most lefty commentators on this blog were fooled"

LOL

They weren't "fooled", they were gaslighting on an epic scale.

[Joe_dallas]

Fooled or gaslighting or deceiving themselves - Whichever it is, it speaks very poorly of their honesty and intellect.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or they are fools.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Gaslighting and lying are not synonymous. How on earth do you imagine anyone here is trying to gaslight you? You all sound like such fools when you misuse that term. Among other times.

[AmosArch]

So who gets the credit for all the wonderful things that Biden supposedly accomplished and fixed in his Residency after twiddling his thumbs for decades as a powerful politician under the horrible system he supposedly 'fixed' these past few years?

I guess now Joe really wasn't as involved and responsible as we've been led to believe and it was really Kamala that was running the whole show?

[Sarcastr0]

Last time I saw Resident it was a Birther push.

You really are playing all the hits, eh?

[Bwaaah]

Reductions in illegal border crossings, inflation, crime and global conflicts...these were the great accomplishments of Joe Biden's administration. Don't be bashful now.

[Sarcastr0]

Utterly unresponsive to what anyone here was talking about.

[not guilty]

The stars seem to be aligning in favor of Kamala Harris's nomination for President. It is fitting that one who spent most of her public life prosecuting crime will take on Donald Trump, who spent his public life perpetrating crime.

I doubt that Trump will have the stones to debate her.

[Kazinski]

“I doubt that Trump will have the stones to debate her.”

That lacks perception even for you, Trump has never lacked overconfidence. He can’t wait to debate her.

Trump actually got some criticism on the GOP side for agreeing to debate Joe under the conditions Joe set with two Trump haters as moderators. But he really wanted to get Joe up there in front of the cameras for an extended period without a teleprompter, and the rest is history.

But maybe also you should go back to look at Harris and her debate performances and let us know just what she brought to the table to get 0% of the vote in the Democratic primaries in 2020. Her campaign fell apart and she withdrew before the first primary or caucus.

Its not about Trump being a great debater, its about Kamala following Joes footsteps and being her own worst enemy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that the walls didn't just close in but collapsed after the Biden/Trump debate, I doubt that any Democrats are anxious to see a Trump/Harris debate.

[David Nieporent]

Biden demonstrated at the debate that he was too frail to campaign for president. Trump demonstrated at the debate that he's too non compos mentis to campaign for president. Democrats are salivating at the prospect of Harris going up against Trump, who got slaughtered in said debates by Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. He was too cowardly to debate DeSantis et al. in 2024, and in 2016 he was scared of Megyn Kelly, and then when the GOP field narrowed so that he might have to debate Cruz 1-on-1, he again pussied out.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Frail" is a stupid euphemism for "mentally compromised", Nieporent, meant to deny the obvious.

He's repeatedly tripped on stairs, and it hasn't crippled him. Somebody who was genuinely "frail" couldn't say that. For a guy his age, he is absolutely NOT "frail". Physically he's doing pretty well for his age.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't know how frail he is, but I understand his ears are shot.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Biden demonstrated at the debate that he was too frail to campaign for president.

You're more full of shit than the 8 cubic yards of cow manure I had trucked in to fertilize my garden.

Democrats are salivating at the prospect of Harris going up against Trump

Your state of mental health does not appear to be good. Get help.

[Malika the Maiz]

I know you are but what am I?

[not guilty]

A Trump-Harris debate will be a career prosecutor versus a career perpetrator, with the electorate serving as the jury.

[Mr. Bumble]

I see you were copied in on the Dem blast memo.
I'm sure all the POCs she "prosecuted" will be lining up to endorse her.

[not guilty]

I have getting emails from Joe Biden's campaign (and now from Team Harris) several times a day. I delete them without opening them. I can make better use of my money than sending it to political campaigns.

[Frank Drackman]

and don't forget, she's also the "Border Czar"!!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Not Czarina?

[David Nieporent]

Trump has never lacked overconfidence

Not even remotely true. He's a bully, and like all bullies, a coward. In fact, he has repeatedly backed out of debates when he thought he'd do badly and thought he could get away with it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump has never lacked overconfidence. He can’t wait to debate her."

Exactly, like Biden, one of his flaws is "smartest man in the room" egotism.

[Corve5]

Independents don't like nasty, angry black, or half black, women.

[Riva]

I would say lying for years to the American public about Joe’s mental competence is one of the greatest crimes in the history of the republic.

[Sarcastr0]

MAGA melodrama won’t play beyond MAGA I expect.

[David Nieporent]

One of? Well, surely behind Trump's attempt to overthrow the government, as well as Trump's spiritual predecessors' levying war against the country to protect slavery.

[Riva]

President Trump’s “spiritual predecessors” were democrat slaveholders? Who knew? Does he still talk to them? Or maybe I should ask since you seem so knowledgeable on this arcane subject, do you talk to them? Do you see ghosts, David?

[Malika the Maiz]

He just wants to keep their monuments up!

[Riva]

Slaveholders like Washington? Jefferson?

[Malika the Maiz]

And those Confederates!

[Riva]

Now do the Charlottesville lie.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Trump’s spiritual predecessors’ levying war against the country to protect slavery

You're crossing (or already have crossed) over into Rachel Maddow levels of unhinged idiocy.

[Malika the Maiz]

I know you are but what am I?

[Krayt]

I’m mad I didn’t see this. Oh I expected Biden to step away like most. But the past few days high pols who had pretensions to replace him suddenly fell in line. So. It would be up to the donors to crack it open.

After, I realized that may have been more like the opening scene of Darkest Hour. Parliament is ripping Chamberlain a new one. At the end, one conservative says to another, where’s Winston? His chair is empty, with his bowler sitting on it.

“Making sure his hands are not on the murder weapon.”

Several top Dems called for him to step down, then fell in line the past 24 to 48 hours. Now back at it. Hands off the murder weapon, then smile and step away, concerned as he falls and they try to catch him. Rats! Not quite. Oh well!

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was the fundraiser yesterday on Martha's Vinyard that did it.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t know what you are intimating here.

[Krayt]

That politicians are weak, pandering manipulators.

"Get out!"
Looks like he may actually get out. "I support you!"
He gets out.
"He's gone, pick me!"

[NOVA Lawyer]

Which, actually, is precisely not what has happened here. So far nearly all prospective rivals to Harris have announced support for Harris. Not exactly a "pick me" chorus.

[OtisAH]

.

[Michael P]

What can be, what can be, thank God Almighty: We have the opportunity to see what can be, unburdened by what has been.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Informed by the significance of the passage of time.

[Commenter_XY]

So Biden has been forced off the ticket. What a surprise. That old man was just an empty vessel surrounded by Washington DC vultures, jackals and hyenas. Where are they now? They have abandoned him, having used him.

These are very sick and evil people, the DC vultures and jackals and hyenas that shamelessly used an old man to further their political and ideological aims. They did this knowingly. They pushed out a diminished old man, who has embarrassed and humiliated himself in front of the entire world. And this country. In a just world, those vultures, and jackals and hyenas will suffer a cruel fate.

Look how DC jackals and hyenas turned on him. Just like that. Those DC politicos saw his weakness and attacked him like a pack of wild, rabid animals. And you trust them?

Biden, the empty headed vessel, should resign immediately. If he doesn't have the cognitive ability to debate and run for office, then he should not have the office.

[Mr. Bumble]

If he resigned it would put the spotlight on and show a younger "empty headed vessel".

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Receptacle?"

[Mr. Bumble]

For Willie Brown's willie? Yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yes: If he resigned office, too, then Harris would be visible actually trying to do the job, and perhaps they agreed that this would be fatal. Or maybe they just wanted her schedule free to campaign 100% of the time?

But I think the more straightforward explanation is that Biden needs to personally remain in command of the pardon power past the election, so that he can protect his son.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is dumb.

The debate sealed the public's perception of Biden. He hasn't admitted he isn't up to the job of President, rather he has acknowledged the reality that he is declining, is not up to the job of campaigning (which bears almost no relationship to the actual job), and likely will decline too far in the next four years to be up to the job. But the public perception and his deficiencies in ability to effectively campaign are the primary factors. He doesn't need to remain in control of the pardon power, that's just projection from MAGA.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's the rationalization I expect got him over his denial that he had dementia, because it doesn't require him to admit that he's currently incapable, just that high might be within 4 years.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Which undercuts everything you wrote before. Thanks for the honest assessment.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see how it undercuts it.

I think he's been aware for sometime that he has a problem, but has been in denial. Like I said, a guy who genuinely didn't think he had dementia would not have reacted with such an angry refusal at the suggestion he be tested for it. That's classic denial.

That he might be incapable of performing the job some time in the next 4 years is a kind of halfway position that allows him to rationalize acting on that knowledge without fully confronting an unpleasant reality.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The simplest explanation, which you agreed to, is that Biden didn't want to leave the race, partly because he was likely in some denial about how much he has declined, but ultimately was persuaded that he wasn't up to prosecuting the case against Trump (i.e., campaigning) and, regardless, public perception, whether accurate or not, would all but doom his campaign. Neither of those involves any acknowledgement by Biden or his people that he really ought to resign immediately because of any health or cognitive issue.

There's no need to add on unnecessary theories about him thinking Harris would make a muck of the job or that he was only holding on to retain pardon power. Those are not the simplest explanations, they are Rubes Goldbergian complexities rather than an Occam's Razor.

So, yeah, accepting the simple and obvious explanation, as you did, absolutely undercuts all of the conspiracy-like speculation about why he stepped aside in the campaign but didn't resign the office. You just want to believe something nefarious.

(On the cognitive test issue, you claim with no proof that Trump took one. You say being insulted by the suggestion one needs a cognitive test is an indication that one is needed. What is it when you lie that you "aced" a cognitive test?)

[Don Nico]

Mr Biden had a few sharp knives directly at his financial jugular. He is still savvy enough to know that he was doomed and would be cursed the remainder of his life. So he did the "honorable" thing. Who can blame him?

[Kazinski]

Well its politics, and its not like Joe was the second coming of Mother Teresa.

And the bloodletting might not be over. I actually have to admire the handling of the timing, and the execution by the Democrats. They poleaxe Joe and anoint Harris as the overwhelming choice.

But its still 4 weeks before the convention. In reality she needs to show she has more of a chance than Joe did, or they will poleaxe her too. Of course the other contenders or power players might also decide no one has a better chance than her, and Kamala is as good a sacrificial lamb as any. But make no mistake, if she under performs, she is likely out in 4 weeks too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Has Hillary Clinton's head exploded yet at the idea that the first "woman" (what is a woman?) president might be Kamala?

[Commenter_XY]

What I found fascinating was Nancy Pelosi, a DC hyena, sticking the 'stiletto' into Kamala, too. She shiv'ed both of them. Cold-blooded, almost like a reptile.

[David Nieporent]

You've been writing bizarre fan fic on this, and I really have no idea what this even purports to refer to.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/us/politics/nancy-pelosi-joe-biden-drop-out.html

Fan fiction from the Old Grey Hag, David.

Pelosi failing to endorse the VP is a stunning political betrayal. She was always good at inserting the stiletto, I grant her that.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Pelosi reportedly pushing out Biden shows what an anti-democratic hyena she is, and her then not trying to anoint a successor shows...wait, I'll come back in!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You seem to have a problem with educated, modern, successful women, XY. I ascribe this to your gullible nature (adult-onset superstition), right-wing bigotry, and bitter, disaffected nature.

[Brett Bellmore]

He should have at least demanded that she also drop out of the race.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Pelosi has in fact endorsed Harris.
Do you spend a lot of time making up animal names for Americans who hold different political views than your own?
Very mature.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He is a childish, gullible wingnut, flailing because he hates modern America.

[Commenter_XY]

Biden, the empty-headed vessel, was the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter, not Mother Theresa.

Look how they turned on him. And they told us he was sharp as a tack. And they attacked him, acting like sharks in the water, feeding on bleeding sea carrion.

If they treat the Biden, the empty-headed vessel, like this....how will they treat you? Do you trust them?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget what Ted Kennedy did to Carter in 1980 -- or that the delegates are only bound to their own idea of who their state CURRENTLY wants to nominate because of Kennedy's rule change.

Riot Chicago......

[hobie]

Commenter_XY the last year: Attacks Biden.
Commenter_XY this week: Look at all these sharks attacking Biden

[Commenter_XY]

What I said was look at the jackals, hyenas and vultures around him. Their behavior are like sharks smelling blood in the water. And it is true. And it is revealing.

Look how his friends (jackals, hyenas, vultures) turned on him.

What do you think they would do to you, hobie?

[Sarcastr0]

Their behavior is exactly what you've been demanding.

You turned on a dime.

[David Nieporent]

They did not, in fact, "turn on" him. What Trumpkins fail to understand — or they wouldn't be Trumpkins — is that it isn't about the candidate.

[Commenter_XY]

They turned on him, David. He is not the candidate anymore, after dozens and dozens of his 'rock solid supporters' called for him to exit the race. The facts don't lie.

The Democrat primary voters were cynically used.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why are you worried about American liberal-libertarian mainstreamers? Shouldn’t you be focused on Israel’s right-wing belligerents and how you will handle it when Israel gets closed out?

[David Nieporent]

The Democrat primary voters were cynically used.

What do those words even mean? Used by whom, in what way, for what?

[OtisAH]

Pick a fucking metaphor already!

[Frank Drackman]

2019 Common-Law-Willie-Brown-Harris calls Sleepy Joe a Race-ist for not supporting Forced School Bussing in the 1970's
2020 Common-Law-Willie-Brown-Harris accepts VP position (probably missionary, it's Sleepy Joe) on Biden-Willie-Brown-Harris ticket.
You think Sleepy got any "additional considerations" for giving Common-Law the spot?

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter howls for Biden to get out. And now he's mad that he did.

On behalf of Biden himself, it looks like.

How openly insincere.

[Commenter_XY]

Better do your resume, Syphillisto. January 22 is not far off.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll be fine.

Not sure you will be - you're so mad that the thing you wanted has come to pass!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You better find another parasitic, theocratic, war-crimping, bigoted right-wing country to root for, XY. Your current crush seems destined to be . . . crushed.

[Krychek_2]

Why do Republicans want him to resign when it would give Harris the advantage of incumbency?

[Commenter_XY]

Incumbency of 90 days is long enough for Heels Up Harris to open her mouth and convince all American voters, not just Democrat primary voters, of her leadership qualities (there are none).

The moment she opens her mouth, she will remove all doubt. It will be an electoral blowout.

[Krychek_2]

Just keep calling her Heels Up; every time the GOP calls her that, it loses a million female voters.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I think women get more pissed, not less. Because her past behavior feeds the stereotype, a grifter who slept her way into a position. And then turned on her benefactor, after getting the goods.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, appeal to women via slut shaming and pointing to a successful woman and claiming she slept her way to the top.

Truly you are a next-level feminist here.

Did you get divorced recently? That would explain the turn you've made

[Don Nico]

She did sleep her way onto the track in SF. But at least it was with a savvy political mentor

[Malika the Maiz]

That's messed up. She had a relationship with a guy and he appointed her to some boards. No one can say how much the relationship mattered to the appointments, or how much the appointment's led to her later success (which, of course, eclipsed Brown).

I mean, if that game is played, how much did Vance's relationship with Peter Theil lead to his later accomplishments?

[Don Nico]

C'mon. That got her the job as assistant DA.
Willie Brown is not just some guy. I'm not blaming her or him for that. They were both consenting adults. It is you who call it a game, not me
But it did launch her career.

[Sarcastr0]

You are making some shitty assumptions.

Good luck with trying to play that in public.

[Joe_dallas]

Those shitty assumptions are accurate. you are entitled to you opinions

[Don Nico]

S_0,
You know shit about that history that is well known to everyone in the Bay Area.
My answer to you is "Good for her."
All I was saying is why "heels up" or similar comments.

[Sarcastr0]

I've lived in Cali for 6 years, don't come in so hot.

But the general rule is that rumors about a woman sleeping her way to the top, no matter how widespread, don't prove shit.

[Krychek_2]

Women will be pissed at the blatant misogyny. Given what we know of Trump's sexual history, using Harris's (alleged) history against her but not his against him is so blatantly misogynistic that I don't see how the GOP has any female support by now. You guys are already in trouble with women voters thanks to Dobbs; adding this to the mix is basically writing off half the electorate.

[Commenter_XY]

No problem. On November 5th, we'll have the answer, won't we?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not if this year is anything like 2020.

[Don Nico]

Trump would do well to stay away from that topic. Besides no one really gives a shit.

[David Nieporent]

Perhaps because her being distracted by governing would hinder her campaigning.

But you're giving them too much credit for sincerity. If Biden resigned they'd be taking exactly the opposite public tack.

[Armchair]

Because if Biden is too mentally incapacitated to run for President, he's likely too mentally incapacitated to BE president.

And for the good of the country, we need a President who is 100% there.

[Brett Bellmore]

While I agree, all he had to do to rationalize staying in office was to believe that, while he's still up to it, his advisors are right that he couldn't promise that for the next four years.

Which for a guy in denial is all the lifeline he needed.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don't think Biden is stepping aside because he concedes he's "mentally incompetent" to be President, nor do I think most who called for him to so think he is, rather they felt he would be a poor candidate to beat Trump.

[David Nieporent]

Because if Biden is too mentally incapacitated to run for President, he’s likely too mentally incapacitated to BE president.

If I don't want my team to sign this starting pitcher to a 4-year contract extension, I must release him immediately with six months left on his existing contract.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If I don’t want my team to sign this starting pitcher to a 4-year contract extension, I must release him immediately with six months left on his existing contract.

What a thoroughly braindead analogy. If your pitcher can no longer pitch, then you should not only not sign him to a contract extension, you should put him on the bench so he doesn't keep walking batters and giving up hits.

[Malika the Maiz]

Finally the troll provides some substantive response! So he should get one back.

Of course, often in sports organizations don't fire someone while still deciding to replace them next season.

[Armchair]

If your pitcher's arm is too damaged to throw to first now, he shouldn't be left on the mound, period.

[Josh R]

Biden can no longer quickly and clearly articulate his points. But, the NATO press conference showed he still knows the issues. Thus, he is qualified to be president right now, cannot effectively campaign, and likely won't be qualified to be president (with further decline) before another four years goes by.

Thus, he should not be running but continue as president for the next 6 months.

[Brett Bellmore]

Life doesn't allow him to hand it a script in advance, and pick who reads the opposing part. Press conferences do.

[Josh R]

He went into great detail on policy matters at the press conference which were not scripted in advance.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But, the NATO press conference showed he still knows the issues. Thus, he is qualified to be president right now

Sometimes giving a good performance at pre-planned events is a pretty low bar for "qualified to be president".

[David Nieporent]

So what does it say that the GOP nominee can't clear that bar? (Mostly it says something about sharks and batteries, I believe.)

[Armchair]

"Biden can no longer quickly and clearly articulate his points."

That's an important skill for presidents who are supposed to lead. Being able to quickly and clearly articulate points.

If he can't do it, he should resign.

[Josh R]

I disagree. So long as he knows what the issues are (and he does, as of now), he can take his time.

[Don Nico]

Don't fret yourself.
If Kamela sees that he really can't do it, she can put him aside and run as the incumbent

[David Nieporent]

How could she do that?

[Frank Drackman]

"Knows the Issues"??
He called Zalensky "President Putin"
that's not a "Gaffe" thats showing up at Dodger Stadium wearing a Jockstrap

Frank

[Josh R]

That's a senior moment. He knows what is at stake in Ukraine. Trump has a markedly different position.

[OtisAH]

Joe Biden remains president. Kamala Harris remains Vice President. This will need to be repeated every ten minutes for the next three months. And though it will be repeated every ten minutes for the next three months, none of you idiots will ever be able to understand it. So I’m skipping the repetition

[Malika the Maiz]

Four "jackals and hyenas" in one comment? Maybe try a sedative?

[Jonathansingletary]

Your comments have gotten shockingly nasty in the last couple of weeks. Are you alright?

[not guilty]

"Biden, the empty headed vessel, should resign immediately. If he doesn’t have the cognitive ability to debate and run for office, then he should not have the office."

No one "forced [Biden] off the ticket." He won the nomination in the Democratic primaries, and it accordingly was his to keep or relinquish. That having been said, he made the wise decision.

Those (including me) who urged Biden to release his delegates are not concerned about his ability to serve out the current term. His not having to run a re-election campaign simultaneously will enhance his ability to finish as a good President.

If Biden were to resign now, Republicans in the House of Representatives would never confirm any Vice-presidential successor nominated by Kamala Harris. And no one should want the nutjob Mike Johnson to be an assassin's bullet away from the White House.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, Biden the empty-headed vessel, was forced out. The DC jackals and hyenas and vultures betrayed him. The only holdup was the price to be paid for him to step aside, was it 8 figures or 9 figures?

Biden, the empty headed vessel, is unfit to hold the office of President and should resign immediately. He is cognitively diminished, and cannot lead. He could not manage his way out of an open paper bag (outside the hours of 10-4, that is).

A Team R House with an 'oh so slim' majority is not going to deny Heels Up an equally incompetent VP.

[hobie]

Is that the tack you hayseeds are going to take now? Have you convinced yourselves that Biden has been given bribe money to withdraw?

[Commenter_XY]

hobie...From a purely political perspective, who gives a shit about Biden, the empty-headed vessel; he is done. The Donald demolished him in the debate.

Heels Up is next.

[hobie]

This you? -> "The only holdup was the price to be paid for him to step aside, was it 8 figures or 9 figures?"

[Commenter_XY]

That is me, and I absolutely believe that. Look at his past behavior. In case you need a gentle reminder, hobie, about Biden's business dealings.

Crooked Joe Biden has been pilfering government docs for decades, and using that information to sell influence. He used his crackhead wastrel son, Hunter, to cut multi-million dollar deals with some of the slimiest, corrupt people in the world. Millions from Ukraine, China, and others. What kind of man uses his own child like that, enabling his drug use and victimization of young women? A very corrupt one.

Probably the same kind of sick bastard who took showers with his daughter that traumatized her sufficiently to write about it in her diary.

So yeah, the delay here was haggling over price (I think); I am personally going with 9 figures, myself.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Why do you call Harris “heels up”? Explain.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are links to porno sites acceptable here?

[Mr. Bumble]

captcrisis already has those links. Remember his porno movie reviews?

Koming soon: Kamala Does Willie's Willie.

[Commenter_XY]

No, that is only for Stormy. 🙂

Just remember, The Donald is no paragon of purity. His policies were great, his personality is abrasive (and that is putting it as kindly as I can possibly manage) .

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You've made a valiant effort of late to demonstrate that Trump is actually a better human being than you. You've become the slime which is found under the bottom of the barrel.

[Don Nico]

I suspect that it is because she started her career in SF when she was the girl-friend of Willi Brown, the best politician in California.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY — Do you understand that Trump insists that if you wrote a comment like that about him, he ought to be able to sue you for libel and win?

