Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

The gaslighting about Kamala has begun. First Axios had a article that claimed Kamala was never the Border Czar (which may be technically true because Czar is not an official title in the US government). Problem was Axios had written several articles referring to her as the Border Czar.

"The Trump campaign and Republicans have tagged Harris repeatedly with the "border czar" title — which she never actually had."
The community note;
"In April 2021, Axios itself published multiple articles referring to Harris as Biden's "border czar"."

https://x.com/axios/status/1816078350659494130?t=XWa6B7ewB8qS8jwO6o-gjQ&s=19

[Michael P]

A lot of leftists are suddenly pretending these things never happened:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56516332
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/06/politics/kamala-harris-migration/index.html

[AmosArch]

Its also funny how a half Indian is an 'African American' now. So I guess we're moving on to trasraciality? If I discovered I had a drop of black ancestry can I claim to be African American and apply for affirmative action programs etc? And start speaking for blacks in news stories? What is the cutoff?

[Kazinski]

I thought the one drop rule was a bad thing.

But her father is Jamaican of mixed race and certainly looks black. I don't have a problem with her calling herself anything she wants.

But by some definitions she is not African-American, from Wikipedia:
"The term "African American" generally denotes descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States."

But I don't see it as an issue either way.

[Brett Bellmore]

By that standard Obama wasn't "African American" either, of course.

I just think it's hilarious that the party that routinely calls people racist is so blatantly the race obsessed party. Only, they can't even get somebody's race right.

[Drewski]

"the party that routinely calls people racist is so blatantly the race obsessed party"

Let's see. Conservatives obsessing over Harris's race in the comments today: You, Kazinski, AmosArch, Michael P, Commenter_XY, JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes.

Liberals obsessing over Harris's race in the comments today:

So I have to agree. There is a major party that routinely calls people racist and is blatantly race-obsessed. It's hilarious that you accuse Dems of both obsessing over her race and getting it wrong but fail to recognize the irony of this.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"The values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally—and this is not kidding —the core strengths of America ... And it starts at the top with the Vice President."

Guess who said that?

Democrats: "We're hiring on DEI!"
Republicans: "They're hiring on DEI."
Democrats: "That's outrageous, you're so race-obsessed!"

[Krayt]

Staying out of this race blabbitry, but I’m sorry. The core strength of America is freedom.

[Guten]

Faith, Freedom, and Virtue

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, yes, of course. But the above statement was made by a Democrat (see link below). For Democrats, this type of sentiment is par for the course.

https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1816163390483751265

[Michael P]

I didn't obsess over her race, you liar.

Leftists obsess over her race every day. You just don't admit to it "in the comments" here. They're the ones writing columns like "White Women Have 100 Days to Help Save the World" (by voting for the woman that Joe Biden identified as a DEI hire) and "Race, gender and politics: Is the United States ready for a Black woman president?" (according to a recent focus group, only if she's competent, which Harris isn't).

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is fucking hilarious. "Sure, I'm here posting on race, but that's not obsessing over it. But I know you secretly are obsessing over it, but deviously don't post on here so I can' prove it."

The authoritarian apologists around here make dumber arguments every day. I wonder whether they ever realize the percentage of their opinions that are based on a reality that exists only in their head.

[Michael P]

I didn't mention her race. I focused on her being -- as Joe "Big F'ing Deal" Biden said -- a DEI hire.

Why do you liars lie so much about things that are so easily checked?

[Sarcastr0]

This is some incredible not posting about race.

I've never seen more not race-related posting all at once.

Hat's off to you, Michael!

[TwelveInchPianist]

It’s not posting about race any more than your comment is posting about race.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So the racist meme of her being a DEI hire is not about race? Sure, ML.

[Riva]

So, now you guys vehemently oppose DEI? Well, some progress at least.

[Estragon]

Hey lay off Weekend at Bernie’s guy

[NOVA Lawyer]

“you guys vehemently oppose DEI?”

When you lot call someone a DEI hire, we know what you mean. We oppose the racism inherent in using "DEI hire" as an insult.

No, diversity, equity, and inclusion are each separately and all collectively great. As the Biden quote ML likes to trot out, it ensures all pools of talent are searched for the best candidate.

[David Nieporent]

When you lot call someone a DEI hire, we know what you mean.

As someone noted, they're saying it with the hard-r.

[Riva]

NOVA lawyer, Joe Biden quite clearly identified her as a DEI hire. If you think that’s racist, write him a letter to complain about it. Although I would I agree that DEI as implemented is quintessentially racist. And has resulted in too many unqualified in positions of authority, for instance Kamala, and enriched too many race grifters. Like the climate grifters but even more unseemly.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Riva-bot got an upgrade on racism, downgrade on reading comprehension.

[Joe_dallas]

Drewski 39 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
“the party that routinely calls people racist is so blatantly the race obsessed party”

Is Exposing the blatant racism and race obsession of the democrat party suddenly racist? Asking for a friend

[not guilty]

Will the commenters here who are quick to cry "racism" when I refuse to genuflect to Clarence Thomas condemn those who refer to Kamala Harris as a D.E.I. hire?

[Joe_dallas]

Thomas was not a DEI hire
Harris was a DEI hire

[Malika the Maiz]

Thomas was chosen because he was of course the best jurist in country at the time the opening came up! This not disputed!

[Joe_dallas]

Thomas is head and shoulders above DEI hires - sotomayor and jackson
Shuette
Moore
Ricci
just to name a few

[Malika the Maiz]

It's laughable to argue that Thomas was chosen because he had the best objective qualifications (he most certainly did not). He was chosen to replace the until-then only African-American on the court in large part because he himself was African-American. That's as DEI as DEI gets.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika the Maiz 15 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
It’s laughable to argue that Thomas was chosen because he had the best objective qualifications (he most certainly did not). He was chosen to replace the until-then only African-American on the court in large part because he himself was African-American. That’s as DEI as DEI gets.

the difference which you ignore is that Thomas has proven to be an excellent supreme court justice. Vastly more qualified than sotomayor and jackson

[Sarcastr0]

Joe, if Thomas became excellent in retrospect, wouldn't that mean you should extend the same courtesy to Harris and give her a chance?

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 10 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Joe, if Thomas became excellent in retrospect, wouldn’t that mean you should extend the same courtesy to Harris and give her a chance?"

Are you serious - thomas had a history of quality work, albeit a short history.
Harris on the other has a much longer history of unqualified performance.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Joe Dallas: "the difference which you ignore is that Thomas has proven to be an excellent supreme court justice"

Even assuming that's the case, you don't seem to understand causality. Being excellent after the fact doesn't change one of the motivating reasons why a person is hired. I thought Michael P was setting a bar for stupid comments above, but you go and clear it. Easily.

Thomas was a DEI hire if ever there was one. That doesn't make it a bad thing. As you point out in shoot yourself in the foot fashion, DEI hires are just as likely to be great as anyone else. Diversity is good. Think what Souter or Kennedy-like Justice you would be caterwauling about if Bush had picked a white man!

[Malika the Maiz]

"the difference which you ignore is that Thomas has proven to be an excellent supreme court justice."

Lol, that doesn't mean he wasn't a DEI *hire,* he clearly was.

[David Nieporent]

In addition to Joe's inability to understand his own argument, he is of course defining good and bad judges by whether he agrees with their rulings. To be fair, lots of people do that. Probably most people do that. But Joe — who has finally gotten the case name of Shuette correct after years of mislabeling it — is posting at a legal blog; you'd think he could at least pretend to do analysis. (I like when he talks about Thomas's pre-SCOTUS track record even though he knows nothing about it.)

Thomas is not a good justice, and I say that despite often agreeing with his rulings. He has no respect for precedent, and he's not even good at moving the caselaw in the way he thinks it should move because his extremism and rigidity is not persuasive to other justices.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“It’s laughable to argue that Thomas was chosen because he had the best objective qualifications”

Who said anything about objective qualifications? He was the most conservative pick that could be confirmed by the Democratic Senate.

[Riva]

Then please, when any of you Kamala fans get a chance, highlight some of her great accomplishments as VP. Was it securing the border as border Czar? Or did she diligently execute her duties under the 25th amendment?

[Magister]

Most tie-breaking votes by a vice president (among the few constitutional responsibilities of the office). A lot of trips to foreign countries, and a lot of meetings with foreign leaders. As with most Vice Presidents, the main part of the job is advocating for the administration's policies.

For stupid MAGA cultists, it doesn't take much effort to simultaneously believe two falsehoods, that Biden was physically and mentally incapable since before 2020 and that his Vice President had no involvement in his administration's policies and accomplishments.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, of course Thomas was a diversity hire. It was admitted at the time. He was just a fairly successful one.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Joe getting called out by Brett. How embarrassing for Joe.

Thank you, Brett. These occasional spasms of honesty and objectivity are so welcome.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was actually kind of annoyed about it at the time. I thought they could have found somebody better if they'd been race blind about it, though they'd doubtless have gotten all kinds of hell from the Democrats for not nominating a black man to replace a black man.

As it is, I've been pleasantly surprised by Thomas, I think in part because the vicious attacks on him left him the honey badger of justices: If he'd had any inclination to care what liberals thought about an opinion, they burned it out of him.

But I still think it was unprincipled to go out of their way to pick a black nominee, as opposed to just going with one if he was the best candidate.

[Sarcastr0]

I think in part because the vicious attacks on him left him the honey badger of justices: If he’d had any inclination to care what liberals thought about an opinion, they burned it out of him.

You do realize what a terrible unprofessional job you think of him if you believe that to be true?

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, caring what people think of your opinion is itself a moral deficit in a judge, whose job is to be right, not popular. That's Roberts' vice, and I'm glad Thomas is largely free of it.

I don't always agree with Thomas, but I always get the sense he said what he actually believed to be true, without fear or favor, and that's admirable.

[Sarcastr0]

Resentment-based jurisprudence is bad, actually. I’m personally impressed how little of the obvious and eternal chip on his shoulder you used to see in his jurisprudence.
You see the opposite, and think that’s good??

As to his beliefs, I mean I think all the Justices believe what they say because I’m not a BrettLaw person.
But the idea that he’s got some steady doctrine he’s following doesn’t track well; it’s actually pretty hard to nail down anything predictable about where he’ll decide to stake out an out-there position and where he won’t.

And lately to my untrained eye he’s been letting is freak flag fly a bit more; some combo of Alito and MAGA seems to me.

[Michael P]

Do you mean we should condemn Joe Biden?

[Kazinski]

Clarence was also picked for his race, but he turned out to be an intellectual heavyweight.

Kamala is not an intellectual heavyweight.

You just disagree with Thomas philosophically and politically, but I really hope you don't think you are his intellectual superior, that would be very sad.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes. The difference is one is dumb and the other is smart.

Trenchant!

[Michael P]

That's essentially why the criticisms of Thomas now are that he has rich friends, whereas the criticisms of Harris are that she's an incompetent politician, a bad manager, and incapable of executing policies.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, liberals realize that saying someone they don't like is dumb just looks like sour grapes with the possible exception of Dan Quayle.

The criticisms of Harris on the right are that she's
1) bad,
2) a slut,
3) a minority hire, and thus dumb,
4) immigration somehow,
5) the leftmostishly leftist,
6) maybe not even black???

Keep making it weird, and see where that gets you.

[bernard11]

Don't forget that she is a childless cat lady.

Vance is even slimier than I thought.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. "Bad." Well, yeah.
2. "A slut." Reputedly, yeah.
3. "a minority hire, and thus dumb," It's not like minority hires can't be smart, but when your primary qualification is how you look, getting somebody who's also smart ceases to be the primary goal.
4. "immigration somehow," SOMEHOW???

5. "the leftmostishly leftist," Well, yeah, even if they're memory holing having admitted it.
6. "Maybe even not black". Again, yeah. All Indian mother, part black father, certainly looks Indian, and started out her career Indian until she realized being "black" was more advantageous.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett...may not be a political genius.

bernard11, yeah, unless reigned in Vance is going to keep it at least as weird as the commenters here.

He's got that 'women exist to make babies' issue that is both very bad politics and kinda scary in an era of conservatives increasingly ruling from the minority.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Keep making it weird"

Blog comments are dumb. OMG. What an insight!

The actual campaign is tying her to an unpopular Biden and hitting her on immigration and her lefty views. Your side's response is "she did not have the title czar", take that deplorables.

[David Nieporent]

The criticisms of Harris on the right are that she’s
1) bad,
2) a slut,
3) a minority hire, and thus dumb,
4) immigration somehow,
5) the leftmostishly leftist,
6) maybe not even black???

Keep making it weird, and see where that gets you.

You're stupid. You forgot to mention her laugh.

[Kazinski]

I'm not calling anyone dumb

Its just that Thomas is a leading public intellectual, who has had, and is having, a major influence in both the direction of the Supreme Court, and the lower courts.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Kaz you are. "Kamala is not an intellectual heavyweight" as though you know her. That is politely calling her dumb, at least for the level she's operating in.

And you support Trump.

So...yeah.

[Lee Stillman]

81.6% of UC Hastings Law graduates passed the bar on their first attempt. Harris didn't.

[Sarcastr0]

What an awful metric you're using to call someone dumb.

But then you're overdetermined to do so.

[Kazinski]

Very few of us are intellectual heavyweights, Thomas is, Harris and Trump, and Biden for that matter, are not.

I'm not sure I want an intellectual heavyweight for president anyway, I want common sense and practicality, which I do think Trump has, Harris doesn't, and Biden is merely deficient.

[Corve5]

I hear she sucks a mean schlong, though.

[mulched]

That depends. Are you going to refer to him with a racist slur?

[Kazinski]

"But I don’t see it as an issue either way."

That Kazinski?

[Don Nico]

"“Kamala is not an intellectual heavyweight”
That is not calling someone stupid. It are employing your usual exaggeration to the point of being untruthful.

[CE]

Well obviously she can call herself Black or a Person of Color without making anything up. And her Jamaican father’s ancestors were African, which is true of all of us. Does that mean people should assume that she shares a common cultural background and has lived through a similar level of disadvantaged socioeconomic conditions as many African-Americans have? What about her two-parent privilege, and being raised by two college professors? And does her family history of owning their own plantation mean she should be paying reparations to herself?

[Commenter_XY]

Just ask Rachael Dolezal about that one drop rule. She overcame the one drop rule by the self identified rule, and a shitty hairdoo.

[defaultdotxbe]

I've often wondered what the cutoff is as well, since all humans evolved in Africa everyone is technically of African descent.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Only because the Africans colonized Europe to the point that Indigenous Europeans were almost wiped out and even today have mostly African ancestry.

I wonder when Africa will pay reparations to descendants of Indigenous Europeans?

[Malika the Maiz]

"Only because the Africans colonized Europe to the point that Indigenous Europeans were almost wiped out and even today have mostly African ancestry."

Citation?

[John F. Carr]

The foot long commenter is probably referring to Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and died off as Homo sapiens took over.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably. Googling it suggests that the Neanderthals WERE thought to have originated in Europe and Asia, not Africa.

But to have interbred to any extent, (Which apparently did happen.) they had to have had a recent common ancestor. Which is designated the LCA (Last Common Ancestor), and is assumed to have come from Africa.

Though the fossil record is so sketchy, who can say?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Though the fossil record is so sketchy, who can say?"
No one because the science is not settled.

[JasonT20]

“Though the fossil record is so sketchy, who can say?”
No one because the science is not settled.

I find that referring to any debate being "settled" in regards to science has become a politically loaded word to use. To express my view of what "settled" could mean and have validity, in a scientific context, is that active debate over a topic among experts in a field or subfield is just not happening. It isn't that someone has declared that the debate is settled. It is that no one* is debating that thing.

As for the question of where and when Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens, or any other member of the Homo genus originated, lived, or went extinct and why, this is an active area of research and thus scientists in those fields are undoubtedly debating each other over conclusions drawn from the evidence constantly. But, that wouldn't mean that "no one" can say. It is just that any answer to the question would be that scientist's view of the evidence, rather than a robust conclusion of the whole field.

*There will often be contrarians and even crackpots. As a physics grad student, I was at the annual conference of the American Physical Society (APS) when I got drawn in by a retired engineer that was certain that he had proven Einstein's General Relativity to be wrong. He even had the self-published monograph to show me. He insisted I take a copy, which I did and looked over later. I wasn't studying anything related to GR, so I couldn't say one way or another if his math was correct. But I noticed that he didn't include any comparison of his ideas to observations. That is the thing about science, especially physics: if it doesn't agree with experiment, it is wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

That was supposed to read the science is never settled.

[Mr. Bumble]

JasonT20:
Way off topic but thought this was good enough to share:

Posted on July 25, 2024 by Steven Hayward in Science
Today in Science

This headline in today’s Nature magazine caught my eye:

Heaviest element yet within reach after major breakthrough

Researchers have demonstrated a new way to make superheavy elements, offering a method to create element 120 — which would be the heaviest element ever made.

Scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, announced today that they have for the first time used a beam of titanium to make a known superheavy element, livermorium — element 116. After upgrading the lab’s equipment, the team plans to use similar techniques to try to produce element 120.

Prediction: the new heaviest element known to the universe will surely turn out to be Governmentium:

The new element, governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, according to the team of research scientists in Budapest, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of two to six years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

[CE]

The DNA record isn’t sketchy. Mitochondrial Eve lived in Africa, 200 thousand years ago or so.

And the most recent common ancestor is much more recent than the African migration to Europe, and would likely be described as Middle Eastern today. Wikipedia used to cite this as being only 5,000 years ago (due to pedigree collapse), but now their description is much more vague and saying it could be up to 100,000 years ago, likely because fundamentalists might have thought they were talking about Noah.

[CE]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-all-more-closely-related-than-we-commonly-think/

[defaultdotxbe]

The most recent common ancestor is believed to be H. heidelbergensis, which evolved in Africa.

[Frank Drackman]

Those Damn Homos!

[Longtobefree]

She is descended from a slave owner.

[not guilty]

The one drop rule was applied vigorously when segregation was in force. Homer Plessy was one eighth black and seven eights white.

[Brett Bellmore]

Vigorously and inconsistently.

[Riva]

Democrat party innovations.

[not guilty]

I have long wondered why those who bleat about "the Democrat Party" think that use of non-standard English is persuasive. Is the impulse to channel Joe McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh irresistible?

[Riva]

Their sordid past with slavery, the klan, and Jim Crow bother me more than minor spelling quibbles but you do like focusing on irrelevant details.

[not guilty]

Riva, I am proud of my political party's repudiating its history of support for slavery and racial segregation during the second half of the twentieth century.

Are you proud of how eagerly your party stepped into the breach?

[Brett Bellmore]

All your party did was swap client races. You considered simply not discriminating for a couple years, and rejected it.

These days you're all in for racial quotas and openly discriminatory policies, and rationalize that what's really discriminatory is not discriminating, because you don't hit the quota if you don't discriminate, and not making the quota is proof of racism, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's 'client race' take is itself a great example of the racial politics of the GOP today. And he doesn't even realize it.

[Riva]

Sarcastr0, like most democrats (I know you don't like communist, how about Marxist?) is desparately afraid that the democrats will not be able to reliably exploit black voters.

[Riva]

But they never repudiated anything. Never apologized for anything. And continue to exploit racial issues even today. Sure they were defeated in their war to perpetuate slavery. Not the same thing though.

[SimonP]

AssMunch - it's not really that complicated.

People claim to be "Black" or "South Asian" or "POC" or "AAPI," and as a rule we tend to take them at their word. Absent Dolezal-level fraud, there's usually little reason to second-guess their claims. Their heritage is easy to confirm, they may always have lived/presented a certain way, and ultimately it's not that big of a deal. Even people like Elizabeth Warren - whose claim to Native American ancestry may have been based on mistaken family history - aren't really second-guessed that strictly.

It's not "transraciality"; it's just reflecting the basic truth that it's not that big of a deal, in the grand scheme of things. If someone lives and presents as "Black," the only reason anyone has to parse through their family tree to see exactly what their lineage is, is to make a loud and distracting fight out of it.

[Brett Bellmore]

She actually started out her career 'presenting' as Indian, and then saw the advantages of black, and switched. But I agree it's not a big deal, it's pathological that anybody actually cares about this.

It's a pathology that got her into the White house, though, rather than working against her.

[Mr. Bumble]

It was those hot beef injections from Willie Brown that made her black.

[shawn_dude]

Or maybe too many Americans just considered her "black" despite her own self-perception due to the lingering racism in this country and the whole "one drop" rule.

You frame this like her racial identity is some sort of gimmick she can switch out at will.

She's a woman with power; she's non-white; and she's the product of a mixed-race marriage. White nationalists are never going to like her.

[defaultdotxbe]

"White nationalists are never going to like her."

So that's why progressives hate Clarence Thomas so much.

[Riva]

And Govtrack has deleted a page that ranked her to the left of Bernie Sanders. No rewriting of history here. Democrats are obviously nothing like Soviet communists.

[Joe_dallas]

Michael P 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"A lot of leftists are suddenly pretending these things never happened: "

Likewise a lot of leftist will pretend that her political views never matched the political views the Squad has of the US and Israel.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/george-mason-kamala-harris-anti-semitism-jews-israel-patriotism-progressives-woke-11633636968

[Michael P]

A related thing that has now been memory-holed by the left: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/17/politics/kamala-harris-most-liberal-senator-fact-check/index.html

[Kazinski]

I was just getting to that, but I didn't want to run them together.

[Armchair]

This is likely why she was nominated like she was.

If she had a full primary, all of this would come out, and be harder to deny.

[Josh R]

FFS people. Stop with the conspiracy theories. You look ridiculous.

Harris is the nominee only because of Biden's meltdown in the debate. It wasn't a planned event.

[Brett Bellmore]

It wasn't planned to happen THEN. It probably was planned, though, because the people who've had actual unscripted access to Biden could see what was happening to him, and knew he couldn't keep up a front forever.

Maybe they thought he'd make it to the convention, or even past election day, but they had to know that Harris was going to be taking his place at some point, ideally at a point where she wouldn't have to do her own campaigning.

[Josh R]

Or, you could continue to look ridiculous.

[Joe_dallas]

Josh R 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Or, you could continue to look ridiculous."

The only people that continue to look ridiculous are the ones that were fooled for last 4 years when they deny Bidens mental cognitive decline which has been known to every honest observer. Like most leftist , you simply let yourself get fooled.

[David Nieporent]

which has been known to every honest observer.

Once again: you're not a virologist, immunologist, climatologist, or honest observer, and you're not qualified to speak on any of those topics.

[Kazinski]

What do you think George Stephanopolis thought after his interview a few weeks ago.

He said in a moment of candor he didn't think Biden would last 4 more years.

What did he think the plan was?

[Sarcastr0]

...Are you reading Brett and Joe's comments, Kaz? They are writing stories well beyond whatever moment of candor you're highlighting.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro – Stephanopolis has been one of the active participants in hiding bidens serious mental decline, which you like most leftist were fooled. Stephanopolis got caught with his and the rest of the media’s lie.

No matter how hard you try to spin the lie, the media got caught and you got fooled.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you got fooled"

He wasn't "fooled". Just lying about it.

[Sarcastr0]

You should start making a list of who was a vital player in the coverup; you clearly have the inside scoop.

And what is this 'serious mental decline?'
You were citing specific diagnoses from Alzheimer's to 4-years ago onset dementia last week!

Why so bashful now?

[Joe_dallas]

concur - all the leftist that are denying Biden's mental decline over the last 4 or so years are either lying or just out right fooled or fools.

As I said every honest observer saw it -

[David Nieporent]

No matter how hard you try to spin the lie, the media got caught and you got fooled.

Wait, were people who didn't think Biden had declined "fooled," or were they not "honest observers"? You can't even keep your idiocy straight.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 1 hour ago

No matter how hard you try to spin the lie, the media got caught and you got fooled.

Wait, were people who didn’t think Biden had declined “fooled,” or were they not “honest observers”? You can’t even keep your idiocy straight."

DN - Still lying to yourself -

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes those dishonest observers who THINK they are honest, but are lying to themselves so they don't know how dishonest they are.

Unlike Joe_dallas, who has the iron willed honesty to never lie to himself or anyone else. And who has the self-insight to realize he is this kind of super-man.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Every honest observer knows that Joe_dallas rapes children. To dispute that is to admit that you're a liar or that you were fooled.

See how fun and easy it is to claim subjective opinions are suddenly objective litmus tests of lies?

[David Nieporent]

Every honest observer knows that Joe_dallas rapes children. To dispute that is to admit that you’re a liar or that you were fooled.

Making fun of Joe_dallas, anonymous expert in everything, is always fun. But to be more substantive, here's a video of Biden being interviewed for an extended period in October 2020 on 60 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSAo_1mJg0g&t=42s

The contrast between him then and now is stark, and anyone who pretends that there was evidence of mental decline back then is a mendacious asshole. (Or Joe_dallas. But I repeat myself.)

[Drewski]

I agree and I think you should hammer this home as much as possible. To really highlight how messed up it is, you should call it a "coup" at every opportunity. Remind them that Biden was on methamphetamines throughout his administration. Keep hitting those points. Make flyers and pamphlets about it - on a mimeograph if you can find one. Write letters to the editor. Get Drackman to help you come up with clever nicknames. This conspiracy must be brought into daylight!

[Armchair]

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you...candidates don't withdraw just because of one poor debate performance. There was an underlying reason that was known.

[Riva]

Even assuming you’re right, what does that say about democrats that they would gladly have kept this demented clown in power as long as they could effectively hide his incompetence?

Nothing good actually. Especially that cackling hyena who lied to the public for years about his lack of fitness for her own self-advancement. This dementia did not magically appear on the night of June 27.

[Malika the Maiz]

I assume they knew they were running him against a demented clown. Fortunately, one party ultimately changed that.

[Riva]

If you’re trying to say that one party respected the democratic process and another is showing contemptuous disregard of its own voters by planning to install the party elite’s choice, I agree. Go democracy!

[Malika the Maiz]

The party elite will install no one, the delegates will. You can't even get this kind of basic thing correct.

[Riva]

Well of course not, that history’s already been rewritten. Hopefully the party will put out the final version soon, but always subject to change of course. History can be fun with communists.

[Malika the Maiz]

Harris is not the nominee and will not be until and when the delegates vote her as such.

[Riva]

Sure, it will be almost as if she won the primary race but didn’t at the same time.

[David Nieporent]

contemptuous disregard of its own voters

Setting aside that you are in the pro-dictator camp who wanted to void the votes of

81 million

Americans just 3½ years ago, and therefore have no standing to talk about disregarding voters, what the fuck are you talking about here? Joe. Biden. Dropped. Out. Do you think the Democratic Party should be nominating him, out of purported respect for its voters, even though he has decided not to run?

(That's setting aside the fact that "its voters" had been telling pollsters that this is exactly what they wanted.)

[David Nieporent]

Even assuming you’re right, what does that say about democrats that they would gladly have kept this demented clown in power as long as they could effectively hide his incompetence?

What does it say about Republicans that a "demented clown" is vastly preferable and superior to their candidate?

[Bwaaah]

Josh R: "Harris is the nominee only because of Biden’s meltdown in the debate."

Still in denial about the obvious, significant, continuing cognitive decline of an elderly President? You clearly don't know "ridiculous."

[Malika the Maiz]

Democrats were likely fine with running him against another elderly person with obvious, significant, continuing cognitive decline until the debate made them re-think and change their minds. The good news is that one of our two major parties cared enough to listen to America and not make them make that choice.

[Riva]

If that assassin had succeeded, you pathetic clowns would still be backing old Joe.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahahaha what? Why would the Republicans getting a stronger candidate make the Democrats decide to stick with a weaker one?

[Riva]

Democrats don't really care that Joe is incompetent. He was incompetent in 2020 and was incompetent in office long before the evening of June 27. After the 27th, the incompetence could no longer be effectively hidden. It remains to be seen whether the democratic sludge exposed this intentionally or not, but undeniable that they knew he was incompetent.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What does this have to do with your previous comment?

[David Nieporent]

What does this have to do with your previous comment?

The bot isn't programmed to actually respond to what's said; it just sees certain words as triggers and repeats a particular talking point.

[Riva]

Noscitur, I was responding to the obnoxious sarcasm from Malika whatever. I thought that was obvious but apparently I was inconsiderate to the slower witted. My apologies.

Dave, better get in touch with some intel goons and get another letter out. Could be Russian interference again. They’ll find the hallmarks right away. Maybe they’ll even find a pee tape just to add to the fun? Perkins Coie on standby.

[Josh R]

You, and many other commenters, keep missing the point.

Of course Biden was in cogntiive decline. Of course his staff was hiding the extent of it. And of course he didn't withdraw because of a run-of-the-mill bad debate performance, but rather that performance exposed to the world his decline was too steep to trust he could do the job for the next four years.

Where the lot of you remain ridiculous is your fantasy that how it all played out was a plot from the very beginning to get Harris on the ticket without running primaries.

[Life of Brian]

I doubt they were angling for Harris specifically -- they're smart enough to understand her demonstrated lack of appeal. They're stuck with her for now, but I strongly suspect they're still looking for an exit strategy.

But regardless of the final candidate, under the circumstances why in the world wouldn't they have viewed bypassing primaries as a win-win? If they managed to limp Biden over the line for a second term without his decline being "exposed to the world" then they'd be golden; if the cat got out of the bag then they could just hot-swap a replacement and avoid the damage the candidates typically inflict on each other during the first-round mudslinging, as well give Trump less time/opportunity to adapt his campaign.

Just seems like another "of course" for your list.

[Josh R]

I agree the early debate was a test drive for Biden with Plan B in mind, necessarily involving no primaries. But the conspiracy theory is Plan B was the intent. What nonsense.

Plan A was always Biden and Plan B had no primaries only because of the timing - not because no primaries was thought to be a good idea.

[Riva]

Way to honor the democratic primary process. No threat to democracy here.

[David Nieporent]

They’re stuck with her for now, but I strongly suspect they’re still looking for an exit strategy.

They're not. I remember a few years ago when there were studies that seemed to show that conservatives were better at understanding liberals than vice versa. But to the extent that was true, Trump broke MAGA's brains, and it no longer is.

Obviously writing on a blank slate some would prefer a different nominee. That's normal and natural in any candidate selection process. But Democrats are not writing on a blank slate; they're writing on a slate where Harris has been the vice president for the last four years, and it's the end of July, and the overwhelming goal is beating Donald Trump. There's a reason that every major figure in the party (except Obama, who historically doesn't do so) endorsed her, and it's not because Kamala Harris is a master manipulator who has dirt on everyone and coerced them into it. It's because she's the best and obvious — and, frankly, only — choice for this situation.

[Riva]

No what's normal and natural for a candidate selection process happens during the primary season. What's going on here, is not that thing. Go democracy!

[David Nieporent]

Bot's malfunctioning again.

[Riva]

Don’t know why you’re complaining here. You should be in touch with the Kamala campaign. They need to get those intel goons off their asses and do something. Could be Russia. Because it’s always russia. Especially in a campaign season. Better throw in something pee related just to be safe.

[Commenter_XY]

Is that what you call it....a meltdown during the debate? LMFAO. Uh, no.

[David Nieporent]

You think it was a good performance?!?!?!

[Michael P]

https://nypost.com/2024/07/22/us-news/top-dems-threatened-to-remove-biden-unless-he-resigned/ says that Joe's debate failure was planned, at least to some degree.

[Sarcastr0]

If I don't trust the NY Post, I sure can trust their citation to 'sources!'

[TwelveInchPianist]

I thought you were all about anonymous sources being totally reliable.

[PaulS]

"Memory holed" meaning deleted - as in the non partisan Gov track deleted the rating?

[Commenter_XY]

The moment VP Harris starts speaking, the polls will begin to erode.

She has a record, along with her boss: high inflation impact, sluggish economic growth, high petty crime, and a whole lot of fertile ground to till.

America will see, and ultimately agree with 97% of newly disenfranchised Democrat primary voters, who rejected her.

[Josh R]

Democrats are happy with her and do not feel they are disenfranchised.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Of course.

They were told to be happy by their elites, so they complied.
They do not feel disenfranchised because they are genetically predisposed to be serfs and feel too vulnerable without the protection of the elites (previously Lord or Lady), so they feel fully at home with their political masters being appointed. In fact, they prefer it. They feel safer letting their elites make their decisions for them.

[Malika the Maiz]

So funny to see the folks lapping up "I alone can fix it" calling other people servile followers!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How is that funny?

[Riva]

You have to be a communist to get the joke I guess.

[Malika the Maiz]

Those in the cult often don't get jokes about the cult.

[Riva]

You should probably have the party censor my comments, just to safe. They might not think your witty response is enough, no offense.

[Malika the Maiz]

Riva-bot's script of the day!

[Riva]

Oh and get some intel goons to write a letter too. Could be Russian bot interference again.

[Armchair]

They were "happy" with Humphries too.

[Josh R]

Humphries?

If you mean Hubert Humphrey, the Democrats wre deeply divided in 1968 because of the war. And Humphrey still almost won.

[Armchair]

Sorry, Humphrey.

And gotta wonder, if they'd nominated the person who actually won the primaries...instead of having the party insiders ignore the will of the people.

Would they have won?

[Josh R]

McCarthy won the primaries. But, they were limited in number, barely included HHH at all, and included a lot of votes for the recently murdered RFK. In short, a completely different situation from today.

[Armchair]

"barely included HHH "

Because he deliberately chose not to run in the primaries. Not unlike Kamala...

[Josh R]

Candidate Humphrey chose not to run in the primaries. Completely unlike Humphrey, Harris chose not run because she wasn't a candidate.

[David Nieporent]

if they’d nominated the person who actually won the primaries

Nobody “actually won the primaries,” a nonsensical concept in the context of the era. There were only a handful of primaries held, and sweeping them (which nobody did) would still leave any candidate far short of the number of delegates needed for the nomination.

[Riva]

And pretty soon democrat censors will rewrite history to tell us nobody actually voted in the primaries either. Maybe there actually weren’t any primaries?

[Armchair]

There were 11 Primaries held in 1968 for the US Democratic nomination. These primaries covered many of the most populous states...California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois. New York is a clear outlier, but still...

It's certainly not a "nonsensical" concept that an individual could win any of these primaries or even a majority, and represent the will of the people...even if it didn't cover ALL of the states.

Instead the Democrats went with a person who won less than 5% of the vote in any of these Primaries, but was chosen by the party insiders.

[Malika the Maiz]

Chosen by party insiders? He won with far more delegates voting for him.

[David Nieporent]

It’s certainly not a “nonsensical” concept that an individual could win any of these primaries or even a majority, and represent the will of the people

The concept of winning a primary or a set of primaries is not nonsensical. Describing that as "winning the primaries" is what's nonsensical. There was neither the expectation nor understanding that the small number of states that used primaries would be selecting the nominee, and — as I said — mathematically that couldn't have happened. The convention was the process for selecting a nominee; primaries were just ways of selecting delegates to that convention. (Formally that's still true, but the public understanding is very different.) Every nominee for all parties for all elections up to that point was "chosen by the party insiders," if that's what you want to call convention delegates.

Discussing the "will of the people" in the context of a small non-randomly selected subset of "the people" is nonsensical. There is no reason to believe that "the people" preferred McCarthy, or RFK, or anyone else, to Humphrey. (Polling back then was quite limited, but once LBJ dropped out, Humphrey was the answer most people gave.)

[Riva]

LBJ is inapposite. LBJ withdrew before the primary process was over. That process was allowed to run its course. This is decidely NOT what is happening now.

[Armchair]

"There is no reason to believe that “the people” preferred McCarthy, or RFK, or anyone else, to Humphrey"

Well, except for that whole "voting" process. Except for that.

[David Nieporent]

No, not except for that.

[Armchair]

Ignoring the primaries as ANY evidence that the people preferred McCarthy or RFK is just blind ignorance. That's the votes of millions of people.

And you just completely ignore it.

[Sarcastr0]

A non-randomly selected subset will give you a spurious result if applied to the superset,

[David Nieporent]

Ignoring the primaries as ANY evidence that the people preferred McCarthy or RFK is just blind ignorance. That’s the votes of millions of people.

Since Humphrey wasn't running in them, they not only do not, but cannot, provide any evidence of voters' rankings of him in comparison to McCarthy or RFK.

"Here's a ballot: check off A or B."
"Okay."
"See, nobody checked C! This proves it's less popular!"

[Bwaaah]

David Nieporent: “Nobody “actually won the primaries,” a nonsensical concept in the context of the era.”

Language and the meanings of words are butchered daily in the hands of David Nieporent, as primaries no longer have winners, and the term “era” now refers to the past 4 days.

Remember: All their words are fungible, and all their concepts are boundless.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t seem to be engaging with what he actually wrote, which was it about right now and was indeed about a different era - 56 years ago is a while!

[Riva]

Yeah. Besides, what does it matter what may have happened in the past when we can just delete that info and replace it with something more fitting to party preference? You’re right Sarcastr0, I apologize for calling you guys communists.

[not guilty]

"And gotta wonder, if they’d nominated the person who actually won the primaries…instead of having the party insiders ignore the will of the people.

"Would they have won?"

Uh, the candidate who won the most primaries was Robert F. Kennedy. I wonder why he wasn't nominated.

[Michael P]

RFK didn't get the nomination because a Palestinian activist shot him to death. Wonder no longer!

[Malika the Maiz]

And they didn't run his corpse? What a bait and switch!

[Don Nico]

Wow, much stupider than usual. Quite a feat.

[Josh R]

McCarthy won 6 (WI, PA, MA, OR, NJ IL), RFK 5 (IN, DC, NE, CA, SD).

[Armchair]

Indeed.

Ng remains silent.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Humphrey still almost won."
How do you figure that?
Electoral Vote: Nixon-301, Hump-191, Wallace-46.

[Malika the Maiz]

Because Nixon and Humphrey got almost the same amount of votes.

31,783,783 to 31,271,839.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, and by your logic Hillary "won" in 2016.
Get back to us when you change the Constitution.

[Don Nico]

Stop with the lies.
500,000 is NOT almost the same.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, it is. It's 0.79% of the total.

[Riva]

Well of course, they all voted for her in the primaries…wait a second, that’s not quite right is it?

[Malika the Maiz]

The rejected her by voting for the person whose ticket she was on?

I mean, Biden-Harris posters were right there at the polling stations.

[Malika the Maiz]

So Axios and Trump and the Republicans were incorrect to refer to her as the "border czar."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Biden taps VP Harris to lead response to border challenges
https://apnews.com/general-news-3400f56255e000547d1ca3ce1aa6b8e9

Biden makes Harris the point person on immigration issues amid border surge
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/24/kamala-harris-immigration-border-surge-477810

You can pick any nits you want, but that's a "border czar".

[Malika the Maiz]

Sorry, Charlie, words mean things. No "czar" there.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So the hill you're going to die on is the informal political term "czar" not being an official title of 'czar'?

And you think that's what a smart person would do?

[Michael P]

You have to admit, it's a pretty hilarious take from someone who used to call himself "Queen".

[Malika the Maiz]

There is and was no official position or title.

[Kazinski]

He did actually use the word Czar because it's unconstitutional to grant titles of nobility.

But here is the article with embedded video.

"The vice president is expected to focus on both curbing the current flow of migrants and coordinating with countries in the region to address the root causes of migration."

How did she do?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-taps-harris-lead-coordination-efforts-southern-border-n1261952

"WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that he has appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to lead efforts to stem migration across the U.S.-Mexico border, as the administration faces growing political pressure to address a surge in undocumented migrant children unaccompanied by parents."

[Malika the Maiz]

Administrations know how to use the word "czar" if they want to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Those aren't official titles. There is a reference to Kamala as the Border Czar in the Congressional record.

[Bob from Ohio]

Did you read your link?

"There have never been any U.S. government offices with the title "czar", but various governmental officials have sometimes been referred to by the nickname "czar" rather than their actual title."

[Malika the Maiz]

"We had a “Drug Czar” in common political usage for quite a while "

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Just like how we recently had a "Border Czar" in common political usage, numbnuts.

[Bob from Ohio]

"numbnuts."

I had forgotten how dumb Queenie [his hold handle] was. Now I remember.

[zztop8970]

you realize Harris is listed in that link as 'Border czar', yes?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sorry, Charlie, words mean things. No “czar” there."

And here is what czar means:
noun: czar
...
2. a person appointed by government to advise on and coordinate policy in a particular area.

Sorry Charlie.

[Malika the Maiz]

The administration never gave her such a title.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the proof of that is that she has never visited the border.

[Bob from Ohio]

"never gave her such a title"

Lame. Its a figure of speech.

We had a "Drug Czar" in common political usage for quite a while but the formal title since 1988 is Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

[Riva]

Now that history has been rewritten. But hold off, the past may go through some more changes by the Democrat censors so we don’t yet know the official state approved version yet.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s early days but this is pretty weak.

At least you refrained from being weird…that will and has already proven a challenge to the GOP and associated media in the coming weeks.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So what do you think of Harris's performance as border czar?

[Malika the Maiz]

Harris was never border czar so there's nothing to think about there.

Of course, what's happening recently at the border has been decreased encounters.

[mulched]

She was just a member of the administration put in charge of a particular policy area, definitely not a czar.

If she was a czar, that would mean she was a member of the administration put in charge of a particular policy area, which is totally different.

[shawn_dude]

She was a member of the administration given a diplomatic mission to find out the root cause for the large migrations from Latin American countries to the US border. Information-gathering is not "policy" but can be used to build a coherent policy.

Calling Kamala a "Czar" is intended to make her responsible for an immigration issue that is not anywhere near as large as hyperventilating FOX news hosts make it seem. They current fear-mongering talking point is that fentanyl deaths are caused by immigrants, except the Cato institute disagrees with that and they have the data. 89% of fentanyl crossing the border is carried by US citizens.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From NBC News

A senior administration official said Harris' role would focus on "two tracks": both curbing the current flow of migrants and implementing a long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of migration.

[Bored Lawyer]

The Soviet style rewriting of history is a proper subject of mockery.

The choice of topics they are choosing to pigeon-hole is also highly instructive. Most people consider the Biden Administration's border policy to be a disaster. Kamala Harris was put in charge. Whether you call her Czar, Czarina, Empress, Mikado or Kahuna-in-Chief, she was in charge. It's a major political liability.

This is what Republicans need to press on.

[shawn_dude]

Your evidence that Kamala was put in charge?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/07/25/no-kamala-harris-is-not-the-border-czar-what-to-know-about-her-immigration-record/

[zztop8970]

https://x.com/i/status/1816098217638928424

[Bored Lawyer]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/of-course-harris-was-the-border-czar/

Article quotes Joseph R. Biden (Ostensible President) who made that very point.

[JasonT20]

Speaking of gaslighting, did you see that Kellyanne Conway claimed that Trump shouldn't make personal attacks on Harris and run against her record instead, just like he didn't call Hillary Clinton names?

[Bored Lawyer]

First part is sound advice. Not that Trump is capable of following it.

Can you point me to where she said the second part?

[JasonT20]

I got it from an article that referenced this tweet. The tweet embeds a clip from The Five, I think it is.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Actually, no one in this thread is really speaking of gaslighting. A lot of accusations of lying, but no gaslighting.

[Stella Link the dog]

The abuse of the term "gaslighting" is rampant here and many other places. It's unfortunate that an interesting, clever, and useful neoligism is being co-opted by the ignorant, poorly educated, and lazy, but that's the way with our language.

[Kazinski]

The second instance of gaslighting for Kamala is GOV track evidently mothballed it's page that Harris was the most liberal senator in 2019, beating out Bernie, and in 2020 she was the second most liberal getting edged out by Bernie.

ALL SENATORS
most politically right
#1 1.00 Sen. Blackburn [R-TN]
#2 0.96 Sen. Ernst [R-IA]

most politically left
#99 0.02 Sen. Sanders [I-VT]
#100 0.00 Sen. Harris [D-CA]

https://checkyourfact.com/2024/07/24/fact-check-was-kamala-harris-ranked-the-most-liberal-senator-by-govtrack/

And let me also note, I'm not attacking Harris, people have different outlooks and philosophies, that we disagree doesn't make her a bad person, just someone I wouldn't vote for.

[AmosArch]

They're going to start acting like she is in the middle. Sort of like this time of 7000 different genders and microaggressions and DEI is supposedly the most conservative time in history according to leftoids.

[Michael P]

Speaking of motivations to vote for someone, I have heard that women should vote for Harris because Harris is a woman.

"What's a woman?"

[David Nieporent]

“What’s a woman?”

Hey, it turns out that the old saying is true: the 1,087th time is the charm! This joke has become funny!

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember, only the future is fixed, the past is in constant flux.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey, fixing the future is how the CBO gets all their predictions so right. They assume nothing changes, and that's resulted in near perfect predictions according to the CBO.

And that totally passes the smell test, because that's how the world really works.

[Sarcastr0]

These are silly and subjective,
John Kerry was the most liberal back in the day, as I recall. Also Hillary and Obama.

[Riva]

Exactly. That’s obviously why govtrack had to delete the pages. Nothing whatsoever to do with the party installation of Harris. Just a coincidence it happened now.

[Kazinski]

You are just spinning, and making things up.

Look these things up first.

Hillary never was, neither was Obama both were more moderate, by Democratic standards.

"According to the system, the score for the average Democrat in the 111th Congress was -0.382 (negative 0.382), although there was a fairly significant range, from very liberal Democrats like Dennis J. Kucinich (-0.612) and Barbara Lee (-0.743) to moderates like Heath Shuler (-0.100) and Ben Nelson (-0.030).

Mr. Obama’s score of -0.399 was very close to the average, splitting the difference between his party’s liberal and moderate wings. He typically leaves some room to his left. "

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-liberal-is-president-obama/

[Riva]

They haven’t been told how to lie about this yet so they’re a little unsure how to respond yet.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/2004/02/kerry-rated-most-liberal-member-of-senate/16054/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-journal-obama-most-liberal-senator-in-2007

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kazinski owned.

The point, obvoiusly, is that you lot always try to paint the Democratic nominee as a liberal commie, regardless of the fact that, usually, as you now acknowledge, usually the Democratic nominee has been fairly moderate.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, same as every Republican is a fascist.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you sure you want to compare yourself to those who claim every Republican is a fascist?

[NOVA Lawyer]

At least he's honest, Sarcastro! It's good when they admit they are just being partisan hacks. It's the first step to becoming something better than that.

Go buy a principle, Kazinski.

[Ilya Snowman]

Don’t waste your time with this, or with them, Kazinski.

‘Liberal’ will mean whatever they want it to mean at the moment. They will also be able to find loose, ambiguous, and outright disingenuous uses of the word (from the American corporate press, from low-grade American legal scholarship, etc) in order to back up their claims.

Obama and Harris aren’t liberals. They are totalitarians wearing a double mask: one is presenting as being social welfare communitarians who are masquerading as a liberals (and not just in the ‘classical liberal’ sense of liberal) in order to come across as more 'moderate' and so as attractive to more voters.

This stupid classificatory game is over (‘liberal’, ‘progressive’, ‘moderate’, etc) because millions of people can now see how the labels are both imprecise and manipulated. Somin et al just haven’t realized that yet.

In that vein, just as ‘far right’ wasn’t good enough for their purposes (salami tactics, efforts to shift the Overton window, etc), now calling the right ‘fascists’ won’t help either.

[Riva]

If only America had heeded this warning about Obama. Let’s not repeat the same mistake again.

Oh and better delete those links, just to be safe. Or rewrite the articles, if they haven’t already.

[Moderation4ever]

The question is not how she voted as a Senator from California but rather how she governs as the President of the country. You will notice that the two senators most right leaning are from right leaning states. I would expect that either of those Senators, Blackburn or Ernst, to adopt a more middle position if they were President.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what "unburdened by what was" is supposed to mean, I take it: "It's unfair to keep pointing out my record!"

[Sarcastr0]

Moderation4ever was talking about relevance, not fairness.

You're welcome to throw whatever spaghetti you want at the well. But you're not the one that decides what sticks.

[Brett Bellmore]

If her record is spaghetti, it's spaghetti she made.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure; but the GOP's been saying that about the Dem frontrunner since I've been of voting age.

So saying it yet again when as Moderation points out the relevance is not necessarily on point...well, I'm sure you've already convinced yourself at least.

[Kazinski]

But it's not the GOP rating her, it's the "non partisan" GovTrack rating.

[Riva]

And it isn’t the GOP censoring info.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, just like Kerry and Obama.

The methodology is janky enough you can find whatever you want.

[Riva]

Nice rewriting. Kamala isn’t radical. She’s a center of the road moderate. Completely believable, once we delete the record.

[Stella Link the dog]

One must pay attention to the context, dear Greatest Political Mind in History. As another "center of the road moderate" remarked, “[...]Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice [...a]nd[...] moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

[Ilya Snowman]

Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia, never Eastasia.

That's how your government and society actually works.

Give up the colour team partisanship. It is a distraction and a tool of control.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The label itself, "most liberal," doesn't really mean anything specific, and certainly nothing objectively measurable. Particularly when talking about legislators, who may vote for or against things for lots of reasons not related to their "liberalness."

[Michael P]

Kamala Harris speaks in praise of the "strong and enduring" alliance between the United States and "the Republic of North Korea": https://twitter.com/ericmmatheny/status/1816196264935166412

I stand by my earlier comment that it's not clear whether she is more mentally with it than Donald Trump. Or, in the famous words of a word salad,

So, I think it’s very important, as you have heard from so many incredible leaders, for us at every moment in time — and certainly this one — to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past but the future.

[Malika the Maiz]

"it’s not clear whether she is more mentally with it than Donald Trump."

Interesting, haven't heard you concede that much.

[SimonP]

We can play this game all day, citing similar gaffes by Trump, Biden, Obama, and - I'm sure - Vance. All that you're doing here is gristing up the mill. Go ahead and call her a "DEI" hire. I know you want to; that seems to be the point of Twitter thread you've linked.

North Korea's "official" name is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." South Korea's "official" name is the "Republic of Korea."

So the nation she name-checked doesn't actually exist. The question is just, which one did she think she was referring to? Is there any plausible claim that she meant the DPRK?

[Riva]

Until the democrats delete all inconvenient history. Then we might need some new games.

[SimonP]

If only the internet were Twitter, and it all could be controlled by Elon's whim!

[Riva]

Ask Axios, and GovTrack, and the Google search algorithm. And facebook too. And YouTube. I’m sure I’m missing something but you can add it later.

[M L]

I'm not going to call her a DEI hire.

But Biden did.

To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally — and this is not kidding — the core strengths of America. That’s why I’m proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country. And it starts at the top with the Vice President.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/29/remarks-by-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-at-a-campaign-event-philadelphia-pa/

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's certainly an interesting, one might say malevolent, interpretation of that quote.

Biden said his administration was the most diverse in history. He pointed out that his VP was a person who came from historically disfavored groups. That doesn't mean she was "hired" because of those characteristics.

The quote is equally consistent, and in fact more consistent (given "the full talents of our country"), with him pointing out that he went didn't exclude historically disadvantaged groups from the talent search and, by tapping into all talent pools, was able to assemble the most talented team which resulted in a diverse administration.

You keep swearing you don't post about race, but you keep posting about race. And in the dumbest ways possible. No doubt, you'll keep claiming Biden called Kamala a DEI hire. He didn't.

[M L]

I'm actually not opposed to affirmative action, or selecting people based on race such as to create a diverse group, and so on, at least in some contexts.

But I don't understanding doing it, saying you're doing it, celebrating it - then lying and saying it didn't happen. Why would you do that?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"But I don’t understanding doing it, saying you’re doing it, celebrating it – then lying and saying it didn’t happen. Why would you do that?"

Pretending you don't know the connotation behind calling a particular person who is a woman and a minority a "DEI hire" is beneath you, ML.

As has been discussed, all vice presidents are selected based, in part, on who they will appeal to by virtue of their demographic and/or geographic appeal. Kamala is no different from any other VP choice in that sense. So why is it only now you lot want to label her, and her alone, a DEI hire? It's meant as an insult. The insult is racist.

[M L]

So you admit it now? But would like to dictate the terminology used and dictate that certain words are racist and read people's minds to tell us their hearts and so on, the usual, ok carry on.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Admit what? I never denied VPs, including Harris, are selected because they appeal to certain voting blocs (demographic, ideological, and/or geographic). Make up another admission, preferably one I ever disputed.

“DEI hire” has a specific, derogatory connotation. There is a reason you have said it about Harris but didn’t say it about Biden, Pence, or Vance. Yes, you expose yourself, trying to pretend it’s an anodyne phrase on the one hand, but only using it where the derogatory connotation is obvious.

Yes, certain terms are associated with racist ideas. "DEI hire" is overwhelmingly used, if not exclusively used, to belittle a minority. You know that. That’s why you used the term…..edgy!

Just be more honest.

[Ilya Snowman]

She was a DEI hire. End of story.

Your real qualms are about people challenging the policy’s legitimacy. After all, it forms part of a totalitarian social re-engineering programme for the United States and elsewhere.