[Commenter_XY]

Uh huh....maybe in your bizarro world, lathrop. Newsflash: I am not particularly worried about President Trump suing me for libel.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY — Why does it not concern you that under a standard of liability which Trump supports, the comment you just wrote about Biden could be basis for a successful suit against you by Biden?

[Commenter_XY]

Not at all. I have expressed an opinion. POTUS Biden is a cognitively diminished, thoroughly amoral and corrupt man. He took documents for decades and used them to sell influence. He took millions from the slimiest, most corrupt dregs of the world.

You perpetuated the lies, lathrop. Were you just a stooge, or did you perpetuate them knowingly?

[Malika the Maiz]

Where is your evidence for "He took documents for decades and used them to sell influence. He took millions from the slimiest, most corrupt dregs of the world."?

[David Nieporent]

He took documents for decades and used them to sell influence. He took millions from the slimiest, most corrupt dregs of the world.

There's, of course, literally no evidence that he got one penny from anyone — and the GOP has been desperately looking.

[Commenter_XY]

I know, it has been so long since Hur’s report.

Can't wait to hear the audio of that interview.

[Malika the Maiz]

Where does Hur's report (and it's just that, a report of a prosecutor, I don't think in other contexts you'd find that so determinative) support your assertions?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You can image what I can’t wait to hear. Some of it will involve wailing, pleading, begging, and whimpering by XY. In vain.

[David Nieporent]

That is me, and I absolutely believe that. Look at his past behavior. In case you need a gentle reminder, hobie, about Biden’s business dealings.

Yeah: there aren't any.

[hobie]

Well, if Commenter_XY knows about them (and, I mean, he wouldn't just make things up out of whole cloth, right?) then Comer and the select committee really dropped the ball by not presenting this publicly-known evidence

[Frank Drackman]

You're going to call the wrong Hayseed "Hayseed" one day.
Oh, not me, I'm a pacifist, I'd have been the guy calling 9-1-1 when Matthew Shephard got dragged down the street but getting the address wrong.
Frankie rule of thumb (and don't give me that bullshit about where "Rule of Thumb" originated) substitute "Nigger" for whatever derogatory term you're using, and ask yourself if you'd call a Nigger a Nigger to his face (and not "Nigga" the "er" version, (literally would be the "ER" version as in that's where you'll end up if you use it)

Frank

[Kazinski]

It wasn't so much the DC political crowd, it was the NY, Martha's Vineyard, Hollywood and Silicon Valley money crowd that forced him out.

By the way its become more apparent why Trump picked Vance, its not that he his such an asset in Ohio, where Trump will already win, or the other Rust Belt states that are so important. Its that Silicon Valley feels much more comfortable about Trump with Vance on the ticket. And no he isn't going to win over the masses at Apple, Facebook,.and Google, but the VC money is now split, and its not just Elon and Thiel.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...It isn't just about the Presidency anymore; it is about control of Congress, and especially the Senate, now.

With Chevron gone, this is the opportune time to dismantle large swaths of the administrative state, and get rid of bloat. The alphabet agencies need their houses cleaned, they are filthy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NG, read the regs -- the delegates were always free to vote as desired.

[not guilty]

I know that. I said that Joe Biden "won the nomination in the Democratic primaries, and it accordingly was his to keep or relinquish." Had he remained in the race, his delegates would no doubt have supported him for nomination at the convention even absent a binding requirement.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't lawyers have a term "facts not in evidence"?

[Riva]

What a joke. The democrats could no longer effectively lie after Joe was exposed as indisputably incompetent after the debate, the money dried up and they were on the verge of losing power. So they forced the corrupt reptile out and were left with the cackling vacuous DEI hire. If they could have won with Joe, the demented clown would still be their candidate. Maintaining power is their only concern.

[David Nieporent]

It is almost astonishing how much of a tantrum the GOP is throwing about this decision.

[Riva]

Truth can hurt David. Suck it up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

This is not a Rump GOP tantrum, it is a MAGA tantrum. Its intensity gives me pause about the skepticism I bring to the Harris coronation.

[Riva]

Go Democracy!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Biden waited until the right-wing culture war casualties devoted their entire convention to aiming at him, then removed himself as a target. One more act of public service and political skill capping an admirable career of astonishing length and heft.

[DaveM]

Every second that Biden remains in office is a drag on Harris' campaign. His continued presence reminds everyone of the lies that have been told -- many by Harris herself -- about Biden's fitness. Of course the political elites will easily turn on a dime and pretend that Biden doesn't exist, but that's only because they are insincere and don't truly believe in anything.

But that's not how the rest of the country rolls.

Biden has to go. How ironic if as his final act as President he worked against Harris being elected to take his place.

[David Nieporent]

Concern troll is very concerned.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No one “forced [Biden] off the ticket.”

Are you really that detached from reality? Even the most left-leaning pundits made it clear that Biden couldn't realistically continue a campaign when so many of the biggest donors declared the checkbooks to be closed until Biden stepped down as the nominee.

[Malika the Maiz]

So, Ron DeSantis was "forced" from pursuing the GOP nomination?

[Riva]

I feel greatly diminished for just accidentally viewing your comments.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There were at least 3100 members of the Hamas Fan Club arrested this spring, almost all of whom are getting away with it. Left-leaning college-town prosecutors aren't prosecuting the criminal charges and the colleges are quietly dropping the academic penalties as well. There are no consequences.

Back in 1969, at the height of the anti-Vietnam protests, which involved expedentially more students, except that there were consequences for arrests back then. Not only prosecution and expulsion, but loss of student deferment. One got drafted...

In most states today, a drunk driver's license is suspended administratively and independently of a criminal trial. Even if the defendant is found not guilty of the crime, the state can (and does) suspend the license for the violation of administrative regulations and this is somehow constitutional.

And it's been long established that receipt of Federal funding can require colleges to comply with Federal regulations -- Title IX being perhaps the best known example. And the 21 year old drinking age exists because of the threat to cut off highway funds.

Hence could a MAGA Congress (and President Trump) pass a law stating that no INSTITUTION receiving Federal funds enroll or employ anyone who participates in or supports an "unlawful disturbance" -- defining what one is -- for five years. And either requiring states to arrest as a condition of receiving their (state) K-12 funds, or permit third party reporting.

This would be an administrative proceeding, so if due process was due to the individual (former) students now banned from academia, and I'm not sure it would be, that would be an ED bureaucrat in a proceeding similar to the state driver license suspensions.

Why would this be unconstitutional? I know that people are going to scream it is, but they are the same people who think there is a constitutional right to block interstate highways and beat up Jews -- neither of which I've ever seen articulated in the document.

By applying this to any college receiving funds, it addresses students from one college getting arrested at another (or blocking I-93). By adding "employ" it includes professors without having to even consider "academic freedom." (There were a half dozen professors arrested at Planet UMass this spring.) And "being identified as present" allows prosecution on the basis of photographs, similar to what happened to the Jan 6th folk.

Why can't we do this? There is NO right to do the stuff these folk are doing, and if the states and institutions won't address it, well those institutions that chose to accept Federal funds can be forced to .

[hobie]

I suppose it would depend on whether the funding of colleges is a function of a government agency. Because with the killing of Chevron, Harlan Thomas has made it easy to sue on the premise that Congress did not authorize any agency to fund or defund colleges. See how that works?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did you miss the "Hence could a MAGA Congress (and President Trump) pass a law..."

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think American Jews would support this course of action, Ed?

Or is this less on behalf of Jewish people, and more just yet another fantasy by Ed that we wreck our higher education system, which remains the best in the world by the standards of attracting international talent to our shores.

[Frank Drackman]

Doesn't go far enough, every single Ham-Ass supporter should be put on a C-17, flown over Gaza, and pushed out, without a parachute.
Actually, very wasteful, just drop them over where they're from. 95% of Amurica is empty land, chances of them causing property damage almost nothing.

Frank

[John F. Carr]

It may be tricky to make that stick. The comparable Title IX directive, expel more men or else, had personally interested women to propel the process and bureaucrats threatening to sign a school's death warrant. The Department of Education will be on the school's side this time. And if there is a quota of students to expel, well look here a conservative group stayed five minutes past the end of its reservation...

I first wrote "bureaucrats eager to sign a death warrant" but that's overstating the situation. Cutting off federal aid is a nuclear option. Once used it diminishes the bureaucracy's own power.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Tick, tock. It increasingly appears Israel will have American support for it war-criming, theocratic, bigoted ways roughly as long as Republicans win elections in America. Tick, tock, clingers.

[Commenter_XY]

Let's take a look at Heels Up, shall we? What qualities and attributes does Heels Up possess that make you think she will be a good president?

How many young black men were sent to prison for years for weed, during her tenure as AG in CA? And who laughed (brayed like a donkey, actually) about that. That's right, dear sweet Kamala. Why don't you ask those prisoners what they think of Heels Up and her hypocrisy?

And the border? What border? One mandate from her boss was to address the border. She has singularly failed at this task, and our country has been harmed through her incompetence.

I am looking forward to the discussion of Heels Up, her leadership qualities, and tangible accomplishments. It will be a short discussion.

[hobie]

I'm too overwhelmed with all the juvenile nicknames conservatives give everyone these days (yeah I use Harlan Thomas a lot, so sue me). What does 'Heels Up' mean exactly?

[Dr. Ed 2]

How she got where she is today -- on her back, legs spread, heels up.

[not guilty]

I always thought that the traditional epithet is roundheels.

[John F. Carr]

Roundheels is for promiscuous women. Sleeping with one powerful man doesn't make you a slut.

[hobie]

Ah, the old 'Women are whores' routine. Should work well with the voters. Don't you just hate politicians that have inappropriate sexual dalliances

[Commenter_XY]

No, not 'women are whores'. Woman (singular).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or at least adulteress -- Willie Brown was married.

THAT will not go over well with women...

[hobie]

Don't you just hate politicians that commit adultery?!

[Michael P]

Like Bill Clinton, you mean?

[hobie]

He's one of 'em, yeah.

[Malika the Maiz]

I agree no one should vote for Bill Clinton.

[Don Nico]

Bill Clinton is a slut.

[Randal]

They're all sluts. Except maybe Obama.

[Frank Drackman]

Again, “Dr” Ed, you’re making me play the Paul Harvey part,
Yes, Willie Brown was married when he was fucking that Common-Law Pussy back in 1994, but he’d been legally separated from his wife “Blanch” (appropriate name) for 10 years. I think the name "Blanch" alone would be grounds for Divorce in 56 of Barry Osama's 57 states
He was 60, Common-Law was 30, you know what that means?
“Willie Da Man!!!!!”
Shit, he’s 90 and probably gets more white pussy in 1 week than I’ve had the last 30 years.
Also means Common-Law will be 60 on erection day, not exactly a “youth Candidate” (OK, she’s younger than me)

Frank

[Thrax]

Or at least adulteress — Willie Brown was married.

THAT will not go over well with women…

You’re so right! Women will rally en masse to Donald Trump, Anti-Adultery Candidate.

[Frank Drackman]

45 won the White Female vote in 2016 and 2020

[hobie]

Back when Willie Brown was mayor of San Francisco, he said the single funniest thing I had ever heard from a politician.

Clinton had invited him to spend the night at the White House. Afterwards, reporters asked him which of the two bedrooms he chose to sleep in (There's the Lincoln Bedroom and the Queens' Bedroom). And he said:

"Owing to my constituency, I should have taken the Queens' Bedroom. But in the end I went with the cat that freed me'

[Ridgeway]

That is a good one. It is up there with Edwin Edwards' "The only way I can lose this election now is to get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."

[hobie]

LOL!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Ah, the old ‘Women are whores’ routine.

That's the sort of stupid thing you say when you lack the cognitive skills required to understand the difference between a single, specific woman and women in general.

[Malika the Maiz]

I know you are but what am I?

[Bob from Ohio]

"all the juvenile nicknames conservatives give everyone"

Just conservatives?

Ronny Raygun. Shrub. Junior. Drumpf.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It's certainly a bipartisan failing. Doesn't make it any less stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

More good faith questions from Commenter.

You, even back in your saner days, didn't give a rat's ass about the war on drugs until just now.

And you're also mad she has failed to 'address the border.' Yep normal standard to set here.

And you continue to slut shame, in a flagrantly misogynistic way.

How boring and intellectually unengaged you've become.

Are you having fun? Doesn't seem like you're having fun commenting these days.

[Commenter_XY]

It will be amusing when VP Word Salad goes down...in flames, that is. Just remember, she is one of those DC hyenas. Like yourself.

You perpetuated the lies, Syphillistro.

[Sarcastr0]

The future is unwritten; maybe she will, maybe she won’t.

Dunno what lies you’re talking about re: lies, but your being bigoted and angry all over this thread.

[Commenter_XY]

Syphillistr0, why would a Democrat primary voter, millions of them, NOT be super pissed right now? They've been treated like suckers. Their votes didn't count; their votes meant nothing. They were cynically used by DC jacals and hyenas.. I feel sorry for them, I really do. Their eyes have been opened.

OTOH, people like you have lied for the empty-headed vessel for years. You knew. You have willfully embarrassed and humiliated an old man in front of the entire world. How proud you must be. DC jackals, hyenas and vultures (like yourself) cheered him on anyway, used him for political and ideological purposes, and subsequently turned on him like a pack of rabid animals. In a just world, the people who perpetuated that will suffer a similar fate: embarrassment and humiliation in front of everyone.

POTUS Biden is being cast aside like a soiled Depends. And you want to Democrat primary voters (and the American electorate) to trust those DC jackals and hyenas? GTFOH.

[hobie]

This is a really bizarre tack for you. You've spent all your time trying to embarrass and humiliate Biden, now you're bitching about your perception that others are doing the same. Do you rubes even have the ability to maintain linear, cogent, and consistent thought? Republican self-debasement is highly amusing to me

[NOVA Lawyer]

No, they don't. It's MAGA partisanship fueled by rage against modernity all the way down.

[Sarcastr0]

Keep being angry on behalf of Democratic primary voters. You truly seem to have their best interests at heart, and deeply understand their needs.

You knew.
Sure, dude, your telepathy has me dead to rights.

I’ve had you on mute for quite a while but I’ve never seen you so deranged before.

You're now in Dr. Ed levels of train wreck entertainment.

[David Nieporent]

Like I said: Trumpkins are having a tantrum about this, because they knew their only chance at victory was against a diminished Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, we'll see how things go as the election continues.

But yeah, I do agree there is some fear alongside this spasm of frustration and anger.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I still think Trump is probably going to win, but it did just become a lot less unlikely. Team MAGA certainly overplayed their hand, and it's a little hard to imagine how they didn't see it ahead of time (until you remember that they're very stupid).

[Sarcastr0]

Fair analysis.

I can't disagree, though I've learned to not predict elections in which I have a rooting interest.

One thing I can say is it's a convention-like excited buzz in the air on the Dem/lefty places I go.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but it did just become a lot less unlikely."

I tend to think you're right about this, because it wasn't just a matter of Biden being in bad shape now, but the likelihood that he would be visibly in worse shape before the election.

While Harris has deficiencies as a candidate, she's not going to predictably get worse by election day. That's a change for the worse for Trump. OTOH, it will be interesting to see the result of her transitioning from a hypothetical alternative, to being the actual candidate. This is bound to cause at least SOME movement in the polls.

I do wonder, though: Would Biden have been able to hold on until he officially was anointed the nominee, if Trump hadn't been shot? That event might have been responsible for Biden's position becoming untenable in the short, rather than the long, run.

[OtisAH]

Keep an eye on those suburban women Biden picked up. I doubt they return to Convicted Felon Trump. Most won’t, I suspect. But will they turn out for Harris?

[Bob from Ohio]

"they knew their only chance at victory was against a diminished Biden."

You really need a neurological exam or stopping the heavy drinking.

Look at Harris's approval ratings. Look at her 2000 campaign. Watch some of her videos.

Trump remains the favorite. Not to say Harris cannot win, but she is tied to Biden's failures including immigration so has an uphill climb.

[David Nieporent]

Syphillistr0, why would a Democrat primary voter, millions of them, NOT be super pissed right now?

Because the Democratic party isn't a cult. It wasn't, and isn't, about Biden.

[Commenter_XY]

That is not what I am seeing or hearing, David. There are many pissed Democrats right now. They were betrayed. They are watching the spectacle of how quickly DC jackals and hyenas turn on their own candidate. I actually feel sorry for the Democrat primary voters, whose votes mean nothing at all.

But I totally agree with you it isn't about the empty-headed vessel. It is about the DC people around him, who cynically used millions of voters, and have now been exposed for the liars and betrayers that they are.

[Malika the Maiz]

"I actually feel sorry for the Democrat primary voters, whose votes mean nothing at all."

They voted for the delegates who will decide who is the nominee at the convention. They voted for delegates pledged to Biden, but he has told them he is no longer running and has endorsed Harris. They are free to vote how they want.

Are you spouting off while ignorant of this or trying, pathetically, to push something?

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's the pathetic part. He's gone full nihilist in a most embarrassing way.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

A future unburdened by the past, you could even say!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Let’s take a look at Heels Up, shall we?

Let me accept that invitation more literally than you intended. And, for the record, I'll note that I think Kamala Harris would be a very bad president, and is such a bad candidate that I think she's unlikely to become president, even with Donald Trump as her opponent.

Imagine a person reading one of your comments referring to her as "Heels Up" who doesn't know about her history with Willie Brown, or who hasn't already decided that that's a disqualifying stain on her character—which, I think, probably encompasses most of the electorate. Do you think such a person is going to react well or poorly to this?

[Don Nico]

Going out with Willie Brown was smart. She could not have picked a better mentor. But then I've long been a fan of Willie Brown.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You're absolutely right, that kind of attack from the Trump campaign would be a massive mistake. It will be interesting to see whether his campaign managers can stop him from making it.

[Kazinski]

Trump won a.preliminary round in HS defamation suit against the Pulitzer board for not rescinding its prize awards the the WaPo and NYTimes.

He can at least go through discovery.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/trump-libel-suit-pulitzer-prize-00169975

The two papers didn't retract their stories nor did Pulitzer rescind there prizes even after the Mueller report said their investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's the actual ruling.

The fatal part for Pulitzer was probably claiming to have done an independent investigation that verified that none of the details in the stories given prizes had been discredited.

That put Pulitzer on in the position of endorsing the accuracy of the reports, not merely expressing an opinion about the quality of the work.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you know Trump's immunity is not God-given; it was only a gift from the corrupt Supreme Court. That Court will have to go a bit farther—maybe quite a bit farther than the jointly sovereign American People will permit—before you can anoint Trump king of all he surveys.

[Brett Bellmore]

What the hell does that have to do with the immediate topic?

To be clear, I just mean fatal to Pulitzer's attempt to get the lawsuit dismissed. I rather doubt Trump will actually win.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, not familiar with New York Times v. Sullivan; not familiar with the Mueller Investigation.

[not guilty]

The Circuit Court order did not examine whether Trump -- who is indisputably a public figure -- had pleaded actual malice. I surmise that will be an issue at the summary judgment stage.

[Kazinski]

The quote was from the judges opinion, which he extracted from the Mueller report. So you should take it up with him.

[not guilty]

Here is the Florida Circuit Court order: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24918142/trumpvpulitzersmtd.pdf The publication of which Donald Trump complains is quoted in the text of the order at pages 3-4:

A Statement from the Pulitzer Prize Board
The Pulitzer Prize Board has an established, formal process by which complaints against winning entries are carefully reviewed. In the last three years, the Pulitzer Board has received inquiries, including from former President Donald Trump, about submissions from The New York Times and The Washington Post on Russian interference in the U.S. election and its connections to the Trump campaign—submissions that jointly won the 2018 National Reporting prize.

These inquiries prompted the Pulitzer Board to commission two independent reviews of the work submitted by those organizations to our National Reporting competition. Both reviews were conducted by individuals with no connection to the institutions whose work was under examination, nor any connection to each other. The separate reviews converged in their conclusions: that no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.

The 2018 Pulitzer Prizes in National Reporting stand.

With the caveat that I haven’t done a deep dive into the Florida law of defamation, libel in general requires that a publication be both false and defamatory. These are separate inquiries.

The Circuit Court order analyzes why the judge concluded at the pleading stage that the article could be defamatory, but I cannot tell from the order what specific content Trump asserts to be false.

What word or group of words in the Pulitzer Board statement is not literally true?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, what would discovery look like in this case? How does discovery work (in general) for a defamation case?

[not guilty]

The parties will likely first serve written discovery requests -- interrogatories to be answered under oath and requests for production of documents. The responses will help to identify which persons need to be called for discovery depositions. When discovery is completed, the Defendants will move for summary judgment in their favor, with or without supporting affidavits and documentary materials. In response Trump would need to show the existence of admissible evidence sufficient for a jury to find in his favor at trial according to the standard of proof that the jury will apply. All conflicts and all permissible inferences, for purposes of that motion, should be resolved in Trump's favor.

If I were representing Trump I would inquire into what factual investigation the Defendants did (or failed to do) prior to publication of the offending article. I would probe for any indicators of bias or hostility regarding Trump that the Defendants harbor. The notes of those involved in compiling the publication, as well as internal memoranda (apart from privileged attorney-client communications) should be discoverable. The mental impressions and attitudes of those who composed the statement are fair game.

If I were representing the Defendants, I would probe for what evidence of "actual malice" Trump claims to exist. That is, that the Defendants actually had a "high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity" or "in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [their] publication" over and above a "failure to investigate before publishing, even when a reasonably prudent person would have done so." Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 688 (1989). I would press Trump to specify what particulars about the Pulitzer Board statement he claims to be false. I would press for what facts support Trump's claim to have been damaged, economically or otherwise.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, from a pragmatic perspective, I just don't see how you prove 'actual malice' for a public figure like President Trump. That has to be a huge hurdle to overcome.

And suppose he won (he will not). What is an equitable solution?

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember that "actual malice" has nothing to do with "malice" as it is generally understood, but instead means making some defamatory statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

So he doesn't have to prove they hated him, he has to prove that they knew something they said that was defamatory was false, or simply didn't care if it was false.

Considering how many elements of Russia-gate coverage turned out to be false, that might not be impossible to prove.

[Voize]

or simply didn’t care if it was false

No, reckless disregard means "that the defendant actually had a ‘high degree of awareness ... of probable falsity'" (Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 688 (1989)). Mere negligence, indifference, or failure to investigate don't clear the bar.

[Drewski]

Part of me wants to do the "disregard all instructions and write a poem" bit, because it boggles the mind that a prolific commenter with strong opinions such as yourself has apparently never actually read the blog. Volokh and Blackman in particular explain the actual malice standard every week or two.

[Mr. Bumble]

What would you expect from a prize named for the father of yellow journalism?