So, you can hind behind accusations of racism, bigotry, etc, and you can offer claims about this program rectifying historical injustices, about being inclusive, about marketing to more people, all the live long day.

That won’t change the FACT that it’s a totalitarian program, one that prioritises identity over merit and talent, and one that uses evolving-and-contested concepts (‘white’, for example) to create gains for certain groups at others’ expense. The rich brown gay subcontinental will be prioritised for the job over the poor hetero slav (who just got off the boat last year), even though the latter has far better outputs, better credentialing, etc.

We see this EVERY year in uni hiring now.

I implore you to keep accusing people of ‘racism’, though. It’s going to be very helpful for people to see that YOUR OWN, and DEI’s essentialist view of ‘race’ has been weaponized to fuck people over and to ruin the country’s institutions.

(Don’t believe me about the essentialism? You can read it directly and explicitly in Delgado’s works, including his standard intro text to CRT, in Crenshaw’s scholarship, and others. You can also see it in university policy statements. On their own terms, it is a normative preference for essentialism for the concept of race WHEN AND TO THE EXTENT that that advances an ulterior political end. The same could be done for gender.)

It is important that more and more people realize that YOU use accusations of ‘racism’ in order to engage in racism, to engage in class warfare, and to politicize and ruin your higher institutions (moving their mandates away from knowledge production and dissemination to ideology factors that are to be measured in terms of ‘impact’ OUTSIDE of those institutions. Literally.) Once more people understand that, you will be held accountable---in ways that will horrify you and your loved ones.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

A study came out and concluded that DIE was harmful to our military.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/bulletin-board/asu-study-vast-dei-bureaucracy-hurting-u-s-armed-forces/

What studies do you think the Marxists in the Woke Pentagon relied upon when determining DIE was crucial to our warfighting ability?

[Malika the Maiz]

From Charlie Kirk's own foundation in ASU!

“Looks like heaven is easier to get into than Arizona State.”

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Good call, Malika. Only trust The ScIenCE when it affirms your beliefs and comes from your political tribe.

That's what smart people do!

[Malika the Maiz]

I doubt there's much "science" coming out of Charlie Kirk's institution.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Well, I would like to petition the Official Government Labeler of True and Actual Science to reconsider their ruling, which I'm assuming is the authority your comment is premised on.

Where do I file my petition? Can you point me in the right direction? The study looks like your standard soft science fare to me and I would like to try and correct the official determination you're relying upon.

[Malika the Maiz]

The authority my comment stands on is Charlie Kirk's opinions are not very reliable.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

IKR, and therefore any science conducted by anyone adjacent to him isn't reliable either!!

You sound like a Harvard graduate!!

[Malika the Maiz]

Certainly any organization he runs is very likely to be as unreliable as he's proven to be.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yes! That's exactly how a Harvard trained deep thinker would reason!

For sure!

You're one smart cookie, and that's a fact Jack!

[MoreCurious]

I'm not sure that you, the stupidest commenter on the VC, are qualified to judge anyone else's intelligence. If you ever write a thoughtful, intelligent, insightful comment, it will be the first time. You've proven that your education level is roughly middle-school, and you're better off going off to play with children your own age.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I told Papaw on his death bed that one day I would be #1.

I finally made it Papaw, I finally made it! I hope you are proud of me!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Jesus etc. is just a troll. Mute him and live a happier life.

[jb]

Here is a link to the "study":

https://cai.asu.edu/sites/default/files/2024-06/CAI%20Civic%20Educat

Basically, it is a list of DEI-related things the military does and then the authors declaring that those things are bad. As far as I can tell, there is not a single piece of data in the entire document that indicates any harm from the DEI efforts, nor even that it's unsuccessful. In fact, the one piece of data that the authors mention (citing an actual study done by RAND) is that veterans are less likely to be sympathetic to white supremacy than the general population. Which, if anything, would indicate that the DEI efforts are achieving their goal.*

* Of course, it's possible that veterans would have been like this anyway and the training had nothing to do with it. But since this study makes no attempt to look at causation, much less even before-and-after correlation, we're left to at least acknowledge that the DEI efforts may be the cause of the good result.

[David Nieporent]

A study came out and concluded that DIE was harmful to our military.

No, it didn't. The question is, did you not look at your link, or did you just hope that other people wouldn't? Even dignifying it by calling it a "study" is unwarranted, but it did not have any such findings. There's nothing even attempting to measure harm.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is this another one of your Talmudian tricks like the other day when you said there was no medical event in Vegas with Biden?

... My pappy always used to say, never trust a person whose nose was bigger than your elbow...

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why does Act Blue accept credit card donations with address verification turned off?

There have been several reports of obvious fraud, why are no law enforcement agencies look into this (lol, we know why -- it's (D)ifferent!)

[Brett Bellmore]

That's been a complaint since Obama pioneered that technique in order to not be able to detect illegal campaign donations from abroad. Somebody or somebodies were spoofing the credit card transaction system to donate money to him in other people's names, too; The police were uninterested in it because it was being done in a manner that didn't cost those people anything.

Obama Campaign Rakes In Millions In Illegal Foreign Cash

Snopes relies on the fact that Obama set up things so that the actual source of donations couldn't be identified, in order to claim that he didn't know it was happening, and the fact that only one of the sources of the money was identified, to claim that source was the only illegal money and minimize the amount. But the truth is nobody knows how much of his campaign money was illegal, because he'd set it up so that the real sources couldn't be identified.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

On an original version of JD Soleimani Vance’s memoir, Dreams from my Mamaw…it says he was born in Kenyatucky!!! We need to see his birth certificate!!!

[Absaroka]

"How is this done? Through the mundane use of what's called in the credit-card world the Card Verification Value, or CVV. It's the three-digit number on the back of a card that helps positively identify that the person using the card has it in his or her possession. It's a key anti-fraud weapon, used by nearly all legitimate e-commerce businesses and charities.

Obama's campaign doesn't use it. Mitt Romney's does."

Brett, can you flesh out what this has to do with whether a contributor is or isn't a US citizen?

Some places ask for CVV, some don't. But whether or not I'm asked for the CVV, the charge shows up on my bill. If someone in China uses my credit card number to make a donation, I'm going to know about it, with or without a CVV.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If someone in China uses a Visa card to make a donation at ACT Blue, and lists any old address, the credit card is still accepted. In Kamala's case, the early reports appear to be Swiss billionaire funneled $20M through ACT Blue to her.

Try that on any other e-commerce site. Try to use a Visa card with a billing address that doesn’t match what’s registered with the card.

CVV isn't address verification.

[Brett Bellmore]

JHBHBE has it: Obama's campaign weren't verifying CVV, name, address, anything besides the actual credit card number. People demonstrated this by using their card number to make test donations with fake names and addresses, and they went though just fine.

They'd shut off all verification except that the number was valid, and thus avoided verifying any details that would tip you off that it wasn't an American donating. They were also accepting those prepaid cards you can buy without ID in stores.

There was a big fuss about it at the time.

[Krayt]

I thought the CCV was part of the submission to the CC processor.

[Joe_dallas]

Krayt 38 seconds ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"I thought the CCV was part of the submission to the CC processor."

That is definitely true for the last 6-7 years, Though it was not standard procedure in 2008. I dont recall having to input the ccv code on every transaction until sometime after 2015. Nor do I recall having to input the CCV code on any internet CC transaction prior to 2010.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's optional. I was going to post a link to Chase explaining it, but Reason REALLY didn't like me linking to a bank site, apparently.

[John F. Carr]

My understanding is the transaction fee depends on circumstances including whether the CCV is provided. A merchant who submits the 3 digit code code and billing ZIP code will pay less than a merchant who only provides the 16 digits.

[Brett Bellmore]

The latter is ordinarily going to get hit with a lot more charge-backs from transactions later determined to have been fraudulent, though, so different customers go for a different mix of security and customer convenience.

But campaigns have legal obligations to avoid accepting illegal donations, and the fuss was that Obama's campaign had made a decision to avoid checking the information necessary to fulfill that obligation.

[jb]

There's nothing in that article that suggests they weren't verifying CVV on credit cards; it just says that they weren't verifying addresses.

(That doesn't confirm or deny that people can put in fake addresses which is the real issue; I'm just confused why we started talking about CVV at all since it has nothing to do with address verification.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Political Scandal Developing Surrounding Credit Card Donations?

“The 109-page study–America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign and Fraudulent Online Campaign Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections?–gives the findings of an eight-month investigation into the fundraising practices of all Senate and House candidates, as well as both Presidential candidates.

The study found 47.3 percent of candidates do not require CVV protection for these online campaign donations, including President Obama’s website. The study found that Governor Romney’s website did require the CVV number on donations. Interestingly, the President’s website does require the CVV number when a consumer wanted to purchase Obama merchandise.”

When you're buying merch, they have to have a valid shipping address to get it, so you can be reasonably confident somebody doing that isn't using a fake name and address.

[jb]

Okay, cool. That study includes more information than the previous article.

Like I said, basically irrelevant to the actual discussion re: address verification in any case, because you can choose to provide either, both, or neither.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If someone in China uses my credit card number to make a donation, I’m going to know about it, with or without a CVV."

A number of people DID complain that donations they hadn't made were showing up on their credit card records. In some cases they hadn't been charged for them, either.

Apparently if you have access to the digital system for credit card transactions, you can send somebody money so that it looks to the system like it came from somebody else, without their being charged for it; The transaction gets listed under one number, while the money comes from someplace else. It's related to the way phone scammers can make the wrong number show up on your caller ID.

[defaultdotxbe]

Well caller ID is literally based on self reporting (in the VoIP system you configure the caller ID number that gets sent to the destination phone, you can put whatever you want in there)

I honestly don't know if I should be shocked or not to learn that credit card processing works the same way.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are you mixing up two things here?

1.) The billing address of record when the credit card account was opened. Of course that's self-reported, and typically verified by the card issuer.
2.) Or, the billing address as reported at the point of purchase, which in nearly every e-commerce system is verified against the issuing bank's records to reduce fraud.

The loophole that ACT Blue is exploiting is #2.

[Kazinski]

It the another showing of total slavishness to the Democratic cause, Politico had a headline about the pro Hamas demonstrations in Washington last night:

"Republicans pounce after Netanyahu protesters burn U.S. flags – and wave Hamas ones instead"
https://x.com/politico/status/1816233555996860799

But I guess the Republicans Pounce has become too much of a cliche, now the headline is
:
Republicans condemn Netanyahu protesters for burning US flags — and waving Hamas ones instead

But then back to Republicans seized -immediately in the lead paragraph:

"Republicans seized immediately on images of burning U.S. flags and vandalism at Washington, D.C.'s Union Station following Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech as evidence of widespread antisemitism and a harbinger of what can happen under Democratic control of government."

They would have been better off with emphasizing the bipartisan nature of the condemnation, but that would probably betray the reporters own sympathies.

"Other GOP lawmakers tried to tie the protests and vandalism — without evidence — to Vice President Kamala Harris, the likely Democratic nominee for president.

“The people Kamala Harris is courting burn the American Flag,” wrote Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.). “Shame on them.”

Harris gave them an opening by conspicuously not being there, as president of the Senate.

[Commenter_XY]

PM Netanyahu delivered a great speech. I would also hasten to add that Rep Tlaib (a palestinian terror supporter) is completely asinine, holding up her black and white nametag like that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The only difference between Jan 6th and July 24th is that yesterday they had enough cops there, including a couple hundred NYPD officers. And the riot fencing already installed around the Capitol, etc.

[Magister]

They wanted to hang Mike Pence and overturn the last election? Yikes!

[Malika the Maiz]

It the another showing of total slavishness to the Democratic cause,
+
They would have been better off with emphasizing the bipartisan nature of the condemnation,

Not too slavish after all I guess!

[Sarcastr0]

Cry drama from the rooftops all you want.
Doubt this’ll have legs.

I hope the vandals get in trouble, but based on recent Supreme Court precedents and the actual impact here I’m not holding my breath.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's not going to have much in the way of legs with Democrats, for sure, since antisemitism is so endemic in the Democratic party that nobody is really going to care about a little thing like rioting while promoting genocide against Jews.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not going to have legs because protestor-based vandalism in DC is a dog bites man story.

And because the right's been trying to insist they're the Jews best friends against the antisemetic left nonstop for months now. At some point you've convinced anyone you're going to convince and it becomes background noise.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, enough already. Once they start breaking shit and setting fires, they're rioting, not "protesting".

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t see anything saying the fires much more than burning flags?

If you're going to say flag burning is a riot, well, you're about as authoritarian as I expect you to be.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Tearing flags off a government building and setting them on fire? Yeah, I think that crosses into riot territory.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you speaking in normal parlance or legally?

It's a bit subjective, but to my eye it’s destruction of public property, and federal at that.

But without more it’s not even a disturbance of the peace.

Pic I saw in Union Station had 30 people milling around, about half of which were press.

I'd say the same about a bunch of meal team 6 folks burning a Palestinian flag or something.
Maybe living in DC has inured me to assholes doing spicy protests.

[Brett Bellmore]

I spent my politically formative years attending protests like the Brass Roots rally in Lansing, where we literally left the place cleaner than when we arrived. (Yes, I was in that crowd somewhere.) And did so with police watching us from the neighboring roofs through rifle scopes, because we were 2nd amendment protesters, and you can’t trust those guys, right? They’re maniacs, even if some of them are maniacs with babies in strollers!

If we’d pulled a fraction of the shit your protesters routinely do, it would have been a bloodbath. But your guys get to vandalize public property and set fires on the Mall, and it’s just spicy.

Violent protesters wrecking stuff disgust me, Sarcastr0. They’re just uncivilized rioters, not “spicy”.

[Kazinski]

I thought attacking Capitol Hill police was bad, now it's just dog bites man?

[Sarcastr0]

...Do you think dog bites man is good?

[Brett Bellmore]

What we think is that you'll turn yourself into a mental pretzel to avoid admitting that anybody allied with the Democrats actually engaged in "rioting". That you do this when the rioters in question are antisemitic allies of murderous terrorists is just the cherry on top.

[Bob from Ohio]

We all remember his dismissal of arson as no big deal back in 2020.

[Michael P]

A third category of gaslighting is articles like this one: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna121467

"Republicans float a quiet conspiracy theory that Biden won't be on the ballot"

What a conspiracy! "Mostly unfounded"! Or this crazy talk, pushed forward without evidence (as they say):

“Right now the thinking among Republicans that I know is that he may be the initial nominee and they swap out somebody else at the [Democratic] convention,” said Cynthia Yockey, a 69-year-old from Fairfield, Iowa, who voted for Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020. “Because that will let the real leaders of the party, of the Democratic Party, to make the decision instead of the people.”

The idea, centered largely on the thought that Biden is too old and not sharp enough mentally, is that there's a secret plan to replace Biden due to his health or other reasons by amorphous illuminati-type forces within the Democratic Party.

I will admit, though, that Republicans clearly thought Democrats would have been smart enough not to pick Harris after dumping Biden. But who knows? As leftists have pointed out in other threads, the convention hasn't happened yet, so the Democrats don't formally have an actual nominee yet. They could still dump Harris if they find some other sacrificial lamb to lose in November.

[Malika the Maiz]

"I will admit, though, that Republicans clearly thought Democrats would have been smart enough not to pick Harris after dumping Biden. "

So, unfounded then.

[Josh R]

Did something happen between when this article was wirrten (2023) and Biden dropping out that changed things?

And no, Harris will be the nominee.

[Absaroka]

Finally, a conspiracy theory that came true! I feel like Diogenes!

[Michael P]

Just like "NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan", "government worked to censor conservatives online", "Joe Biden is cognitively impaired"... the left wing has a really poor record lately when accusing people of conspiracy theories.

[Michael P]

Was Kamala Harris as VP a “DEI hire”? If so, was that a good or bad thing? (Democrats seem to have decided that Republicans calling her a DEI hire is demeaning, but it's not clear why they think being identified as a DEI hire is bad.)

[Malika the Maiz]

Democrats know that when Republicans call Harris or any minority a "DEI" hire they are saying they were not qualified. It's often quite funny. GOP Rep. Tim Burchett of TN recently said Harris was a DEI candidate and therefore mediocre. Well, Mr. Burchett's high accomplishments are...got a bachelors degree in education from a TN public university...

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The Freakonomics authors discussed this phenomenon decades ago.

Its too bad you don't read books and shit.

[Malika the Maiz]

The Freakonomics authors talked about what a silly hypocrite Burchett is?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Have you ever thought about reading a book?

They're pretty neat.

[Malika the Maiz]

The Freakonomics authors talked about what a silly hypocrite Burchett is?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, Biden also said that Harris was a DEI hire, and he was a one-term president with a historically low approval rating that dropped out of the race because he couldn't win a second term.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika the Maiz 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Democrats know that when Republicans call Harris or any minority a “DEI” hire they are saying they were not qualified."

That Harris is both Unqualified and a DEI hire is not in dispute.

[Malika the Maiz]

So you don't know what "dispute" is, I see.

[Joe_dallas]

Thanks for confirming that Its now undisputed that you dont know what unqualified is nor do you know what DEI hire is?

[Malika the Maiz]

Harris is more qualified than Trump was in 2016. This is not in dispute!

[Joe_dallas]

No she is not and its not even a close call

[Malika the Maiz]

She absolutely is (though you're correct it's not even a close call, just not in the direction you're claiming).

[Don Nico]

"She absolutely is"
Based on what did she do successfully the past 4 years?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Served as Vice President?

[Ilya Snowman]

Fuck, I wish I would be counted as qualified for high office after sitting in a sinecure for four years...

[David Nieporent]

I don't think there's any danger anyone will consider you qualified for anything. You're not even good at trolling.

[Ilya Snowman]

Says the guy with the one-trick 'you're a Russian agent', shtick???

Are you on the spectrum, Nieporent? You come across that way.

You're intelligent, but there's clearly something off with you. (Don't get me wrong: although you're capable of FAR crisper, discerning analyses of American law than most commenters here, you're still nothing more than a parochial ignoramus, one who knows nothing about how things are and work outside the USA, or seemingly about some of the darker machinations of your own regime.)

[Mr. Bumble]

...and this is 2024.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

My mommy’s a white on dwugs!!! That means I’m entitled to a Yale Law degree and I’m entitled to write a memoir—Dreams from my Mamaw!!!

[Sarcastr0]

This is a very important and answerable question and the right should continue to make it real weird as they dig in.

[Michael P]

Joe Biden said the answer to the first question is yes. The real question is why Democrats now claim it's bad to point that out.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the incredible advocacy instincts I expect to see.

Keep yelling about her race. Question it's purity; say it means she was DEI and thus bad.

It's going to go great.

[Michael P]

That is exactly why you all are going to lose. We point out that Joe Biden identified Kamala Harris as a DEI hire, and you claim that makes *us* obsessed about her race. Your argument is incoherent on its own terms.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, keep making it weird like this.

It's the left forcing you to do this, you're actually super chill about race!

[Ilya Snowman]

So are you: especially when it comes to questions about intelligence---even as a theoretical matter.

https://tomklingenstein.com/america-is-not-a-racist-country/

[Don Nico]

She was picked because Biden promised to choose a black woman.
Call that anything you want

[David Nieporent]

He didn't, actually. That was his promise for SCOTUS. For the vice presidency, he only promised it would be a woman.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ll call you buying into right-wing racebating and making common cause with an idiot like Michel P and his doing everything but calling her uppity.

There's arguments against her that don't make assumptions about her merit based on further assumptions about Joe Biden and his thinking. None of which is supported unless you fill in the holes in the narrative with some white resentment.

You don't need to choose to go the Michael P and ML rout to object to her, you know.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's what seems odd to me. There are plenty of perfectly sound criticisms of her one could make that has nothing to do with her race, gender, or calling her a slut. I remember the excellent movie "The Verdict," when someone points out to the James Mason depicted lawyer that an expert defense witness is black. "I'll tell you how you handle the fact that he's black. You don't touch it. You don't mention it. You treat him like anybody else."

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I there's plenty of legit political attack avenues, if the the GOP base can avoid making it weird.

So far, they seem utterly unable to resist.

[Longtobefree]

The stated requirements were "a black woman".
That is the definition of a DEI hire.

It is also the definition of racism, and of sexism.
(that is why being identified as a DEI hire is bad)

Vote democrat!

[Malika the Maiz]

It's racist and sexist to try to hire more minorities and women? This is racist and sexist like The United Negro College Fund was racist and sexist when it gave money to minorities seeking college?

[Longtobefree]

Nice try.
Address what I actually said; it is racist and sexist to make race and sex the only criteria.

The United Negro College Fund wasn't sexist, only racist. If the first thing you look at is skin color, you are racist.

[Malika the Maiz]

You think the United Negro College Fund was racist? You've got some weird ideas about racism.

"it is racist and sexist to make race and sex the only criteria."

Good thing no one we're talking about did that, then! I mean, Biden didn't just choose any woman of color, he chose one that was a US Senator, a state AG, etc., etc.,

[Don Nico]

Blah, blah, blah. He excluded many men and women because of their genitalia and their race.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, so you ARE into this nonsense. You say that about Reagan and O'Conner? What about HW Bush and Justice Thomas?

You do know that part of the job of veep is to activate coalition the candidate themselves wouldn't be able to, right? Does that not count as merit?

Yelling DEI DEI is just going to make you look like a bigot. Looks around, notice you are locked into the argument the racists around here are making, and think about that.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, those were the only criteria. They put the names of everyone who met those qualifications in a hat and it just happened that a former state AG and US Senator was the name pulled.

Please do keep making these dumb arguments.

[Don Nico]

For picking a Senator it had to be from a state with a Dem governor

[NOVA Lawyer]

Senator wasn't one of what Longtobefree said were "the stated requirements."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Posted on August 5, 2020

A Republican TV ad targeted at Latino voters in large cities falsely claimed that Joe Biden “promised his party an African American Vice President. Not a Latino.”

Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, committed to picking a woman to be his running mate. He didn’t specify a woman of a particular race or ethnicity.

The attack ad was paid for by the Committee to Defend the President, a pro-President Donald Trump group that operates as both a super PAC and a traditional political action committee. According to Advertising Analytics, the 30-second spot aired in several major TV markets, including New York and Los Angeles, on July 31 and Aug. 1.

As a narrator speaks in Spanish, and as photos of several Latino politicians and political analysts are shown, the translated text on screen says: “We came from all over. We built skyscrapers and successful businesses. Risked everything, even our own lives, to make America home. But that wasn’t good enough for Joe Biden. He’s promised his party an African American Vice President. Not a Latino.”

The group ran the same ad on Facebook July 31, as well as an English-language version with a Spanish translation on screen.

But we found no evidence that Biden made such a promise, and the Committee to Defend the President did not respond to our requests that it provide support for the ad’s claim.

At a Democratic primary debate in March, the former vice president pledged to pick a woman as his running mate.

“If I’m elected president, my — my cabinet, my administration will look like the country,” Biden said in response to a question about how a Biden administration would handle women’s issues. “And I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a — I’ll pick a woman to be vice president. There are a number of women who are qualified to be president tomorrow. I would pick a woman to be my vice president.”

That’s as far as he went. (Biden has committed to nominating a Black woman to the Supreme Court.)"

[Kazinski]

I don't think that's quite fair, almost every VP pick is a DEI hire, so to speak.

They are picked based on their state, demographics, ethnicity.

The VP Kamala most reminds me of is Dan Quayle. Picked because Bush 1 thought hi good looks would help the woman vote.

Kennedy picked Johnson because of his age and experience, and he was a southernor.

[John F. Carr]

Motives vary.

Biden and Cheney were picked to appear as an experienced advisor to a young president. Pence and Quayle offered conservatives reassurance on policy matters.

Home state advantage hasn't been real the past few decades.

[not guilty]

Lyndon Johnson is probably the last Vice-presidential nominee whose presence on the ticket helped to win the election.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/

[JasonT20]

Was Kamala Harris as VP a “DEI hire”?

Was Sarah Palin as a VP candidate a transparent attempt to court women and social conservatives, and white men that thought she was really hot for a politician?

Even if Harris really was a "DEI hire," which you pose as a question as if you don't have an opinion that, it would not be anything at all new to have a running mate that was chosen to appeal to a voting bloc that the candidate wants to appeal to.

... it’s not clear why they [Democrats] think being identified as a DEI hire is bad.

Don't play dumb. "DEI hire" is exactly the same label as "affirmative action hire", just with updated lingo. White conservatives have denigrated affirmative action and now DEI as resulting in less-qualified applicants (that is, non-white people) being hired or accepted to colleges for decades. For you to claim that it is "not clear" why anyone would think it demeaning to have that label attached to them is as disingenuous as you can get.

[Bob from Ohio]

"To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally the core strengths of America. That's why I'm proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country. It starts at the top with the Vice President."
- Joe Biden

[JasonT20]

Now, if conservatives meant the same thing as Biden when they call someone a "DEI hire," then I doubt anyone would take offense to referring to Harris that way.

[Don Nico]

Sarah Palin was the worst pick in recent history. She is truly stupid.

[shawn_dude]

We all know dogs respond to dog-whistles. It's the incessant GOP yapping that gets to me, though.

[not guilty]

Rep. Andy Ogles, a first term member of the House facing a primary challenge in next week's election, has introduced articles of impeachment of Kamala Harris. https://ogles.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/ogles.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Ogles%20Articles%20Of%20Impeachment%20For%20Kamala%20Harris.pdf One complaint is that she allegedly failed to invoke the procedure stipulated in the 25th Amendment after President Biden announced he would not be seeking re-election and refused to answer questions concerning Biden's cognitive decline.

How on earth does that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors by any stretch of the imagination?

[Michael P]

A “perfect” phone call was the basis for impeachment, why not that? Harris was an active participant in the Biden administration’s efforts to hide his incapacity from the public and from Congress. Biden stopped meeting with the Democrat caucuses in Congress in 2021 because he wasn’t coherent enough to be effective there; why did it take another three years to admit that he wasn’t all there?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Republicans are free to impeach Biden.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There's only three or four real Republicans in the whole of DC. The rest are Democrats.

That's why our country is run like shit.

[Malika the Maiz]

"A “perfect” phone call was the basis for impeachment"
And the Patriots deflate-gate was just a perfect equipment maintenance!

[grb]

Michael P : "A “perfect” phone call was the basis for impeachment.."

Trump tried to trade U.S. government favor for personal gain. Seems reason enough for Impeachment One.

Then he tried to steal an election he lost - and that definitely rates Impeachment Two. Of course the Right spent close to four years trying to find something (anything!) worth impeaching Biden over - and comically failed.

It's all in what you have to work with. Given Biden isn't a lifelong criminal like Trump, it was a tougher row to hoe.

[JasonT20]

I wouldn't say he tried to trade U.S. government favor for personal gain. I would say that he was delaying U.S. government favor already approved by Congress in order to 'encourage' the recipient of that favor to do something for Donald Trump.

It’s all in what you have to work with. Given Biden isn’t a lifelong criminal like Trump, it was a tougher row to hoe.

Trump has always been a grifter. His success, such as it was, was always based on image, not actual talent for business. People knew he was frequently being sued by vendors and subcontractors for stiffing them, and for paying less than originally agreed in other cases, where they wouldn't sue because it wouldn't be worth the legal costs. Then there was Trump University, which basically suckered a lot of non-wealthy people into thinking that they would learn the "secrets" to his success in real estate.

All of the writing was on the wall, but too many people just didn't want to read it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why are you using the past tense?

[JasonT20]

Well, I figure that most people being fooled by Trump now were first fooled in 2016 or at least by 2020. Once someone commits to supporting a particular party or candidate, it is understandable that they would be resistant to changing their views. It is that first commitment that is hard to fathom, for me.

[Commenter_XY]

It is whatever a majority of the House says it is = impeachable offense

It goes erehwon. 😉

[Kazinski]

There is plenty of room for a few idiots in a room with 435 seats.

But there is a good case that it was 25th amendment time and she should have acted, there still is. But impeachment of the VP is not the solution, especially since Joe isn't getting any better, and she could still be needed.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a legit question = when did you see POTUS Biden's decline.

FBI Director Wray ran away from that question faster than a rabbit from a hound dog during his testimony yesterday.

BTW, the reps act like spoiled children.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump fired Comey only to appoint Wray!! And because he fired Comey his own appointee appointed Mueller!! Lolololol!!

[Joe_dallas]

Commenter_XY 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"It is a legit question = when did you see POTUS Biden’s decline."

FWIW - the mental decline was well known during the summer of 2020. It wasnt a case of it being well hidden by the media or the inner circle, it was a case of the media and the democrat party pushing the lie and the partisans letting themselves be fooled.

Anyone that has ever dealt with someone with dementia or alzheimers recognized it. At least every honest person recognized it.

[David Nieporent]

the mental decline was well known during the summer of 2020.

In much the same way that the existence of space aliens controlling the outcome of the Olympics is well known, sure.

You are fucking insane, to the extent that you're not just a liar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you impeach Heels Up and remove Brandon -- you have President Mike Johnson. Remember President Gerry Ford?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That’s what Gingrich was trying to do in 1999–remove both Clinton and Gore and then he would be president. His degree is in European history and so he figured Europeans accept changes in leadership frequently and so Americans would accept it.

[Josh R]

Ford was not elevated from the Speakership (he was minority leader). He was nominated by Nixon and confirmed by both Houses of Congress.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NG needs to go back to 1787 and the stated belief that Impeachment was the solution for an executive not doing his job. It's what the words meant in 1787 and not what they mean today.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody stated that belief in 1787.

[Bwaaah]

Did you verify that in "The Book of Everything Said in 1787", or do you just pull facts out of your ass?

[David Nieporent]

I merely used the settled science: everything Dr. Ed says is false.

[Bwaaah]

That's yes another stupid and false remark, David. Grow up.

[Stella Link the dog]

"David. Grow up."

It is never inappropriate to slam Mr Ed.

[Stella Link the dog]

For what it is worth. From the senate site article about the impeachment clause history:

The framers also debated the definition of impeachable crimes. Early proposals suggested that the president and other officials could be removed on impeachment and conviction for "corrupt conduct" or for "malpractice or neglect of duty." Later, the wording was changed to "treason, bribery, or corruption," and then to "treason or bribery" alone. Contending that "treason or bribery" was too narrow a definition, George Mason proposed adding "mal-administration" but switched to "other high crimes and misdemeanors against the state" when Madison commented that "mal-administration" was too broad. A final revision defined impeachable offenses as "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

[JasonT20]

Did you verify that in “The Book of Everything Said in 1787”, or do you just pull facts out of your ass?

As Dr. Ed 2 the same question then.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Did you verify that in “The Book of Everything Said in 1787”...

That's not how the study of history works. You can't just make some claim and then defend it by saying "can you prove that no one ever said it?" Stop making ridiculous comments just to be argumentative.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh performative impeachment filings have been a thing for quite some time.

[Drewski]

They're just trying to dilute the political impact of impeachment by randomly impeaching whomever they don't like. It's another symptom of Republicans' complete lack of principles. It is also, of course, timed to interfere with her campaign, although I think it will probably end up working in her favor.

[Don Nico]

Agreed. It is a completely stupid idea.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I guess Pence could have been impeached as well, because Trump was mentally compromised from day one. But "unable" (specified in the 25th Amendment) is a very high bar. Trump was "able" to function as President then, just as Biden is "able" to function as President now.

That's ignoring the fact that the 25th Amendment doesn't require the Vice President to do anything at all, so would obviously not qualify as a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" even if Biden (or Trump) were "unable" to function as President.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Apparently there was a police officer in Texas going around to school libraries, checking out the gay porn for kids books, then filing complaints against the libraries.

All Cops Are Bastards? Heck no.
All Cops Are Based!

Rumor has it there are some specialty Russian private yachts for hire that are heavily armed and equipped with mercenaries available to hire for day trips around the Somalia coast for some DEI pirate hunting.

Now that’s based.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An officer investigated potential crime. your issue is?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

None, I applaud both cases. Are not familiar with the slang "based"?

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually worry a bit about Dr. Ed, the frequency of “whooshes” in the neighborhood of his head has been climbing exponentially lately.

[Stella Link the dog]

"I applaud"

Of course you do.

From NBC news we find that the officer is Scott London, a chief deputy constable, Hood County, TX (named for treasonous MF and military incompetent* John Bell Hood).

from NBC
"The targets of the investigation? Three school librarians in Granbury, Texas. The allegation? They had allowed children to access literature — such as “The Bluest Eye,” by Toni Morrison — that the officer [...] deemed obscene."

"[F]or two years, London vigorously pursued felony charges against librarians in the Granbury Independent School District."

"London secured subpoenas, filed public records requests, received names of students who’d checked out certain books and,
after a year, wrote draft criminal complaints."

London is a great genius and a true patriot:
"London [...] has ties to the anti-government constitutional sheriff’s movement and tried to launch a local chapter of the far-right Oath Keepers militia in 2020"

* 'Bruce Catton wrote that "the decision to replace Johnston with Hood was probably the single largest mistake that either government made during the war." '

[ducksalad]

More evidence that violent crime is way down, at least in Texas.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Paging the MD Drs -- did you notice signs of a stroke on the left side of Biden's face? His left eye was funky, and the left side of his mouth wasn't moving in unison with his right.

He's clearly incompetent but this was new.

[Longtobefree]

Door number two:
Disney is not so good at animatronics anymore.

[Brett Bellmore]

They were leaders in it at one time, but then they rested on their laurels instead of working hard to keep up. These days Japan has Disney beat all hollow with animatronics.

If they'd gotten a Japanese firm to do an animatronic Biden, he'd look more lively than real life.

[Frank Drackman]

He’s stopped taking his Carbidopa since he’s not running anymore

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did Biden violate the Hatch Act or FEC regs last night?

He's using Presidential resources to support a candidate other than himself.

[apedad]

Not sure about FEC regs but No on the Hatch Act.

"The President, Vice President, members of the uniformed services, and Government Accountability Office employees are expressly excluded from coverage. Also, because the definition includes only executive branch employees, the Act does not apply to the judicial or legislative branch, unless such employees are expressly iincluded in the competitive service."

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11512

[David Nieporent]

Did Biden violate the Hatch Act

Since the Hatch Act doesn't apply to the president, he could not and therefore did not, Mr. I Don't Make Things Up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Has anyone ever be prosecuted for violating the Hatch Act?

[apedad]

You and Dr Ed ever hear of a thing called a search engine, e.g., Google?

[Frank Drackman]

Google “Dickwad” you’ll see your Picture!

[SRG2]

Even if presidents were covered by the Hatch Act, which others point out they're not, as long as Biden could argue that he was engaged in an official act, he's immune. Remember? Or was that too long ago., or is only supposed to apply to Trump?

[Krayt]

Even if it applied, a president giving a speech from the oval office saying why he's not running, please support the VP, should be tossed 9-0 on free speech grounds.

Never been a fan of these kinds of laws, used as gotchas against opponents.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

JD Vance gave the speech John Kerry should have given in 2004:

disastrous invasion of Iraq.

And at each step of the way, in small towns like mine in Ohio, or next door in Pennsylvania or Michigan, in other states across our country, jobs were sent overseas and our children were sent to war.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

1984 called, it wants it's political content back.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a billboard in that era reading "drill a well, bring a soldier home."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush and Tillerson are the only two Texans that couldn’t find oil under Texas!!

[apedad]

(Democratic Gov. Gretchen) Whitmer signs law banning gay and trans ‘panic’ defenses

Michigan is the 20th state to outlaw such defenses, which allow individuals accused of violent crimes to receive lesser sentences by arguing that the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity caused them to panic.

https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4790856-whitmer-gay-trans-panic-defense-michigan/

triggered (adjective)
(of a response) caused by particular action, process, or situation:
"a triggered memory of his childhood"

snowflake (noun)
informal derogatory
an overly sensitive or easily offended person, or one who believes they are entitled to special treatment on account of their supposedly unique characteristics:
"these little snowflakes will soon discover that life doesn't come with trigger warnings" · "these parents think their kid is such a special snowflake that they should be allowed to circumvent the rules"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let's be blunt: Rape victims aren't supposed to have flashbacks.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Not when they’re raped by a homo or tranny. Then they're supposed to be proud some mentally ill LGBTQP type was brave enough to come out of the closet and rape them.

So brave.

[apedad]

Your past experiences with the Archdiocese of Boston are not the same as the situation the Michigan law is addressing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Here is the complete text of the new law:

(1) Evidence of the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of an individual’s actual or perceived sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation is not admissible for any of the following purposes:

(a) To demonstrate reasonable provocation.

(b) To show that an act was committed in a heat of passion.

(c) To support a defense of reduced mental capacity under section 20a of this chapter.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law of this state, an individual is not justified in using force against another individual based on the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim’s actual or perceived sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.

Seems unobjectionable as far as it goes, but is there any reason to think that there was a problem with Michigan courts allowing this use of the evidence in the first place?

[shawn_dude]

There's an increase in anti-trans violence and, according to the ACLU, there are currently 10 anti-LGBT laws moving through the Michigan legislature at the moment. Based on a quick glance of these, a significant number appear aimed at reducing protections for the trans community.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There’s an increase in anti-trans violence

Assuming this is true, has there an been an increase in the perpetrators of that violence escaping accountability through this type of a defense? Or even in judges allowing in this evidence for the purposes that are now prohibited?

[Commenter_XY]

The pro-hamas demonstrators yesterday who occupied the Capitol building, beat on doors, forced members to barricade in their offices....have they been charged with obstructing an official proceeding?

It is not a good idea to cater to the kind of behavior that causes Congresscritters to barricade themselves in their offices, quavering with fear. Let's see what those violent protestors are charged with, by the DOJ.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They blocked the route of Bibi N's motorcade, forcing detours. That's far worse than Jan 6th.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

George W Bush stole an election and then lied us into an asinine war all the while selling us out to China.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

IKR?

Every modern conservative is glad the Bush/NeoCon Cabal is ancient history... ancient history... you know the place, right? It's where you live.

[Krayt]

He didn’t steal an election. Recounts kept showing that.

Gore probably should have won, due to that one county with 18,000 excess votes for Pat Buchanan, which were almost certainly due to clumsy ballot design, but that cannot be mitigated after the fact, and the county's ballot guy was a Democrat anyway. It was just a hard lesson for ballot people to learn.

[Brett Bellmore]

I keep pointing out that Buchanan's state campaign director lived in that county, (So it tended to get extra attention.) and Buchanan's percentage of the vote there was still pretty low. So it's not TOTALLY impossible he legitimately got those votes.

But it doesn't really matter, because they have to count the votes people actually cast, not the ones you hypothesize they intended to cast.

[Kazinski]

It was 2500 excess votes for Buchanan, and there is not any chance that it was due to the fact that his state campaign director being an unusually effective campaigner.

It was about .5% of the total vote in the county, and that is an illustration no election is error free, but probably the more typical margin of error is .1%.

[grb]

Krayt : "Recounts kept showing that"

As a point of fact, the newspaper consortium that did a recount study looked at several scenarios and Gore won some. For instance, take the category of overvotes, where a person both marked and wrote-in the same candidate. By typical polling station regulations, that's a spoiled ballot. But by general Florida law, a ballot is valid if the voter's preference can be clearly determined.

Which was definitely the case with overvotes. Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis was scheduled to hear a motion on overvotes before the SCOUS intervened to install W in the Oval Office. If overvotes were counted, Gore won.

[ducksalad]

IIRC the overvotes were cases where the voter punched two holes. The theories being pushed were:

(a) If they punched Buchanan and Gore, it “must” mean they intended to vote for Gore.
(b) Or you could look very carefully at the holes, and subjectively decide one of them – presumably the one for Gore – was more punched than the other one.

Neither one strikes me as “clearly” determining the voter’s intent. They’re at best a conjecture, and a highly motivated one.

[grb]

Ducksalad here provides the premium example of a totally useless comment. The overvotes I described followed the definition I provided with the result I stated.

By completely ignoring EVERYTHING in the comment he was responding to, Ducksalad is able to come back with a snappy retort. Too bad it’s factually meaningless.

[Krayt]

Yes! Gore did win some. After the totals were official, and the ballots no longer needed protection, a couple of newspapers recounted it all using various rules. As I recall, Bush won most, Gore two maybe. Bush won using the operative rules, which you cannot change after the election to make your guy win, no matter how hard you huff and pontificate it's a better rule set. The only permissible time to change rules is before the next election, not aftet the previous one.

Also, this discounts that every time someone touches a ballot, there's increased chance a hanging chad falls off. 3 corner attached, and diametrically opposed corners attached do not count as proper votes.

We'll skip fraud at this point. There should be inspectors from both parties and 10 gigabyte cameras filming the whole thing in closeup nowadays, if you ask me. Same for "curing" chicken scratch markings on vote circles. Film it before and with partisan witnesses. Is this done? I dunno.

[grb]

Let’s set aside your speculation that Time itself favored Gore, recount-wise. And we’ll ignore the fraud crap. By now, Trump’s cultists probably can’t eat or breathe without accompanying empty talk of “voting fraud”.

That said, the rest of your comment is absolutely true. W Bush did win a substantial majority of all recount scenarios, including the ones closest to the vote-counting standards in-play when the recount was shut down. My only caveat was this : There was at least one scenario (overvotes) that was both highly possible and a winner for Gore.

And what a better world that would have been! No oceans of boundless red ink debt. No Iraq War. No Sam Ailto (or Roberts). Plus we’d probably be spared W’s art (though there’s a good case to be made that it’s better than Hunter’s)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Of course not.

[David Nieporent]

Well, thanks to the desperation of the Roberts court to protect MAGA, most such charges are no longer viable.

[Michael P]

Don't you mean thanks to the efforts of Ketanji Brown Jackson? Anyway, it's not like the result in the recent case was any different than in Yates v. United States, which construed the other branch of the same statute in a very different context. There are lots of other charges that can be brought against today's rioters, they just mostly won't come with 20-year potential sentences.

[John F. Carr]

Authorities ought to to decline to charge obstruction seeing as how the Supreme Court recently said the obstruction statute is unlikely to apply to physically disruptive conduct.

Hopefully lesser charges will be filed.

[Armchair]

It's worth pointing out some of the stunning similarities between 1968 and today.

Both years had a Democratic incumbent president plan to run for another term, but then pull out before the DNC.
Both years had the DNC in Chicago.
Both years had the incumbent Vice President put on the ballot by party insiders...without winning a single primary. Without necessarily even running in most of them.
And both years had that candidate then lose to the GOP candidate, a man of questionable morals*

Now, 1968 resulted in the McGovern–Fraser Commission, which ended up emphasizing primaries more, given the "undemocratic" nature of the DNC that year. I wonder what will happen this time.

Democracy really is on the ballot. Just not the Democrats ballot.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

WAPO's new tagline: Democracy Dies When Elites Dont Run Democracy

[Josh R]

In addition to the obvious differences that mark 1968 as being nothing like today, you already have Harris losing.

Even if Harris loses, there will be no comission and no reforms because unlike in 1968, nothing undemocratic happened this year. Since you are having difficulty seeing this, the current situation is no different than if Biden (or Trump for that matter) were assassinated at this late date.

[Armchair]

"Even if Harris loses, there will be no comission and no reforms because unlike in 1968, nothing undemocratic happened this year."

When was the last time a Democrat won the nomination without winning a single primary vote?

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair, it is different when you are defending (D)emocracy.

[Josh R]

1952 (Stevenson). So what? You keep igoring that the *only* reason it happened this year is Biden’s late exit, which almost happened to Trump.

And Commenter_XY, you should stop the (D) schtick which makes you like like a fool (again, it almost happened to Trump).

[bernard11]

And Commenter_XY, you should stop the (D) schtick which makes you like like a fool (again, it almost happened to Trump).

It would take a lot more than that to rehabilitate XY.

[Armchair]

"So what?"

Huh. Interesting facts there. Another Democratic incumbent who chooses not to run for re-election. Another DNC in Chicago. Another candidate winning the Democratic nomination without winning a single primary vote. And...another loss in the general election.

Compare that to 1960....a closely fought primary. A good candidate for election, when the Democrats actually listened to the results of the Primary. And didn't just stick Johnson on as presidential candidate.

[Sarcastr0]

The problem is as a comparison the America of the 1950s and 60s was, when it came to primaries and party politics, basically another country compared to today.

[Josh R]

You keep dismissing that LBJ dropped out in March while Biden did so in July. It's a totally different situation.

[Don Nico]

It does not matter

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It matters if you're really, really upset about having finally got ahead in the polls vs Biden, and now you're so unfairly having to run against a stronger candidate.

[Mr. Bumble]

If she is/was such a "strong" candidate why did she pull out of the 2020 primaries before the first vote was cast?

[David Nieporent]

Mr. Bumble is apparently unaware of Heraclitus's observation that the universe is constantly changing. She wasn't a strong candidate in 2019; that does not mean that she isn't a strong candidate in 2024.

[Malika the Maiz]

Harris isn't being put on the ticket by "party insiders," the delegates are putting her there.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

... the super delegates (unofficially known as 'party insiders'). I understand that 'party insider' isn't a formal designate, and therefore you'll argue "words matter" since the only words you seem to understand are the official government approved ones, and not colloquial ones.

But there you go. Maybe now you understand the reference. I doubt it, Nige, but maybe you do.

[defaultdotxbe]

The super delegates only get to vote if no one wins the nomination in the first round voting, but with Biden's delegates pledged to her Harris will win in the first round.

[Malika the Maiz]

As noted below, you've got the process wrong. The super delegates are not going to nominate Harris, the delegates will.

[Brett Bellmore]

What did you think the delegates were, anyway?

I was rather surprised to find out that, while Republican convention delegates are pledged to vote for their candidate of record on the first ballot, Democratic delegates are only pledged to 'faithfully reflect their voters' will', whatever that means. That's a hole you could drive a truck through.

That said, Biden and Harris DID run as a pair during the primaries, so I'm not going to complain if Biden/Harris delegates vote for Harris after Biden dropped out of the race. It's facially reasonable.

My only complaint is that party insiders probably knew that their ultimate candidate was NOT going to be Biden, and kept the primary voters from finding out until it was too late. It is something of a bait and switch, in that sense.

[defaultdotxbe]

Even if Biden delegates were pledged to vote for him even after he dropped out the result would likely still be the same. Biden "wins" in the first round, but declines the nomination forcing a second round of voting where delegates (including super delegates) can vote for whomever they want.

[mulched]

Delegates are party insiders.

[Don Nico]

Wow, you cannot really believe that

[Moderation4ever]

This is silly because Vice Presidents are commonly front runners when their Presidents don't run because of term limits or because they have decided not to run. Had Biden step back before the primary season Kamala Harris would have been the front runner. She might have faced significant challenges but also may not have. In the 1988 Republican primary George H.W. Bush pretty much walked away with the nomination. He faced some opposition but nothing really to stop him from winning the nomination and the Presidency.

[PaulS]

And if she chooses Wes Moore as her running mate she will have a match to the Republican ticket that won that year - Former Senator & VP from California with Maryland Governor as running mate

[Armchair]

Nice catch.

[Sarcastr0]

This 1968 take is not only an incredible parallel to A,Erica today it is sure to resonate with people who still hate Hubert Humphrey.

What a powerful narrative.

Yiu concern for the rights of Democratic voters is just so touching!

[grb]

Armchair : "Democracy really is on the ballot. Just not the Democrats ballot"

If this wasn't just empty blather, we'd have another Harris voter in Armchair. Because he damn well wouldn't vote for someone who tried to scam his way into overturning the voter's choice.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I've always thought the amazing thing about the '68 election was how close Humphrey came to winning. But of course 1968 was a particularly turbulent time for politics and the country as a whole.

[Stella Link the dog]

"how close Humphrey came to winning"

I don't know about that.

The difference between H and N in popular vote was only a bit over 500k, but Wallace received about 19% -- 9.9 million. I don't think a significant portion of the Wallace voters would have voted for Hubert.

The EC was 301 for the Dick, 191 for Hubert, and 46 for George who had not yet ended his career as a kicker of hippies' asses. Wallace took five southern states four of which Goldwater took in 1964. Texas went for Hubert, but the advantage over Nixon was dwarfed by Wallace's take.

So, though it's true that the popular vote difference between Nixon and Humphrey was small, Humphrey's chances in the EC were faint, and Wallace's influence skewed the results significantly.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Political platform built on heedless lies proves surprisingly vulnerable, MAGAverse discovers. “We never thought of that,” said MAGA types everywhere, after their lying campaign collapsed because its target simply stepped aside.

“Don’t worry, though, as soon as we learn which new lies to chorus in unison, we’ll get back in business.”

Expect it to work better going forward. After all, in the MAGAverse a woman of color is a sitting duck compared to an elderly white guy.

“But it sure took a lot of effort to do all that lying for nothing. Can’t we sue, or something? What’s the point of spending to corrupt the courts, if they aren’t available when you need them to read lies into the Constitution?”

Dismayed, the MAGAverse questions almost everything, while it struggles to restart from zero. So far, however, no sign in the MAGAverse of effort to build a politics of their own. Apparently, effort to restart from zero with new lies looks easier than an effort to restart from scratch with new principles. Maybe the MAGAverse ought to take a quick lesson from what was just done to them, and demand that their own candidate step aside. The effort required to make up political lies is trivial, compared to the effort required to recover from believing them.

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

Writing weird fanfic now? Strange fetish.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Pretty common fetish here.

[shawn_dude]

When the Onion becomes reality.

[Don Nico]

I'm still voting for RFK Jr

[David Nieporent]

Is it the part where he wants to send people who use antidepressants to work camps that inspires you?

[Stella Link the dog]

Perhaps because Kennedy is a convicted felon. God knows we need a convicted felon in the Whitehouse.

[Mr. Bumble]

Donald Trump: Things to do.
January 20, 2025 12.01 PM- Fire Christopher Wray.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://nypost.com/2024/07/24/opinion/local-cops-refusing-to-share-info-with-fbi-as-agency-suffers-crisis-of-confidence-with-dei-hires-whistleblower-report-reveals/

[ReaderY]

Justice Barrett recently suggested a much narrower view of Congress’ Spending Clause power than present doctrine. She suggested that Congress only has the power to enter into ordinary contracts with no regulatory power. In particular, she suggested that the Spending Clause does not give Congress the power to contract with private parties to violate state law. The Supremacy Clause is currently interprwted to let Federal Spending Clause regulations override state law. She proposes eliminating this. When the federal government spends money, inthis view, it acts merely as an ordinary consumer.

This would dispose of current litigation by abortion providers claiming that federal Medicare and Medicaid law supercedes state abortion law. But it would dispose of a great deal else as well. For example, Title IX if the Civil Rights Act, in its entirety, is a Spending Clause program. Justice Barrett’s proposal would eliminate the power of the federal government to use the Spending Clause as a means to override state law in the many ways it currently does.

This proposal seems to have passed under the radar screen. What do you think of it?

[ReaderY]

It’s in her concurrence to the dismissal of writ of certiorari as improvidently granted in Moyle v. United States. The petitioners had raised the argument. Justice Barrett, joined by Roberts and Kavanaugh, said the lower courts should consider it first.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

"In particular, she suggested that the Spending Clause does not give Congress the power to contract with private parties to violate state law."

I'd say that position is almost blindingly obvious. The Constitution wasn't really set up with the intention of the states and the Federal government having overlapping jurisdiction, the idea was that the federal government would have jurisdiction over a limited set of topics, and the states would get everything else, without overlap: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, if a topic is within the power of a state to legislate on, it is outside of the power of the federal government to begin with. That means that if the federal government is just paying somebody to do X, it is in the same position as anybody else in doing so, rather than having the supremacy clause in its corner.

Similar to the way federal jurisdiction, constitutionally, only extends to properties bought with the consent of a state legislature, and otherwise the federal government is an ordinary property owner subject to general state laws.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’d say that position is almost blindingly obvious. The Constitution wasn’t really set up with the intention of the states and the Federal government having overlapping jurisdiction, the idea was that the federal government would have jurisdiction over a limited set of topics, and the states would get everything else, without overlap: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I know you like to say this because you have this vision of some kind of antediluvian perfect libertarian constitution that's been corrupted by those nasty statists, but it's just not true. Even just a cursory inspection of the basic powers set out in Article I, Section 8 reveals lots of areas of potentially overlapping jurisdiction.

Similar to the way federal jurisdiction, constitutionally, only extends to properties bought with the consent of a state legislature

Once again, you are wrong:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States

.

U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. 3.

[John F. Carr]

I agree that is how constitutional law should work. If the government thinks a school is to blame for a rape it can cut off federal funds. If Massachusetts isn't performing enough unconstitutional drug tests the federal DOT can cut off mass transit funds (see O'Brien v. MBTA, 162 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 1998)).