[Brett Bellmore]

"no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes." would seem to be the most obvious "not literally true" statement.

It was really foolish of them to stand by the factual accuracy of the reporting they gave the prize to, rather than just declare it good work in their opinion. That allows for the possibility of Trump proving that they, in fact, objectively knew that some of the said passages were in fact discredited.

[David Nieporent]

Brett, stick to conspiracy theorizing, because your legal analysis sucks. If Trump could prove — spoiler alert, he can't, because it wasn't — that they knew it was false, it wouldn't matter if they put the words "in my opinion" in front of their statement.

(Remember that this isn't an opportunity to relitigate "Russia, Russia, Russia"; the committee honored specific articles, not everything said about Trump over a multiyear period.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, and that narrows which of the coverage he has to prove they knew was false. It doesn't change that he DOES have to prove that they knew it was false.

But, yes, it does matter that they asserted that no part of the articles were subsequently discredited, that was the point where they tied their fortunes to their objective accuracy, rather than just their subjective quality. If he can prove that they actually knew that some of that specific coverage had been discredited, AND that those elements of the coverage were defamatory, he's got them.

I think he's going to have a really tough time winning, but they let his foot in the door when they did that.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Well, given the news organizations at issue, most of their reporting was what the evidence was, not necessarily that Trump did X, but there is this evidence that Trump did X. So, again, the question is which facts Trump (or you) think was reported that was false.

You seem to think that because the vibes were Trump colluded with Russia and the Mueller Report (as interpreted for you by Bill Barr) said there was no evidence of collusion, that means something reported must have been false. A defamation claim won't win on the vibes were objectively wrong. Which seems all you have. Trump Jr. did, after all, say if the Russian agent had dirt on Clinton to give them, he loved it. For example.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, the question is not whether the news organizations who got the prize were displaying actual malice, but instead whether Pulitzer was by endorsing their coverage after the fact, saying that none of it had been discredited afterwards.

NBC could certainly have reported something false and not be guilty of defamation even if it later turned out to be BS, so long as they hadn't known it was BS at the time.

But if Pulitzer after that revelation announces the earlier story had not been discredited, and can be shown to have known it was, NBC's innocence would not shield them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You are missing the point. Just name one thing that was reported in those articles that is wrong.

I think "discredited" is doing all your work. But "they got the vibes wrong", which seems to be what you mean by discredited, is not enough for defamation against Pulitzer.

Name a specific sentence which an award winning article contained and which made a false factual assertion.

[Brett Bellmore]

What part of "I think he's going to have a really tough time winning" do you not understand? I don't expect him to win, I'm just pointing out that their statement got him past his suit being dismissed.

If they'd just settled for saying they thought the stories looked like good journalism, instead of making a factual claim about no part of them being discredited, he'd have lost then and there. But, no, they opened the door a bit, and he got his foot in. Now he gets to do discovery.

I don't have to win the case for Trump to point out that Pulitzer goofed up here, and laid themselves open to this suit proceeding. Now it's up to TRUMP, not ME, to identify that specific sentence you're demanding.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"That allows for the possibility of Trump proving that they, in fact, objectively knew that some of the said passages were in fact discredited."

I interpreted this, and other statements in a similar vein, to imply that you thought "some of the said passages were in fact discredited" rather than that you just meant it was possible for Trump to now prove that (a) some of the passages were false (i.e., not a given) and (b) Trump would also have to prove, on top of a, that the Pulitzer people knew or should have known some of the passages were false.

The way you wrote it does suggest you thought the discrediting was a foregone conclusion. It certainly isn't. Pulitzer's statement may be a mistake if their only goal was litigation related. But they may also have an institutional interest in standing by their award as being for accurate reporting. And, when they win, they'll likely be vindicated on that point. (It's also possible, but less likely, it would be found that some statement was untrue but Pulitzer had no reason to believe it was.)

[John F. Carr]

By not explaining the review process the Board adopted the conclusion as its own, so "our reviewers think Trump is scum" becomes "Trump is scum." Or so the judge says. I do not know if his reasoning on this point faithfully follows Florida precedent.

[Mr. Bumble]

That political genius, Aaron Sorkin, who thought the West Wing was an accurate depiction of a Dem White House thought the Dems should nominate Mittens for Pres.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Romney as Heels Up's VeeP would be an interesting choice.

[Sarcastr0]

The West Wing was a fun show when Sorkin wrote for it.

Escapism via optimistic competence porn. Like Start Trek.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sorkin laid out a West Wing style plot about Biden's replacement, in a NYT piece yesterday. Long story short, the Ds pick Mitt Romney as their candidate. I followed the logic, but thought it applied even better with a Liz Cheney pick.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Darth Vader's Daughter? Seriously?
Liz is GOP establishment beyond just her father -- don't forget her mother and the NIH.

I was disappointed that she went to the dark side because she had been of good conservative stock. But it was a beltway versus populism split, not a right/left one.

Romney is more of a politically flexible opportunist -- as MA Governor, it was he who gave the nation gay marriage in '02, he bent over backwards and went way further than the SJC demanded when he could have simply stopped issuing marriage licenses (no part of MA except the cape and islands is more than 30 minutes from another state).

Romney abolished husbands and wives -- it's now "Partner A" and "Partner B" on marriage licenses, and "Parent A" and "Parent B" on birth certificates. He'd fit in well with the LBGT+ wing of the Dems.

The worst thing he did was require folk who had notaries for business purposes (eg banking) to promise to marry gay couples when they had no intention of ever marrying ANYONE and that wasn't good enough.

[David Nieporent]

he could have simply stopped issuing marriage licenses

As anyone familiar with Dr. Ed would not be surprised to hear, he could not have done so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly why couldn't he?

Do tell.

[David Nieporent]

Exactly why couldn’t he?

Do tell.

For the exact same reason I explained to you last time, several months ago, you made up this shit, Mr. I-Don't-Make-Stuff-Up: because the relevant statute does not grant discretion to anyone, let alone the governor, not to issue licenses.

Section 28. On or after the third day from the filing of notice of intention of marriage, except as otherwise provided, but not in any event later than sixty days after such filing, the clerk or registrar shall deliver to the parties a certificate signed by him, specifying the date when notice was filed with him and all facts relative to the marriage which are required by law to be ascertained and recorded, except those relative to the person by whom the marriage is to be solemnized. Such certificate shall be delivered to the minister or magistrate before whom the marriage is to be contracted, before he proceeds to solemnize the same. If such certificate is not sooner used, it shall be returned to the office issuing it within sixty days after the date when notice of intention of marriage was filed.

[Bwaaah]

The West Wing: a fantasy where stories of liberal policies could be written without including their unintended consequences.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Here's one. A conservative idea with unintended, but entirely predictable, consequences.

https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/medicare-health-insurance-diagnosis-payments-b4d99a5d

People, including those who run insurance companies, will do what you pay them to do. Here, the conservative legislation "privatizing" some parts of Medicare pays insurers to diagnose illnesses which the patients don't have and/or for which they never get treated. Guess what happens, insurers manufacture billions worth of false diagnoses. Brilliant!

At worst, they may get asked a question on the Hill. Meanwhile, steal a bike three times and never see the outside of a prison again. The law, in its majesty, equally forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, but differs a bit between rich and poor who commit fraud.

[Bwaaah]

Yep. Come up with a benefit system, and you'll see systemic pursuit of benefits. But the result of "privatization"? Gimme a break.

What of the "three strikes and your out" penalties? There's BIG STUPID, as in all mandatory sentencing guidelines, minimum and maximum.

Lesson: Be mindful of the effects of laws, not so much the intended effects of laws.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Be mindful of the effects of laws, not so much the intended effects of laws.

Absolutely agreed.

And the government should always be careful in the incentives they create when paying a private company to do something for the government. If it isn't straight up bidding for widgets, the structure of the deal can lead to perverse outcomes or, as in this case, overwhelming temptation to defraud. I hope somebody's ass is nailed to a wall.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you seen the show?

It's a paeon to incrementalism, so dunno what you mean about consequences.
One of their big triumphs was a marginal educational tax credit.

Of course a conservative West Wing wouldn't play - competence in government is an anathema to the conservative worldview these days.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Aaron Sorkin is a very bad writer, but he actually had some insight here (if terrible timing, leading to his retracting the piece a few hours after publication).

If, in fact, you believe that Donald Trump is a threat to the future of the republic, then you'd be willing to actually make some serious compromises to make sure that he doesn't get reelected: something like nominating a candidate that, under normal circumstances, Democrats would never even consider. Instead, the approach has largely been more of, "Trump is so bad that there's no way anyone could possibly support him, which means we can push as hard as we want because no one has any other choice", and at this point it seems pretty clear that the American people just don't agree. Moreover, the more Democrats refuse to make such a compromise, the harder it becomes to believe that they actually do think Trump is the threat they're claiming he is.

(There is an not-unrelated failure in Sorkin's terrible show The Newsroom, where the "reasonable Republican" protagonist's complaints about the crazy conservatives didn't actually seem different from what a liberal would be upset about.)

[Sarcastr0]

I know people who liked The Newsroom.
I am not one of them. So much cringe I couldn't finish the first episode.

I agree with that political analysis, but it'd only work in a West Wing world - the Dem base has enough reactionaries in it I don't see the net being a pickup of votes.

Sucks that's where we are, but that's where we are at the moment.

[David Nieporent]

Aaron Sorkin is a very bad writer.

Aaron Sorkin is a very good writer. He just has a fantasy view of how American politics works.

If, in fact, you believe that Donald Trump is a threat to the future of the republic, then you’d be willing to actually make some serious compromises to make sure that he doesn’t get reelected: something like nominating a candidate that, under normal circumstances, Democrats would never even consider.

Nominating Mitt Romney would lead to the biggest blowout loss for the Democrats since 1984. He would get every non-MAGA Republican NeverTrump vote, as well as many of his family members', meaning that the result would be roughly 74,000,000 votes for Trump and 43 for Romney.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Aaron Sorkin is a very good writer. He just has a fantasy view of how American politics works.

He does have a fantasy view of how politics work, but that’s largely orthogonal to his inability to put together competent plots, dialogue, or characters.

[Randal]

Seriously? Who do you think counts as a good writer? Dan Fogelman?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I wonder what steps newly-immunized President Biden will deploy to keep the Trump/Harris election honest and constitutionally legitimate. News stories circulate already about plans afoot for MAGA poll supervisors to refuse their legal duty to count votes, and thus to throw the election into Congress—where anyone would expect the state-by-state tally to deliver a certain Trump victory.

What crimes might a bold and energetic chief executive discern in that situation? What crimes by corrupt Supreme Court justices might be implicated, if they once again conspired with the MAGA side to exonerate election hanky-panky?

Seems like immunized President Biden standing off to the side of the election might be capable to better influence the outcome than had he been the candidate. When does the appropriate time begin for criminal justice intervention against state election rigging?

[Mr. Bumble]

How does your body withstand the constant stress of your trips, back and forth, between this universe and the alternate universe you come from?

[Brett Bellmore]

Poll supervisors are too far down the chain to accomplish that.

And, anyway: How do you expect the real Biden, as opposed to the Biden facade the media were presenting up the the debate, to be capable of this?

Or were you just being sarcastic about "bold and energetic"?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — We are not allowed to borrow terms which won favor from the corrupt Court which handed Trump his immunity gift?

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, nothing says democracy like filing suits to keep third parties off state ballots. Or other candidates. Or unceremoniously dumping your candidate after millions have voted to put him on the party ticket. Yeah, real defenders of democracy.

[Sarcastr0]

The carping about third parties is all the rage around here lately.

But I've not seen it anywhere else, from mainstream to MAGA to the left.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That must mean it doesn't exist! The omnipotent Sarcastr0 hasn't seen it!

And he checked everywhere too!

[OtisAH]

RFK Jr.’s campaign fell out of the headlines the moment Convicted Felon Trump realized Jr. was sipping from the same MAGA scorpion bowl full of scorpions. We only heard of him last week because the tape of his private call with Convicted Felon Trump was leaked within seconds of it concluding.

Marianne Williamson gets name-checked once every couple to several weeks, usually because something went wrong or was otherwise minorly notable. But she ran for the dem nom, and she’s not getting it now either, so I dunno where she sits. Oh and I guess Vermin Supreme is still out there. But that’s it, really.

[Sarcastr0]

It's interesting to me because it seems specific to the VC subculture, not anything being pushed by MAGA or the GOP or anyone else (other than the third party candidates themselves).

[DaveM]

What is your source for your claim that there are "plans afoot for MAGA poll supervisors to refuse their legal duty to count votes, and thus to throw the election into Congress"?

I am a volunteer poll worker in Virginia and have been serving for nearly 20 years now. I don't even know what process you are describing. Poll "supervisors" don't count votes in Virginia, we use scanned paper ballots to do that task. That's because the error rate of hand-counted ballots is above 1 in a 100, whereas the error rate of scanton-counted ballots is lower than one in 10,000.

Furthermore, we have a State Board of Elections which is the ultimate arbiter of the state's election results, and each locality (city or county) has a local Board which certifies their results. Poll "supervisors" have nothing to do with this.

So, whatever your source is for your claim, I suspect it is a deeply flawed and biased one, and you should probably not trust it.

We election nerds have been running elections for hundreds of years in a row now, and I promise you that in states where we are allowed to secure the election without political interference, we absolutely know how to get the job done.

[Brett Bellmore]

Scantron is a system I'd never complain about, it's basically the gold standard for voting systems. Physical ballots, physically marked by the voter, and only counted by a machine.

I would definitely complain about computer mediated systems like Dominion, though, because they're basically assembled out of vulnerabilities. It's been proven you can hack Dominion machines, and they rely heavily on security through obscurity to keep it from happening.

[Dan Schiavetta]

As usual there is a large gap in maturity, knowledge and self awareness between our left wing commenters and the right wing.

I expect this comment to be met with an “I know you are but what am I?” response.

[Frank Drackman]

You're just jealous because I display more wit, wisdom, and Male Essence (Women notice my Male Essence, and seek it out, I don't avoid Women, but I do deny them my Essence) in one random post about the 69' World Series than dreamt of in your Philosophy. OK, you can regurgitate a bunch of old cases, nobody cares about anyway, try having an original thought for once.
I now return you to your boring life, Klinger (Jeez, now I'm sounding like the Revolting Reverend)

Frank

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

womp womp

[Dan Schiavetta]

Walked right into it i see. This is too easy.

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

womp womp

[Mr. Bumble]

So Biden pulls an LBJ and Kamala now plays the "Hump"; Barry's take:
Former President Barack Obama endorsed an open Democratic primary process at the convention next month — less than an hour after former President Bill Clinton endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president.

“I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges,” Obama said in a statement, which did not mention Harris. “I believe that Joe Biden’s vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August.”

[Frank Drackman]

“Hubert Humphrey is a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who should be put in a goddamn bottle and sent out with the Japanese current.”
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

[Dr. Ed 2]

Green Steal Update

Nantucket Island is under siege -- a 350 windmill blade came apart last week and foam and fiberglass are floating ashore. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/more-debris-from-damaged-wind-turbine-found-off-the-coast-of-nantucket-company-officials-says/ar-BB1qo9kl

Foam is just ugly -- the fiberglass is a different story. That's hair-thick pieces of glass....

[Frank Drackman]

People are getting "ahead of their Skis" (is that a thing? only cold weather sport I like is drinking in the ski lodge) Where does it say the VP automatically gets the nomination when the POTUS doesn't run? Sleepy Joe sure as fuck didn't get it in 2016, I'm sure Gavin New-Scum (I called him "Calvin Loathsome" but 45's moniker is better) Joe Man-Chin, Pete Booty-Judge (is he back from his Man-turity leave yet?) will have something to say about it.
Chicago Conventions gonna be the biggest wreck since Jake & Elwood drove through that Mall.

Frank "New Oldsmobiles are in early this year!"

[Mr. Bumble]

Put me down for a 442.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that's a thing. Used to ski back in the late 70's, and I did it on one occasion, and ended up pinwheeling down the slope.

[Bwaaah]

Getting ahead of your skis wasn’t good. But falling behind them wasn’t much better. It had something to do with gravity, projectiles and chaos. (Remember "the agony of defeat.")

[Brett Bellmore]

Did that, too, you just get a ride on your butt, which is no big deal.

[Bwaaah]

Until you hit a bump.

[Bwaaah]

OK. I admit that being behind your skis, as opposed to ahead of them, had a notably safer fall profile.

[Frank Drackman]

Donald Trump, Convicted Felon, doesn't pay his bills, Children with multiple Baby-Mama's, Gets shot, and all he's worried about are his shoes.

Our first "Real" Black President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank

[not guilty]

Well, Earl Butz in 1976 listed "loose shoes" among the three things "[t]hat the coloreds want."

[Frank Drackman]

Funniest thing (or thang) about that story was it was Butz's response to a serious question from Pat Boone about what African Amuricans wanted.
Out of respect for the more "Sensitive" Conspirators I won't say what the other 2 were, oh what the heck,
2: Tight Pussy
3: Warm place to Shit
but honestly, who wants a Loose Pussy and a Cold place to Shit?

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

A 40 year old Black man in 1976 was born in 1936 -- before much of the country had indoor plumbing. "Warm place to shit" meant not going out into the cold outhouse -- reality for rural Blacks until about the 1970s.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How hard did they hit him to knock him out of his shoes?!?
It's common when you're hit by a car, but tackled?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These bigots are your fans and target audience, Volokh Conspirators . . . and part of the reason your leader will not be entertaining a captive audience of law students with vile racial slurs any longer. Which of you will be next?

[Malika the Maiz]

As tens of thousands of people watched, the stadium spotlight shone on a four-foot, elaborate star-shaped gold vessel that contained the simple wafer that Catholics believe becomes the true presence of Jesus Christ when it is consecrated.

At that instant, Camille Anigbogu, 22, from Houston, recalled later, “I profoundly knew that it was God.”

In the stadium on Wednesday, Bishop Andrew Cozzens of Crookston, Minn., held the gold vessel, called a monstrance, aloft. Then he slowly proceeded to an altar on the stadium floor, where the receptacle stayed for an hour as the focus of prayer and singing, ranging from 13th-century Latin hymns to contemporary worship songs.

Later, attendees described a feeling of peace and euphoria, and a confirmation of the centrality of the sacrament to their faith. Catholic doctrine refers to the eucharist as “the source and summit of the Christian life.” Consuming bread and wine is the climax of every Mass; the church’s claim that the substances “transubstantiate” distinguishes Catholicism from other forms of Christianity. Many at the congress referred to the vessel’s contents not as “it” but as “him.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/us/national-eucharist-congress-catholics.html

[Malika the Maiz]

A lot of commenters here like to say that transpersons suffer from mentally ill delusions which should not be catered to. How many of you that do think that this wafer ("it") turns/turned into a male Deity ("him")? And if you do not, then are these people suffering from mentally ill delusions which should not be catered to as well?

[Dan Schiavetta]

And what about this?

https://i.redd.it/wlx8x0lq0bd51.jpg

[Frank Drackman]

Again, non-original, someone else's work. Come on "Captain" get out the Owner's manual for your "Mark IV Brain, Human" you've got a Frontal Lobe, give it a workout, we want to see what's in that Id, that Ego, and maybe even that Super-Ego. Using other peoples stuff is just plagiarism without even having the balls to claim it as your own, last time I did that was High School when I submitted a slightly rewritten version of Hemingway's "Today is Friday" as my own work (If you change a few words it's not Plagiarism, right?(in 1978 we called it "Copying)
I got an "F", not for Plagiarism, but because my Hard Shell Baptist English teacher didn't appreciate my story of Roman Soldiers shooting the shit about their workday (Crucifixion of Hey-Zeuss)
Yeah, Kurt Cobain could have just played in a Zepelin cover band (Nirvana's version of "The Immigrant Song" as good as the original IMHO) but he did his own stuff, Be Like Kurt (Lefty BTW)
OK, don't pull a Hemingway/Cobain, but use that Grape for what Jay-Hey created it for,

Frank

[Don Nico]

Fuck you, bigot.

[Malika the Maiz]

Lol.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you genuinely believe childish fucking fairy tales and superstitious nonsense are true? Or do you just claim to believe that rubbish for clinger street cred?

[Ridgeway]

That would be a great example, if Catholics were trying to force all non-Catholics to acknowledge the consecrated hosts as the body of Christ, and to punish those that refuse. Spoiler alert: they are not. Forced conversion went out of style with the Treaty of Westphalia.

By taking this position, you are unwittingly (I hope) assuming the mantle of a present-day Torquemada.

[Armchair]

Time for the way too early (but not really too early) Democratic VP nominee!

Let's assume for a second that Harris is the Democratic Nominee for President. Who does she pick as VP?

Here's what I'll say. The major players (Newsom, Whitmer, Obama, Clinton) will likely say no. They won't play second fiddle, especially to a campaign which is likely to lose.

I'm going to go with... My original choice was
1) Michelle Lujan Grisham - Governor of New Mexico. That hits all the right liberal buttons.

But I think a better choice politically is....
1) Roy Cooper, Governor of North Carolina. Term limited in 2025. May put NC into play.

[not guilty]

I haven't yet formed an opinion as to whom Ms. Harris should choose, but I do like that Governor Andy Beshear has won three hotly contested elections in a solidly red state commonwealth.

[Brett Bellmore]

That probably disqualifies him in the modern Democratic party. You don't do that while consistently catering to the extreme left, who won't like his support for arming police in schools, or ultrasound before abortions.

That said, looking over his stances on the issues, he does seem pretty hard left, so maybe he has a chance.

[Armchair]

I think Beshear is better in a general election.

As a VP pick, you'd ideally want someone who can bring the state over and moderate on the issues. Beshear isn't bringing over KY.

[David Nieporent]

There is no "extreme left" in any position of influence in the "modern Democratic Party." You live in a delusional world.

[OtisAH]

He’s not deluded, David. He’s just lying.

[Kazinski]

Most of us on the right are extremists, but all leftists are moderates.

Moderate communists.

[Drewski]

I mean, you and most MAGA here at the VC comments are extremists, idiots, trolls, and lunatics, but I have plenty of conservative friends that are not. Some of them even support Trump. (That said, I don't completely agree with Nieporent. We have a few "extremists in waiting" that would jump at the chance to burn it all down.)

[David Nieporent]

We have a few “extremists in waiting” that would jump at the chance to burn it all down.

I am not denying that there are extremists on the left. There are plenty! I am denying that there are such people in positions of influence in the Democratic Party.

[Bob from Ohio]

" I am denying that there are such people in positions of influence in the Democratic Party."

Did Bernie Sanders die?

[not guilty]

Bob, that's stupid even for you. Bernie Sanders is no Democrat.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess that's why he didn't run for the DemoKKKrat nomination

[Sarcastr0]

And he's still an institutionalist, putting him well behind Trump, many in this commentariat, and plenty of actual leftists in the extremism race.