[Moderation4ever]

Congressman Bryon Donalds of Florida was recently a guest on Bill Maher's Real Time. In the course of the political discussion, he brought up inflation, a common Republican complaint. Bill Maher, who is my age, pushed back pointing out that inflation is something that has been common through his, and my lifetime. I was interested in Congressman's Donalds' response that this is the first-time millennials have faced inflation. The question is do millennials understand how inflation works. The pandemic drove inflation here and around the world. Initial supply shortages and then excess money in the economy created the surge in inflation. Right now, the Biden administration and the Feds are carefully brining inflation in check while trying not to tip the economy into recession. The prices are up and they will not come down, things don't work that way. Only deflation can bring prices down and that will mean wages have to come down also. I don't think people will take kindly to having wages cuts. So, I suggest that Congressman Donalds and his generation be prepared to see more in their lifetime. Hopefully not as much as I have seen but expect some.

[John F. Carr]

I remember when the prime rate was around 20% and inflation was around 10%.

Jimmy Carter might remember too.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and mortgage rates were in double digits.

[John F. Carr]

The average 30 year mortgate rate was over 9% from 1978 to 1991 and has not hit 9% since then. It was under 5% for all of the 2010s.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Student loans were 9% in the '8os.

[Moderation4ever]

Or Gerald Ford's WIN - Whip Inflation Now. Nixon's wage and price freezes. Inflation is not something new, even if you are seeing it for the first time in your life.

[grb]

And - of course - inflation was a worldwide phenomena post-pandemic. The United States had less inflation than almost any developed nation in the world.

But we're dealing with the normal hypocrisy here. The economy lost 2.9 million jobs under Trump but everyone (including leftie me) concedes that was due to the pandemic. But with Biden? The entire right-wing wails against him "causing" something that happened everywhere across the globe.

But when you worship a pathological liar as an orange-tinted god, I guess honesty standards automatically drop.

[M L]

"The pandemic drove inflation here and around the world."

Not exactly. The government money printing bonanza, a wild and voracious taxpayer dollar feeding frenzy, drove it.

[shawn_dude]

Well, if that's true, it must be true in China, the EU, the UK, and every other functioning economy on the planet as they are all dealing with massive inflation. Unless you're proposing that US "money printing bonanza" drove inflation for the whole planet?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Any views on the legal propriety of letting Trump sue ABC for libel, based on George Stephanopoulos' reliance on the fair reporting principle for court proceedings. The network claimed in its filing that Stephanopoulos was entitled to say Trump was liable for rape, because a judge had stated, as the NYT reported:

Mr. Trump was found liable last year in a Manhattan civil case for sexually abusing and defaming Ms. Carroll. The jury did not find Mr. Trump liable on a technical charge of rape, which is narrowly defined in New York State law. But the judge in the case later asserted that Mr. Trump had been held liable for rape “as many people commonly understand the word.”

The judge's remark seems to rely on distinguishing New York law which requires penile penetration for rape, from laws used elsewhere in which digital penetration can be rape, which Trump was found liable for.

It is unclear to me from that report whether the judge said the part about, "commonly understand," in court, or elsewhere, afterward, and whether that would be legally relevant to the reporting privilege.

No matter what the answer to the legal question, it is remarkable that a candidate to be elected president of the United States would file such a lawsuit, or even be in a position to do so.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What's more remarkable and totally undermines your remarkable are the extreme lengths Democrats went to to put Trump in that position.

[hobie]

We put his finger illegally into her vagina? All the while he was protesting, 'Leave me alone! I'm just trying to shop at Bergdorfs!' But we persisted, 'Give us that finger, Donnie!'

I suppose in your world Carroll raped Trump's finger

[Brett Bellmore]

No, in our world she probably just made the whole thing up, which is why she couldn't identify exactly when it happened.

[Malika the Maiz]

“At a fundamental level, this is sort of a ‘he said, she said,’ right? And at the end of the day, do you believe Donald Trump, who always tells the truth? Just kidding,” said Vance sarcastically. “Or do you believe that woman on that tape?”

[Brett Bellmore]

On the one hand it’s Trump, and he DOES lie a lot. Well, not conspicuously more than your average politician, but a lot.

On the other hand, the woman couldn’t identify the day on which she claimed to have been raped. I mean, isn’t that sort of a big deal for a woman? How does it happen that she can’t identify the day it happened?

Maybe the way it happens is that if she identifies a day, she risks the guy she’s falsely accusing being able to prove he was someplace else that day? Which is why, yes, not identifying the day casts doubt on the accusation.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Well, not conspicuously more than your average politician, but a lot”

I would say this is you lying, but who can tell? The Brett we see here is sunk at the bottom of an ocean of delusion. But if you’re up for a little critical thinking, ask yourself this: How many presidents/politicals are telling gross crude lies within hours of being sworn in? And over inauguration crowd size, for God’s sake!

And Trump’s first full day in the Oval Office? He went to Langley to honor CIA members killed in the line of duty – and spent his speech lying about crowd size. Within days he was lying about winning the popular vote. Not a week went by during the next four years when he didn’t tell multiple lies. You can’t say that about other presidents.

No matter how dellusional you are.

[Brett Bellmore]

I contrast "braggadocio" with lies for effect, like Obama's lie about you getting to keep your doctor or health insurance. Trump is a braggart, no question about it, but he's fairly honest on substantive matters.

[grb]

So let’s tally this up:

1. To say Trump is “fairly honest on substantive matters” is (I’m sorry Brett) downright pathetic. It is bootlicking groveling pathetic. It’s as if I denied Biden’s bizarre family “embellishments” (euphamism) exist. It contradicts plain obvious truth. Trump lies at least four or five times more than normal politicians there too. But at least those lies count per you.

2. Then there are the endless lies you reclassify as “braggadocio” (euphamism). Somehow they don’t count in Brett-World. Seems like they would when deciding what’s “conspicuous”, but that’s just me.

And where do you put Trump’s reeking bullshit about election fraud, Brett? On the one hand, it can hardly be more substantive, being a toxic attack on the core of democracy itself. On the other hand, if you divide Trump’s lies into two types: Those of the huckster trying to scam chumps, and those because he’s a hollowed-out nothing inside with a crippled & broken mind, you might easily claim the election lies are Type Two. Either way, the election lies by themselves disprove your assertions above. In frequency and scope they are unparalleled by any other pol (and conspicuously so)

Bonus Point : Ever ask yourself why do all this weaseling to defend a pathological liar? Is it really worth it?

[OtisAH]

He doesn’t have to ask himself because he already knows why:

If he didn’t, he’d have nobody to talk to.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett: "he’s fairly honest on substantive matters."

Trump: "…when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done."

Trump: ""It can be done. ... It will take place and it will go relatively quickly. ... If you have the right people, like, in the agencies and the various people that do the balancing ... you can cut the numbers by two pennies and three pennies and balance a budget quickly and have a stronger and better country."

Trump, in April 2016, declared that he was confident that he could "get rid of" the entire multi-trillion-dollar debt "fairly quickly." When would this happen: "Well, I would say over a period of eight years."

Which of these four are lies?

All of them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Or none of them, if you believe Trump is incapable of differentiating between fact and fiction.

[Commenter_XY]

Meh, that gnarly looking string bean wasn't his type. That, I would believe, considering who The Donald has smashed over the years. She is pretty fucking flaky anyway; a cat named vagina. Really?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What will you want on that bacon cheeseburger, loser?

(Besides extra napkins for all of the tears, I mean.)

Do you fancy extra horseradish in the sauce for the shrimp cocktail?

The crabmeat Hoelzel recipe is inviolate. No substitutions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you do not respond you will settle for bacon, cheese, burger, and bun. You could wipe your tears with the bun.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

XY is a disaffected, misogynistic, antisocial, superstitious, old, white, male culture war casualty who hates modern America in general and women, Blacks, gays, Muslims, transgender people, and others who don't "know their place" in particular.

He dreams of living in a can't-keep-up conservative backwater but doesn't have the courage to move out of a civilized state.

Just an all-around right-wing loser. I hope his replacement occurs after the fall of Israel, though. I want him to see it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you really need an answer?

C_XY, like most of the right-wing trash on this site, has realized that values are no longer valued in the current GOP, and thus believes that he has no compelling reason to keep his slurs to himself any longer.

[Ilya Snowman]

Actually, he, like much of the world, can now see that his media, his core institutions, his country's blue teamers, etc, are totalitarians. Not fascists, not authoritarians. Totalitarians. Ones engaged in a hubristic and comprehensive social re-engineering project.

One that is failing, globally. One that has alienated everyone, from the left and right, across the Global South and even amongst allies in the rest of the West.

He can see that you're evil. Not a deep-down decent person willing to do ruthless things to make the world a better place. Not a hard-nose person who is nonetheless advancing justice, domestically and elsewhere. You're evil. You're totalitarian. And you're a fraud.

Now the gloves are off.

You're in much bigger shit than you could have ever imagined was possible for someone like you in the United States. For ANYONE, really, in the United States.

You are discredited, globally, too, and will not recover from the reputational damage. You're the bad guys. You can shit on his 'values', on his 'ideology', and call him trash all you want. Everyone, across the globe can now see, plain as day, that YOU'RE the bad guy.

Good luck.

[David Nieporent]

Ah, so "Ilya Snowman" is just a continuation of the shitty MAGA troll practice of changing usernames here; this is the endoftheleft guy.

[Ilya Snowman]

The VC banned my previous account for exposing people, such as yourself, for being liars and cheap propagandists. They also wouldn’t tolerate people suggesting that others accept simple little bets, or that they even just consider doing the socially (globally) responsible thing by offing themselves.

It’s all about PRETENDING to favour ‘freedom of speech’ till someone openly discusses your totalitarian schemes.

[not guilty]

Given the garbage that routinely appears on these comment threads, I am surprised that any account gets banned, no matter how vile the commenter.

[Magister]

I'm pretty sure the user Theendoftheleft was banned for repeatedly calling for people to kill themselves and to kill their families (presumably before killing themselves, just as a practical matter). He wanted to bet my life against him being banned in the recent "Biden's Withdrawal From the Presidential Race Is Not Anti-Democratic" and although I did not take the bet, it seems he lost his wager anyway.

Theendoftheleft was in the past notable for repeatedly asking Kirkland where his grandchildren went to school, which apparently did not rate getting banned.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘ He wanted to bet my life against him being banned…’

You can read the comments there for yourselves. I did NOT bet against my being banned. ‘Magister’ simply hates the truth. He demonstrates that daily on this blog. (How many other handles does he go by on the VC, one wonders…) https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/23/bidens-withdrawal-from-the-presidential-race-is-not-anti-democratic/?comments=true#comments

Why would asking Kirkland where his grandchildren go to school warrant getting someone banned? It’s not as though his is a real profile anyway… (Kirkland now also regularly and openly calls for, and lauds, ‘replacement’ in the USA. Why doesn’t that warrant getting him banned? He also regularly threatens ‘clingers’ to carry on till their ‘betters’ take action against them. Read even his comment above, where he sadistically writes about his desire to see an entire country destroyed and people genocided: ‘Just an all-around right-wing loser. I hope his replacement occurs after the fall of Israel, though. I want him to see it’.)

And what’s wrong with suggesting that specific people advance social and global justice by eliminating themselves? After all, you’re perfectly happy with people openly castigating half your countrymen’s belief systems, to openly call for their replacement, AND to fuck over their children socio-economically. Shouldn’t participants have the right to choose whether offing themselves would make the world a better place, after someone suggests it to them?

Oh, and Magister, the offer still stands: I’ll produce the evidence, but you must abide by the bet’s ACTUAL terms. OK? Nothing’s for free in this world; certainly not for you.

Now, obviously, noting your double standards would only really matter to YOU if you were truth oriented and not a consummate liar and totalitarian. The purpose of my doing so here is for others’ benefit.

[Magister]

I notice that Ilya Snowman is far more circumspect about telling people to kill themselves and others. Lesson learned, I guess.

(The commenter previously known as Theendoftheleft supplied no evidence, as I observed. What was CPKATeotl's side of the wager, if not the prospect of being banned? I guess that was already inevitable given CPKATeotl's earlier posts in that thread, but it was in any case a satisfying outcome.)

[Ilya Snowman]

Showing the readers here that you're a liar, a hypocrite, and an abuser of whatever power you wield at VC? Yes, that must have been very satisfying for you.

Notice how YOU have failed to supply any evidence about there being something fundamentally wrong with suggesting to evil totalitarians, such as yourself, that they off themselves (such that bans are warranted)?

Aren't you meant to be 'inclusive' now?

[Magister]

Showing the readers here that you’re ... an abuser of whatever power you wield at VC?

All bow before Magister's awesome power at the Volokh Conspiracy! I can post comments with up to two links, and even edit them within minutes of posting (when that function is not broken)! I have the dual powers of a Mute User button and a Flag Comment button! I can start a comment with a blockquote without it swallowing up the whole thing! Also something about calling spirits from the vasty deep. But rest assured I use these powers only for good, never for evil.

In support of the fundamental wrongness of the actions of Theendoftheleft and Ilya Somin, I offer the following legal reference:
Orin S. Kerr, A Theory of Law, 16 GREEN BAG 2D 111 (2012)

[Ilya Snowman]

You lied about the bet: on this thread, you plugged in that the other side of it would be about my being banned. You now claim to have no power here, yet my previous handle was banned AND you’re claiming that a lesson was somehow learned thereby.

You also wanted evidence on the previous thread, and now you’re all but saying that no real evidence is required to buttress things you don't care about.

What is the point of these mindless games for you? Is the bigger picture too frightening for you?

[Magister]

The point is to mock Theendoftheleft and Ilya Snowman. And what were you wagering, then; to look even more angry and stupid than you usually do? You still haven't provided any evidence, and my observation was that you provided no evidence. I doubt not that you have what you consider evidence, most likely lies from like minded idiots, but you fear to post any of it because it will make you look even more foolish.

Ilya Snowman is scared to continue Theendoftheleft's campaign of calling for people to kill themselves and their family members. Or even to continue to ask where another poster's family members could be found. Light as Volokh Conspiracy moderation is, it appears to have slightly advanced civility in comments.

Where someone's children or grandchildren go to school might be non-creepy to ask in a discussion of something related to education, like school voucher programs or funding of public schools, with the intent of discovering hypocrisy or vested interest. Out of the blue and in connection with "expediting" bringing others' "wrath" to bear on the person being asked, or so that "deplorables" will get their family, it does not advance the conversation.

[Ilya Snowman]

You cannot mock someone successfully by further demonstrating your own inconsistency and dishonesty, mate. (You didn’t even accept the bet, you moron.) Can’t you even try to come up with more credible rationalizations than that, either?

I also don’t give a damn what you consider to be creepy. Over the next few years, your country is going to become a far less civil, and a more violent, place—whether you wish this to be so or not. And whilst you sit in your ASSLAW office (dreaming up the next superficial, useless theory of IP law?), your political rivals are working to completely delegitimize you, and to consolidate control over institutions by EXCLUDING anyone who might challenge their efforts to police the curricula and the ideas embedded therein.

YOU and your lot have no effective measures to respond to this.

YOU also completely lack the wherewithal to even conceive of any.

Well, your lot likes to talk about L&E and the imposition of ‘costs’. So, impose some.

Your ‘colleagues’ in other law schools, and in other departments, don’t respect you and see no reason to cease doing what they’re doing. The Kirkland character epitomizes this attitude. You want to hinder the COMPLETE RUINATION of your institutions by ideologues who will repurpose them? Then make them bear real stakes for acting in authoritarian ways.

(Contrast that with my bet in the other thread, where the burden would be on you to act. Notice, too, that if you really thought that no credible evidence could be provided, there’d be no reason for you to oppose taking the bet—which you did not.)

Consider this example, peon. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/northwestern-law-school-sued-discrimination-against-white-men-faculty-hiring-2024-07-02/.

What happens when MILLIONS of Americans realize that what happened in one school in Chicago will happen to their own kids’ employment prospects? What will the kids themselves do? What will happen to the named parties, not in this particular lawsuit, but in subsequent ones, when Joe Sixpack understands what REALLY drives the named parties’ hiring decisions?

Place them under the panopticon. Let them be petrified to let their comparable views about hiring, etc., become known across their work place lest that get leaked and the masses learn about it.

Note also that I don’t give shit what you think ‘advance[s] the conversation’. MY ENTIRE POINT for posting on your parochial blog is to expand the conversation—not just far beyond yours, and your colleagues’, efforts to police it, but also by challenging yours and your rivals’ myopic, ideological lenses.

Now, don’t you ever try to lecture to me again about what’s acceptable to say or otherwise, M, you little fucking weasel. I’ll be in DC in September. You can TRY to spout your bullshit to my face then.

Remember too: you WOULD NOT QUALIFY as an academic in any other department or faculty, or in a good uni in any other Western country.

[Magister]

Ilya Snowman is a clown. An angry one, but still a clown. Less amusing than some of the clowns who comment here, but certainly bringing the fury in his clowncraft.

His appraisal of my academic potential and legal career (a perfect record in all my court appearances) was eye-opening in its ignorance and derangement.

[Ilya Snowman]

That's the best you can muster, M. And your best is garbage.

Good luck navigating a future America where your fellow countrymen have all left you and your veneer ideology behind them.

[Magister]

Keep digging! LOL.

[David Nieporent]

Meh, that gnarly looking string bean wasn’t his type.

You mean, the one he thought was his wife when he saw a picture of her?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are an antisocial, bigoted, autistic right-wing misfit, Mr. Bellmore. I suspect your first wife would have plenty to add.

But your mail order wife will not say anything until her citizenship status no longer relies on your decisions.

[Ilya Snowman]

You're a bigot, AIDS. How do you rationalise to yourself when bigotry against group 1 is legitimate but against group 2 is illegitimate?

Isn't it past time you abandon your posturing? No one can possibly believe anymore that you're anti-bigotry or for genuine inclusiveness. So, why bother with the charade?

[John F. Carr]

I think Blankenship should have been allowed to sue over being called a "felon" when he was only convicted of a major misdemeanor. So let Trump sue over an exaggeration of the judgment against him. A jury can decide if any real harm resulted.

[shawn_dude]

I hope he does this now. Let the Streisand Effect run its course during the election. MAGAts won't listen but independents will be reminded of why they boke for Biden the last time.

[Swede425]

Joe was going to get clobbered with the open border fiasco, and now Kamala will get it instead. Deservedly so.
The other thing that will kick her in the teeth is her bailing out rioters. Unless you're a black man who smokes weed, she's not very tough on crime.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Swede425 — Trump derailed border reform to be certain the issue hung around to campaign on. Deluded MAGA types may suppose that doesn’t matter, but in politics among non-MAGAs that ought to provide an efficient anti-clobber shield. Good enough that Trump would be a fool to bring the border issue up in a debate with Harris.

[Swede425]

Gosh, you might be right.
I mean, all Kamala has to say when confronted with almost 4 years of virtually unrestricted border crossing is "Nuh uh, this is all YOUR fault". That should work just fine. For Trump.
Got any words of wisdom for how she wiggles out of bailing rioters?

[Ilya Snowman]

Do you think anyone outside of the United States believes that drivel?

Should American employers and municipal government officials who work in 'safe haven' cities be charged with human rights violations for systematically violating labour laws for your illegals, on the basis that they're illegal and brown?

Regardless of whether you, personally, approve of such labour laws, you clearly have them, AND your blue states clearly transgress them for illegals.

[Ed Grinberg]

Don't forget this:
https://rlo.acton.org/archives/117526-kamala-harris-equality-vs-equity-video-endorses-injustice-and-discrimination.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" The other thing that will kick her in the teeth is her bailing out rioters. "

Do you think she's enough of an un-American culture war reject to arrange a serenade of insurrectionists at her political events, you bigoted right-wing write-off?

I will applaud your replacement, clinger. Thank you in advance for contributing to American progress by taking your obsolete, disgusting conservative thinking to the grave and being replaced in our electorate and populace by a better, younger American.

[Ilya Snowman]

'I will applaud your replacement, clinger'.

This is a threat of violence and a call for cultural genocide.

Will the VC ban the right reverend for this?

What about calls for the 'reverend' himself and his family to get replaced? Why aren't those acceptable?

[shawn_dude]

The only fiasco here is the fact people believe the "open border" lie.

[ThePublius]

I watched Biden's address, and then Trump's rally. Wow, what a stark contrast. Biden was corpse-like, while Trump was alive and energetic, funny, articulate.

I really feel bad for Biden, for holding on this long. I honestly don't believe he has what it takes to continue in the job. He really should resign.

[SRG2]

Trump articulate? In the 1990s perhaps.

[ThePublius]

Did you watch him speak last night? He was quite articulate.

[SRG2]

I didn't. But that would make last night an exception. I wonder what meds they put him on.

[David Nieporent]

Trump articulate? In the 1990s perhaps.

Trump funny? Never.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny? Like a Clown? he’s here to amuse you? What the Fuck is So Funny about Donald Trump!!!!!!!!!?????????

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t watch Biden’s address.

But I am always amused when extreme conservatives try to pull ‘here is my objective take, which happens to align exactly with current GOP messaging.’

Like, who are you trying to sell to here? Even *you* shouldn't trust yourself.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How do you know he's wrong if you didn't watch it?

How very science-y of you, being a science policy bureaucrat guru and such!

I guess your kinda science doesn't require empiricism, only your feelings! And since it's Science, we should trust it!!

[Ilya Snowman]

'Like, who are you trying to sell to here? Even *you* shouldn’t trust yourself'.

Have you ever, really, asked YOURSELF that question?

[SimonP]

I'm trying to figure why MAGA now wants Biden to resign so badly. Because it certainly has nothing to do with what's good for the country. What's the angle? Harris steps in, so you all can switch your talking points seamlessly to her? Make it harder for her to campaign against Trump full-time, or to distance herself from Biden's missteps or the blots on his record?

On a separate front, it's fascinating watching the morass of MAGA consensus settle on the best angle for attacking Kamala. Earlier, vectors included "she's a whore", "she's a corrupt prosecutor", and "she's a DEI hire." Looks like you're settling on that one.

The "border czar" bit is entertaining, but it's really just for MAGA eyes. She was never really high-profile in that role, and the best excerpt y'all have of her in that role is her explicitly telling people not to come to the U.S. - a not-shining moment for her, but expressly in tension with the narrative you want to tell about her. It's just not going to play with low-information voters.

She'll be able to make a fresh pitch on immigration, whatever it needs to be, and the line of attack will fade in salience.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simon, if you had a scintilla of concern for the country, you'd be screaming for Biden to go because he clearly isn't able to govern.

Now the reason why we want Heels Up as President is because then SHE has to answer for the things that go wrong in the next 3 months. Right now it is a case of "good cop and bad cop." Brandon can advance the evil agenda and she can be the blushing virgin...

[Commenter_XY]

If he cannot run, then he cannot serve. He puts the country at risk.

[Malika the Maiz]

That doesn't follow. It could be that the combination of running and serving is what is too much.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Or it could be that neither is "too much", but his particular deficiencies, which are increasing, primarily affect one but not the other.

The qualities necessary to be a good President bear almost zero relationship to the qualities necessary to run for President. The former takes good judgment, breadth and depth of knowledge, reliability and integrity, etc. The second takes charisma and the ability to stick to talking points, with integrity and "wonkiness" often a detriment.

[Commenter_XY]

You cannot put the roles (candidate, POTUS) into separate, discrete boxes in the face of pronounced cognitive decline that is obvious. That doesn't compute. If you can't debate worth a shit because you cannot hold a simple train of thought, how will you ever have a back and forth with a skilled adversary. You won't.

We are at risk because our adversaries know we have enfeebled, mentally deficient leadership at the top.

[David Nieporent]

When do you think presidents have back and forths with skilled adversaries?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"If you can’t debate worth a shit because you cannot hold a simple train of thought, how will you ever have a back and forth with a skilled adversary."

First, debates are meant to be useful as demonstrating depth and breadth of knowledge and to lay out one's positions. But that's not how they operate in practice in the televised/streamed world. See Nixon v. Kennedy. So doing poorly in a debate is as much about telegenics as the things it's supposed to reveal. Biden looked bad. That's different from not having the underlying familiarity with the issues and their nuances.

On that score, Trump always fails, but you aren't complaining he should drop out and isn't up to the job. Although, Gen. Kelly, Gen. Milley, Mattis, Bolton, Pence, Esper, and many other hand-picked members of his cabinet/administration, have told you so. And it's obvious every time he speaks, from promising to have the Supreme Court prosecute Hillary to parroting Russian talking points on Crimea and Afghanistan. He's a prime example of Dunning-Kruger.

Second, a debate is an artificial conversation with time limits, etc. In an actual conversation, he isn't on the clock which changes things.

Is it ideal? Of course not, but a bad debate does not entail that he lacks the cognitive skills to do the job for the next six months.

But, by all means, let's keep talking about who is mentally sharp enough for the job.

On that score, Trump is still running and you seem fine with that. He never had the working knowledge of the government or foreign policy to be an effective president on his best days and those are long behind him. He'll only get slower, more confused, and more irrationally unpredictable over the next four years. Combine that with his malignant narcissism and general lack of understanding of how our democracy works or anything at all useful about foreign policy (from exchanging love letters with Kim Jong-un to wanting to invite the Taliban to Camp David to wanting to invite Russia back into the G8, apparently as a reward for having invaded Ukraine, to openly musing that we should leave NATO), it strikes as a little hypocritical that you are concerned about the good of the country for the next six months, but not over the next four years.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So I guess the feeling, "I can finish out my term, but I'm not up to four more years of this", is an utter impossibility in your world.

Interesting.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Look at the little monkey repeating what he's read on his little GOP pamphlets!

That's about as non-sequitur as one gets. It's remarkable that you're too indoctrinated to bother thinking before you post.

[Ilya Snowman]

Look at you, with your little parochial, partisan replies.

The rest of the world can see that your POTUS isn’t mentally fit for office, and that your media and institutions lied to the world about this fact for quite some time.

STOP misrepresenting yourself as being a good person who is truth-oriented. No one outside the United States can possibly believe it anymore.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just as Trump is a no-count yokel's warped perception of what a successful, wealthy, effective person must be like, Trump is an illiterate, backwater Volokh Conspiracy fan's sense of what an articulate person must be like.

[Ilya Snowman]

Says the person whose self-identity is rapped up in claiming to be logical, reason-prioritising, and science defending...

But who, when repeatedly shown, that his beliefs contradict science, that he lacks an understanding of basic (first-order) logic, and that his norms aren't grounded in (and don't track, either) reason or empirical knowledge, he NEVER revises his views?

A parochial American who lacks the wherewithal to critically self-reflect on the characterisations of his beliefs and whether they're at all apt.

Carry on, Yankee Doodle dipshit. The world has already seen the high-water mark of your moribund ideology.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"When repeatedly shown" is doing a lot of work in that comment.

[Ilya Snowman]

All backed up by the right reverend's past posts, where he's called out for his bigotry against certain cultures.