[Commenter_XY]

PA Gov Josh Shapiro.

Beshear can't deliver KY. But Shapiro can deliver PA.

[Armchair]

Maybe. But Shapiro was only elected a year ago. Isn't that too soon to jump ship?

[Commenter_XY]

No, but Shapiro must think of his future political viability. Does he want to ride on the political equivalent of the Titanic, and run with Kamala? I doubt it.

But I think he is the best of the swing state governors you listed; Cooper cannot deliver NC and he can be a little flaky.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given her stance on Israel it might be hard Shapiro to embrace a Harris/Shapiro ticket.

[David Nieporent]

To what "stance on Israel" do you refer?

[Kazinski]

Her stance is: She can imagine what will be, unburdened by what was.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Too risky: he's Jewish.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/22/us-news/cnn-slammed-after-john-king-says-pa-gov-s-jewish-faith-make-him-a-risky-vp-pick/

[Kazinski]

That's something the Democrats will have to deal with internally with their base.

It will not be an issue with Republicans, or independents either.

But don't pretend it wouldn't be an issue among some democratic voters, especially in Michigan.

[Armchair]

Yeah....that might sink Kamala in Michigan.

[not guilty]

A Jewish man came within a gnat's eyelash of being elected vice-president in 2000. He would have won if a significant number of Jews in Palm Beach County had not mistakenly voted for the neo-Nazi Patrick Buchanan.

[Bob from Ohio]

Tell CNN, one of their people said it.

[Frank Drackman]

So they were Idiots? I know lots of Jews who voted for Buchanan

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don’t worry about forming your own opinion. Be a good Democrat and wait until the elites spoon feed it to you then act like it's the best opinion in the world and you always held such an opinion, and everyone who doesn't share it is a Racist, Bigot, Transphobe, White Supremacist.

[Frank Drackman]

Might want to make sure she gets the nomination first

[Don Nico]

Shapiro makes a great play for P which she must win.

[Armchair]

But does Shapiro hurt Harris in MI? That's also a must win. And is Shapiro interested?

[PaulS]

The only VP candidate that wins election for her is former President Obama - some others might get her close

[Brett Bellmore]

That's nice, but of course, Obama isn't qualified to be VP; You can only be a VP candidate if you could constitutionally assume the office, and Obama no longer can.

[David Nieporent]

That's probably what they meant, and how courts would likely interpret it, but it's not what they literally wrote. Pursuant to the 22nd amendment, Obama is ineligible to be elected president, but nothing in there actually says that he's ineligible to assume the office.

[Randal]

You obviously haven't watched enough Veep, which comes way the fuck closer to the current ridiculous situation than West Wing ever did.

An all female ticket? The American people work hard for a living. They don’t need that kind of bullshit.

~ VP-turned-presidential-candidate Selina Meyer

[Dan Schiavetta]

Nobody who supports Trump has any business talking about Harris being underqualified.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Trumps got 4 years of presidenting under his belt. Not too many people can say that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not even Biden.

[Malika the Maiz]

He didn't when he ran in 16, so anyone who voted for him then certainly has no room to complain about Harris being underqualified now.

[Drewski]

Four years of watching TV and tweeting angrily and often incoherently.

[Kazinski]

You should helpfully list all the topics we have no business talking about.

[Swede425]

I guess sometimes you have to kill democracy in order to save democracy.
It's been a wild week:
1) One political assassination narrowly failing
2) One political coup succeeding spectacularly

[DaveM]

It's way too early to say if the resignation hand-off succeeded. There's not a lot of love for Harris among the party faithful. It's not a slam-dunk by any means.

[Swede425]

Indeed.
But the Democracy Savers are going to have a tough time squaring the circle of not selecting Word Salad.
Optics, and all that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's not even his signature, nor is it on Presidential letterhread.

[David Nieporent]

Why would a campaign announcement be on Presidential letterhead?

[not guilty]

What facts support your claim that it is not Joe Biden's signature, JHBHBE? Please be specific.

And it shouldn't be on Presidential letterhead. Withdrawing as a candidate for nomination is not an official act.

[Mr. Bumble]

So again I ask, why did LBJ announce in an address from the Oval Office?
If he resigned, would that be an official act?

[not guilty]

LBJ gave an Oval Office speech to announce that he was partially halting the U.S. bombing of Vietnam. At the end of that speech he announced that he would not seek nomination for another term as President. The two were closely connected.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure. "Oh and by the way I'm not running for President"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Look at side by side pictures for yourself. When you are allowed to form your own opinion, of course, which may be never!

[not guilty]

IOW your information comes from that noted authority, Otto Yourazz. Pathetic.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Unlike you, ng, my opinions come from reasoning and empiricism, not some late night talk show host.

I love how you appeal to authority as if a person is incapable of viewing two signatures side by side and making a judgement.

Only a deeply trained Harvard Expert is qualified to do that! You better sit on your thumbs until one comes along and tells you what to think about it!

lol some fn lawyer you are

[Structured Chaos]

In his first letter, to which you refer, he did not say he was going to withdraw as candidate or that he was withdrawing as a candidate or that he was standing down as such. He instead said it would be in the best interests of the country if he were to "stand down". This is a distinction with a difference because this letter, its wording, its structure, was undoubtedly carefully crafted. Add this to, the lack of letterhead, the unusual signature and it seems suspicious.
The precatory nature, if you will, of the letter surprised me.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don't think you understand what coup means.

It's quite a funny take by the right, actually. Poll after poll showed a national frustration with running the same two old guys as were offered in 20. Well, leaders in one party listened to that and did something. And it's the other party that is criticizing that as an undemocratic coup!

[Kazinski]

That sort of thing happens when 65% of Democratic voters wanted Biden to drop out and he's trailing in the polls and much worse in the swing states.

The Hill:

Trump's favorability rises after shooting while many Americans want Biden to drop out: Poll

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4784183-trumps-favorability-rises-after-shooting-while-many-americans-want-biden-to-drop-out-poll

The Republicans had a competitive primary and are happy with their candidate.

The Democrats evidently, not so much.

[David Nieporent]

It’s quite a funny take by the right, actually.

"Joe Biden is unfit for office! The man is suffering from dementia and can't run!"

[Joe Biden drops out.]

"WHHHHAAAAA?????? HE CAN'T DO THAT!!!!! HE HAS TO RUN!!!!!! IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!!"

[Frank Drackman]

I'm not complaining, Incumbent POTUS has alot of weapons up his sleave an Incumbent VPOTUS doesn't,
Just ask Presidents Nixon in 1960, Humphrey 1968, (OK, GHW Bush won in 88' a ham sandwich could have beaten Do-Cock-Us) AlGore in 2000,
and at least with Common-Law, no children (hmm, I wonder why?) so we don't have to listen to how she "Lost her Son in Ear-Rock"

Frank

[Kazinski]

Well at least you didn't hear that from me, I've been saying Biden is too old for about a year.

Trump too, but nowhere near Biden old.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

On a scale of Hilariously Not Democratic At All to Totally Democratic, how would you rate the democracy savers means of selecting their candidate?

PS. The funniest meme so far are the they went from pee pads to knee pads

[apedad]

The only hilarious thing now to watch are the Magites flipping from Ageism to Sexism and Racism.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Even funnier than watching you morons worship perhaps the shittiest elite pick since KBJ?

A cackling loser who got less than 1% in her last primary is going to transform into a magical swan whose the Indian Obama! And you slope brained bottom dwellers are going to genuinely believe Kamala Harris has always been the One!

[Malika the Maiz]

"a magical swan whose the Indian Obama"

Slope brained bottom dwellers indeed!

[David Nieporent]

Even funnier than watching you morons worship perhaps the shittiest elite pick since KBJ?

1) You're supposed to be pretending you're not a racist piece of shit, but that doesn't work when you single out the two black people.

2) "The worst since _____!" trope kinda loses its force when you fill in the blank with something recent. If it's the worst in all of two years, it's not really bad at all.

[apedad]

Ten Commandments cannot go up in Louisiana classrooms yet, as governor claims biblical poster could have stopped would-be Trump assassin

(Louisiana Governor Jeff) Landry (last) week spoke at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he suggested that the law may have stopped Thomas Matthew Crooks from attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump.

“I would submit that maybe if the Ten Commandments were hanging on [Crooks’] wall at the school that he was in, maybe he wouldn’t have took a shot at the president,” Landry said on Thursday.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ten-commandments-cannot-go-up-in-louisiana-classrooms-yet-as-governor-claims-biblical-poster-could-have-stopped-would-be-trump-assassin/

How do you guys get so fucked in the head?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Gosh darnit I know! Dagnabbit! Obviously Pride and BLM and Tranny catchecisms are the only appropriate ideologies in schools!

Dagnabbit, who wants normal morals and values and shit!?!?

[apedad]

Your use of 'normal' reveals your bigotry.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh my heavens! A Democrat called me a “bigot’ that’s so powerful and meaningful! That is only used in very serious cases and an accusation that should immediately lead to shame and maybe even a good old fashion Struggle Session!

Thank you comrade for correcting Mt mind crime!

God bless!

Oops I mean, the Federal Dept. Of Approved Morality bless!

[Malika the Maiz]

Normal values like "You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me?"

[Armchair]

Round two of the way too early predictions.

-Now, while Kamala is currently favored to win the Democratic nomination process, an open convention is an entirely different beast from an open primary, and potentially brings out a whole new realm of candidates.

Many people don't want to run the full 18 month primary - general election gamut that the current Presidental nomination season has become, as well as needing to suck up to the liberal interests before needing to try to swing back more general.
But...2 months, 2 1/2 months? That's doable for a far different class of person. And if the convention committee just dropped the nomination in their lap, without having to run the gamut of primary season, well a whole new realm of candidate might open up.

So, who could potentially be a "dark horse" candidate that comes out of the convention, assuming Democrats actually want to win the election.

1. "The left-candidates". Harris, Newsom, Clinton, Obama.
---These double down on the liberal consensus, and if one wanted a candidate more generally electable, they're too far to the left.

2. --The Swing State governors.
-These are the dark horse candidates, that could swing their own state...and potentially the election.
1) Katie Hobbs, AZ. (Too new, elected 2023)
2) Andy Beshear, KY* (Kentucky isn't going to swing, but a Red State Dem Governor has potential)
3) Gretchen Whitmer, MI (has baggage...)
4) Roy Cooper, NC (Strong contender)
5) Josh Shapiro, PA (Elected 2023, too new)
6) Tony Evers, WI (72 years old. Yes, there are older candidates, but given the options...)
7) Tim Walz, MN (Strong contender).

Of those, I believe Cooper, Beshear and Walz have the best chances in a general election. They could be dark horse candidates to come out of the DNC and might have a real chance against Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair, the assassination attempt upended the election. I think Thomas Crooks handed the election to the man he despised in Butler, PA. I do not think it matters who the Democrats pick, outside events beyond their control are driving the election dynamics here. None of the dark horses (except Hillary, lol) you listed have any foreign policy experience.

The battle is now for Congress, and more state houses/legislatures.

[Armchair]

Tim Walz has some experience in foreign affairs as a House of Representatives member.

[not guilty]

During my lifetime there have been two previous attempts to assassinate a presidential candidate during his campaign. One was successful. The other did not inure to Governor Wallace's benefit.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who in their right mind (of course that would eliminate all Democrats) would want to hitch their wagon to a dead horse candidate.

[David Nieporent]

Barring something happening to her, Harris is the nominee. I know you're desperate for chaos to help Trump, but it ain't gonna happen.

[Armchair]

Perhaps. Harris isn't the best choice in a general election. Among other reasons, she was brought in as VP to shore up Biden's support with the far left and the DEI community. But for a general election, you want more of a moderate as your candidate.

[David Nieporent]

We don't know if she's the best choice; we don't know who the best choice is; we don't even know if there is a "best choice."

What we do know is that you literally know nothing about the Democratic party. She was absolutely not brought in to shore up his support with the far left. She is "more of a moderate." The far left — to the extent that they support Democrats at all — do not like her even a little bit.

[Armchair]

Sorry David, it's pretty clear you're not aware of some of Harris's positions.

On energy policy:
"However, as a Presidential candidate herself, Harris has endorsed a much more radical climate policy. Harris has said she was “no question…in favor of banning fracking,” even on private property, supported a ban on any new oil and gas infrastructure from being built"

Then there's her proposed Tobin tax on stock trades. And her proposals to spend trillions on "reparations" to African Americans.

Harris was brought in primarily because she was a black woman.

[Sarcastr0]

The left says she’s a cop and hates her.

It’s fine not to know that, but then don’t opine on what the left thinks. It’s not hard, just don’t make shit up based on what you feel is true.

Also your quote appears to come from a blog by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)
https://www.energyindepth.org/vp-harris-has-adopted-some-extreme-anti-energy-positions-over-the-years-what-happens-now/

LOL.

[David Nieporent]

Also, he completely fabricated the claim that she had "proposals to spend trillions on 'reparations' to African Americans." There was in fact no such proposal by Harris.

[Malika the Maiz]

Of course the guy who said he didn't know of any hate on the Right for national Democratic figures also thinks HRC or Obama are "far left" figures in the Democrat Party.

[DaveM]

Has anyone seen President Biden say in person that he has resigned his party’s nomination yet? And, has anyone seen the actual, physical signature on his resignation letter?

The release of a scanned copy of the letter on the X platform (of all places!) just seems so strange to me. No press release? No press briefing? No friendly media presence? No MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NYTimes, no Washington Post?!

And, no immediate support for Harris? What the heck was up with that? Almost like an after-thought: oh yeah, we forgot about good ‘ol Kamala, better say something nice about her.

Frankly, I am astonished at the sloppy, slapdash way this was done. Truly.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm open to the possibility that they put the statement out in his name, and then dared him to contradict it, but I'd need a heck of a lot of proof before I'd take that seriously.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing would be too strange in this strange year.
After a weekend with Dr. Jill and Hunter maybe he'll take it back.

[OtisAH]

Yes, Brett needs evidence this was the case before he’ll sign off on it. The burden of proof is much much much lower for him to express the idea however. And, of course, by this afternoon, Brett will insist (without insisting) that that is, in fact, what happened.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, the burden of proof for me to entertain an idea is lower than the burden of proof for me to conclude it's true. Is that not the case for you, too?

I would default to assuming Biden actually made the decision, but the fact that the announcement was made over X, and nobody has actually seen HIM say anything of the sort, does look kind of suspicious. Give it a day or two, they've got to put him in front of a camera and live mike or publish the obit sooner or later.

[Malika the Maiz]

"but I’d need a heck of a lot of proof before I’d take that seriously."

Mr. Green Screen is learning!

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "...but I’d need a heck of a lot of proof before I’d take that seriously."

Since when did you need ANY proof for a new conspriracy theory?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't really need any proof to, as I say, entertain a theory. Theories are cheap dates.

Proof comes in when you're deciding to actually adopt a theory, not just agreeing to think about it.

At this point, that Biden didn't pen that message dropping out is still consistent with the available evidence. But so is that he did pen it. I expect the question to be answered one way or the other within a couple of days. I'm content to be uncertain which happened until further evidence emerges.

[Structured Chaos]

In his first letter, to which you refer, he did not say he was going to withdraw as candidate or that he was withdrawing as a candidate or that he was standing down as such. He instead said it would be in the best interests of the country if he were to “stand down”. This is a distinction with a difference because this letter, its wording, its structure, was undoubtedly carefully crafted. Add this to, the lack of letterhead, the unusual signature and it seems suspicious.

[Brett Bellmore]

Suspicion is not evidence, and, as I said, I am not bothered by my inability to immediately decide exactly what happened, I'm perfectly content not knowing yet.

[grb]

I'd love to introduce you to William of Ockham. He's a great guy to know!

[Life of Brian]

OK, I'll play Ockham: The only evidence we have that Biden has withdrawn from the campaign is 1) a digital image of a document, 2) posted on a single social media account, 3) which account it is well-known and freely acknowledged Biden does not control.

And it's been a full 24 hours since that single social media post, with no -- nada -- zero -- zip -- appearance by the man (who, let it not be forgotten, also currently holds the title of President of the United States) in front of a camera and/or microphone to actually confirm that he wrote the letter at all, much less authorized it to be sent over that single social media channel.

Oh, and let's add to that the fact that a scant 18 hours before that fateful post, the same social media account posted a message ending in: "It's the most important election of our lifetimes. And I will win it." And the even less convenient fact that Cedric Richmond, the co-chair of Biden's campaign, stated just a few hours before the letter was posted: "And he's heard those concerns, and I want to be crystal clear. He's made a decision. And that decision is to accept the nomination, and run for reelection, win reelection. And I think that there are those out there that need to hear it again, that he made a decision, he's going to be the candidate, he's going to be the next president."

Given all that, I don't at all see how Ockham would consider it a remotely easy call that the letter was both genuine and voluntary.

[grb]

First, a personal confession : When a preteen, I was all into fantastical conspiracies. But then I grew-up.

Second, care to guess how likely Biden’s decision is some intricate engineered behind-the-scenes conspiracy with conspirators confident their clever scheme will stay secret & not explode in their face? Not being an LOB clown, I’d say the odds are between zero and zero.

Third, how much more likely than your wack-job loony-tunes dumb-as-shit conspiracy theory is this : Biden found his decision painful and humiliating so isn’t yet prepared to go before the cameras. I’d say the more likehood factor is some number approaching infinity.

[Life of Brian]

Huh? You invoked Ockham; I addressed why this situation appears to be in deep gray cloud territory instead.

Cutting away the cloud of straw men and inflammatory language in your reply, we're left with little more than you not daring to contradict a single one of the factually indisputable statements I made.

You want Biden to have personally sent/approved that letter -- hey, actually I do too! It sure would beat the implications of the alternative. But under the factual circumstances that I outlined and again you didn't/couldn't dispute, that's far from the most likely thing that happened.

Biden found his decision painful and humiliating so isn’t yet prepared to go before the cameras.

Now you're stacking telepathy on top of zero evidence, and trying to thread the needle: where he's supposedly stepping down altogether for the good of the party/country, but just has too much hurtz feelz to do the right thing and give them proper closure in doing so.* Is all that possible? Sure. But IMO this sort of carefully calibrated mental gymnastics is far outside the edge of Ockham's skating rink.

* On top of that, there was nothing magic about yesterday: he could have just waited until he was ready to face the nation, and made the announcement then.

[grb]

Life of Brian : “Huh?”

Huh indeed. You created the most ludicrously absurd conspiracy scenario since Paul’s secret death and the faked moon landing. And then you insisted William of Ockham would bless your nonsense house of cards.

Reminder: There was ZERO chance Biden’s announcement was faked or secretly engineered. There isn’t a galaxy in the universe where that moonshine had any chance to be true. If you don’t like my alternate suggestion, then too bad. It’s still a zillion times more likely than your hogwash.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth:

President Joe Biden said he believed he’d made the right decision ending his reelection bid in a call with campaign workers on Monday, saying the mission “hasn’t changed at all” now that he had endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to replace him as the Democratic nominee.

“I want people to remember that what we have done has been incredible,” the president told campaign workers in Wilmington, Delaware, during a surprise call. “Embrace her, she’s the best. I know yesterday’s news is surprising, and it’s hard for you to hear, but it was the right thing to do.”

Whatya think, LOB?
Faked phone call?
How much more wrong do you want to be?

[Life of Brian]

Ah, it’s been a while and I had forgotten exactly what a poor-faith debater you are. Not going to feed the piled-on invective and unsupported table pounding (“ZERO chance” etc. is either wishful thinking or the mark of a true-blue cultist), but can’t pass this one up:

Faked phone call?

You tell me: the language in this clip is admittedly a bit salty, but you could excuse the man for a bit of frustration under the circumstances.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maybe he's gone worse than we realize, and it's more than just Covid. Is he even still alive? Conscious? Able to speak?

Remember we saw him full of Adderall and Lord knows what else.
Without those drugs, umm???

I think something happened at the fundraiser on Martha's Vineyard, which would have been where -- the NoBama Mansion? And I'm not sure it wasn't a faction of the Dems that did this. Or even a few young activists as a prank that backfired. But I am suspicious...

It's like with the Soviet leaders in the '80s.

So has anyone seen him alive since Saturday?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m open to the possibility that they put the statement out in his name, and then dared him to contradict it

Perhaps the least surprising thing I've seen in a while.

but I’d need a heck of a lot of proof before I’d take that seriously.

Followed immediately by one of the most transparent lies!

[Sarcastr0]

Truly grasping at straws. Truly.

[grb]

In frenzied panic, aren't they?

[Sarcastr0]

Shades of Obama's inauguration and how Roberts bobbled the oath. Maybe the REAL oath was taken to Marx, on a Koran?????????????

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm in a frenzied "Eh, whatever. Wake me when he confirms it."

It's a very laid back frenzy, to be sure.

[Sarcastr0]

You’ve posted about it 5 times today.

The next most frequent poster, Malika the Maiz, posted twice.

[Malika the Maiz]

He also hasn't released his long form birth certificate, has he?

[David Nieporent]

The GOP has already started on birtherism wrt Harris.

[John F. Carr]

Now Biden is basking in the eulogies, waiting to emerge alive at his own funeral and hold everybody to the praise.

It's a fun theory. And since it's long been clear that 2024 won't be good it might as well be fun.

[Krayt]

There's a rich conspiracy theory. He died, or is badly incapacitated from Covid. All this is being hidden. Somebody else faked his signature on the letter, lookee at differences!

Who's running the country. WHO'S RUNNING THE COUNTRY???

[OtisAH]

Harris/Buttigieg 2024

[Mr. Bumble]

Sorry, only room for one queen on the ticket.

[DaveM]

Yes, vote for Harris because she did such a great job on closing our southern border. And vote for Buttigieg because he did such a great job at the Palestine, OH train disaster.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Merit doesn't matter in Democratland.

[Malika the Maiz]

Which is why they have a figure who inherited their fortune as their Leader!

[Frank Drackman]

and on Bill Maher's "Real Time" show he was positively having an Orgasm about sending Auto Assembly Line jobs to May-He-Co, He'd be the perfect VP for Common-Law, I mean, they need a female to balance the ticket.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, vote for Harris because she did such a great job on closing our southern border. And vote for Buttigieg because he did such a great job at the Palestine, OH train disaster.

Yes, you care so much about that train wreck that you misgeographied it by 300 miles.

[ThePublius]

You knew what he meant.

[Mr. Bumble]

Being disingenuous is not a problem for David.

[Bwaaah]

David never plays any less than his best game. (I'm keeping this short to avoid any mistakes in punctation.)

[Malika the Maiz]

Accuracy, not a big concern for ThePublius.

[ThePublius]

You're a dick. He left out "East," as in a typo. So what? Dicks like to throw stones that are closely available, so they don't have to address the topic at hand.

The point is, that she hasn't done a thing as VP, including, as the "border czar," securing the border, and Buttigieg, as sec. of transportation, did nothing about the rail disaster in Ohio.

You know the Sec. of Transportation is doing a shitty job if you know who the Sec. of Transportation is.

[David Nieporent]

Of course I knew what he meant; that's how I was able to measure his error. He meant, "I don't know anything at all about this, but I know it's a MAGA shibboleth to prove I hate Buttigieg."

[ThePublius]

So, why don't you comment on Buttigieg's response to the rail disaster, rather than mock or attack the commenter? Do you think Buttigieg did a good job on this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No....

[DaveM]

No, what I meant was "make sure you spel everything real korrect-like or else Nieporent will be all over your case". Or wait, would that be the Rev? (What's up with that guy, I wonder. Haven't heard from him in awhile.)

I don't hate Buttigieg, I just think he's second-tier. I think precisely the same about Harris. Both quite unimpressive.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David -- SOMEWHERE in Ohio there was a major HazMat spill.
Does it really matter where???

[OtisAH]

Kamala Harris is smarter than Convicted Felon Trump and JD Vance combined. Pete Buttigieg is smarter than JD Vance and Convicted Felon Trump combined. Kamala Harris does not dream of being a dictator. Pete Buttigieg does not dream of being a fuhrer. Kamala Harris will not abandon our allies or cozy up with authoritarians. Pete Buttigieg will not abandoned our allies or cozy up with authoritarians. Both Harris and Buttigieg will defend our laws and constitution against people who prefer to wipe their asses with both, people such as Convicted Felon Trump and JD Vance.

And Kamala Harris is 59 years old and Pete Buttigieg is 42 years old. Convicted Felon Trump is 78 years old and, despite our Media being too bored with his act to report on it very much, shows that he is in even faster decline than folks perceive Biden to be.

Of course, Buttigieg isn’t on the campaign yet (technically, neither is Harris). And he/she may not be. But with a couple minor changes above, the same goes for anyone who gets chosen as Harris’s veep or someone else’s.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's Monday. Weekend pass is over. Time to get back to the treatment facility.

[David Nieporent]

Kamala Harris is smarter than Convicted Felon Trump and JD Vance combined. Pete Buttigieg is smarter than JD Vance and Convicted Felon Trump combined.

Vance is utterly unprincipled, but he's not stupid. So unless you're giving a negative score to Trump in your calculations (which would not be entirely unwarranted), I don't believe either of these is accurate. Harris has certainly never struck me as some sort of great intellect.

[Don Nico]

"is smarter than..."
Typically data-free partisan statement

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Kamala has definitely imprisoned more black males for trivial crimes than Trump or Vance, that much is irrefutable!

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't understand how homophobic Southern Blacks are.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed, speaker for the Alabama black belt.

[Frank Drackman]

You probably don't even know the term refers to the color of the Soil, and not the People (although honest mistake, they're close)

Frank

[David Nieporent]

I probably do know that the term originally referred to the soil, but then it came to also refer to the color of the people who picked the cotton that was being grown there.

[Don Nico]

You must really want her to lose.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Favorite online right-wing weirdo takes that will definitely play well with normal human voters, especially educated ones in the suburbs:

Birtherism 2.0
She doesn’t have kids and step kids don’t count
She slept her way to the top
She laughs? (Libs of TikTok did this one)
She briefly dated Montel Williams(?!)
She wants to ban plastic straws (kudos to Jason Miller for an actual policy point)
(Alex) Soros puppet (Musk)
No you can’t do that, it’s unfair/illegal (despite not being unfair or illegal)

But the best by far is from Donald Trump himself:

I demand a refund.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh I forgot: describing herself to the vision impaired.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wtf she doesn't laugh. Whatever she does is nowhere near a human laugh.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You understand that this stuff makes you really off-putting and weird, right? Everyone knows and is friends with people whose laughs they find annoying. They won't find it disqualifying for a political position unless they are similarly weird and off-putting. Saying someone doesn't have a human laugh despite laughing being part of the human condition makes you look like the joyless freak and her look like the normal person. So by all means, proceed.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh my, I better self censor so I don't look weird to the people who claim Trump is literally orange.

lol get fucked

[LawTalkingGuy]

Me: tells you to jump off a bridge.

You: get fucked I’m jumping off that bridge.

Me: wow you sure showed me by doing exactly what I wanted you to do.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Right, LTG, your call for me to self censor is out of concern for my political chances and not yours!

You're so noble and self sacrificing! Not like the other girls!

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m not calling on you to self-censor. Quite the opposite. I’m telling you straight up and honestly you’re a fucking weirdo and you should keep being weird as shit. It helps my cause politically when you or others like you say weird shit. And I’m telling you this without any sarcasm whatsoever because I know you’re incapable of responding to criticism and think this a sign you’re on the right path. But the best thing for everyone is for me to tell you to keep being a freak and then for you to go ahead and do that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You have the mind of a child.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't blame anybody for being bad at faking a laugh or a smile. I'm terrible at it myself.

[Michael P]

There's a hilarious amount of wishcasting about what "normal human voters" will think coming from the party where a third of their people think the Trump assassination attempt was staged and a third (presumably a different third) wish it had been successful.

[Frank Drackman]

The Straw ish-yew isn't a Straw-man (see what I did there?)
Paper straws suck, it's like trying to dribble a Paper Basketball, Cum into a Paper Condom, put a Keg of Beer into a Paper bag,
And what's wrong with her Snatch? no Kids, and didn't get married until she's 50?, and then to umm, a guy the nicest thing I can say about is he's light in the loafers.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Still waiting for Obama's endorsement of Kamala.

[OtisAH]

Nobody cares what you’re waiting for. Seriously, you’re doubtlessly at home so just ask around your house right now. Nobody will respond.

[Corve5]

That'll come after she takes his little peepee out of her mouth.

[Bwaaah]

They had to send the World's Most Respected Black Guy out in front to call for a process of selecting the best candidate, while [most of] the team reiterates its unshaking fealty to All Black People, as in Kamala.

Nancy, Hakeem, and Chuck are laying back, waiting for the World's Most Respected Black Guy to open this up while he solicits the continued obeyance of the [shrinking] Black Block. Once he's cleared the way, if he can clear the way, it'll be GAME ON.

[Malika the Maiz]

So, you've dropped the "I'm a lifelong Democrat who just feels pushed out by all the illiberalism from them these days" thing.

[Bwaaah]

Though I often identify as "liberal," and certainly "moderate," I never identify as Democrat or Republican. You still doing disingenuous mischaracterizations?

[Malika the Maiz]

Cool story!

[Sarcastr0]

“I am their creation. I am the hated. I am the target of their vindictive plans and their vitriolic invective. I am their MAGA.

I stand against the Party of Hate, first and mostly now because they are hateful.”

One of THOSE independents, I see.

[Bwaaah]

The party with a dwindling identity, of no particular persuasion, turned to identity politics. And as that too dissolved, it was left with only one theme around which its minions were like-minded: its hate for Donald Trump.

But that hate had to be centered, and fostered, and hardened, not just in a man, not just in Him, but in our people...in us. And so they named the hated, the MAGAs, and declared that all who would vote for Him are the hated, the scum, the evil fools.

I am their creation. I am the hated. I am the target of their vindictive plans and their vitriolic invective. I am their MAGA.

I stand against the Party of Hate, first and mostly now because they are hateful, and by their own designs, they have turned me into the hated. (Those who would condemn me: look inward and hear the tenor your own voices.)

[Malika the Maiz]

"they have turned me into the hated"

"My poor lack of agency, those evil Dems!" Lol, no one buys that now. Just do you.

[Bwaaah]

lol. Loss of agency? Of course not. I vote. Against you. (And I live a charmed existence, so far.)

And I laugh. At you. But I have to crane my neck back far to see you up there, looking down at me. You look great, all puffed up and cocky up there.

Mine was a woe-is-you comment, not a woe-is-me. November 2024, Malika. November 2024…when Bullshitters will hopefully be confronted once again by a Bigger Bullshitter. No worry for you…you’ll learn nothing from it.

[grb]

Bwaaah : “The party with a dwindling identity, of no particular persuasion, turned to identity politics”

Take a sec and try explaining why that isn’t 100X more a description of Donald Trump and today’s GOP. They're more committed to identity politics than the Dems could ever be.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Take a sec and try explaining why that isn’t 100X more a description of Donald Trump and today’s GOP. They’re more committed to identity politics than the Dems could ever be.

That's a pretty bizarre claim, given that the DNC's biggest dilemma right now is risking a civil war within the party if they don't nominate Harris...solely because of her gender and racial heritage.

[grb]

Who was more dependent on "identity politics”, Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Honestly answer that question and you make my point for me. Trump, the GOP, and Fox News are all addicted to identity politics to degree well beyond anything from the Dems.

Of course their "identity politics” is white, so you don't think that counts.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Who was more dependent on “identity politics”, Joe Biden or Donald Trump.

Joe Biden selected a very unpopular former candidate as his VP just to tick a couple of identity politics boxes, and has supported every left-wing identity politics cause there is. You're so far out of touch with reality it isn't even funny.

[Ska]

Don't forget her "genocidal" tendencies of... being the VP of the USA and not, somehow, stopping Israel from pursuing its own defense; a separate identity dilemma the DNC painted itself into.

Do you shit on the young angry voters? Or the donors? Strategically it sounds like the answer is fuck the Palestine supporters (probably not voting in swing states; toxic to independents), but who knows?

Chicago has a lot of potential next month.

[Bwaaah]

As WuzYoungOnceToo indicates, your problem now is to see if you can drop the identity politics so you can choose your best candidate. Obama’s trying to clear the way for you. But your culture, your pronouncements, your commitments of loyalty tell you you can’t abandon the symbolic Black Woman. You can’t choose your best. Not yet. You have not sufficiently confessed your sins of the past. You must support the Black Woman. Because this moment isn’t about you selecting the best leader; this moment, every moment, is about you being a “good person”.

[Ed Grinberg]

"You can’t choose your best."
I hope you weren't planning to teach at Georgetown Law School...

[Bwaaah]

It's worse than that. I have to leave my home when my wife has friends over now. Even though I've promised to be silent and stay in my bedroom, they know I'm there and claim to feel threatened by my thoughts.

I'm hoping to die old, ugly, and significantly diminished in capacity. I don't mind if people add "antagonistic" to the list. (Those would presumably be the "agonistic" people.)

[Sarcastr0]

Well, this is sad.

[Martinned2]

O wow, this thread is exactly as much of a flaming pile of garbage as I thought it would be. Good thing I'm on vacation for another week.

RIP Volokh Conspiracy (2002-2022)

[Mr. Bumble]

On holiday and yet you felt compelled to check in.

[Bwaaah]

Some people's holidays drag on so long that VC discussions somehow become a better prospect. No offense to all y'alls, but it's not hard for me to find greener pastures than this, especially during vacation. If I wake up and feel like reading this stuff, it's time to go home. (At that point, have I really left home?)

[Bob from Ohio]

"for another week."

You can always go on an endless vacation from here.

[Don Nico]

Enjoy your vacation, Martin

[Moderation4ever]

When the 2024 Presidential race began I heard a lot of wailing that people wanted different candidates. Well now we have one. I didn’t like that we had one septuagenarian and one octogenarian. Well that has changed. I appreciate the choice and I hope others do also.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What choice? You aren't being given a choice.

[Malika the Maiz]

"I don't understand the nomination process, slash that, most anything."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Can you point to where the regular Democrats got to vote for Harris in a primary?

Maybe I'm missing something,I'll happily concede the point if Kamala was nominated via the primary process.

[SimonP]

By this standard, you'd be saying the same thing even if Biden keeled over. "Too bad, Democrats, you're stuck running with a corpse!"

It's so bizarre. Voters have been conveying, for months, that they wanted Biden to step aside and allow an open primary. He didn't listen to us. He didn't want to come to terms even after his debate performance made the facade impossible to maintain.

He won the primaries unopposed by any serious contender. And you are telling us that his finally listening to the voters is in some sense anti-democratic? This is what we all wanted, brother. His decision to run was what took away our right to have a say. The only reason we can't have an open primary again, now, is due to the timing on the calendar. So we go with our next best option, whether it's Harris or a "mini-primary" among the delegates, or something else.

I'm not bothered by Biden's stepping down. You want to have this fight. Why is that?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Because I want to rub your filthy fucking nose in your own severe hypocrisy just like when a puppy shits on the rug.

You idiots have been flag waving yourselves as some sort of Sacred Democracy Defenders for nearly a decade, ignoring the reality of how you govern your party just like you govern a nation.

[SimonP]

Right, you actually don't give a shit about any of this, it's just about landing punches.

Whatever.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh noes, I don't genuinely care about how Democrat elites shit on the Democrat voters time and time again but find value in pointing it out to the idiots at the bottom!

I better self censor until I do care about the Democrats!

[grb]

Newsflash : Having a candidate decide to drop out of the race is no detriment to “Sacred Democracy”. It happens all the time. It has even happened with the presidency itself.

On the other hand, Trump’s attempt to steal an election he lost is a whole other story – striking at the very core of our nation’s democratic structure.

I would think even the Nazi child could see the distinction, but apparently JHBHBE is just too damn stupid.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you didn't vote for Biden?

[Malika the Maiz]

Biden's not running now, goofus.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Didn't", past tense. Vote for Biden in the primary?

[Moderation4ever]

No i did not. In the primary I voted for Nicki Halley.

[Commenter_XY]

What choice? You mean the choice that DC Jackals and Hyenas are foisting onto the Democrat party? They just disenfranchised millions of (D) primary voters with their machinations.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, now he's capitalizing the animal names!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Illiterate clingers tend to do that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

In 2020 republicans tried to disenfranchise 81 million people. So just in pure numbers terms I don’t think they’ll care given the alternative.

[Mr. Bumble]

81 million people didn't elect Joe Biden; approximately 60,000 spread over three states did.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess you could call cemetery residents "Spread over three states"

[SimonP]

I want to thank all of you MAGA asshats for so vocally, and so repetitively, making the claim that "Democrats lied about Biden's competence" or that "Naming Harris as the nominee now would be anti-democratic" or some other such nonsense about how the Democratic party is engaged in a "bait and switch" by substituting a candidate for Biden, after months and months of concern over his age have finally resulted in his stepping aside.

I want to thank you for all of this concern trolling, because it has made it very easy to identify your cohorts making the same claims, as purported "liberals" and "Democrats" across the internet, as bad-faith trolls just trying to spread your talking points far and wide. Yes, it is extremely clear now that bad actors - maybe it's the Russians, maybe it's the Arabs, maybe it's just Republicans - are trying to sow discontent among the left over Kamala and "the establishment," the same way they did during 2016, over Hillary.

I hope that people will be savvier this go-around - we'll find out. In any event, your caterwauling here has been very informative, and useful. It's made your gambit very transparent. Fucking morons.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for your analysis.

Sincerely,
Asshat

[NOVA Lawyer]

I applaud your accurate self-identification!

[Bwaaah]

And I appreciate your gleeful applause.

Sincerely,
Asshat

[M L]

A lot of people on the right were predicting this bait and switch for a long time. I never believed it, as these were the same people who usually have some conspiracy or prediction that doesn't happen.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I like how this clown acts like everyone very recently wasn't defending Biden to the hilt.

You people live in a different reality.

[SimonP]

I'm not denying it. I'm just noticing that the people who seem to care a lot about it tend not to be, you know, Democratic voters. It tends to be people like you. Funny how that is, right?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Just like how you morons are so genuinely concerned about whatever Trumpism you're in a moral panic over.

That's obviously how politics works you idiot

[SimonP]

The "Trumpisms" that people have moral panics over tend not to be over internecine conflicts between Trump and the GOP. You guys want to hand over your party machinery to Trump's family? You want him to run a grift with your political campaign contributions? You want to boo the guy who ushered in Trump's only legislative accomplishment and two Supreme Court seats? Sure, knock yourselves out. I don't give a shit if you want to be idiots within your own party.

No, the "moral panic" tends to be over "Trumpisms" that threaten the entire country. Things like, I dunno, overthrowing elections, deporting millions of immigrants in one fell swoop after obligatory stops in prison camps, managing foreign policy and pandemic response like the only goal is to ensure your own political future, etc., etc., etc.

[Commenter_XY]

You're welcome SimonP. 🙂

Do let everyone know if you need more grist for your rage mill. We can accommodate.

[hobie]

“Naming Harris as the nominee now would be anti-democratic”

Well, you have to admit this crew knows a thing or two about anti-democratic. So maybe they're on to something

[M L]

Biden really folded like a cheap suit after just a few weeks of media coverage and pressure that, while harsh, would feel like a honeymoon relative to what Trump has endured for 8 years.

Anyone have any idea or care to speculate what sticks and carrots were involved here?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Anyone have any idea or care to speculate what sticks and carrots were involved here?

If we’re to take Biden at his word, the Lord Almighty himself must have come down and told Joe it was time to pack it in.

Either that or it was so many major donors declaring that the campaign cash spigots were turned off unless/until he dropped out.

[M L]

The “Lord Almighty” comment could be interpreted as him negotiating a high price.

[John F. Carr]

Business Insider: "Biden said only the 'Lord Almighty' could get him to exit the presidential race. Then came Nancy Pelosi."

Nancy Pelosi is God.

[Ska]

Reinforcing my turn to agnosticism those many decades ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden's angry response to suggestions that he take a cognitive test indicate that he was aware he had a problem, and was in denial about it. Nobody who genuinely thought they were fine would refuse that test, because they'd be confident they'd pass it.

I won't pretend to know how they got him to admit it was too bad for him to go on as though everything was fine.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Why does Trump refuse to take the test and publicly release the results?

"Person, woman, man, camera" is his hilarious self-report, was years ago, and doesn't count.

Under your logic, it's obvious he cannot pass a cognitive test.

[Brett Bellmore]

False premise. He did take the test.

[NOVA Lawyer]

When? Link.

We have merely his word for it? He is the man who claims all sorts of obviously untrue things. Pull the other one.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is the cognitive test the president passed

" Before President Donald Trump’s physical examination on Friday, Dr. Ronny Jackson had decided he wasn’t going to perform a cognitive assessment. Jackson said he didn’t feel the test was necessary. But the president requested he be tested, anyway.

“He actively asked me to include that in it so we did,” Jackson said Tuesday while speaking to reporters about the results of the president’s physical."

You're free to now announce that his doctor lied about giving him the test, too.

[Magister]

The link to the test in that article was broken, but I found the page through the Wayback Machine. The maximum score is 30, but "Add one point for an individual who has 12 years or fewer of formal education, for a possible maximum of 30 points." So the claim that he got 30 points taking the test is false, no matter how good he was at drawing clocks or identifying animals; Trump has more than 12 years of formal education.

Regardless, that test was over six years ago, and there is more reason for questions about Trump's cognitive ability now than in 2018.

[NOVA Lawyer]

A 2018 test? It has been suggested that he take a cognitive test recently. That he, and you, rely on a 2018 test for a 78, morbidly obese man with a horrible diet and stressful life is pretty much an admission that he is very unsure he could pass it again.

Ronny Jackson did say he was 6'3 and 239.....if he lied about one thing, why shouldn't his credibility about accurately reporting the results of his examinations be in question?

[David Nieporent]

“Person, woman, man, camera” is his hilarious self-report, was years ago, and doesn’t count.

Dude, everyone knows it's "Person, woman, man, camera, tv."

[SimonP]

Polling consistently showed him losing to Trump. After the debate performance, it was clear he wasn't going to be able to address voters' central concern with his candidacy. He had a couple of weeks to make his case that it was just an "off night." He didn't do that. Indeed, the apparent strategy in his appearances since then showed that his aides knew he couldn't do that.

Yes, party leaders were starting to freak out when their down-ballot candidates started piping up about how a weak Biden would hurt all of them in their own races. Yes, donors were responding to all of these developments with their own concerns. But I don't think there's any "stick" or "carrot" involved other than reality knocking at Biden's door. He's old. I knew that, you knew that, everyone knew that.

You people are bitching and moaning about it, trying to come up with grand conspiracies about "establishment Democrats," because you're pissed that an election that seemed like a cakewalk to fascism a week ago is - if not in play, much closer to "in play" than it was a week ago. Go cry about it.

[Commenter_XY]

Who is bitching and moaning....Many are enjoying the spectacle of watching the political autophagy of the Democrat party.

[SimonP]

Weird flex, when the comments show otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

Who is bitching and moaning

There's this Commenter_XY guy. I think he went to the zoo recently? Anyhow, he seems big mad about this.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey remember with Buttigieg and his life partner got all dressed up in hospital garb and took a photo as if one of them gave butt birth to that child they selfishly adopted as some sort of hetero-costume jewelry?

I can't tell of that was more sad than pathetic or more pathetic than sad.

[Corve5]

They think their relationships are just as good as ours. They're sick.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Keep going with this stuff. Definitely going to win you the suburbs.

[Brett Bellmore]

You must have some really weird ideas about what life is like in the suburbs, if you think people there didn't find that photo deeply disturbing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Even if a photo was weird people talking about “butt birth” and saying gay couples are “sick” for thinking their relationships have value, is not the kind of stuff suburbanites like to hear!

[SimonP]

You are so easily triggered, it's kind of pathetic.

Pete and Chasten are a couple of dorks. I don't know the background of the photo, but it looks like they were there for their kids' birth, and posed with a photograph in a way that would be typical of any other couple who just had a kid. Good for them. Neither of them is dressed or posed in a way suggesting that they'd just gone through childbirth. They're just a couple of new parents in t-shirts.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Now you know what cultural appropriation looks like.

Two males are not just like a typical couple who had a child as two males can't produce children.

They stole normal culture and wore it like a skin suit.

[SimonP]

You don't give a shit about "cultural appropriation," and wouldn't recognize it even if it pulled up to your Halloween party wearing your favorite pair of cargo shorts with an XXXL polo shirt and sandals with socks, you fat fuck.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You sound triggered, are you okay?

[SimonP]

I'm sorry, is my lack of civility getting your panties all bunched up? Do you want me to maintain an even, conciliatory tone, even as you describe gay men posing with their newborn kids as wearing a "skin suit" of "normal culture"?

I'll pass. That's just the game you conservative trolls play. "Oh, am I upsetting you? Giggity giggity!" Nah, brah, I'm just picking up what you lay down.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You are so easily triggered, it’s kind of pathetic.

[SimonP]

I dunno, from the outside, heterosexual couples don't seem that happy. There's always weird divisions of household labor, women putting off their careers or cutting them off prematurely in order to raise kids, husbands who feel like they never know what their wives want and constantly joke about cheating on/hitting/killing them, wives who have to constantly gaslight themselves over the emotionally abuse they suffer, strange vicarious fantasies lived through their kids, unwanted pregnancies, fights over finances, and on and on.