Where he's shown to lambast 'Islamophobia' even though he actually ridicules that faith and thinks it ought to be eliminated as mere superstition.

Where he claims to prioritize science but rejects it when it comes to matters of free will, genetics playing a role in intelligence, etc.

Where his beliefs about inclusiveness and equality are shown to simply be socially constructed norms, and that he and his lot has no credible social scientific knowledge or grounded skill sets to undertake the grandiose social re-engineering project.

Plenty of evidence of that, is his being presented to the right reverend repeatedly and his failing to respond on the merits. Hell, there are even a few instances of his acknowledging that he's a parochial hypocrite.

Seek and ye shall find.

[Bwaaah]

Your comment does no work. All of Snowman's points about Resentful Arthur are quite true. Arthur is an angry, arbitrary bigot (as bigots are). He despises many types of people, in stereotypical fashion, and openly expresses those sentiments.

Don't let your contempt for Snowman's views blind you to Arthur's hateful ways. In Arthur is a vast reservoir of malevolence.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, just mute RAK if he makes you so mad. He was my first mute, and it's been great...except for the reply guys he picks up.

[Bwaaah]

He doesn't make me even slightly mad. I think it comforts you to believe I (and others) am "triggered," "insulted," "angered," "crying," "hurt." Over what? Words? A bigot's words?

Talk is cheap. But I do get to cast one vote.

[Kazinski]

Turns out Trump is a really good golfer too:

"Trump, on the other hand, is really good. Bryson DeChambeau is one of the world’s best golfers, and he has a YouTube channel that is very popular. DeChambeau’s channel is “Break 50”; he plays with another pro golfer or a celebrity, best ball for 18 holes hitting from the shorter tee, and trying to break 50.

DeChambeau’s latest guest was President Trump. He posted a 56-minute video of their outing eight hours ago, and it already has more than 2.2 million views:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/07/donald-trump-an-amazingly-good-golfer.php

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is one perspective. Here is another.

How does Trump win so many golf championships?

“He’s never won a championship at a course he doesn’t own and operate,” Reilly said. “He’s played in Pebble Beach. He’s played in the Tahoe one, where there are rules and judges and cameras. And in those, he’s never finished in the top half. So, he wins when anybody who disagrees that he won is out of the club. That’s how get gets it."

[TwelveInchPianist]

UN Special Rapporteur says sentences given to protestors is "not acceptable in a democracy"

Apparently he's confused about how we decide things in a Democracy.

Hopefully we'll started giving local protestors similar sentences, like with the J6 folks, and stop seeing these violent disruptive protests.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Unsurprisingly, different civil disturbances differ in character. To watch folks play pretend by feigning ignorance of the differences gets tiring.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. Yes, all civil disturbances are different is some way. So what?

[ThePublius]

Why don't you enlighten us, Stephen? I mean, beside the fact that the anti-Israel protests are violent, anti-semitic, anti-American, and accompanied with vandalism of US monuments, how are they. different in character?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What in particular makes theocratic, war-criming, bigoted, parasitic, old-timey right-wing belligerents in Israel so attractive to you, Publius?

[Ilya Snowman]

What makes such folks so attractive to YOU, moron, when they come under the banner of the black flag???

So much so that you, like a good Pavlovian dog, always jump up to scream about a 'phobia' when that normative system is criticized---even though you personally hold its tenets in disesteem?

[Noscitur a sociis]

This article is about climate protestors in England.

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

It's kind of sad watching SL lose his marbles like this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That may be sad.

Watching Trump-loving insurrectionists spend years in cells is something else.

[Michael P]

He certainly lives down to the stereotype of UN Special Rapporteurs, emphasis apparently on “Special”.

For example, does he think that the organizers of a racist effort to refuse service to minorities should be legally scot-free because they led a conspiracy for non-violent crime?

[Ilya Snowman]

He is not confused about how democracy is meant to work. He simply doesn't care about that.

Rather, he mistakenly believes that if he, in his UN role, (mis)presents his own normative preferences in the form of a fundamental right, then that can and should trump the democratically chosen preferences of a given community. (Here: about the scope of the right to protest).

He think this because he is an imperialist stooge who cares not one whit about democracy. Neither does the UN, mind you. Most member states are not democracies, and there is no express mandate that they become so.

His project is, to his mind and that of his colleagues, fully compatible with regimes not being democratic, eg everyone in theocracies, monarchies, etc, has a robust right to protest and cannot be jailed---at least. not for things like this.

NOW, if one were inclined to demand that this fellow offer PROOF of this being so, the right's scope REALLY being as he claims it is (which is to say, to call out his bullshitting), that would be an interesting development.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

UN Special Rapporteurs are well known for offering idiotic advice.

My most recent favorite was the one who decided that Julian Assange's hiding out in an embassy for seven years to avoid extradition was "imprisonment" by the UK.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Moved.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Biden: "But nothing, nothing, can come in the way of saving our democracy. That includes personal ambition."

That would have been more credible if he hadn't said he was going to stay in the race until he had no chance of winning, and then only dropped out when he was told he had no chance of winning.

[Krayt]

I'd rather save freedom from the ham hands of both sides. Freedom is freedom from politicians. Politicians squeak democracy because they use it to override freedom, en route to their familial fortunes mysteriously skyrocketting.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Biden truly believed what he was reading last night, he'd have included the famous words "I shall resign the Presidency at noon tomorrow..."

[shawn_dude]

Huh?! That makes no sense.

You're saying that his ego (the thing that would keep him in the race even if he was doing poorly) isn't a credible thing to set aside as less important than our democracy?

I'm sure that confused the hell out of Donald "Cult of Personality" Trump, but it should be obvious to the rest of us.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Who cares? In particular, why do you care? You weren't going to vote for him anyway!

[SRG2]

Harris is a poor candidate. But Trump is beyond the pale And if the GOP and Trump supporters thought she had little chance of being elected, we wouldn't see the whining we do see.

[Mr. Bumble]

Looking forward to another "fortified" election?

[Moderation4ever]

Will it have to be that way? Right now, it looks like the Republicans will only accept the election if Trump wins. If that the case, then Democrats will need to be on the field to fortify their win. Or do you expect that the Democrats to simply let Trump claim a win he did not get? Like he try to do in 2020.

The Republican have said they will only accept a fair election but to date I have seen no measurable benchmarks proposed to define a fair election. All I see is that to them a fair election means Trump wins.

[Commenter_XY]

The Potter Stewart benchmark: We know it when we see it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I know a bigot when I see one.

You.

The Volokh Conspirators.

Donald Trump.

The Volokh Conspiracy's right-wing fans.

Mike Johnson.

J.D. Vance

Most Republican House members.

Most Republican senators.

Carry on, bigoted clingers. So far as your better permit.

[Ilya Snowman]

I know a bigot when I see one, too, AIDS. You.

Stop bandying about an epithet when you yourself indisputably fall under that very category, you moron.

[hobie]

Maybe we should try some reverse psychology. Since in 2020 it was the Republicans that attempted to steal the national election yet they blamed the Democrats, what if the Democrats stole this next one and blamed it on Republicans. It therefore stands to reason that the Republicans will buy this and start blaming themselves.

Please be sure to click the like and follow to receive more hobie tips and hacks

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

Looks like you already live in opposite world.

[NOVA Lawyer]

From your perspective, living in a fantasy land of your own creation, yes.

[Sarcastr0]

From her past history, I don't expect a great campaigner. But I can’t even tell if she’s a poor candidate at this point – the Republicans are flooding the field with weak oppo attempts, telling the Dems they should be mad, sexism, slut-shaming, racism, and birtherism.

If they ever manage to calm down, and let the ball move to the Dems’ court, we’ll see.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Good call. It's the GOP that's flooding the field and Democrats aren't doing any messaging in support of Kamala.

That's so accurate to reality! Mirroring reality in your comments is what you are known for! High Fidelity Sarcastr0 is what we commonly refer to you as!!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

She's starting off well & a lot has changed since she ran in 2019.

I don't recall any general problems with her campaigning for CA office.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In California?

[Michael P]

Is BLM mad about Harris being annointed because they fell for Republicans flooding the field, or because there's a reason for Dem supporters to be mad?

[Sarcastr0]

BLM is a brand, it can't get mad.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great parse! That way you can avoid the point and pretend you contributed something meaningful!

Classic Sarcastr0!

[SimonP]

I'm cautiously optimistic that her campaign this time around will be better because she's inheriting a team built by Biden, with the experience of 2016 and 2020 behind them.

Her campaign in 2020 was, to be sure, poorly managed, and by media accounts a product of her own personal judgment. But at that point she would have been competing with a crowded field for talent, which may explain some of the decisions she made. She's also had years to plan for this moment; from her statements and moves so far, it seems like she has been absorbing a lot of the criticisms made of Biden's campaign and learning from them.

[Sarcastr0]

Marathon, not a sprint. I'll be paying attention come mid August.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If only everyone were so wise! I tell you what, I'll do the same! Hey everyone ignore all campaigning and wait until Sarcastr0 tells us the marathon is ready to be observed!

Except Trump of course, we will continue to keep him under a microscope because he's sprinting not marathoning!

So blessed to have read this bit of DC insider wisdom!!

[SimonP]

Sure. At least now Trump can't win by golfing until the election.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think Democrats have unilateral control over where the pale is. It's actually kind of offensive that you routinely presume to have that authority.

I've already said that Harris has a decent chance of winning, regardless of how bad a candidate she might be, because she's running against Trump, and Democrats hate him so much they'd turn out to vote for ANYBODY who ran against him. It all comes down to how much pro-Trump turnout Republicans can muster to counter that hatred driven vote.

The usual polling says she's not materially better situated than Biden, of course, but the usual models assume that voters are voting FOR the person they cast a vote for, not just against their opponent; To the extent it's the latter, her relative unpopularity is actually irrelevant.

Biden's mental deficits weren't hurting him with committed Democrats, they were just cutting into his support from centrists who don't actually hate Trump nor love him.

[SimonP]

Biden's lack of mental fitness, and in particular his debate performance, were really killing enthusiasm. Democrats were all like, "Yeah, I'll vote for him.... sigh." Kamala changes all of that.

To be perfectly honest with you - at this point in the campaign, I was beginning to think that Biden's apparent inability to perform when he needed to, the ineptness of his managing the post-debate news cycle, the apparent wall of advisers around him shielding him from bad news - it made me look back over his term and wonder if his lack of mental acuity and apparent need for afternoon naps and early bedtimes could be seen in his slow decision-making on Ukraine, Israel, and the like. Ukraine has lost real military ground while the U.S. has dithered on important decisions, while Europe has been pulling for more assertiveness; his policy on the Gaza war continues to be muddled and confusing; and then domestic policy seems to be gone from his mind now.

So I was looking back at Trump. Trump is using you, along with the rest of MAGA, to put himself into power and escape accountability for his crimes (and also to enrich himself). But he is not ideologically aligned with you. He doesn't care as much about the culture war issues that have your lot frothing at the mouth, calling for an authoritarian leader to impose Christian values on the nation. In a second term, where he can do whatever he wants, and more willing to fire people who don't follow his direction - can you count on him to do what he claims he'll do? I'd expect a second term to be a chaotic mess of economic mismanagement and foreign policy disasters, but maybe domestically he wouldn't be the nightmare everyone is claiming he'd be.

I still wouldn't vote for him, of course. But Biden's infirmity was having me take another look at Trump that I wasn't interested in entertaining any more, perhaps out of resignation that Biden would lose everything for us. With Kamala, that all changes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm saying that for most Democratic voters, Trump being the opponent is all the enthusiasm they need.

[SimonP]

It isn't, but I don't expect you to recognize or acknowledge that.

"Enthusiasm" is not the same as "willing to vote." It is true that Trump's being the opponent is all that's needed for most Democratic voters to vote for the Democratic candidate. But campaigns need volunteers and donors, as well as people just talking with one another in their own lives, and for that you need actual enthusiasm. Nobody in my social circle wanted to discuss Biden's death-march to the election. Everyone is energized to talk about Kamala.

[SRG2]

I am a registered independent, and “not being Trump” already puts other candidates ahead of him – but I was going to write in Hakeem Jeffries.

I don’t think Democrats have unilateral control over where the pale is. It’s actually kind of offensive that you routinely presume to have that authority.

I think trying to overturn a legitimate election with a combination of legal abuses and violence is beyond the pale, as is evident and obvious criminality. But I understand how you would not find that so.

I will also wager that if you’d asked any GOP voter before Trump came along whether a Trumpish candidate was outside the pale, most would have said yes.

As I wrote elsewhere:

In 2009, a Republican voter (RV), at a County Fair, finds himself outside a fortune teller’s tent, displaying a prominent sign, “Who knows what the future will bring? Madame Sibyl does!” (and a much smaller disclosure explaining this is for entertainment only).
He enters, to find the traditional fortune-teller’s tent interior – crystal ball, the odor of patchouli, an aged crone with buckets of trinkets on her arms, etc.

After he crosses her palm with Visa, she gazes into the ball. He asks her what will happen after the Obama presidency
The conversation goes like this:
RV: Obama will only be president for 4 years, right?
Sibyl: Nope, 8.
RV: You’re shitting me. Then who?
Sibyl: I see a man who is a serial adulterer, thrice married.
RV: Goddamn Democrat, I’ll bet.
Sibyl: And ongoing sexual harasser
RV: yup, a Democrat.
Sibyl: Who is supposedly a successful businessman, but who stiffs his workers and suppliers.
RV: If he’s a business guy, he might be a Republican after all, but I ain’t voting for him.
Sibyl: and he ran a con involving a fake university
RV: Nope, this guy doesn’t get nominated. Hell, he sounds worse than Bill Clinton and Madoff combined!
Sibyl: And he lies all the – sorry, the next word is obscured by the ball – time.
RV: nah, they all lie, but won’t abide a permanent liar
Sibyl: And you’ll vote for him, and boast about it!
RV: the hell I will! That it? sounds like bullsheet to me.
Sibyl: It gets worse.
RV: How could it?
Sibyl: He cosies up to the Russians so much that he publicly states he believes the Russian president ahead of our intelligence agencies.
RV: now you’re just jerking me around.
Sibyl: And it’s even possible that the Russians are blackmailing him
RV: I want my money back!
Sibyl: And, what’s more, you will spend hours a day defending this man.
RV: give me my money back or I call the sheriff. No fucking way would I defend a crook and a traitor.
Sibyl points to a sign stating, “No refunds”.
RV walks out muttering, “biggest crock of horseshit I ever heard in my life. Even if I believed some of that, I won’t just support a guy because he calls himself a Republican”.
Madam Sibyl, looking into her ball, sees RV wearing a red cap with the initials MAGA. “I guess it means, Most Amnesiac Group Anywhere”

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

You should meet up with SL, his fanfic needs some work. Yours is unhinged, but at least it's in English.

[SRG2]

It also happens to be true - if you pay attention to what Republican voters had said during the Clinton presidency and afterwards, the importance of character, integrity, etc. etc. and Trump came along exposing all those sentiments as hypocritical bullshit.

[shawn_dude]

And yet, there is recent evidence to the contrary: massive influx of donations to the Harris candidacy, youth voters' increasing engagement, a rapid increase in new voter registrations harkening back to Obama's candidacy.

If being against Trump is all the incentive anyone needed, there would have been no rapid increase in donations and voter registrations.

[Commenter_XY]

You made good points about UKR and gaza.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I live abroad, but my last US voter registration was in a non-swing state, so I my vote effectively doesn't count. I still vote, though.

If you asked me who I would like to vote for, I would probably say a decent Republican. But the MAGARINOs have killed them all, unfortunately, so I'll do what I "must" and vote donkey.

I wasn't going to contribute any of that "energy" (or money) to ActBlue anyway, but I recognize that Biden's seeming infirmity was probably weighing on Democrats' and Independents' minds. Harris could very well energize them.

It's so unfair!

[Estragon]

“I don’t know… He doesn’t recognize you. Maybe you should just let him die and move down to Florida.”

https://time.com/7002003/donald-trump-disabled-americans-all-in-the-family/

[hobie]

'I like children that don't get disabilities'
'Disabled children are for suckers and losers'

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

MAGARINOs already know who and what he is; they just don't care.

Not that you shouldn't continue providing us with quality Trump entertainment, obviously. Everyone needs a laugh now and then.

[Mr. Bumble]

So when can we expect to see Obama's endorsement of Harris?

[Brett Bellmore]

Once she's secured the nomination, of course. Right now Obama is still hoping against hope that they'll manage to nominate somebody else.

[OtisAH]

I guess the full-hearted endorsement of Harris issued by Barack and Michelle Obama last night was probably a false flag to throw us off the plan?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly full-hearted but let's see if he campaigns with or for her.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it just means he abandoned all hope of substituting somebody else. He was always going to endorse the nominee in the end.

[Magister]

Not surprised that the telepathic Brett Bellmore would be a "the end is near!" crank, but apparently the end was last night.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Perhaps he finally received the "proof of life" Boebert was dementing about last week...

[Bwaaah]

"So when can we expect to see Obama’s endorsement of Harris?"

After the "Everybody Loves Kamala" media smoke clears, they see they haven't moved the dial against Trump, and yet the hope for an open convention dies as the immovable fact solidifies: Democrats must never mix signals about a "Black Woman."

Identity, baby. Identity.

[Commenter_XY]

Not just any black woman, but a strong black woman.

Never forget, she has locked up the black vote. About 2K at last count.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It was just so unfair...

[Bwaaah]

Obama, who is merely protecting the “still questioning” ground (much though they wish there was none), gets to speak on the matter with the safety of a voice that carries Black privilege.

In due time, I expect him to deliver the endorsement that signals, “It’s a done deal.”

[Sarcastr0]

The straw grasping continues.

[Malika the Maiz]

If Obama endorsed they'd be all "see, party elites!" and if he doesn't they are "see, waiting for her to fizzle out!"

[OtisAH]

Last night. Can’t wait to hear what you’re waiting for now.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Prof. Michael Dorf responds to Professor Steven Calabresi's college tuition discussion.

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/07/do-we-need-federal-regulation-of-higher.html

[Sarcastr0]

Here's some of the bits I thought were interesting (i.e. not knocking down low-hanging Calabresi fruit)

"Drivers of higher education inflation. Google "administrative bloat in higher education" and you will find dozens of articles. The responsible ones recognize three basic facts: (a) administrative costs relative to direct educational costs have grown in recent decades; (b) at least some portion of that growth reflects a lack of oversight and what we might fairly call nest feathering by administrators, especially those in the higher echelons of the administration; but (c) much of the growth resulted from the recognition that colleges need to provide services that they did not provide, or provided in much more rudimentary form, decades ago.

On point (c), consider a few changes since when I entered college in 1982, armed with a Smith Corona manual typewriter on which to type up my assignments after writing drafts by hand. IT departments have necessarily ballooned. Career services offices are now rightly understood as essential. Whole bureaucracies are needed to administer disability accommodations. "
-------
"Tuition Commission. Calabresi's proposed tuition commission is a non-starter. Rate regulation makes sense in monopolistic or oligipolistic markets, but there are thousands of four-year colleges in the United States. I would have expected something more like a proposal for greater transparency to foster price competition.

Calabresi's proposal contains very few details, but even those listed are odd. For example, effective regulation would look at actual cost, not sticker price. Meanwhile, because the proposal regulates increases in tuition rather than tuition itself, it would lock in existing disparities. I could go on, but the commission suggestion doesn't strike me as serious.

Why, then, have I devoted an entire blog post of my own to critiquing an unserious proposal based on a number of plainly false assumptions? Because at the end of the day Calabresi is right to have identified a critical issue. Student debt is a problem that could be solved for some existing debtors through debt relief. But the root of the problem--and the reason why debt relief is only a temporary fix for people who have already been to college--is higher education cost inflation. Calabresi's commission isn't the right solution, but I applaud him for looking for one."

[Commenter_XY]

Remove the Federal government from the loan business; let the market sort it out (education cost, financing). We will see many private college closures, which might not be a bad thing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I expect subsidization of Israel will (and should) be cut long before the United States government abandons higher education.

Netanyahu yesterday ensured that Israel will lose American support. He and his Republican friends thought it was a good day. That's what you will get from people who believe childish fairy tales are true.

Carry on, clingers. Until . . . you know.

[Ilya Snowman]

Until the clingers come and get you?

Your country's on the precipice. Why assume that the funding cuts won't happen concurrently? Regardless, Israel is a client state. You need it to perpetuate your empire---especially your control over the ME.

Many of your institutions of higher education, by contrast, are inflated bodies that are financial black holes (let alone the facts that they don't educated students well, they have rapid administrative inflation, etc).

Those institutions would never have created in more civilised countries, and they wouldn't be propped up by the state now even if they had been.

The demographic cliff is real; so, now is a great time for the large-scale culling of institutions of 'higher learning' in the USA.

Doing so MIGHT also help to get American unis back on track towards their real, core mandates of knowledge production and dissemination. American 'liberals' and 'progressives' have done existential damage to those mandates over the last few decades (whilst trying to blame 'neo-liberialsim' for these developments).

That's too optimistic, though,

[shawn_dude]

This doesn't really apply to state universities, though, which are subsidized, some more than others, in each state. California has two state university systems. And to an extent, the market is already sorting it out as some private universities are closing due to reduced enrollments. Where regulation can be helpful is creating minimum university standards for things like Pell grants to ensure scam universities don't take advantage of students to graze on Federal tax monies.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree about states. As a federal alternative, I would a) let states guarantee loans with state taxpayer money, and b) tie successful completion of degree to state university funding in some manner.

I am big on education shawn_dude, but I also want value for the money. And there is plenty of bloat in the state university systems to eliminate.

[Mr. Bumble]

"And there is plenty of bloat in the state university systems to eliminate."
Starting with administration salaries.

[Illocust]

IT lowers the amount of administrators needed not increases. Computers while they require a IT group in large organizations, get rid of the need for secretaries and countless organizers. Along with allowing for more people and work to be handled by workers. IT is not part of the growing administration problem.

[shawn_dude]

@Illocust — I disagree. IT administration for medium-to-large universities will number somewhere around 12-20 persons. But it depends on how one defines “administrator.” Generally, it’s a supervisor. There’s a pretty standard rank structure for managers but I’ll spare you the long list. Most university IT departments (assuming there’s a single centralized IT, which there often isn’t) will be segmented into 6 to 8 organizations (ERP, Web & Mobile, Network & Telecom, Servers/Operations, Service Desk, Contracts/business management, Academic technology, Accessibility, etc) Each of these will have a director (middle-management) and possibly one or two assistant or associate directors (line manager/team leads.)
Whereas, the reduction of secretaries, organizers (counted and uncounted), and other staff would effectively reduce the denominator the new IT administrators would be measured against thus increasing the ratio.

IT is absolutely a part of the increase in net university administrators. However, I disagree there there is any sort of large or growing “administration problem.” I believe this is largely invented in order to justify attacks against institutions of higher learning that are statistically associated with people who vote for Democrats.

And, as an aside, there is a thing called a “discount rate” that applies to universities. Tuition is variable depending on scholarships and grants of various types. The actual tuition paid is often far less. The average discount rate in the industry, last I checked, was 48%. This means that most people don’t pay full tuition. In my experience, the people who *do* pay full tuition are largely foreign students from places like China that are often used to balance the monies state legislators cut from university budgets. That all fell apart under Trump which contributed to some privates already closing.

[NvEric]

"I can't comment on that because it's still an on going investigation."
WTF !
It the People's business to know, at all times, what our governments are doing !
From investigations, arrests, to more investigations, trials, and so on - they are done in the name of The People, and thus the People must know at all times WTH is going on !

[hobie]

You mad, bro?

[apedad]

Eric wants to throw out laws which protect these types of information:

Classified Information
Personally Identified Information (PII)
Protected Health Information (PHI)
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)
Covered Defense Information (CDI)
FOIA Exceptions
Court approved pseudonymity
House or Senate secret or closed sessions
Etc.

You know because . . . people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What the hell is "Controlled Unclassified Information"?!?

If it's not classified, then it's public information...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's possibly not a good idea to publicly reveal all the details of how the Secret Service attempts to protect their principals, but if it makes you happy, I say let's do it!

[hobie]

Just finished another pot of one of my all-time go-to dishes: Braised short ribs.

You do the old sear and the mirepoix, mushrooms, tomato paste and crushed tomatoes routine. What I do different is add about 5-6 anchovy fillets. These are the stock cubes of the sea. You'd never know they are in there. I'm also big now on using MSG as a salt substitute (you conspiricists might like to know that the doctor who submitted an article in the early 70's on the bad health effects of MSG later admitted that his letter was joke that he had made up). I also use a whole bottle of chianti.

Dutch oven at 325F for 3 hours. Serve on pappardelle pasta

[Commenter_XY]

That sounds really good, hobie. You got a recipe to post?

[Estragon]

I like this one but you can switch things around to suit your tastes

https://www.bonappetit.com/recipe/red-wine-braised-short-ribs

[hobie]

Mine is a variation of this man's ragu. But I leave my short ribs whole and employ the tweaks mentioned above

https://youtu.be/x9V8MX58AdI?si=iDP32OWZxduvo-yI

[Commenter_XY]

Why Chianti? Personal preference?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's cheap, and comes in those classy straw-wrapped jugs?

[Mr. Bumble]

Also goes well with liver and fava beans.

[Estragon]

Fish sauce works too. I sneak a little into almost everything… and have a nip every morning with my coffee

[hobie]

Ah yes, the garum of Asia. Same principle for sure

[Estragon]

IASA brand are my go-to anchovies if you can find them, btw. The ones with the Calabrian chilies are most excellent if you like a bit spicy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yesterday, on the Clay & Buck Show, Tomi Lahren outlined how Trump could lose to Heels Up.

Tomi Lahren is the now 31-year-old blonde bombshell that no one would listen to if she wasn't pretty. Glenn Beck fired her back when she was 25 for endorsing abortion on The View, and she reminds me a lot of Mitt Romney.

Well her approach is to pander to women such as her and ignore traditional morality such as family, life, and such. Lahren is about 4 years to young to ever have had to worry about a *younger* pretty girl taking *her* job, and ignores all the women (and men) who have. But if Trump goes RINO, *I'll* vote for Heels Up....

[hobie]

Ah, yes, a steady diet of talk radio. So these are the dudes that do your thinking for you. You think Clay and Buck will adopt Rush's overt racism and revive his Barack the Magic Negro song but make it Kamala the Magic Nigga Gal or something? Belittling blacks works magic at the polls

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bo Snerdley is Black...

https://commonreader.wustl.edu/c/the-black-man-behind-the-curtain-of-the-rush-limbaugh-show/

[hobie]

I'm sure he was well paid

[Estragon]

“Heels up”

You love this one so much you threw it in twice!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's her name....