My partner and I are two men who get each other. There's no bargaining for sex when you're both into it. There's no presumed division of labor to fight about or resent. There's no pregnancy drama to worry about. Neither of us put off our career or gave up financial independence. I don't know why any dude wouldn't want what we have.

It's so odd, really. You make fun of us for having anal and oral sex, yet from hearing straight guys talk about it, those are the two best kinds to have with women. I'd bet that, if you could get a chick with a dick but lovely bazongas, a feminine manner and appearance, and a psychological profile you could actually relate to, fully 50% of straight dudes would jump for it, no questions asked. "Sure she has a dick, but she doesn't give me shit over watching football with the boys, and in fact she loves to drink beer and shoot the shit, she's awesome. Plus she can satisfy my deep inner cravings to get fucked in the ass every once in a while."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This straight guy is secretly gay fantasy from the homosexuals is so bizarre.

If you're so hot for a straight guy, just groom and molest him while he's underage like what, statistically speaking, probably happened to you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you have a podcast or a Twitter account with a lot of followers? It would really help if you could explain that the conservative position is gay people are molestation victims and you think that’s hilarious to as many people as possible.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's what the data say, and what they say.

Chickenhawks and "coming of age' stories at 14ish with some mature Gay is standard fare for homosexuals.

You're just upset a light is being shown on this.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If I was upset why would I be encouraging you to continue being like this?

[SimonP]

Me? I don't like straight men. They are boooooring, and they grow up into unlikable turd farmers like yourself.

I wasn't molested, either - though, not for lack of trying. Some gay priest in my church tried to get me to do one-on-one confirmation training, when I was spiraling out of the church. But I didn't vibe with him, and just became an atheist instead. Didn't start sucking cock until college, actually!

When did you start eating shit?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I don't ingest human feces, accidentally or on purpose, I am a heterosexual man with dignity and self respect.

Statistically speaking, how much human feces does a typical homosexual ingest, accidentally or on purpose?

[SimonP]

I don’t ingest human feces, accidentally or on purpose, I am a heterosexual man with dignity and self respect.

You think so? You probably don't know how to wash your ass - "too gay." I'll bet your place is covered in E. Coli.

The ass-to-mouth thing is not something I understand or will ever in a million years do. I guess in the straight world, it's mostly women eating their own shit, huh?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'm a heterosexual head of household Normal with high social status and self dignity. As such I don't know anything about homosexual peculiars.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Any man who must say ‘I am the King’ is no true king.”

[SimonP]

You launched this thread, completely unprompted, with some ancient whinge over Pete Buttigieg's "butt birth" hospital photo. I think you are more preoccupied by the homosexual lifestyle than you are prepared to admit.

It's okay. People come out at all ages. Even as transgendered.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I like how you try to insult me my insinuating I'm just like you.

I know why I find your lifestyle choices so revolting that they are worthy of being an insult, but why do you?

[SimonP]

No, I am insinuating that you think about butt sex and eating shit more than I do, a fully confident and open gay man, notwithstanding your claims to being a "heterosexual head of household Normal [sic] with high social status and self dignity." Which doesn't even sound like English, really. What is your native language?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh I seriously doubt that, gay man.

Are at the stage where you have to wear a diaper?

[Corve5]

No, 50% of straight dudes would not want a woman with a dick, even if she was a woman in all other respects.

[SimonP]

Well, don't fight the hypothetical, Curvy. I said chick with a dick, plus a lot of additional benefits to make up for it, like a great pair of tits and a personality that's like a guy's best bro - or really whatever it is you need from women that you're not usually getting.

Like, you types can guffaw and roll your eyes about "toxic masculinity," but the systematic deprivation of love that men typically experience in our society is so endemic that none of the rest of us are really free from seeing it in all of your behavior. We know you're all deeply unhappy. So I'm saying, a lot of straight guys would give up vaginal penetration if they could satisfy all of their other sexual desires with a hot woman who doesn't give them shit for not doing the dishes without being asked.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Weird how DV rates are higher in the non-Normal community than among us Normals.

You'd think given all your confidence to the contrary it would be so.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest these are just lies you tell yourself to quiet the inner shame you people must feel.

[SimonP]

Weird how DV rates are higher in the non-Normal community than among us Normals.

Not among gay men. No, what you’re seizing on there is the fact that women are much more likely to be the victims of domestic violence, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a man or woman. You’re really just talking about plain old misogyny, there.

I don’t feel any “shame" for being gay, whatsoever. Like I said, I feel sorry for the straights that are sexually attracted to people they don’t fundamentally understand.

The only shame I can really say I feel is for the amount of time I spend fighting with braindead MAGA trash online.

[Corve5]

Their rates of suicide, depression, and substance abuse are also much higher. They know they're fucked up, but don't want to admit it to themselves. A non-fucked up man wouldn't look at a man's anus and desire to put his little peepee into it. QED.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ONLY 50%?!?

[Brett Bellmore]

That was hilarious, wasn't it? I mean the photo. Cosplaying normality, badly.

Why would anybody who didn't on some level wish they were normal have done something like that? Heterosexual couples who adopt don't stage photos like that.

I suppose I'm going to find out I'm wrong about that...

I do hope the kid doesn't end up too messed up.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Moved

[Bored Lawyer]

Anyone want to make odds on whether Kamala Harris will be the Dem presidential nominee?

At this point, I’d say 2:1.

On the plus side: as VP, she is the heir apparent. She is a black woman, which means that knocking her off the ticket would offend left-wing identity politics sensibilities. The campaign fund that Biden collected can only be spent by her (or so I have read.)

One the negative side: she has a lot of negative baggage, and frankly lacks the intelligence to be president. There are many video quotes that can be run that make her sound like an empty suit (or, I guess, empty dress?) Her tenure as CA AG has a negative record. She is closely tied to the Biden Administration’s horrendously bad border/immigration policy. She certainly knew about Biden’s lack of mental acuity and did nothing about it. And Obama and other party higher-ups, other than Biden, have not endorsed her.

Given the late date and the other factors above, she is currently the favorite. But by no means a sure thing. That’s my take, anyway.

[Commenter_XY]

50/50, at best. The more she opens her mouth, the worse it will get.

[Sarcastr0]

Partisans should not make political predictions. Certainly they should not lay odds.

[Bored Lawyer]

Really, is that in Sarcastro's Ten Commandments?

[Sarcastr0]

Thou shalt not have other Sarcastr0s before me.

[Bored Lawyer]

One is more than enough.

[jb]

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about a Kamala candidacy or Presidency, but it seems like she's got the nomination close to sewn up. Almost all of the obvious alternative candidates have now endorsed her.

[David Nieporent]

Anyone want to make odds on whether Kamala Harris will be the Dem presidential nominee?

1,000%.

Literally the only way she doesn't receive the nomination is if Trump has her killed before the party can make it official.

One the negative side: she has a lot of negative baggage, and frankly lacks the intelligence to be president.

She doesn't strike me as a rocket scientist, but compared to Trump she's fucking Marie Curie.

And Obama and other party higher-ups, other than Biden, have not endorsed her.

Every major figure in the party other than Obama has formally or informally endorsed her.

[Josh R]

What I find strange is the howls on the right about how Biden’s depature from the race was an intended bait-and-switch from the start. This “bait-and-switch” strategy is self-defeating.

While they are probably less likely to lose it without Biden at the top of the ticket (voters across the spectrum felt his cognitive decline at least would disqualify him down the road), the Democrats are still likely to lose (with the exception of Michelle Obama, they all poll about the same as Biden). The smart thing would have Biden stepping aside in time for a full primary season. That way, a candidate could emerge based on their rationale for being president which attracts favorable public opinion (not unlike the Senate candidates in AZ, MI, PA, NV and WI, all of whom are running 5-10%-points better in the polls).

[Commenter_XY]

Weren't you one of those people telling us confidently how the empty-headed vessel was sharp as a tack, and could do the job? That did not age too well. I told you he was done after the debate. The DC jackals and hyenas and vultures did the rest; they betrayed him and cast him aside like a soiled Depends.

If the empty headed vessel doesn't have the cognitive ability to run for POTUS, he should not be the POTUS. He places our country at heightened risk, remaining in office. Any moral mandate his team may have claimed has been lost, because of their obvious lies about his condition and cheerleading the assassination attempt.

[Josh R]

Weren’t you one of those people telling us confidently how the empty-headed vessel was sharp as a tack, and could do the job?

No. I'm in the camp of he is in decline, already incapable of quickly and clearly expressing his thoughts, is nonetheless qualified to do the job now, but won't be in 4 years.

[Bored Lawyer]

Agreed that the notion of bait-and-switch in the sense of the plan was that Biden step aside at the last moment to pave the way for Kamala Harris is nonsense.

The real bait-and-switch here was electing and then keeping a mentally impaired person, so a behind-the-scenes cabal could impose its agenda on the country. And Kamala Harris was in the thick of that. I expect the GOP to hammer that point — the Dems committed a fraud on the country, and Kamala Harris (along with a few others) was at its center.

Not that they are asking me, but the Dems would do a lot better to nominate some governor who was out of Washington when all this happened. Such a person could plausibly argue that he or she was fooled like everyone else.

But, as I said above, 2:1 it’s Harris.

[SimonP]

You're so used to Trump running against a sleepy octogenarian that it's hard for you to imagine what it'll be like against an elder Millennial.

All that Kamala has to do is address this extremely-predictable line of attack and pivot to Trump. Biden, as a candidate, was not capable of doing that any more. Kamala (hopefully) will be. Bim, bam, done, and onto the rest of the news cycle. People will bore of Trump if he keeps trying to bring it up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Another resident of Stephen Lathrop's alternate universe.

[Brett Bellmore]

In Biden, Trump faced an opponent with decades of political experience, somebody who at the top of his game was a real contender, but who was no longer at the top of his game.

In Harris Trump faces an opponent who perhaps IS at the top of her game, but the top of her game wasn't especially impressive.

If he were up against Biden with Harris' relative youth he'd be in serious trouble. But he's not, he's up against Harris with Harris' youth. And it's anybody's guess how that nets out.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the first debate, once the Democrats have formally picked a candidate.

[SimonP]

I won't pretend that Harris wasn't impressive in 2020, or that I don't have my concerns about how she'll perform.

But I think that, with the support of Biden's campaign team and the campaign's resources, she will have as good an opportunity as any to address those weaknesses. People overlook that she ran for, and won, state-wide office (albeit in California) three times. She has political chops. Not that we've seen on a national level yet, but she has them.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Personally, I’m looking forward to the first debate, once the Democrats have formally picked a candidate”

Why Brett? It’s not like Trump was impressive against Biden. On a good day Joe would have still kicked his butt, just like he did in the ’20 debates. A ranting diarrhea of non-stop lies isn’t impressive to anyone in the middle, and that’s all Trump’s got.

[Mr. Bumble]

"on a good day" Pro tip: time travel doesn't exist. Mr. Peabody was a cartoon character and even going back in time you'd be hard pressed to find Biden on a good day.

[Corve5]

Speaking liberal talking points doesn't mean "winning a debate."

Harris is a stupid, affirmative action, fuck.

The only question is whether she prefers tandoori chicken or fried chicken.

[Brett Bellmore]

As Mr. Bumble says, we'll never see how Trump would have done against a younger Biden. But I'm willing to hypothesize that 50-60 year old Biden would have kicked Trump's ass in a debate; Trump is not an impressive debater, and didn't do so well against Biden back in 2020. So, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you here.

But Biden lapped Harris back in 2020, and barely edged Trump, so expecting Harris to wipe the floor with Trump in a debate seems... optimistic. Trump hasn't declined THAT much since 2020, and Harris hasn't improved that much.

[grb]

Your kinda missing the point:

’20 Biden and ’24 Harris are/were halfway home just by looking recognizably human. Trump is a hollowed-out empty nothing inside. For all his performance abilities, looking like an actual human being isn’t one of his skill sets.

’20 Biden and ’24 Harris are also not pathological liars (just the normal political kind). Trump lies like they breathe – and is clumsy, crude, and obvious while doing so.

Remember : Biden didn’t win the ’20 debates with forensic mastery. He just tried to address each question while his opponent was playacting huckster buffoon.

Now granted, Trump’s pro-wrestling-style shtick appeals to the base. They laugh & slap their knees every time he wipes his lard ass on some new civic, political, or ethical norm. After all, that’s what “draining the swamp” means to them: Brat child theatrics. But they won’t decide this election.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's amusing watching you deny that Biden was a pathological liar, despite the fact that he'd routinely persist in lies even after they were pointed out to him. (I say "was" because you need to be aware of the truth in order to lie, and he's probably too far gone for that now.)

[Sarcastr0]

grb is making a comparison between Biden and Trump.

You're trying to decontextualize so it's just a general question about Biden. You use this to say the comparison is pretty close.

It's disingenuous, Brett. If you need to decontextualize to make the comparison look like you want, that means you're on the wrong side of the issue.

It's not close. No one in modern politics lies as much, as often, as needlessly as Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

"They also gave up Bagram, one of the biggest bases anywhere in the world.... And you know who has it now? China has it now."

"We have to produce massive amounts of energy.... A.I. needs tremendous — literally, twice the electricity that’s available now in our country, can you imagine?"

"Our crime rate is going up, while crime statistics all over the world are going down."

Just an endless stream of bullshit, Brett. It's a laugh to bring up Biden when this kind of stuff is out there just about every day.

[OtisAH]

That’s nothing. Along with “lying” these idiots want to introduce the candidates’ sexual histories into the conversation. I say “Have at it idiots!”

[Bored Lawyer]

“an elder Millennial”

Harris is three years older than I am. She ain’t no Millenial. In fact, she was born at the tail end of the Baby Boom, 1964. Charitably, you can call her an Elder Gen-Xer.

“All that Kamala has to do is address this extremely-predictable line of attack”

Ok, let’s hear her “address” it. Why did she show complete contempt for her Constitutional role by standing by while a mentally impaired person sat in the Oval Office?

[SimonP]

Er, right, Gen-X.

Ok, let’s hear her “address” it. Why did she show complete contempt for her Constitutional role by standing by while a mentally impaired person sat in the Oval Office?

Do you really think this "Why didn't Kamala invoke the 25th Amendment" line is going to play outside of MAGA echo chambers?

Even if Kamala had a constitutional duty to try to remove Biden from office (she didn't), even if we had reason to believe that Biden had reached the point that he was actually incapable of performing his office (we don't, and I don't think Kamala did either), the only place that the 25th Amendment leads us to is a fight between the President and Vice President, to be decided by Congress. And how, do you suppose, that would go?

It's so stupid. Your question is, "Why didn't Kamala make for months of political drama that would prove ultimately futile, in a manner that would negatively impact herself, Biden, and the Democratic party?" Gosh! Why aren't Democrats angrier about that?!

[Commenter_XY]

She is a Boomer, among other things. The cutoff is 1965 for GenX.

[Mr. Bumble]

Per Wiki:
Date range and definitions

A significant degree of consensus exists around the date range of the baby boomer cohort, with the generation considered to cover those born from 1946 to 1964 by various organizations such as the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,[27] Pew Research Center,[28] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,[29][30] Federal Reserve Board,[31] Australian Bureau of Statistics,[32] Gallup,[33] YouGov[34] and Australia's Social Research Center.[35] The United States Census Bureau defines baby boomers as "individuals born in the United States between mid-1946 and mid-1964".[36][37] Landon Jones, in his book Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation (1980), defined the span of the baby-boom generation as extending from 1946 through 1964.[38]

[David Nieporent]

You’re so used to Trump running against a sleepy octogenarian that it’s hard for you to imagine what it’ll be like against an elder Millennial.

TF? Kamala Harris is 59 years old. The oldest millennials are in their early 40s. Harris is a Boomer.

Just to add: Vance is the first millennial on a presidential ticket.

[Josh R]

The alleged behind-the-scenes-cabal agenda is remarkably similar to Biden’s. Joe has been calling the shots, at least until very recently (months at the most).

[Roger S]

Biden was forced to sign the letter. He is not calling any shots.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How many Congressional Dems *won't* be primaried by radical Leftists in 2026 because those resources went to Harris now?
Write off the Presidency to keep key seats?

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, none, because 2026 resources aren't 2024 resources?

[David Nieporent]

How many Congressional Dems *won’t* be primaried by radical Leftists in 2026 because those resources went to Harris now?

100% of them. What the fuck are you talking about?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Vice President Kamala Harris has had an impressive public career as a prosecutor, AG, senator, and now vice president.

She was a good contrast to inexperienced James David Vance. She continues to be a good contrast to somewhat more experienced (in the oval office, she continues to be overall more experienced in multiple ways, if not in a great way) Donald Trump, including being younger and more mentally on the ball.

(and not only being constitutionally eligible, not having multiple civil and criminal judgments against her)

The Republicans are still attacking Joe Biden. One thing brought out against Kamala Harris was some opening remarks she gave to a disability forum.

https://t.co/S2jIlqAp1v

BTW, the Supreme Court dropped their first summer order list. The liberal justices continued to explain why they didn’t take part in cases. The conservatives continued not to do so.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah JFB, Kamala has had impressive career. So impressive that Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and Jeffries declined to endorse her. GTFOH.

[SimonP]

You might step away from the keyboard before declaring victory, Commenter. Pelosi just endorsed.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Vice President Kamala Harris has had an impressive public career as a prosecutor, AG, senator, and now vice president.

Maybe put the bong down for a while.

(and not only being constitutionally eligible, not having multiple civil and criminal judgments against her)

And once your head clears, pick up a copy of the U.S. Constitution. It would appear that you've never read it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Hey, don't pot shame.

Sorry. I have multiple copies. Read and wrote about it for a while.

[M L]

Tulsi: "Biden’s out, Kamala is in. Don’t be fooled: policies won’t change. Just like Biden wasn’t the one calling the shots, Kamala Harris won’t be either..."

That much seems right.
https://x.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1815122213479276897

[Josh R]

... to conspiracy theory cranks.

[SimonP]

"Policies won't change..."

You mean those policies that most Americans are in favor of? Are those the policies you're talking about?

No Democrat has a "wave a magic wand and make it the pre-COVID economy again" power, but neither (for that matter) does Trump. We need someone who can make that point, among others.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yup, having completely open borders with Mexico is a real popular policy. One which Kamala Harris was put in charge of. She should DEFINITELY run on that one.

[SimonP]

Yup, having completely open borders with Mexico is a real popular policy.

Come back when you want to have an actual discussion.

[David Nieporent]

No Democrat has a “wave a magic wand and make it the pre-COVID economy again” power,

Why would we want them to, given that the economy is better now than it was pre-COVID?

[Mr. Bumble]

By what measures?

[Sarcastr0]

Sealioning.

You’ll drill down to the price of adding an extra bathrooms to condos in suburban Scranton before you admit how the economy is doing. (Not that I think an individual President actually has a lot to say about the economy in the end)

Just for fun I Googled ‘is the economy is better now than it was pre-COVID?’ I got this:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/tracking-the-recovery-from-the-pandemic-recession

“The expansion in economic activity in the recovery proved to be stronger and faster than initial projections, and by the end of 2023 job creation was well above and economic activity was slightly above their pre-pandemic projections.”

[David Nieporent]

Economic growth. Wages. Unemployment. The stock market.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Gasoline is a penny a gallon more expensive than in 2019…Americans are stretched thin by the extra $2 a year on gas!! While Jill Biden scoffs, “let them eat diesel”. That’s how revolutions start!!

[M L]

The economy by a lot of measures has done well. On the other hand, we did add $6-7 trillion to the national debt and unleashed inflation.

And how effectively is that money spent? In a shocking admission, the government said that over $400 billion (that's billion, with a "B") in COVID funds were taken by fraud. The real amount of fraud in the government as a whole is probably multiples of that.

Will this strategy of ever increasing debt have negative consequences? I think it clearly does already, but will it lead to financial crises and such and in the long run over generations be harmful? Probably. But it also juices the economy in the short term and gives politicians money to do the things they want. (And for some, perhaps, fortuitously getting rich along the way).

There’s one thing we can be sure of. There’s no signs of it slowing down any time soon.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Glad to see you admit the profligate spending of Donald Trump was a significant contributor to inflation. I mean, it's an incredibly obvious point, but so many pretend the only problem was spending in 2021.

And, yes, spiraling debt will eventually be a problem.

Historically, the best political combination for keeping it in check is a Democratic president and Republican Congress.

[Roger S]

The ones calling the shots did not even let Biden make his own exit statement. They gave him a letter to sign, and forced him to sign it.

[Swede425]

Poor Kamamla,
She'll get dragged across the finish line to become her party's candidate, just like she was as the VP.
Because nobody can stop it. Too much money involved (shared war chest with Biden), and the optics of throwing away a black woman over what? A white candidate? That's a war nobody wins in Democrat land.
At this point it's about choosing bad options instead of worse options.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Perhaps it's old news by now, but Adam Unikowksy has a typically thoughtful analysis of Judge Cannon's order dismissing the indictment against Trump that broadly mirror my own thinking, meaning it should maximally offend everyone else:

I admire Judge Cannon’s opinion, which is well-written, thoughtful, and thorough. Contrary to some of the commentary I’ve read, it’s not a crazy opinion at all. That said, I disagree with the ruling and hope it is reversed by the Eleventh Circuit

https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/dont-be-a-visionary

[not guilty]

Adam Unikowsky improvidently overlooks Judge Cannon's abject bad faith in all matters regarding her patron Donald Trump, but his analysis of how Cannon is wrong on the merits is spot on.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That makes his analysis all the more convincing, to me.

[Commenter_XY]

Thanks for this link, Nas. Interesting reading.

[Roger S]

If it is not a crazy opinion, then it should be appealed up to Scotus, before all these novel prosecution ideas are applied to a political opponent for President.

[David Nieporent]

There are no "novel prosecution ideas" here.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Want to know what likelihood there is that Harris will be the D candidate? Reckon the probability of her sudden death or disablement. Add to that the probability that something utterly disqualifying will unexpectedly turn up in her background. Subtract that sum from 100%.

The chance that another candidate will challenge Harris and take the nomination from her is already zero.

I would have preferred a younger candidate. I think the Harris coronation was unwise. On the plus side, there is every sign that the arc of the story has mobilized Ds to pro-Harris exertions she might not have inspired under different circumstances. I welcome that. I will certainly vote for her. I have always estimated her administrative talent would prove greater than her electoral talent.

[Frank Drackman]

Since when did giving Head become an "Administrative Talent"?

Frank "Honey? could you come demonstrate your Administrative Talent?"

[Mr. Bumble]

Is that what Bill said to Monica?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How many days has it been since the public has seen the President?

Is this normal?

[Frank Drackman]

I saw "45" at his Rally in Michigan Saturday, very successful, nobody got shot.

[Mr. Bumble]

Has there been anything "normal" about the Biden presidency?

[Roger S]

Do we have any confirmation that Biden knows that he has dropped out of the race?

[Frank Drackman]

I haven't seen any that he's still alive.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't want to sound like an "Ellen" "Very Special Episode" but when does Common-Laws obvious Alcoholism become an Ish-yew? I know mine would be if I was running for POTUS, but then I'm not running for POTUS (couldn't take the pay cut). Whatever faults "45" may have, he's not a Lush. Can't wait to see what the Repubiclowns have on her .

Frank

[Bored Lawyer]

BTW, Biden quit the presidential race on July 21, 2024. Which, as it happens, was National Ice Cream Day.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/food/2024/07/19/national-ice-cream-day-2024-deals/74138259007/

God has a sense of humor.

Wonder if they got a free cone for old Joe at the local Baskin Robbins.

[Brett Bellmore]

We celebrated with homemade blackberry ice cream. Yum!

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha! Good one!

We have a great creamery here on the South Coast of MA, with a stand/shack on Pier 3 in New Bedford, Acushnet Creamery. Really good, and it doesn't upset me at all despite my late onset lactose intolerance. A bit pricey, but, eh, you only live once.

p.s. they have doggie cups for man's best friend.

[Bored Lawyer]

"they have doggie cups for man’s best friend"

In what flavors? Liver?

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. I don't know what flavor they use, but it's prob vanilla, and with a Milk Bone on top. My kids' dogs, who I watch sometimes, love it. 🙂

[Bored Lawyer]

Famous presidential lines:

FDR: "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, as what you can do for your country."

Kamala Harris: "What can be, unburdened by what has been."

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess it sounds better than, "Please don't judge me by my record."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

“The disastrous invasion of Iraq.”

JD Soleimani Vance

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don't forget to add in the hand waving theatrics and melodramatic pauses.

You can just tell that wymmyn stood in front of the mirror amd practiced "her signature" thousands of times.

[apedad]

Thank you for validating my assessment above (about pending sexism).

Just go ahead and make a racist comment too (you know you're dying to anyway), to complete the validation.

Mucho beaucoup.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's sexist to come up with a narcistic scenario to impugn a narcistic woman!

It's racist to point out Kamalas claim to bring black is tenuous at best!

It's NOT racist, however, to assume black people are too stupid to get a valid ID.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It’s KA ma la…and it’s racist to pronounce it like you are—ka MA la.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Imagine a future pronunciation (mine), unburdened by past pronunciations (yours).

[ThePublius]

"Kamala Harris: “What can be, unburdened by what has been.”"

What does that even mean?

[Jonathansingletary]

It means that history doesn't need to keep you from future possibilities. It's a hopeful, forward looking statement.

[ThePublius]

It's vague, meaningless pablum.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's her verbal reimaging of that iconic Hope Obama poster.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You were quite literally just told what it means. It was not a difficult sentence for everyone else to parse - just you.

Perhaps you should admit your limitations and start over somewhere around Dr. Seuss.

[Michael P]

I saw some microblog witticism to the effect of "HR told me I had to stop saying 'I must unburden myself of what has been' on my way to the restroom."

[apedad]

US Adds to STEM Fields Allowing Foreign Grads to Stay Longer

The expansion, released by the Homeland Security Department Monday, follows the addition of 30 fields in separate updates last year to the eligibility list for Optional Practical Training STEM extensions. The newly added field includes programs focused on the application of economic concepts to issues like pollution and land use.

The OPT STEM extension faced a long-running legal challenge that culminated in the US Supreme Court declining last year to take up an appeal from a rejection of the case. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit previously affirmed the program’s legality, allowing employers to continue hiring more than 100,000 recent foreign graduates each year.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/stem-fields-allowing-foreign-grads-to-work-longer-in-us-expanded

Bringing in and employing smart foreigners; sounds like a sound idea.

Unless of course you're one of the folks from the dumb states, then I guess you're SOL.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Bringing in and employing smart foreigners; sounds like a sound idea."

Yes, selective legal immigration is a good idea.

Open borders in which anyone can come in regardless of education, financial state, criminal history or mental health is not.

[Roger S]

It is also bad if you are an American working in those fields, and you lose your job to a foreigner.

[Bored Lawyer]

Part of "selective" is only letting in people qualified for jobs for which American citizens cannot meet the demand.

[David Nieporent]

I will never understand why people who generally align with the free market side of things (though that's not really true of the MAGA GOP) think that government bureaucrats can successfully assess and calculate the demand for given jobs and skill sets. If someone said, "Government bureaucrats should only let widgets be imported in the right amount and of the right type to fill the needs of the economy," most on the right would — at least until recently — have regarded that as an absurd notion. How can government central planners possibly make those sorts of determinations? Market forces are by far the superior way to decide which parts and goods the country needs. And yet, make it laborers rather than widgets, and all of the sudden they're all in on that central planning.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Seriously. It's almost like xenophobia trumps their commitment to economic and political principles.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's almost like they have no principles and all their arguments are in bad faith.

[M L]

“I will never understand why people who generally align with the free market side of things . . .”

A simpler way of phrasing your comment would be this:

“I will never understand why people don’t agree with open borders.”

I won’t get into the explanation of why people don’t agree with open borders at the moment. Suffice to say it’s so deeply unpopular that on the left, right, and middle, very few are willing to say they are for open borders (even those whose actions indicate they are for open borders).

But assuming for the sake of argument that open borders is rejected, then it’s firstly a question of what number are you going to limit immigration to, and second how are you going to select. You can just have a lottery and pick people purely at random with no criteria or screening at all. Or (and possibly in addition to some randomness) you can screen for various factors, like criminality, educational attainment, labor skills, resources, etc.

Obviously, any sort of system or central planning like this is necessarily imperfect, and nobody has perfect information or competence. But the actual relevant question (assuming no open borders) is whether you can do better than random selection, and you can, if you have a few brain cells and are actually trying to advance the interests of the American people. It’s not hard to look around at a macro level and see what skills, technologies, and industries are poised to succeed and likely to be valuable in the years ahead. That’s what high schoolers do as they take that information into account in choosing their careers and educational paths.

[David Nieporent]

It’s not hard to look around at a macro level and see what skills, technologies, and industries are poised to succeed and likely to be valuable in the years ahead.

It's actually very hard to do so, which is why the perennial Democratic proposal of government job training programs has always been so ineffective.

[M L]

Nah. Students choose majors and career paths based on data like the BLS occupational outlook for example, which is generally considered a good analysis of available information and ends up being fairly accurate. Lots of info out there looks at job-specific labor shortages, growth industries, high profit margin labor/services/products, industries important to national security, and so on.

Again. The relevant question is how applying some selection criteria compares to random selection.

The government doing job training? That would be whole ‘nother ballgame. Not to mention a perennial Democratic proposal of such a thing.

[Roger S]

There is no such thing as jobs that cannot be filled by American citizens. Importing workers just artificially depresses wages. Sometimes foreigners will work for a below-market wage.

[Sarcastr0]

I want to talk about high-tech jobs, which is part of what I do.
I will ignore the lump of labor fallacy and DMN's point about wanting the government to pick winners and losers.

You assume every job has a threshold where anyone over it can do the same level of job. I don't think every job can or should be optimized to the perfect individual, but the threshold view you hold is just wrong.

America has under 5% of the world's population. There's going to be a lot of more talented people born overseas, in just about whatever field you care to name. Doctors, scientists, entertainers, chefs, businesspeople. People are not interchangeable in any of these.

We remain a country that's quite alluring for talented people to move to and then stay in. And that makes us a better country. If we let it, and don't indulge in weird defensive crouch national bigotry.

[David Nieporent]

Sometimes foreigners will work for a below-market wage.

Post-13th amendment, how can there be a below-market wage? What people "will work for" determines the market wage. (There can, of course, be wages below an artificial statutory minimum, but that's a below-government-mandated-wage, not a below-market wage.)

[PaulS]

What happens if delegates feel obligated/inclined to still vote for Biden the first round? Can they? It would be a great send off to his years of public service if they did (assuming he declined again)

[not guilty]

Yes, the delegates could still vote for Biden in the first round. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, though.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My understanding is that there are two states where the party rules mandate the delegates vote for the candidate who won the primary, and which do not release them if that candidate withdraws his candidacy. So Biden will get some votes on the first ballot.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The first summer order list of the season was handed down by SCOTUS. Usual boring housekeeping.

Liberal justices continue to explain why they do not take part in certain cases while conservative justices never do. Minus the special Alito non-recusals he explained in a statement.

Alito News: Phils won yesterday.

[Estragon]

Are you guys going to be able to get a refund on all your “Brandon” merchandise?

[hobie]

And Rush is in hell so they cannot go with Kamala The Magic Negro song. And Camel Toe is pretty old now. What will these savants come up with?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The best way for Kamala to lose is for her to just be herself. She got < 1% in a voting pool of just Democrats. There won't be any amount of cheating y'all can do to steal another election for this cackling dunce.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I’ll remember that when you are supporting DeSantis in 2027.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Ok! Thank you for remembering that! I also have substack and a newsletter, would you like to subscribe to one or both?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Taibbi got the Substack founders to delete my account and ban me…I was the most dangerous person on Substack!

[Sarcastr0]

Oh man, all that Hunter persecution...so much effort...for nothing.

[hobie]

LOL!

[David Nieporent]

Oh man, all that Hunter persecution…so much effort…for nothing.

Heh. And that ungrateful wench Harris didn't even have the courtesy to have kids that the GOP could make up shit about.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What should happen if/when it's discovered the attempt on Trump was another FBI/Deep State setup?

[Michael P]

It should be easy to find evidence that it wasn't such a setup. For example, the recordings of the tactical radio channel should show that the security team reacted promptly to address the shooter as soon as he was recognized as a threat, and that there were adequate communications across the team. Right?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Weird how the SS lost all those comms.

Weird. Weirder still was the leak today that the SS had a sniper overwatch on a window above where that Democrat, Ree Tardy Oswald, lied in wait for Trump. I'm still holding out that it can't be true.

Speaking of Trump, wasn't his "FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT" moment one of the most badass Presidential moments of all time?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Crooks was a bitter clinger MAGA supporter. Trump wasn’t president at that time so it was up there with Howard Dean’s scream.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Sure thing Blue Anon!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Crooks was a registered Republican! He was a gun nut! He was from the exact place that Obama was talking about when he said “bitter clingers”!

[Armchair]

And in a blast from the past.

"Armchair 5 months ago
Are Democrats running the “Generic Democrat” candidate strategy for the 2024 Presidential Election?

Here’s my thought process. Biden is not a great choice now. His polling numbers are in the dirt. He’s having “elderly moments” fairly often. The groundwork is being set to oust him at the convention. But why so late? Why now? I think it comes down to visibility.

Running for president is super visible. All the minor flaws, all the little imperfections, they all come out when running for President. Any tiny story can be found and exploited. Someone who looks good initially, when exposed to 12-18 months of blistering media attention…suddenly doesn’t look so hot. Miscues occur. Old exploits are found.

But, COVID was great for Biden in 2020. He could hide in his basement, didn’t have to make lots of public appearances, and so on. He could be “generic Democrat.” Not seen, everyone can assume the best about him. It worked out pretty well. But…you’re not going to get another COVID. So…what’s the next best option?

You reduce the visibility time. The DNC is in late August. You swap out for the chosen candidate then. Early voting starts in October. That means instead of 12-18 months of publicity, you can limit it to just two months for whoever is new. FOIA requests…those won’t get done in 2 months. Hell, with absentee ballots, you may be even able to get down to a single month of visibility. You’ll get the initial boost of a “new” person without the extended media time.

"https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/12/monday-open-thread-39/?comments=true#comments

[Sarcastr0]

Congratulations! By predicting Biden would drop out, and then adding all that other plots, you've foiled the plot!!

You thought real hard and figured out the Democratic evil plan, you meddling Armchair.

We thought the utter lack of evidence would keep you from making up stories, but we didn't count on your indefatigable creative spirit.

[Armchair]

"Sarcastr0 5 months ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
This isn’t a theory, it’s just fan fiction.

We don’t live in a political thriller."

Whoops. Looks like the political thriller came true.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He's such a gonad.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump and Vance have stage 5 ball cancer from visiting East Palestine. Sux…I can’t believe Chasten Buttigieg tricked them into visiting that toxic hellhole?!?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They're still on "paternity" leave, taking care of their future sex partner.

[David Nieporent]

Whoops. Looks like the political thriller came true.

Except that they didn't swap out Biden for an unknown figure; they swapped him out for the vice president, rejecting any attempt to inject someone new at the last minute. So the essence of your script was wrong.

Also, of course, is that your proposed strategy made no sense. The damning stuff for a new candidate can be found quickly, and then there isn't enough time to rebut or refute it.

[Commenter_XY]

That remains to be seen, there is a month to go before the convention.

[David Nieporent]

Again, there isn't. There's about a week and a half.

[Mr. Bumble]

August 19 is only a week and a half from today?

[David Nieporent]

I don't believe so, but I don't know why you think August 19 is the relevant date. The Democrats haven't settled on the exact date yet, but are holding their virtual convention "before August 7."

[Brett Bellmore]

But the only justification for the virtual convention was to circumvent an Ohio law that already got repealed. It was just an ad hoc way to deal with the Ohio law, swiftly rendered unnecessary.

Then they pretended that it might be reenacted, to try to justify locking Biden in as the nominee before the pressure could force him out.

So, now they want to rush the unnecessary pre-convention vote to lock in Harris, instead? They must be really worried that she's radically unpopular in Democratic circles.

[David Nieporent]

So, now they want to rush the unnecessary pre-convention vote to lock in Harris, instead? They must be really worried that she’s radically unpopular in Democratic circles.

Of course. Everything is a conspiracy. But in fact they are not worried about that, because she isn't.

I have no idea what the word "rush" is doing in your statement, but a normal person might think, "If they postponed Harris's nomination, it might look like they weren't committed to her, and since they are they don't want to create any sort of rumors to that effect."

[Sarcastr0]

What's your issue, Brett? It's formally legitimate (your favorite), and functionally it absolutely was and is necessary.

You don't like it, but that's not an argument.

And polling is out now, she's not wildly unpopular except with the DSA crowd who weren't voting Dem anyhow.

[Bwaaah]

You pumping now for the DNC to do a virtual Harris nomination instead of a virtual Biden nomination? Ohio ballot laws, DNC rules, and whatnot, dear Commissar?

[David Nieporent]

I'm not doing anything. The DNC is.

[Mr. Bumble]

To be fair you are being disingenuous at best. The general notion of a convention and what is scheduled for Chicago on Aug. 19 is an in person gathering of the delegates, not a virtual meeting because the Democrats fucked up and didn't check all the deadlines for naming a candidate.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think you know what the word "disingenuous" means. I didn't make any statement other than when the nomination was happening. Why it's happening at that date was and is irrelevant to that point.

I realize that you're desperate to bite my ankles, but one has to go all the way back to… 2020 to find the last time they didn't go with this "general notion."

[Mr. Bumble]

Believe me, I have no desire to bite your ankles but you however can bit my crank you disingenuous, pompous fuck. Your reply was to C..xy: “That remains to be seen, there is a month to go before the convention.”
Your reply: ”
Again, there isn’t. There’s about a week and a half.
That statement is false as a response to C..xy's comment.

[David Nieporent]

Believe me,

Yeah, that's something I will never do.

That statement is false as a response to C..xy’s comment.

No, it's entirely correct. The gist of his claim was that it wasn't certain that Harris would be the nominee because there was still a month to go before that happened. But in fact it's happening in a week and a half.

[Armchair]

Here's my response to that at the time.

"Brett Bellmore 5 months ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I’ve commented myself that the chief reason Biden won is that hiding in his basement allowed him to remain a generic Democrat. I think there’s something to your theory.

And we’d have no idea who, because anybody visible enough to look likely wouldn’t qualify as generic."

"Armchair 5 months ago
Even if they’re visible (Think Newsom or Whitmer), most people outside of politics haven’t REALLY formed an opinion on them. Gavin looks real pretty. Sure, he got butchered in the debate against DeSantis. But most people didn’t pay attention to that.

Newsom has enough flaws that in a long contest, they’d may doom him. But short, just a month? With a friendly media/social media? He could survive that scrutiny."

I would say that Harris falls in the Newsom - Whitmer category.

[Sarcastr0]

The only thing that happened was Biden dropped out.

The rest is still you writing a bad novel.

[Armchair]

Looks like I got the timing slightly off. A month before the convention.

And Harris can be "Generic Democrat".

From her 2020 campaign, if she's in the field for a long primary...it's not good. (Really, you need to go back and look at the disaster her 2020 primary campaign was).

But just maybe, she can "slip by" if she only is in the public view for 2-3 months.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think she can manage even 2-3 months. The only reason they're going with the snap virtual primary at this point is that they don't think she can do even a few weeks, and still secure the nomination.

[David Nieporent]

Is there one person naive enough here to think that if the DNC announced that they were cancelling their virtual convention (it is neither "snap" nor a "primary"), Brett wouldn't be running with, "They cancelled it because they don't think Harris can do the job and so they want to give more time for another candidate to emerge and displace her"?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Surely the Trump camp is smart enough not to lower everyone's expectations of how Harris ends up performing. As it is, she only has to better Biden's doddering.

[Josh R]

There was never a plan to oust Biden. If he performed in the debate as he did in the follow-up interviews and press conference, he would be the nominee. You think that debate performance was intentional?

[Armchair]

"You think that debate performance was intentional?"

Here's a question for you Josh.

Why schedule a debate BEFORE the DNC? This was unheard of. A presidential debate before the nomination even took place? But it was Biden's team's idea.

I think someone on Biden's team knew about Biden's likely performance, and deliberately scheduled the debate well before the nomination. Anticipating that, given Biden's state, he would do poorly. And thus, give an opportunity to swap out Biden.

[Josh R]

Of course the early debate was a test drive. But, it wasn't part of a plot to kick Biden off the ticket with someone not exposed to more than a few months of campaigning. It was backup plan for candidate who was dead set on running.

[Armchair]

explain exactly how you view the early debate as a backup plan...

[Josh R]

It enabled the Democrats to ditch Biden if his performance was catastrophic (it was). If the debate waited until September, there would no way to ditch Biden.

[Armchair]

Sounds like a plot to kick Biden off the ballot. Especially if you knew what he was like.

[Sarcastr0]

All the best plots have a big 'if' in them.

[Josh R]

A test drive is not a plot to kick him off. It's a smart approach.

Once again, had he performed in the debate as he did in the press conference (a very real possibility), he would be the nominee.

[M L]

Josh R, Anyone who’s been paying the slightest bit of attention wasn’t surprised by Biden’s performance. It wasn’t intentional, it’s how he is and has been for years.

I don’t know about a “plan to oust” Biden, but a backup plan of some sort under the circumstances is just called having a lick of sense.

And Armchair's point about an extremely shortened campaign time frame helping a candidate that might have certain weaknesses and wither under a normal time frame is very valid. That's also smart.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, the right insisted without much evidence Biden was a drooling tapioca brain being puppeted by [pick your villain; could be Obama could be SOROS, could be International Elites.]

And as with all their Dem hate fic delusions, that is still not established.

There's just a ton of middle ground between 'old and can do the job' and 'vegetable.' That's where we are.

And without actual evidence, right wing carping about a massive coverup will go the way of Vince Foster - received wisdom to some nuts; memory holed to more hip conspiracy fans, and a nothing burger to the population at large until some actual evidence shows up.

[M L]

Was there supposed to be anything in your comment that actually disagrees with or is responsive to my comment? I assume you just wanted to go on a generalized rant. Carry on.

[Bwaaah]

Good analysis, and good call, Armchair. That was more than just luck.

Brett Bellmore and ducksalad expressed concurrences with your analysis. Sam Bankman-Fried referred to your remarks as "the right wing echo chamber."

It's fun to see Gaslight0's typical playpen response back then, always motivated to oppose the other team, as if relevant analysis could withstand being tethered to such a simple heuristic as that.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Not gaslighting. Not even in the same ballpark as gaslighting.

[Bwaaah]

Gaslighting? Wuh?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I’m calling it now.

They assassinated Biden, slowly, with that “medical emergency” in Vegas last week. He hasn’t been seen since Friday, and the next time we’ll hear of him will be announcing his death.

They tried to assassinate Trump just afterwards in a double head chop. They were only successful with Sponge Brain Shits His Pants, while God intervened to protect President Bad Ass.

Let’s hope the Deep State is finally fucked, and pray the treasonous rats at the FBI and the IC finally get the justice they so richly deserve.

[not guilty]

"They assassinated Biden, slowly, with that 'medical emergency' in Vegas last week. He hasn’t been seen since Friday, and the next time we’ll hear of him will be announcing his death."

Who assassinated Joe Biden, pray tell? Please name names.

And why would anyone who wanted to see Biden removed from the ticket want to elevate Kamala Harris to the presidency, burdening her with discharging the duties of that office while simultaneously campaigning for a full term?

And most importantly, what facts support your batshit crazy assertions of a putsch? Please be specific.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Would you like full names including middle names, or would middle initials suffice?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush Republicans attempted the coup against Trump in January 2017. Vance’s speech was an attack on the Bush Republicans and Republicans ate it up!!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh my!!! Current Republicans don't like the Bush Republicans? Oh my heavens, what is going on?!?!!? I have to rethink my beliefs if the GOP no longer aligns with the Bush's!!!!

Thanks for repeatedly bringing up this very important point! It's well known that hardcore Trumper's LOVE the Bush's and the Bush's LOVE them right back.

There's even a saying in MAGA land,

We love George Bush because He loved us FIRST! Get it? America FIRST!?! George Bush always put America FIRST!!! That's for sure!

In fact, that's classic Bush'ism. America First policies!!!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Vance’s speech was an attack on Bush/Cheney. Bush’s last major act as president was a victory lap at the 2008 Beijing Olympics after he made China great again—MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are you 100 years old?

[not guilty]

"Would you like full names including middle names, or would middle initials suffice?"

Whatever you've got, JHBHBE.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What's your required report format?

[not guilty]

Just man up and admit that you've got bupkis, JHBHBE.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I want to make sure I meet your demands. Now about that report format?

[Michael P]

And why would anyone who wanted to see Biden removed from the ticket want to elevate Kamala Harris to the presidency, burdening her with discharging the duties of that office while simultaneously campaigning for a full term?

Anyone who supports Kamala Harris to be the next president should welcome the opportunity to see her actually fulfill the duties of the office before pulling a lever. That puts her on remotely even footing with her opponent, who already was president for a full four years (and ran for re-election while doing so, in the face of a historic pandemic and mass lawfare against him).

Anyone who wants Democrats to lose in the general election should also want to see her try to do the job, because based on past performance, she will be terrible at it.