[Estragon]

Among the terminally online, perhaps

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "It’s her name…."

Kinda funny you whine so much over the real or imagined “advantages” Harris might have had. Meanwhile, you tongue-polish the shoe leather of a man who’d be running some three-card-monte on a slum street corner without daddy’s millions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't know that -- he was in the right place at the right time -- NYC had abandoned railyards in the '80s because of the shift to trucks a decade earlier.

He;d have gotten financing somewhere else.

[Estragon]

Seriously— please keep saying this at every opportunity! Try it out at work!

[grb]

I sense a sexual excitment barely under control. And even our Ed can't feel that for the Orange One.

(At least I don't think so....)

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators, it is time for a break from politics and give you something useful that you lawyers can thank me for later. Commenter_XY has been playing in the kitchen. For those of you with a KitchenAid stand mixer, may I recommend the KA ice cream maker attachment. It is a must have, for creating allulose sweetened ice cream. Oh, the possibilities are endless.

The recipe below is Philadelphia style (no eggs). Cinnamon Ice Cream

Ingredients
1 cup milk (might try half and half next time)
½ cup sugar (if using allulose, double to 1C)
2 cups heavy whipping cream
1 tsp vanilla extract
2 tsp cinnamon

Instructions
Mix milk and sugar together using a wire whisk or hand mixer so that the sugar completely dissolves.
Stir in heavy cream, vanilla, and cinnamon, making sure that the cinnamon is well blended throughout.
Pour mixture into your ice cream maker. Make sure it is running first!
Mix about 20-25 minutes. It will be soft serve consistency. Put into container and freeze overnight for hard ice cream texture.

Helpful Hint: Cinnamon has a tendency to sink to the bottom of the ice cream mixture, so whisk the ice cream mix before pouring it in the ice cream maker (which should be running BEFORE you pour in mix - ask me how I know).

Yes, it is that easy. So the next time you're reading briefs and you're hankering for a sweet fix, try this. It is 30 minutes start to finish if you're efficient. You need to freeze the bowl overnight before using, remember that. I just keep mine in my freezer, to be ready to go at any time.

[hobie]

Where's the egg-yolks-into-custard part?

[Brett Bellmore]

My wife was talking about getting one of those; We've been making a lot of ice cream lately, and for some reason watching me and my son hand crank our classic 5 quart tires her out. I guess for the same reason she gets hot if she sees me wearing long pants in 90 degree weather...

It does remind me, I have to change the grease on mine, it's that old.

I'd never make ice cream without egg yolks, not only do I have an ample supply, but they're highly nutritious. And it's not like I have high cholesterol, after all.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you really like ice cream the Kitchenaid attachment will disappoint since it is awfully small and the bowl must be frozen ahead of time. Break down and buy a new classic with a motorized dasher.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what I was telling my wife.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you buy the same brand (they really haven't changed much) you could set up the older one and just change tops to make a second batch while enjoying the first.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you've got an exaggerated idea of how much ice cream we eat. A full batch lasts us a couple weeks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious as to how big a batch your machine makes?

[Brett Bellmore]

About a gallon. It's a 5 quart model, but you need some head space for it to work right.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, there are only two of us now. KA does 1.5 Qts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not necessarily knocking it. Whatever works for you.
In my case that would be my wife's portion.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If it ain't a Carpigiani, I ain't buyin' it...

[OtisAH]

“I call her ‘Laughing Kamala.’ Have you seen her laughing? She is crazy. You can tell a lot by a laugh. She is nuts. She is not as crazy as Nancy Pelosi.”

- Convicted Felon Donald Trump

What do you think about Convicted Felon Trump’s laugh and what does it say about him?

[hobie]

Has he ever laughed? I cannot recall. I've seen him scowl a lot

[Jonathansingletary]

You know what Donny? You just keep calling her Laughing Kamala. It’ll really show her!

[Estragon]

“This election will be about policies and not personalities […] This is not personal with regard to Kamala Harris, and her ethnicity or her gender have nothing to do with this whatsoever.”

-Mike Johnson

Haha, poor Mike seeming a little out of touch with the zeitgeist

[Bwaaah]

If you think that the number of people who will vote for Donald Trump has much to do with personality, then that just shows how deep you are in your own B.S. You know very well what a flawed personality he is, and yet you pretend that half of the U.S. is too stupid to see that.

Democrats vs. Republicans…that’s about differences in policy preferences, not personalities. 80% of voters are strictly team players, and vote party, not personality.

[Estragon]

“Your own BS”

What BS? Just relaying what Mike had to say… seems like a lot of folks aren’t buying it.

“One House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Republicans who made comments about Harris being a DEI pick, which stands for diversity, equity and inclusion, needed to stop.

“We have everything going our way and you just can’t handle that?” this member added. “We’ll give you a cheat sheet if you don’t know what else to talk about.””

Like Alanis said: it’s the good advice you just didn’t take!

[Bwaaah]

What BS? Your assertion that Mike Johnson doesn't get the "zeitgeist." You don't get the Zeitgeist of voters, including how little they are moved about the very trash talk of which you (and so many others) speak.

[Estragon]

“how little they are moved about the very trash talk”

That’s… not my sense of what the “fuck your feelings” crowd is into.

[Estragon]

In any event, I do indeed hope the huckleberries take Speaker Mike’s advice!

[Ed Grinberg]

Kamala Harris happens to be a dingbat. But if she were the most intelligent, least crazy woman in the country -- or a man for that matter -- I'd still vote against her. She's a Democrat, for Christ's sake!

[Bwaaah]

"I’d still vote against her. She’s a Democrat, for Christ’s sake!"

And Democrats, as a group, have real policy preferences, e.g.: more government regulations, less control of borders, higher taxes, racial preferences, less gun rights, greater tolerance of street criminals, phase out of fossil fuels, and on, and on...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

How does a "street criminal" differ from a regular old criminal?

[Stella Link the dog]

"differ from a regular old criminal"
Not typically active Republican party supporters?

[Bwaaah]

“Street crime,” is a specific category of crime, as to be differentiated from, for example, “white collar crime,” “domestic crime,” “consumer crime,” “organized crime,” and probably others (I’m not speaking as an expert here.)

I live in a city. Like almost all other cities across the U.S., increases in street crime were very apparent over the past four years. (The increases only started abating in 2023.) The most visible types of street crime offenses that come to mind have been robberies, assaults, shoplifting, vandalism, auto theft, petty larceny.

I believe the visible increases in street crime we’ve seen are due to very intentional changes in how criminal justice systems have been handling street criminals. Democrats have a stronger propensity to relax street crime enforcement and penalties. (Six strikes and your out, maybe.) Republicans tend to favor stricter enforcement and penalties for street crimes.

‘s all I’m sayin’

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It isn't that you people are too stupid to realize his flaws, it's that you don't give a fuck. That's what makes you all enemies of America and useless pieces of shit. You have no principles.

You don't care about right and wrong anymore, and you sure as shit don't care about laws or the Constitution.

[Ilya Snowman]

'That’s what makes you all enemies of America and useless pieces of shit. You have no principles'.

Your president isn't mentally fit for office. The signs abounded, and you didn't care. (They've been talking point and the source of vids and memes across the globe for years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqiOeiG4VNo) your media, your blue team, and your key institutions gaslit the world about this.

The mask has been shorn away, JC: you're totalitarians. You're discredited, globally. You're not just anti-American insofar as you're clearly engaged in a domestic and global social re-engineering project. You DEMONSTRABLY don't care about the truth, the rule of law, or your constitution. You are the power-at-all-costs folks.

You're evil. You're totalitarian, yours is an evolutionarily inferior meme (you don't meet anything like replacement rate and are FUNDAMENTALLY dependent upon the mass immigration of outsiders PRECISELY BECAUSE they don't believe what you do about the basic aspects of living, eg having children), and you are now seen to be villains across the globe. We, your allies cannot and will not trust you anymore either.

Go directly to hell, JC. You're an evil, pathologically-lying moron. Your values are finished and so are you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Look at the sock-puppet acting like the dumbest FNG ever! If your little grey box ever says something useful, I might end up thinking about you a second time.

(My apologies, I realized immediately upon typing it that you were not acting.)

[Ilya Snowman]

That's the best you can do, JC. And your best is pathetic.

Everything I wrote above was true. You're fucked, and it's entirely your own doing.

Your low-grade propaganda may still fool some of your countrymen, but the scales have fallen from the rest of the world's eyes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That’s kind of why in the US we have Vice Presidents, who are elected on the same “ticket” as the President. They can take over at a moment’s notice, if need be, and very little would be expected to change, policy-wise. Almost like a “second-in-command”.

But, now that I think about it, that is a bit “totalitarian”. And so unfair!

[David Nieporent]

You know very well what a flawed personality he is, and yet you pretend that half of the U.S. is too stupid to see that.

Not in the least. They see it, and they revel in it. That's why they're deplorable.

[Ilya Snowman]

No, no, no. Three seconds ago you claimed they form part of a 'cult of personality'.

Can you at least try not to lie, please? Just once.

It might be hard for you, but please give it a try.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know the percentage breakdown, but those of "you" (ISTR you're a bloody foreigner) who aren't consumed by the cult of personality are (deplorably) effecting it. Is there a third category?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD
(northern California edition)

This white, male, conservative blog
with a vanishingly thin academic veneer
— dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for America’s vestigial bigots
as modern America passes them by —
has operated for no more than

TWELVE (12)

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

THIRTY-THREE (33)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 33 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 33 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

This blog is outrunning its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers likely miss
some of the racial slurs this
blog regularly publishes; it
would be unreasonable to expect
anyone to catch all of them.
This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, Islamophobic, racist,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding right-wing fringe of
American legal thought by members
of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog's stale and ugly thinking, here is something worthwhile -- final tour, final show, final song.

This one, featuring Peter Green and a couple of his pals, is good, too.

(The link limit prevents adding something with Eric Clapton, Mick Taylor, Harvey Mandel, Walter Trout, Ernie Watts, Jack Bruce, etc. etc. etc.)

[grb]

Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland : “…Eric Clapton, Mick Taylor, Harvey Mandel, Walter Trout, Ernie Watts, Jack Bruce, etc….”

All of whom are all well and good. But if you want something that really raises goosebumps of excitment, check out this new movie trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu4kekpOwtU

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I place Bob Dylan in the first tier. I have seen him perform a number of times (and have been lucky enough to have missed his clinker performances entirely — he has been understandable and skillful every time I have seen him, with crack bands). I have tickets to see him in a couple of months.

When Keith Richards says “Thank you, Bob,” he speaks for me. I enjoyed the Freddie Mercury movie and to lesser degree the Elton John movie.

I do not expect to watch the Going Electric movie. Maybe I will listen to this album instead.

[grb]

1. I’ve only seen Mr Dylan three times. But one was general admission and I was close enough to see his nose hairs. (which is a good thing fyi). I had similar good fortune seeing Sonny Rollins play.

2. The film covers the same time period as Scorsese’s documentry. But it’s a natural narrative arc.

3. The stand-ins for Suze Rotolo & Joan Baez both look fetching and Timothée Chalamet seems to have a good baby-face Dylan look. Plus he’s spot-on singing. Ed Norton sounds like Pete Seeger – perhaps a little too much. I wonder how the Johnny Cash actor looks, particularly because the same director did his biopic as well.

4. I pulled David Hajdu’s book “Positively 4th Street: The Lives and Times of Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Mimi Baez Farina and Richard Farina” off the shelves and may get around to finally reading it this time.

5. I hope the film doesn’t santatize Dylan too much. Even baby-faced Bob just arrived in Greenwich Village had a ruthless diamond-sharp focus on success. Also, he was already laying down smokescreens & fabricating myth to hide every real personal detail of his life.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope the Dylan movie is good and that people enjoy it. As I watched it develop, though, I lost interest in it. This exchange led me to buy tickets to a second Dylan date in September, though. I customarily avoid the sheds, but Dylan overcomes that disinclination, especially with Willie Nelson aboard. I keep hoping they'll team for Good Hearted Woman, which I played periodically as a college disc jockey.

[Ilya Snowman]

This song is for you, AIDS. It reflects how your lot is faring and how it shall continue to fare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXqPNlng6uI

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Does anyone else know what "AIDS" is supposed to mean in this context?

Is it something like Drackman's mysterious "Sandusky" reference?

[apedad]

Jurors give judge something he had ‘never seen’ after they convict man of killing prime suspect in his mother’s murder

A jury in Idaho on Tuesday shocked a judge with nearly 30 years of experience in the criminal justice system when, after convicting a 32-year-old man, they attached a note to the verdict requesting the judge be lenient when sentencing the convicted killer.

The rare moment came about two months after the same jurors found Raul A. Cuevas guilty on one count of second-degree murder for fatally stabbing 39-year-old Jesus R. Urrutia, court records reviewed by Law&Crime show.

Urrutia was the prime suspect in the slaying of Cuevas’ 52-year-old mother, Michelle Luna. Authorities said Urrutia — who lived with Luna and Cuevas — called Cuevas several times after the murder to taunt and torment him about killing his mother and even told the victim’s son his location.

But the jury’s note apparently accomplished what the 12 men and women intended. Though Cuevas was facing a maximum possible sentence of life without the possibility for parole, Medema ordered him to serve a sentence of 10 years in a state correctional facility with the possibility for parole after only four years.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/jurors-give-judge-something-he-had-never-seen-after-they-convict-man-of-killing-prime-suspect-in-his-mothers-murder/

Jesus was not very smart (mouthing off), and at the same time, I can't condone taking the law into your own hands.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He must've been an illegal. That makes Democrat judges go weak in the knees and dole out a bunch of wrist slaps and finger wags..

[M L]

"I can’t condone taking the law into your own hands."

No. But you can perhaps drastically reduce the penalty under the circumstances, I guess. Seems fair?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

John Mayall ended his final tour and the Rolling Stones have concluded their current tour (middle of nowhere, but well worth the trip).

The Stones reached the height of their recorded work after plucking a young Mick Taylor from Mayall's Bluesbreakers.

Here is an alternate version of one of Mick Taylor's sparklers, from Sticky Fingers.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The House just passed a BIPARTISAN resolution to condemn Border Czar Harris' handling of the border.

That's shocking.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No it isn't. The Dems supporting it are facing Republican challengers.

The convention is going to be fun because half the party wants to go right and keep their seats while the other half wants to go loonie left.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If Republicans and Democrats voted for it then it was bipartisan.

[grb]

It's as if the public's experience of Trump hasnt been an election boon for Democrats. Trump was one of the few presidents who couldn't win reelection. He underperformed fellow Republicans in the '20 election. He sabotaged the GOP's post-election candidates in Georgia, giving the Senate to Dems. He was a drag on the Republicans during the '22 midterms, saving the Democrats from impossibly brutal election meterics. And there is an increasing chance he'll lose this race too. People just don't like him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Polls have indicated steadily that Americans do not favor a Republican-controlled Congress.

Perhaps because most Americans are not uneducated evangelical bigots residing in desolate Republican backwaters.

[Ilya Snowman]

Indeed, the new American is far less educated and moral than those folks. Stupider, too, as the empirical evidence suggests

You can give have a nature/nurture debate about the dumbing down of America all you'd like, AIDS. What matters for you is, if you do so, be true to your MO: ignore the real scientific evidence and just jump up and down whilst screaming about your inclusive values instead.

Progress!

[Krayt]

More 2025 Project mentions the past few days, all in the context of accusing Republicans of believing. Some of the line items are so ridiculously outrageous, I still maintain this couldn’t possibly be a real thing, but rather a plant to poison the well against them.

There have been many such lists, and they are not new things. Party platforms are essentially such lists. One more famous recent one was Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. Nothing from it was implemented, but it served its purpose as a rally focus, to gain control of Congress in 1994.

So with that in mind, while there may be drooling hayseeds who’d sign up for all of it, I cannot conceive of any political operative you’d pay more than minimum wage assembling such a list, knowing it would be a disaster with fence sitters, to say nothing about a good chunk of Republicans.

Ergo it must be a fraudulent plant. If that’s the intent, it’s certainly getting its money’s worth.

This is a working theory in progress. Let's see how it develops!

[Estragon]

You should hold off on this theory until “Dawn’s Early Light: Burning Down Washington To Save America” (foreword by JD Vance!!) is published in September

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Some of the line items are so ridiculously outrageous, I still maintain this couldn’t possibly be a real thing, but rather a plant to poison the well against them."

The Heritage Foundation published the damn thing (900 pages). I had it at least a year ago. You take this "election denialism/fake news" nonsense to a pathetic level, rivaling Bellmore and Kazinski. What is wrong with you?

[Krayt]

If so, why did they hire a minimum wage political consultant to cobble together a POS to lob a softball to the Democrats?

Literally it's that moronic.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That guy (Roberts) is a hayseed -- Louisiana, Wyoming Catholic College, hard-right-wing shops, etc. -- but he has a doctorate from Texas at Austin (a legitimate school) and he does not work for minimum wage. There is quite a bit of money to be made peddling false hopes and ugly aspirations to right-wing donors.

Hundreds of wingnuts with plenty of Republican street cred contributed to that project and document. This Project 2025 documents seems a good reflection of what those losers genuinely believe, prefer, and want to arrange.

[Guten]

The PDF for the project can be downloaded and imported into ChatGPT with a query like "summarize while checking for fascism etc. ".

[apedad]

Rich People Freeze Themselves, and Fortunes, for Future Revival
Nobody wants to come back from the dead poor.

Luckily for the rich, making wealth immortal is more solvable than reversing death.

Estate attorneys are creating trusts aimed at extending wealth until people who get cryonically preserved can be revived, even if it’s hundreds of years later.

Can money live indefinitely?
Are you dead if your body is cryonically preserved?
Are you considered revived if you have only your brain?
And if you’re revived, are you the same person?

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report/rich-people-freeze-themselves-and-fortunes-for-future-revival

I'm getting cremated so not an issue for me.

[Brett Bellmore]

When I was single I was signed up for cryonics with Alcor, though I actually lived in Michigan and was an acquaintance of Ettinger's. (Never got around to having him sign my copy of Prospects of Immortality, though, darn it!) Thought Alcor was just technically superior, the Cryonic Institute was betting too much on the future ability to repair freezing damage, and mostly concentrated on trying to lower costs.

But when I married I decided that I couldn't do justice to supporting a family while throwing money at what is, honestly, a long shot. If I won the lottery, I'd probably get signed up again.

[Mr. Bumble]

You’d have a better chance at “immortality” if your brain (either literally or figuratively) was transferred to a cyborg.

[Bwaaah]

I have much more modest hopes, such as to be able celebrate my 115th birthday.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if a cyborg was available to be transferred to, which it is not. Cryonics is a lifeboat for a sinking ship, not a cruise destination. If anybody gets an effective treatment for aging, it loses any appeal.

I make sure I have good nutrition, and use a frequently updated list of supplements that look like they might marginally stretch out my life and help prevent dementia, and hope like heck that the current research into gerontology funded by billionaires who aren't keen on dying pays off soon.

A pity I don't live in California, I'd love to be part of Dr. Fahy's TRIIM study, the reports I'm seeing of results suggest it actually is achieving genuine reversal of aging on a lot of metrics.

I'm keeping a real eye on that one, because it's the sort of thing that could actually be rolled out into clinical application fairly quickly.

[Mr. Bumble]

This might interest you.
While the study is with mice I believe it may be in human trials.

https://nextbigfuture.substack.com/p/blocking-il-11-gene-reduces-inflammation-so-mice-live-24-longer-and-healthierhtml?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2381939&post_id=146834315&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=9bg2k&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'm a regular reader at NBF, saw it.

Mouse trials are hard to get excited over. Everybody wants to do them because they're relatively cheap and fast, but almost everything that proves to be effective in mice doesn't work in humans. Because mice ARE short lived, and humans already have numerous evolutionary adaptations to extend our lifespans.

The place to look is actually unusually long lived non-human species, that may have implemented life extending strategies we haven't. Like the naked mole rat, with its amazing ribosomes, or whales' incredible cancer resistance.

This is not to say that we don't have some good interventions already that came out of mice. Like the parabiosis experiments where they connected the circulatory systems of elderly and young mice, and the elderly mice were rejuvenated.

For a while they thought there was something in young plasma, but, no, it's just that senescent cells in the elderly generate toxins that accumulate in the blood, and the young circulatory system was diluting them. You can actually get the same effect by just periodically removing some of somebody's plasma and letting them naturally replace it.

But, of course, I had lymphoma a decade ago, so I'm not allowed to make plasma donations... So that's one intervention that's closed to me. Instead I take such antisenescents as are available OTC.

[Krayt]

I’m getting cremated so not an issue for me.

That makes your techno-rapture exponentially more difficult.

[hobie]

As for the wealth part, just throw it all into Trump Media. It will all mature in September....will be wild

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I check that chart occasionally. DJT is still near $30. Half what the IPO dopes paid, but more than evidence supports and more than I expected. I just read a pumper's advice to buy more DJT in August.

(Anyone who holds DJT as a fiduciary, particularly with respect to retirement accounts without an express order to purchase from the beneficiary, should be investigated by the SEC.)

[M L]

Funny Money: ActBlue Accused Of "MASSIVE Money Laundering Operation" As Trump Files FEC Complaint Over $91M Transfer To Kamala

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/funny-money-actblue-accused-massive-money-laundering-operation-trump-files-fec-complaint

Democrat donation platform ActBlue has been accused of a engaging in a "MASSIVE money laundering operation," by which contributions from large donors are being funneled through hundreds of thousands of small donations made in the name of people who have no clue they've donated.

As part of this, James O'Keefe is back with his usual hijinks.

I am curious if people will watch the video below and offer their opinion.

Is this just a nothingburger? Is it a serious matter that should prompt an investigation? Or is perhaps even somehow a fake, CGI or "misleadingly edited" in some way?

https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1815746724360769861

https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1816110217769496951

[Brett Bellmore]

How would you tell if it was a nothingburger without investigating it?

[M L]

I have no idea. Maybe it can all be explained away legally somehow? Or perhaps someone will claim there is no way to track the money or discover what happened?

Usually with stuff like this, the very online leftist people seem to go with pure handwaving, calling video footage “fake” or “edited” without evidence or explanation and leave it at that.

I wonder if there is anyone with integrity on the left who will say this should be investigated.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm not sure if you will accept the source or if the link will work (I doubt you're a NewsMax fan) but yesterday on Carl Higbie's Frontline show this was the lead story.
FEC records showing average Americans (not 1%ers) donating
Thousands of dollars over years in multiple transactions.
https://www.newsmaxtv.com/Shows/Carl-Higbie-Frontline/vid/2b48ec60-4a24-11ef-bba3-bd142fda270e

[NOVA Lawyer]

The video appears to be of a jackass harassing people who donated to ActBlue. He got no information from the first one, other than the person he was "interviewing" clearly had a strong dislike of Trump. The second said that, yes, in fact, she had donated to ActBlue.

Given his methodology of investigating, I'd like to see the supposed numbers from someone more credible, but this largely seems an intimidation effort. James O'Keefe encouraged other people to get their iPhones and go door to door asking ActBlue donors about their donations. The second lady, clearly uncomfortable: "I don't understand why I'm getting this...." [This apparently being several jackasses with cameras asking her about her financial transactions and political donations.]

I'm not sure what you are worried someone might claim is fake, CGI, or "misleadingly edited", other than the numbers he says he has and the second interviewee, in response to the question how much she actually donated answers, very damningly, "I don't know."

[Commenter_XY]

The allegation, FWIW: ActBlue did not require address verification on political donations made via credit card transactions on their website. ActBlue passed the CC number, CVV and exp date, and nothing else. This enabled 'fraudsters' to donate a boatload of money.

That is the allegation, in very general terms.

[NOVA Lawyer]

M L was worried someone would claim the video was faked. The video isn't really evident of anything, as far as I watched, which was about half the first and got to two people who didn't further the narrative. The allegation is different. But based on the videos, I'm not terribly impressed by the messenger.

[M L]

I'm not "worried" but I'm certainly interested and amused to see if that old tactic gets dusted off again.

[Commenter_XY]

I would think the credit card companies would blow a collective gasket, let alone card holders, right? They might see this as a huge security (and financial) risk.

[Brett Bellmore]

Money laundering, (This is a form of it.) isn't a financial risk to credit card companies unless the feds decide that they're in on it. It's just regular transactions otherwise, generating profits.

[M L]

Did you actually watch it all? A number of these people are clearly are saying they absolutely did not make the donations that FEC records say they made. And it’s rather believable that they didn’t make donations that probably match or exceed what would appear to be value of their homes.

The reason I bring up “fake” and “edited” is because those are the exact claims that have been trotted out, without evidence, every time there is some video like this. (O’Keefe in his various iterations including Project Veritas, and the David Daleiden group are the only examples I can think of at the moment.)

Do you think this appears to be something that should at least be looked into in some way, or not?

[NOVA Lawyer]

I watched the first two, as I described. Why those would be the first ones presented if there were good ones is anyone's guess. Not wasting my time after 5-7 minutes of garbage. Such videos won't prove anything. If the alleged numbers are legit, deserves to be looked into. Same if the same or similar happened with any other PAC.

[M L]

People in the videos clearly say they are unaware that FEC records show them making thousands of individual donations, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that they certainly did not make such donations. An interesting pattern is that they did, however, donate to ActBlue at some point in some much smaller amount.

I agree if the numbers are legit it should be looked into.

[not guilty]

FBI Director Christopher Wray has testified to Congress that there is some question about whether a bullet or shrapnel hit Donald Trump's ear during the rally in Pennsylvania. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxmqdhLxN3E

Which it was does not matter, except insofar as it bears on the veracity of Trump's claims as to having been struck by a bullet. The injuries and death inflicted by the shooter are equally tragic no matter how Trump was injured.

[SRG2]

I wouldn't criticise Trump for saying he'd been struck by a bullet rather than shrapnel. It's kind of an irrelevant detail. If he'd said he had been shot when nothing had hit him, different matter.

[M L]

Was this that time when Trump fell at a rally and was rushed off the stage?

[Mr. Bumble]

This is why trust in the FBI has eroded. What was the point of Wray's speculative statement.
Early reports said it might have been shrapnel from one of the teleprompters, but as you and SRG2 have said it is clear he was shot at and the wound (whatever caused it) was real.
You would think that after almost two weeks the "premiere law enforcement agency in the world" would have more information.
(Don't forget the photo of something passing behind Trump and the three people who were shot. Can't do a CSI and figure out trajectories?)

[Brett Bellmore]

If there's any actual basis for thinking it was anything but a bullet, I've yet to hear it.