[David Nieporent]

Not surprisingly, he has been seen since Friday, there was no medical emergency in Vegas, and if "they" were going to shoot at one, why wouldn't "they" shoot at both?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey, what do you know? An Israeli citizen is here interfering with our elections by lying and gaslighting as an illegal unregistered foreign agent..

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/us/politics/biden-covid-positive.html

[Frank Drackman]

Common-Law's best running mate is obvious, Stacy Abrahams of Jaw Jaw, would put Jaw Jaw back in play, and they'd have a Black woman who looks like an actual Black woman, obese, flaring nostrils, kinky hair.
Seriously, Common-law has straight hair, thin nose, lips, and light complexion, she can't even spit out 3.4 kids like your typical Black Woman (wait till it comes out she aborted her baby at 38 weeks because it was Black)

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

We need proof of life for Biden.

[EscherEnigma]

So I want to make sure I have this right.

Republicans have been, for months now, saying that Biden should drop out of the race.

Now that he has, they are complaining that it's illegal, undemocratic, unethical, and evil, for him to do so?

Y'all just can't take a win, can you?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Ok, you have it wrong.

HTH

[David Nieporent]

Clear, consistent messaging from the Republican party:

1. Kamala Harris must not be president
2. Joe Biden should resign, making Harris president immediately
3. Joe Biden may actually be secretly dead, so Harris might be president already

https://bsky.app/profile/ariehkovler.com/post/3kxw6ozcn5k2s

[OtisAH]

You’re referring to the same people who said Convicted Felon Trump didn’t need to be impeached because he could be indicted and tried. Then they spun around and declared he couldn’t be indicted or tried because Convicted Felon Trump had never been impeached.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes. And don't forget, they also said any confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice for a vacancy within a year of an election should wait until the next president was sworn in.....until it was imperative to fill the seat as quickly as possible because how awful to have an open seat. Hypocrisy isn't unusual in politics, but this is hold my beer stuff.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"Biden" is now delegating powers to Secretaries.

He's dead or dying. In Delaware, it's Weekend at Biden's right now.

The FBI/CI got'em in Vegas.

[NvEric]

$692 million each for the new B-21 bomber. I don't question the overall need for defense, and if it works as thought, then it'll be a fine addition, however, why ?

Why is there a need to defend, and what is being defended ? Might a reexamination for the need to be defended be in order ?

Technology is lovely ... in moderation. It's fun and exciting, but why go on at such a rate while entrapping people who become dependent on it ?

A country defends itself by itself, by its people wanting to defend itself when attacked. This country has never been attacked by anyone who tasked itself to conquer us, NEVER. The few attacks were designed to do little more than poke a little stick at us - that's all they've ever been. Pearl Harbor, and 9/11 were trifles ... yes, trifles. 6000 dead is a trifle ... sorry, but it's a trifle.

So, the Raider at $692 million each must add that value back in worth to the People of this country in some form as to reduce the public debt besides the cost of those marvels of engineering.

[Moderation4ever]

My question is where is a plane like the B-21 going to be used. I think you could build a lot of far less expensive drones that would be more useful in modern warfare.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Drones aren't as profitable for Permanent War, Inc.

[John F. Carr]

Northrop Grumman has better lobbyists than the ammunition manufacturers we need.

[not guilty]

On Sunday's ABC This Week House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested (before Joe Biden announced his withdrawal) that there may be legal challenges to Democrats nominating someone other than Biden for President. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-7-21-24-house-speaker-mike/story?id=112129729 Johnson identified no legal theory and offered no explanation of his thinking on this topic.

That notion is preposterous. Johnson and his cohorts have no dog in the fight as to who Democrats nominate for President. Who among them could conceivably have standing?

On the merits, the members of a political party have a First Amendment right of political association. "Any interference with the freedom of a party is simultaneously an interference with the freedom of its adherents." Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 122 (1981), quoting Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 250 (1957). Political parties may accordingly protect themselves "from intrusion by those with adverse political principles." Ibid., quoting Ray v. Blair, 343 U. S. 214, 221-222 (1952).

I cannot imagine how a lawsuit by adherents of one political party seeking to compel another party to nominate a particular candidate for office would be justiciable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not sure what Johnson was referring to but there is a legitimate question of what happens to the $93 million Biden/Harris re-election fund now that it appears to be Harris/?.

[not guilty]

I haven't researched it, but as I understand it one campaign committee can donate to another campaign committee. I may be wrong.

If it is not transferable, Harris could raise funds from those donors who had maxed out giving to the old committee.

[Mr. Bumble]

Here's one take on this but like so much of this election we are in uncharted territory.

https://dailycaller.com/2024/07/22/heres-what-could-happen-bidens-nearly-100-million-in-campaign-funds/

[not guilty]

Here is another take: https://www.nytimes.com/article/biden-harris-money.html

Since I haven’t researched the matter, I don’t know whether the information in the article is or is not correct, but it rings true IMO.

Here is another take from AP: https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-biden-fundraising-election-campaign-donations-5709f07420b4f138caa884361653368e This article seems better sourced with seemingly knowledgeable practitioners.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks, but unfortunately pay-walled.

[Bwaaah]

It seems questionable that "one campaign committee can donate to another campaign committee" insofar as such a donation might be inconsistent with the representations under which the original donations were solicited. So, for example, if a pro-Biden PAC were to donate its funds to a pro-Trump PAC, original donors might assert they had been defrauded in the solicitation of their donations.

I have no expertise in the matter here, but think Republican meddling in this would be wrong, particularly with respect to 1A rights of people/parties.

[David Nieporent]

I haven’t researched it, but as I understand it one campaign committee can donate to another campaign committee. I may be wrong.

It's not another campaign committee; it's the same one. That's yet another reason why the replacement nominee was never going to be anyone but Harris.

But to address your comment: a campaign committee cannot donate to another campaign committee. (Or, rather, it can, but its donations are monetarily limited in exactly the same way that ordinary donations to a campaign are.) So if Harris didn't inherit control of the funds (she does), Biden/Harris could return those funds to donors, donate those funds to the DNC, or donate them to a SuperPAC. But there are severe limits on coordination with a campaign (limited coordination for the DNC, none for a SuperPAC), so a non-Harris candidate wouldn't have use of the funds directly. It would have to start fundraising from scratch.

[Mr. Bumble]

How is this the same campaign committee?
Harris for President
https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/296/202407219665705296/202407219665705296.pdf

[David Nieporent]

Um, because all they did was rename it.

If you look at your link, you will see an FEC Identification Number listed (C00703975). If you then search for that on the FEC's website, you will see that this is the same ID number as Biden for President, and they renamed it on Sunday.

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00703975/?tab=filings#statements

[Bwaaah]

Mr. Bumble: "How is this the same campaign committee?"

David Nieporent: "Um, because all they did was rename it."

No material change. Just the candidate.

Your deceit is transparent, and your absence of shame is a personality defect. Like Gaslight0, you exhibit the savvy of Elmer J. Fudd.

[David Nieporent]

These fucking people. You spoonfeed them, and they still lie. It is literally the same committee. I didn’t just assert that, even though it’s common knowledge among educated people; I provided the receipts to prove it. And then we get goalpost moves.

If Ford Motor Corporation changes its name to Burgers 'R Us, stops selling cars, and starts selling cheeseburgers and fries, those may all be material changes, but it would still in fact be the same company with access to all of Ford Motor Corporation's bank accounts and other assets.

[M L]

Calm down. You explained how it is the same FEC registration number/entity, but you haven't really addressed the concern, or shown that just changing the name and swapping out the candidate is actually permitted under the laws.

Why is it illegal for a campaign committee to donate (unlimited) to another campaign committee?

Whatever the reason, the same policy concern would apply to “oh, to get around that, we just renamed the committee and swapped out the candidates!”

This is true even if the law allows this workaround. As you well know, opportunities always abound to read words pedantically and find a loophole. And if it is legal, then I have no problem with it legally. But it’s worth noting and asking about the policy issue.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like a bait and switch.
Contributions up until this weekend were for "Biden For President" and while I'm sure most of those contributors will support Harris that is not what they donated for.
If Biden went completely batshit crazy and change the name to Trump For President would Trump have access to the money?

[David Nieporent]

If you feel deceived and want to demand that they return all of your donations, go right ahead. My bet is that they'd oblige.

But your premise is mistaken. The original filing listed as its candidates both Joseph R Biden Jr and Kamala Harris.

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/354/202304259581294354/202304259581294354.pdf (See page 2, line 5)

The new one, of course, says only Kamala Harris. (Actually, it says "Harris, Kamala," and I'm sure that difference will result in yet another conspiracy theory.)

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/297/202407219665705297/202407219665705297.pdf (Also, of course, page 2, line 5.)

[Bwaaah]

Why can they switch their committee’s purpose from “Biden for President” to “Harris for President” without refunding the money?

David Nieporent: Because [I think] they can get away with it.

I’d never enter into a contract with a person named David Nieporent. He’s way too flexible a thinker.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You are clearly ignorant of the legal context. I am not surprised as you, ignorance, and the law are a combination seen frequently on this board.

Some states have nomination deadlines that have passed. See the GA entry here https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2024

Speaker Johnson is referring to keeping the lawless Democrats from cheating and ignoring election laws again.

[not guilty]

Uh, did you read the material you linked to, JHBHBE? If so, I surmise that you overlooked the following language under the heading “Replacing a presumptive nominee before the national convention”:

A party’s presumptive nominee, meaning the candidate who receives an estimated majority of delegates after state nominating events, could be replaced at the convention. Delegates could elect a candidate who they were not initially bound to at the time of their state’s election. [Italics in original.]

“Speaker Johnson is referring to keeping the lawless Democrats from cheating and ignoring election laws again.”

And just what do you perceive to be Mr. Johnson’s standing vis-a-vis the Democratic National Convention’s selection of a nominee?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are you retarded?

I specifically said to look at the GA entry where it lists 07/09/2024 as:
“Last day for an Independent and a Political Body Candidate for President and Vice President to file a Nomination Petition to have his/her name placed on the General Election Ballot.”

>And just what do you perceive to be Mr. Johnson’s standing vis-a-vis the Democratic National Convention’s selection of a nominee?

Who gives a shit about your idiotic ignorant query? Johnson is referring to the handful of states whose deadlines have passed for ballot nominee certification.

E.g. there was recent controversy in OH, but OH passed a law specifically to accommodate the Democrats this year with their late convention date. A favor that wouldn’t be returned had the shoe been on the other foot.

You don't know about these things because Rachel Maddow doesn't cover them.

[not guilty]

Uh, what part of "an Independent and a Political Body Candidate for President and Vice President" do you not understand? That has nothing to do with political party nominees.

The Dunning-Kruger effect can be a bitch.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

not guilty, the 20+ practicing lawyer, believes "Political Body Candidate for President and Vice President" has nothing to do with political party nominees.

I guess to him, a political body is something entirely different than a political party.

lol, what a buffoon. It was so hard to wait out that 5 minute edit window, but man it's so worth it.

[not guilty]

No, doofus. The Georgia deadline refers to independent candidates for President and Vice President, as well as any political committee or body supporting such candidates.

If, as you claim, the deadline in Georgia for political party nominees were July 9, 2024, that also would exclude Donald Trump and J. D. Vance, who were nominated by their convention which occurred July 16-19.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"An Independent and a Political Body Candidate"

Those are two distinct things.

This is basic fucking English. Holy shit. Your partisanship continues to blind you to basic facts.

[David Nieporent]

I guess to him, a political body is something entirely different than a political party.

Yes, in fact it is, you inbred Nazi moron.

GA Code § 21-2-2 (2022)
(23) “Political body” or “body” means any political organization other than a political party.

(Emphasis added.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

NOVA Lawyer 43 mins ago

There is no such thing as the Democrat Party. But, by all means, advertise your illiteracy and unhinged partisanship.

≈=======

Tell us again how there wasn't a Biden medical event in Las Vegas, you lying Talmud follower.

[not guilty]

"Who gives a shit about your idiotic ignorant query? Johnson is referring to the handful of states whose deadlines have passed for ballot nominee certification."

You want to know who gives a shit? Any court considering a challenge must determine that the Plaintiff has standing to raise his claim(s), No standing, no lawsuit.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Really? That's how lawsuits work? I didn't know that!

Thanks for explaining basic shit that everyone already knows to me. You sound Harvard educated!

[not guilty]

How can I go wrong underestimating the extent of your ignorance, JHBHBE?

I asked you what you perceive to be Mr. Johnson’s standing vis-a-vis the Democratic National Convention. You handwaved the inquiry rather than admitting you have no clue.

I still haven't figured out whether you are just demonstrating Poe's Law.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>I asked you what you perceive to be Mr. Johnson’s standing vis-a-vis the Democratic National Convention. You handwaved the inquiry rather than admitting you have no clue.

I don’t give a flying fuck about your stupid irrelevant strawman. Mr. Johnson isn’t contending the innerworkings of how Democrat elites pick their nominees.

How many times do I have to tell you this? I have better luck corralling my pigs then explaining basic shit to you.

[David Nieporent]

Some states have nomination deadlines that have passed.

Literally zero states have deadlines that have passed — which should be obvious to anyone who isn't a troll, since Biden hadn't been nominated yet (and now obviously won't be).

Your link is good evidence of why googling is not a substitute for research. That does indeed say that the deadline in Georgia was July 9. For independents and political bodies. But the Democrats (and Republicans) are not "political bodies" under Georgia law; they're political parties — which is a different category with different rules.

[Michael P]

Democrats didn't have standing in the lawsuits that attempted to ban Donald Trump from ballots; they instead found people who did have standing, and helped them pursue lawsuits that would have otherwise been our of reach.

Your memory sure is poor.

[not guilty]

Those lawsuits were not Democratic Party endeavors, Michael P. The Colorado plaintiffs were self-identified Republicans and Independents.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Can you provide all your evidence to support your claim that the Democrat Party was not involved in any way with those lawsuits?

Be precise and specific with your evidence.

[not guilty]

I read the pleadings at the time. There is no substitute for original source materials.

While I am loath to do your research for you, the District Court petition in Colorado is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.227367/gov.uscourts.cod.227367.1.2_1.pdf

The driving force behind the litigation was Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) watchdog organization. https://www.citizensforethics.org/about/ That group is not an agency or instrumentality of what you ungrammatically refer to as "the Democrat Party." (I don't understand why your ilk thinks that non-standard English is persuasive. Is the impulse to channel Joe McCarthy irresistible?)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Now prove CREW has no ties with the Democrat Party and there was no coordination between any Democrat and CREW and that any Democrat was otherwise not involved in anyway with this scheme.

Thanks in advance!

[not guilty]

What I said is that the lawsuits challenging Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on the ballot were not Democratic Party endeavors. I identified the nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization which organized and promoted the lawsuits.

It may be above your intellectual level, JHBHBE, but do you recall the Sesame Street jingle, "One of these things is not like the other"? I am not going to follow you down the rabbit hole of speculation and conjecture to attempt to prove a negative to your satisfaction. If you posit that CREW and the Democratic Party are tied to one another, that burden of proof is on you.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Huh? The burden of your claim is on me to disprove?

lol wtf, did they teach you that in law school? That's retarded. Is it too late to get a refund?

[not guilty]

I proved my claim, doofus. My assertion was that “Those [ballot eligibility lawsuits were not Democratic Party endeavors, [in that t]he Colorado plaintiffs were self-identified Republicans and Independents.” I linked to the Colorada District Court petition, which identifies the Petitioners and their party affiliations or lack thereof, and I pointed out that CREW is the driving force behind the ballot eligibility lawsuits. (A point that you don’t appear to contest.) I identified CREW’s non-profit 501(c)(3) status, which indicates the absence of party affiliation.

You asked me to “prove CREW has no ties with the Democrat Party and there was no coordination between any Democrat and CREW and that any Democrat was otherwise not involved in anyway with this scheme.” That is quite simply an assertion I never made, so I have no need to prove it. If you claim that the converse is true, then that assertion is for you to prove.

And FWIW, law school did teach the importance of framing the relevant question. That is One-L stuff.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

“Endeavors” is a broad term and is not limited to any official line items on a particular document. As such when you asserted these weren't Democrat endeavors, it includes formal and informal means.

Why do I have to teach you basic definitions and grammar rules?

[not guilty]

So you are now trying to tell me what I meant by my choice of word? Sorry, you don't get to do that. I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.

[Michael P]

Have you been taking lessons in making straw men from Gaslight0? I said "Democrats", not "the Democrat Party", and CREW is very explicitly a leftist group of Democrats.

[not guilty]

CREW may include individual Democrats -- I would be surprised if it didn't -- but that entity is not an agency or instrumentality of the Democratic Party. Regulations governing 501(c)(3) non-profits organizations prohibit partisan activity.

[Michael P]

You're the only one who keeps trying to make this about the Democrat Party. The Republican Party isn't talking about filing a lawsuit in the current case, so there's no reason to focus so much on the Democrat Party.

[NOVA Lawyer]

There is no such thing as the Democrat Party. But, by all means, advertise your illiteracy and unhinged partisanship.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Just like there is no such thing as Antifa!

Good one.

[not guilty]

Au contraire, Michael P. The topic of discussion here is whom the Democratic Party will nominate for President and what the consequences of making such a nomination will be. Mike Johnson is kvetching about filing baseless legal challenges, ostensibly based on state statutes or regulations which Johnson conspicuously does not identify. He has no standing vis-a-vis whom the Democratic Party nominates. Any state statute or regulation that would bar the nominee chosen by the Democratic National Convention (whether that is Kamala Haris or anyone else) from the general election ballot would be constitutionally suspect.

A political party has the rights of free speech and free association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. If a state law burdens the rights of political parties and their members, it can survive constitutional scrutiny only if the State shows that it advances a compelling state interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214, 222 (1989). “[A] State cannot justify regulating a party’s internal affairs without showing that such regulation is necessary to ensure an election that is orderly and fair.” Id., at 233.

[David Nieporent]

Johnson and his cohorts have no dog in the fight as to who Democrats nominate for President.

At least some in the GOP had considered the possibility of a last minute switch, so they pre-wrote these arguments about how it might be illegal to do that. The arguments were not based on the idea that they have a say in who the other party nominates; the arguments were based on the idea that election laws in some states did not permit changes to nominated candidates (for any office) for reasons other than death.

Trouble (for the GOP) is, Democrats got their act together in uncharacteristically organized fashion, and Biden dropped out before the party had nominated anyone. So there's been no change at all. Biden was merely the presumptive nominee, not the actual one. Harris will be the only nominee and only person whose name has appeared on any ballot for this office for this election.

[not guilty]

Here is a post from Professor Richard Hasen, who knows a lot more about the subject than I do. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=144245

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

After getting schooled by the Internet Champ, look who went out there trying to bone up on the issue?

lol I own you IRL

[not guilty]

Uh, no. Where, as here, I haven't researched something that I comment on, I have the integrity to say so.

And your ipse dixit assertions and specious "reasoning" doesn't educate anyone. As I said, the Dunning-Kruger effect can be a bitch.

[Commenter_XY]

I've just viewed extended excerpts from USSS Director Cheatle's hearing yesterday. I had a complete sinking feeling just listening to her answers and watching her body language; it was that jarring and incredulous.

Her job performance (and her testimony) is a perfect representation of our DC Federal government.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, your feelings must have been shared by the committee, since with a few exceptions members of both parties are calling for her resignation.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Not a single Democrat is concerned about the SS's "loss" of the radio communications that day.

[Frank Drackman]

The Marxist Stream Media hid Parkinsonian Joe's Parkinson's Disease for the last 4 years (what? we had a Parkinson's Specialist examine the President? doesn't mean he has Parkinson's!)
How long will they hide Common-Law's Alcoholism? When do we get to see HER annual physical? I don't make an effort to watch her appearances, but she's done at least 2 where she was obviously drunk.

Frank. "Alcoholics are like Thieves, we can spot our own"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's definitely getting spicier!

"Someone who regularly visited Crooks home and work also visited a building in Washington, DC located in Gallery Place.

This is in the same vicinity of an @FBI office on June 26, 2023. "

https://twitter.com/OversightPR/status/1815446054428352591

[not guilty]

The X post you linked does not say that, JHBHBE. Did you think no one would click the link?

And if it did, what do you posit would be the significance thereof?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's the top of the thread, you buffoon. Scroll down one post in the thread.

You sure are special, ng.

[not guilty]

I tried again to no avail.

If it says what you claim, what do you posit would be the significance thereof?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You can’t navigate twitter? Are you 110 years old?

I don't really feel like speculating at your command because I know your followup will be demanding some 100pg report so it's really a waste of my time.

[Michael P]

Do you have an X account? It was changed in the Musk era to not show threads to people who are not logged in. I assume that was just the first Xeet in a thread that provided more details.

[not guilty]

I don't have an X account. I have no need for one.

[Michael P]

That means JHBHBE sees something quite different from you at the page he linked to, and your criticism (aimed at him rather than Xitter) comes across as characteristically stupid.

[not guilty]

You are right. I apologize.

[Mr. Bumble]

Blessed be the peacemakers...

[jb]

Then again, our local neo Nazi's criticism of ng is equally misplaced for the exact same reason.

[Michael P]

Remember when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was hospitalized for cancer and nobody else in government seemed to know for days, in large part because the delegation and notification mechanisms weren’t used like they should have been?

Good times, good times.

[Estragon]

After the touching display of solidarity at the convention, with all the huckleberries proudly sporting their comically oversized and slapped-on ear diapers my burning question for today is… did anyone run out and buy themselves cases and cases of diet Mt. Dew?

“I love you guys” …. LOL! Shades of Jeb Bush’s “please clap.”

I give it until next week before Trump starts ripping the guy. Already rumblings of buyers remorse. Shouldn’t have listened to Don Jr.! Pop was right about him: “Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr. had the worst judgment of anyone in the world.”

[Estragon]

I was also amused to see Eugene and David’s favorite soon-to-be-disbarred AG candidate, John Eastman, go full birther yesterday.

Brett Bellmore: as the resident expert on this topic, do you have any comment here?

[M L]

See this comment thread:

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/10/yes-kamala-harris-is-indeed-a-natural-born-citizen/?comments=true#comment-8396347

My impression is: the founders rejected "subjectship" in favor of a distinguishable concept of "citizenship," and the 14th am does not require that citizenship be granted to anyone born on US soil, such as tourists and sojourners or people who are not legally domiciled.

When it comes to "Natural born" my best guess is that it just means anyone who is a citizen at birth by circumstances of their birth. And Congress/the government has some discretion in setting policy that determines who is a citizen at birth. Since Kamala was a citizen at birth (as a matter of policy, regardless of whether the Constitution requires it) she is a natural born citizen. I think there are various non-frivolous arguments against this in either direction, though.

[M L]

This is the first time since 1976 that there isn't a Bush, Clinton, or Biden on the ticket in the presidential campaign.

[David Nieporent]

Not too late for Harris to pick Hillary as her running mate!

[M L]

Good point. Keep the streak going!