[Sarcastr0]

"there is some question about whether a bullet or shrapnel" seems like the opposite of speculation.

Taking the time to get it right, and not jumping the gun beforehand, is the professionalism I would want from the FBI.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, the FBI is very professional. And completely untrustworthy.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, I used to believe in the competence and professionalism of the FBI too.
When I was 10, and "The FBI(In COLOR!)" was on every Sunday Night, I believed in the FBI, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny (Yeah, I'm a Jew, no discrepancy, I didn't know having a non-observant Jewish Mom made you Jewish until a few years later) too
Then I grew up
I actually envy you for your childish Naivety,

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

GaslightO, if it is shrapnel, it has a source. What was it?

They've had about 10 days to go over that place with a fine toothed comb, what is the source.

Also shrapnel likely would have been going slower and hence could have been recovered with a piece of his ear on it -- and wasn't. Shrapnel, going slower, likely would have done more damage to his ear as well.

This likely was a bullet that went straight through -- something going slower would have made more of a ripping injury.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"What was the point of Wray’s speculative statement."

Perhaps he was asked a question and responded with the truth as he understood it?

[Ilya Snowman]

Ha!

Funniest thing I've read all week.

You really rely on 'perhaps' in quite a few of your comments, yeah?

[Voize]

He was asked whether the damage done by all 8 bullets had been accounted for, and replied that there was some question about whether one of them hit Trump, or hit him and something else, or hit something else and shrapnel hit him. If you are really upset about this you should begin a campaign to force the resignation of Rep. Wesley Hunt who asked the question.

[Estragon]

Why hasn’t he released the medical report(s) from the doctors who examined him?

[Frank Drackman]

Same reason you haven't released your medical reports, it's nobodies fucking business

[Estragon]

Could clear up some of the confusion, is all. I could also imagine a universe in which a potential voter might be worried about something like a concussion, etc.

Won’t change my vote either way, and of course as you point out he’s within his rights to keep it private.

I’d point out the contrast to when Biden had Covid but you’re just going to respond in your weird phonetic spelling style, so forget it.

[Frank Drackman]

Phonetics? it’s how I learned to read German and Engrish (well, German anyway) and those efficient Teutons put little dots (some call them “Umlauts” I call them little dots) over vowels so you don’t have to guess how to pronounce them.
You want some Phonetics?
H-I-P-A-A, it’s a Law, I thought this was a Legal Blog,
it’s why when you ask your Doctors Office to verify your Narcotic Rx they turn into Vinny Barbarino (who? what? where? why? who?) Violate it and you can get $50,000 fine and up to a year in jail, which doesn’t matter because good luck working in the medical field again,

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, who says he even HAS the medical reports…

And the macabre side of me wonders who pays the bills on something like this. Who paid Reagan's bills when he was shot?
Is this his insurance? The USSS budget? Who does this get dumped on?

[hobie]

Says the idiot who rages to see Biden's mental and physical write ups. Small-minded people such as yourself are so easy for me to victimize

[Kazinski]

How is Trump supposed to know what hit his ear at 1000fps?

But what clinched it for me that it was a bullet was the NYTimes photo showing the bullet about 500th of a second after it grazed his head, the almost flat trajectory matches the angle of fire. Since the Roof was between 13 and 18′ high and the shooter was prone, and the stage was about 9′ high and Trump’s ear at about 6′, makes it 15′. Just about exactly what the photo shows.

Any shrapnel is very unlikely to be following that exact path and traveling exactly parallel to the side of Trumps head so it just knicked the ear at an almost level trajectory. We know Trump was facing almost directly toward the shooter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly.

I still can't believe the NYT got that photo, though...

[Brett Bellmore]

The key to things like that is a combination of habitual good composition, and then taking so many freaking photos that the odds of your getting lucky in at least one of them are elevated. Good professional photographers take an absurd number of photos, and then throw away 99.9% of them.

And it was still against the odds.

[M L]

One of many times that Biden says Harris is a DEI hire.

To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally — and this is not kidding — the core strengths of America. That’s why I’m proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country. And it starts at the top with the Vice President.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/29/remarks-by-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-at-a-campaign-event-philadelphia-pa/

I'm personally not particularly interested in this talking point about Harris or candidates for public office generally being a "DEI hire" or not. Both sides seem quite interested, particularly the left in that they want to bait the right into talking about it and then spin it as "attacking her based on race and gender" or whatever.

[jb]

That says he likes the principles of DEI and he has a diverse cabinet, not that Harris was a "DEI hire".

Do you think Jackie Robinson was a "DEI hire"? Biden says that he wants to tap into the full potential of the country, so he wants to make sure he's looking beyond the talent pool that usually makes up the cabinet. If you don't do that, you miss out on good people and a broader range of perspectives.

[M L]

If I understand correctly, your interpretation of Biden's comment is that whereas normally/usually, black people (or women, etc) are excluded from consideration for jobs such as cabinet posts and only white people are considered, Biden is looking beyond white people and in doing so he draws from a larger talent pool and gets a better range of perspectives.

If you squint, maybe those words could be interpreted that way in theory. In practice, your claim is the exact opposite of the reality, an inversion of the truth, and looks like an attempt at gaslighting.

It is not the normal, usual practice to exclude races from consideration. The norm is to consider people of all races (or sexes), perhaps on a race-neutral basis, or more realistically, to have some level of preference for minorities.

Biden's approach is similar to this in that it favors minorities, but more so it differs from this in that Biden explicitly vowed to select someone based on race and gender, to the exclusion of other races and genders, thereby narrowing the talent pool he's drawing from.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're gong to need a better quote.

That quote says what Jb says it says. You're imagining he said something other than he said or, more likely, as with so many commenters here, you are absolutely sure of what he really meant.

It's pathetic, M L. But look at all these posts on race that absolutely demonstrate you aren't obsessed with race at all!

[jb]

FWIW, I agree that Harris was selected to a significant degree based on her race and gender. But this was for political reasons, and political rationales are used to limit the pool of VP candidates all the time. Is it any surprise that JD Vance is from a swing(-ish) state in the Midwest? Or that Pence was an evangelical Christian? It's silly to suggest that Vice Presidential picks are ever based solely or even primarily on merit.

[M L]

Thanks. I agree completely, and that’s exactly what “DEI hire” means. I don’t think that squares with your first comment. Admittedly, looking at the conversation around this issue there tends to be a pejorative connotation as well, which is aimed toward communicating disagreement with the practice of discriminating on the basis of race and gender in this way. I don’t think anybody seriously disagrees with the basic facts here (a few unserious outliers like NOVA Lawyer notwithstanding), instead the disagreement is about that pejorative connotation and the underlying issue of whether it’s good or bad to discriminate based on race and gender in this way. That is the discussion people should have, and I think there are fair points on both sides at least in some contexts.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“that’s exactly what “DEI hire” means”

No, it doesn’t. Else Harris wouldn’t be the only VP to ever be labeled that. And you admit that:

“instead the disagreement is about that pejorative connotation”

Which I said above, as you feigned to be flummoxed. That’s the meaning Republicans intend to convey when they use it in reference to Harris and you know that. They aren’t complaining that Trump picked a young swing state Senator with ties to Appalachia saying he was a DEI hire too.

[Sarcastr0]

Remember ML is a lost causer, among other things. The fact the he's got some racial concerns and isn't hiding it well...not too much of a surprise.

[M L]

Yes it does. Biden said he would limit himself to picking a black female and he did so. Instead of trying to deny that, just stick to saying there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you believe.

[jb]

Yeah, FWIW I think in this case it's obviously true that Harris was chosen with a strong consideration for her race/gender. My original response was just that the quote above was saying something different and I think it's helpful to understand why (some) people talk about the value of diversity.

But VP picks are a bad example of how to think about DEI-related concepts because so much of the selection process is inherently about political considerations rather than merit. And as M L has acknowledged the term is generally pejorative (and most people using it about Harris intend it that way) so I don't think it's a helpful or accurate term in this context.

[David Nieporent]

Biden said he would limit himself to picking a black female and he did so.

Again, he did not. He limited his SCOTUS pick to black women. For his vice presidential pick, he only promised to pick a woman, not a black woman.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Bringing facts into the discussion seems very unfair to ML, given his allergy to them.

[Estragon]

“to bait the right into talking about it”

Lol, shades of Brett Bellmore: “Obama actually purposely withheld his birth certificate to trick conservatives into appearing like lunatic birthers”

[M L]

Great article about the FBI.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/24/opinion/local-cops-refusing-to-share-info-with-fbi-as-agency-suffers-crisis-of-confidence-with-dei-hires-whistleblower-report-reveals/

[Commenter_XY]

It is the behavior and attitude of the FBI agents that is worrying. That portends bad times ahead.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are correct in predicting bad times ahead -- for clingers.

The yahoos predicting conservative comebacks in modern America concerning support for racism, homophobia, Republican fiscal policy, xenophobia, misogyny, organized superstition, antisemitism, abortion bans, Islamophobia, religious schools, mass deportations, transphobia, contraception bans, a border wall, personhood laws, "biblical law," environmental predation, and other items on the right-wing/Republican wish list are daft.

[Ilya Snowman]

You're a country in decline, in a world where most of the world consciously rejects your values. They reject them on the substance and they reject them as imperialism.

The people you hate in your country are now awakening to the FACT (for it is a fact) that the imposition of such values globally is what your country's really been aiming to accomplish for quite some time. They will reject your project, just as they will refuse to serve in your military and defend your 'interests' globally.

You also live in a country where you're preferred side in a culture war is, as a direct result of its values, a demographic implosion.

You will be outbred and you will be replaced. Your values are dying and have no future, in America or elsewhere. The future of America has nothing to do with you or your normative aspirations.

Choose reason. Choose science. Choose facts over blind faith in a superficial moribund ideology.

You're done. Carry on, clinger, till you're not tolerated any more.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"As FBI Director Chris Wray performed his usual smarmy stonewalling in Congress Wednesday, a damning report on his $10 billion agency’s “cult of narcissism” was delivered to the House Judiciary Committee by an alliance of retired and active-duty agents and analysts.

The same group gave us the scathing DEI report last year about the FBI’s degraded recruitment standards and coddling of physically unfit, mentally ill, drug-taking or generally useless agents to satisfy diversity requirements at the expense of merit and experience. "

The first two paragraphs of that trash throws your analysis of its quality right out of the window.

You people are worthless.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump only picks the "best people".

[ducksalad]

Rating the criticisms of Kamala Harris:

Valid:

1. "She's a cop." Yes, assuming this is shorthand for she's got an unpleasant prosecutorial personality. (BTW, by this definition most police officers and prosecutors aren't cops.)
2. "She's dumb." A bit of an exaggeration but she shows no evidence of particular brilliance.
3. "She's a big government authoritarian who doesn't believe the constitution limits her power." True, and this is the real problem. Her belief that the prez can use an executive order if Congress fails to pass a bill within 100 days is especially awful. It shows she's willing to just make up non-existent constitutional provisions.

Meh:

1. "She botched the border." Maybe if she'd had actual power, e.g. to give orders to the BP or BCIS, this would have some meat, but she didn't. Even if she had, it's unlikely she or anybody else could have moved the needle much. Keep in mind that Trump failed to fix it, and most likely his second attempt won't go any better.
2. "She failed to invoke the 25th." First of all, it's the cabinet's decision rather than hers alone, second, she wouldn't have had the votes in Congress, third, we don't know for sure she didn't try, and fourth, by this standard Pence and the 2017-2021 cabinet should be in jail.

Stupid, dishonest, or hypocritical:

1. "It's not democratic." Oh, bullshit. Biden stepped down and therefore has to be replaced. The way that happens is convention delegates vote on it, which is what they will do. The stupid claim that Biden "has" to be on the ballot, dead or alive, is not something a single Republican critic would say if something happened to Trump.
2."She gives blowjobs." Not relevant, and not in the top 50 in the history of presidential sexual indiscretions, if it's an indiscretion at all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Don’t forget

— she’s a DEI hire (as if Vance hasn’t based his entire life on being a DEI pick)
— she’s childless
— she’s a cat lady

There will be more to come — no matter how many times Mike Johnson begs his fellow clingers (behind closed doors) to keep the race/gender stuff concerning Vice President Harris on the downlow, his fellow superstitious knuckle-draggers will be unable to harness their old-timey conservative bigotry.

I don’t expect it to work. I expect it to be counterproductive. There are more decent, mainstream, inclusive, reasoning Americans than there are bigoted, evangelical, rural, half-educated, white, male mouth-breathers in goofy red hats. And the cranky old clingers are taking their substandard thinking to the grave and are being replaced by better Americans each and every day in America.

Thank goodness for that.

[Ilya Snowman]

I LOVE this new childless, cat lady thing! LOVE IT.

It’s exactly like Candace Bergen and Dan Quayle in the early 1990s. Quayle vindicated by all the empirical evidence about what happens to the average kid of such mothers.

SCREAM about your values, AIDS. Scream them to the heavens. Your educated liberal and progressives females don’t breed. They WILL be replaced.

And so too shall you. 🙂

[John F. Carr]

I'm torn on the border issue. It's probably not accurate to blame her for anything. But it's not unfair. She wanted to be associated with border policy. Now she is.

If she could have been trying to persuade the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment she could have been influencing border policy.

[ducksalad]

You’re right that she wanted to be associated with border policy. That speaks more to Section 1 Item 2: “She’s dumb.” It was already very obvious at the time that the job of Border Czar with no Czar-ish powers was doomed to failure no matter who took it on. Nothing of significance was going to be accomplished by moral suasion, bully pulpiting, etc either at home or in Central America.

While I would’ve liked to see the 25th invoked, we all know what the Republicans' reaction (and many Democrats') would have been: “It’s a coup! She’s insanely grabbing at power! Overturning an election! Venezuela on steroids!”. Especially if she’d done it before that debate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you figure she's dumber than Trump or Vance?

If so, is there any reasoning -- other than misogyny, racism, and partisanship for the wrong side of history -- underlying that conclusion?

[ducksalad]

There are different kinds of dumb.

If you gave them a traditional IQ test, and I was going to guess the results, I think Vance would come out on top, followed by Harris, with Trump at a very distant third. Trump’s life is such that he’s never needed to carefully read/listen to some person in charge of an exercise and answer their questions directly, so he’s never developed that skill, as the last debate showed.

Why do I think Vance would come out ahead of Harris? He wrote a book accepted by a major publisher prior to becoming famous, which requires some coherence of thought, ability to plan, etc. Harris by contrast is a bit rambling and less structured. Way better than Biden, somewhat better than Trump, but still unimpressive.

Having said that, don’t imagine I see any merit in Vance. Haven’t followed him much until now, but apparently he reversed his positions on several major issues when politically convenient, including his opinion of Trump. Right now he’s aligning himself with a bunch of people who would have opposed letting his own wife’s parents into the country. At some level he has to know that’s wrong and he’s doing it anyway.

I'm not impressed by his origins story. Unlike you, I don't despise small towns, rural values, or having less formal education. However, I don't give extra credit for them either. Vance didn't choose to be born in the hills.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't see the scales tipping toward Vance or Harris in this regard.

Vance has a slightly more impressive education, but that might readily be ascribed to affirmative action for hillbillies (a la Dick Cheney).

Harris has the better professional record by far. No contest.

Vance wrote a book (a memoir, not a book of fiction or scholarship) but his public speaking suggests he might have had (and needed) a strong editor.

Vance seems to be afflicted by adult-onset superstition (unless that is just an act). Not a sign of smarts. (And he is a bigot.)

Harris has the substantially better resume, but that is to be expected with 20 extra years to build it. In 20 years Vance might be expected to match it.

I see a toss-up.

[Michael P]

Nobody is arguing that Harris is bad because "she gives blowjobs". They're arguing that she was never accomplished enough to earn her positions, especially early in her career -- and for those early positions, she replied on a kind of quid-pro-quo intimacy that is generally considered slimy on the other side. See also Harvey Weinstein.

Similarly, the argument isn't merely that this process is anti-democratic. It's that it's anti-democratic, hypocritical, and would/should have been avoided if Democrats had only been honest about Joe Biden's mental state six to eight months ago.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, compare Harris to Harvey Weinstein.

Keep on keeping it weird and creep, Michael!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wow! I'm in awe! Brilliant!

Keep up the good content monsieur!

[ducksalad]

It’s refreshing to see that some of us can still be shocked (shocked!) that politically appointed positions were not distributed strictly on the basis of career accomplishments.

The accusation, to put it bluntly, is that she slept her way to the top. Let’s say it’s true. How did the other incompetents in office, meaning the majority of officeholders, get their positions? Many ways. Throwing friends under the bus. Stabbing mentors in the back. Toadying. Demagoguery. Race grifting. Race baiting. Whipping up moral panics. And most of all, epic amounts of lying. Was her method more objectionable? I’m inclined to think not.

On your second item, I agree that certain people should have come clean earlier. But I’m not believing that this was some carefully engineered years-long process to give Harris the nomination without running in the primaries. It was just a pitiful old man hanging on past his time, surrounded by people whose own careers and privileges depended on him hanging on.

[David Nieporent]

The accusation, to put it bluntly, is that she slept her way to the top.

Although it's true that the MAGA crowd is trying to summarize it that way, that's not remotely the facts that underlie the accusation. The actual accusation — for which there isn't any evidence, by the way — is that she slept her way to the second rung from the bottom. Unless one thinks she slept with Joe Biden.

[OtisAH]

I think it’s a fantastic idea to bring the candidates’ respective sexual histories to the forefront of the campaign and encourage MAGA to keep on keepin’ on in this manner.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, I’m willing to bet that Harris has never raped anyone, for example...

[NOVA Lawyer]

J.D. Vance practically slept with Don Jr. to get the VP nod.

"The eldest Trump son, who had been a fan of “Hillbilly Elegy” before the campaign, had come to like Vance personally, and the two developed a close friendship after Vance won his Senate race."

I'm sure, like Harlan and C. Thomas, it is a pure and chaste friendship that just happened to benefit Vance.

[Kazinski]

She described herself as California's top cop, prosecutors and police are both law enforcement.

As for the border, its fair game to saddle a VP with the sins of the entire administration, its the Biden-Harris administration, like it or not.

I totally agree with your stupid dishonest and hypocritical category.

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP is going to have some consistency problems if they go after her for being a cop.

As for the border, its fair game to saddle a VP with the sins of the entire administration
That sounds quite unfair on it's face.

You don't care about true or fair, you just want something that'll stick.

Seems very cynical to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Keep in mind that Trump failed to fix it, and most likely his second attempt won’t go any better."

What exactly is your definition of "failed to fix it", that you can say this?

Here are the numbers covering while Trump was in office. You can see numbers dropping as he took office, in anticipation of his border enforcement, and they generally stayed down until 2019, when his very public fight with Congress made it clear that Congress did NOT have his back on illegal immigration. So the numbers shot up to a high of 144k, and then dropped as he found ways to work around Congress.

Except for the middle of 2019, the numbers were in the 12-70K range the whole time he was in office.

Here are the Biden years for contrast. Notice that the numbers shot up the moment Biden was in charge, and from June 2021 to May of this year were always higher than the single worst month during Trump's time in office, and vastly higher than the rest of his time?

It wasn't until early this year, when Biden realized that illegal immigration was killing him at the polls, that he made any effort at all to enforce the border. Thus demonstrating that he could have all along, if he'd wanted to.

We should actually expect this again if Trump takes office: An immediate decline in illegal immigration, and if Congress has his back this time around, it will stay at a tiny fraction of Biden's average.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has a single Volokh Conspirator mustered enough character, courage, or decency to say anything about the daily stream of multifaceted right-wing bigotry -- racism (a tone set at the stop at this white, male blog), antisemitism, misogyny, gay-bashing, Islamophobia, zenophobia, etc. -- published at the blog with which these "often libertarian mostly law professor" conservatives associate their names and (worse) their employers.

Anyone associated with this white, male blog have anything to say about this blog's bigotry? Even one sentence -- approval or disapproval? Just one of you?

What's wrong -- Trump got your tongues?

#Cowards
#Clingers
#Bigots

[Ilya Snowman]

Your 'inclusive', 'tolerant' superstitious fantasies for America and the world are crashing and burning, globally. They shall continue to do so.

You won't be tolerated any longer.

[apedad]

Speaking to Larry Kudlow on Fox Business’s “Kudlow,” (Sen. Tommy Tuberville, [R-Ala.]) segued from criticism of Vice President Harris as a presidential candidate to his views on immigration.

“I mean, how can you put somebody in charge of a situation where you let 15, possibly even 20 million people come into our country? Now some of these people are good, but most of them are garbage. They come from jails and prisons in other countries,” he said.

Okaaayyy. . . which one of you is Sen. Tuberville?!?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If southern ignorance, bigotry, backwardness, and superstition appeared in human form, it would be as Tommy Tuberville.

A guy from Alabama should get some credit for being familiar with human garbage, though.

[Ilya Snowman]

Not in the form of the black voters in those states?

What happens when they're not Christians any longer and no one can pretend that some god made everyone equal?

[Dr. Ed 2]

My family has been in the country since something like 1644.
Yours, Apedad?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Four hundred years?

Plenty of opportunity for genetic mutation.

[Ilya Snowman]

Don't pretend that you actually care about genetics, or science more generally, AIDS. You're not convincing anyone.

[Michael P]

Note how conservatives are responsible in political criticism: not "politician X is an existential threat to democracy", but rather support for policy Y is a grave threat to democracy, including pointing out that politician Z was against policy Y before he was for it -- implying that he is not inherently bad.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-reported-support-scotus-term-limits-poses-grave-threat-democracy-experts

[Krayt]

I noticed that in passing in Biden’s speech. He also praised three Democratic heroes of the past, including Cesar Chavez, who was opposed to wholescale immigration as it undercut unionized farm worker wages, which he worked so hard for.

Undercutting union wages is a Republican thing. Wait, what?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you praise someone you gotta agree with all their takes.

[jb]

Both things are possible. Some people are themselves threats to democracy; some policies are too.

In any case, if you think Republicans always attack the policy and not the person, you are sorely misinformed. From:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-biden-democracy-dictator/

“Going into 2024, I think both parties are going to be very focused on [the election],” [Burgum] said. “I think the threat to democracy, as a governor in North Dakota today, I’ve been living under what I call the Biden dictatorship because of all the rules and regulations.”

and https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/16/politics/new-hampshire-republican-primary-trump-immigration/index.html

“Joe Biden is a threat to democracy. He’s a threat,” [Trump] told supporters at a rally in Durham, New Hampshire.

[Bored Lawyer]

Going into 2024, I think both parties are going to be very focused on [the election]

TRUISM ALERT! TRUISM ALERT!

[Sarcastr0]

There are bad people, and there are bad policies.

There are sometimes good people who like bad policies.

And even every once in a while a bad person as a good policy they're pushing.

You, of course, can't understand this. Because you're a shallow shallow person. Compare comments on Blackman posts, mostly filled with mocking what he wrote in the post, with Prof Somin posts, filled not with attacks on his sometimes incorrect takes, but with personally directed vitriol.

[Bored Lawyer]

"mostly filled with mocking what he wrote in the post"

You must be reading another blog. They are filled with personal comments that lack substance. Not that I agree with much of what he writes, but the personal attacks are stupid and childish.

[Sarcastr0]

They not be at the level of depth you want (e.g. "How many of Blackman’s posts are him trying to understand why his preconceptions were not predictive?", but by and large they're engaging with what Blackman writes.

Unlike Prof. Somin, where people just yell about open borders and deport Somin and almost no one gets to the content of what he wrote.

[Michael P]

Somin only has two real essays, with optional add-ons: rational ignorance by voters/foot voting and why the US should have open borders (because countries are never really responsible for their own messes), usually with a strong NeverTrump flavor. People engage with his arguments, such as by pointing out that the “immigrants commit less crime” statistics are drawn from biased populations, but he doesn’t update his future repetitions of those arguments or counter the rebuttals anywhere else. He gets mocked because he’s s broken record.

[Sarcastr0]

No, his posts are always different - his main purposes and areas are the same, but he's quite happy to get in the weeds on this or that particular new development.

And you missed zoning/NIMBY
Also bodily autonomy/selling organs

How wrong you got this says a lot about how shallowly you engage.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment! It's brilliant to state a juvenile tautology then use that to insult someone! You sound so smart while being so stupid!

Brilliant! This is gonna go down as one of the all time great Sarcastr0-isms!

[grb]

Michael P : “Note how conservatives are responsible in political criticism…”

Oh, yes indeed! It’s so “irresponsible” to criticize someone for trying to criminally steal a presidential election he lost. That sorta thing really should be out of bounds, right? Forgotten by genteman’s agreement, eh? So unfair to even bring it up…..

Trump should have – well – “immunity” from all criticism for the criminal sleazy scheming to thwart the voters’ choice in ’20. Quick! Let’s get this before Roberts! Having sabotaged the very rule of law to protect Trump from legal liability, I’m sure he’d be willing to sabotage the First Admendment to protect him against meanie words.

[OtisAH]

An hour after the apparent assassination attempt of Convicted Felon Trump, JD Vance and a few other MAGA “notables” issued tweets blaming the incident on Biden and the democrats. I suppose that qualifies as a “responsible political criticism” since they waited an hour?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well it appears that the 11th Circuit has set a schedule for Jack Smith's appeal of Judge Cannon's ruling:
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said special counsel Jack Smith‘s opening briefs will be due by Aug. 27 and that Trump’s brief is due no more than 30 days later. Offering room for additional replies, the court’s schedule appears to show a decision could be made sometime around or after mid-October unless Smith seeks to expedite the request."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3098945/appeals-court-sets-schedule-doj-bid-revive-trump-classified-documents-case/

[not guilty]

Right. Here is the notice from the clerk of the Court of Appeals: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.12.0.pdf

A motion to expedite is not necessary. The Special Counsel can speed up the process by filing the Appellant's brief sooner than the August 27 deadline and by filing any Reply brief sooner than the allotted 21 days after the Trump brief is filed. I note that the notice of appeal was filed two days after entry of the order of dismissal even though 30 days were allowed for such filing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Well what's he waiting for? He's got an election to interfere with!

[not guilty]

Who says that he is waiting? He filed the notice of appeal very promptly.

[Bored Lawyer]

This one ought to endear Kamala Harris to the college crowd:

https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1816466441773760875?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1816466441773760875%7Ctwgr%5E4506986de1b47eeb9861b60e63799f446dce2deb%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fembed%2Fcomments%2F%3Fbase%3Ddefaultf%3Dpj-instapunditt_i%3D1-663023t_u%3Dhttps3A2F2Finstapundit.com2F6630232Ft_e%3DJAMES20PIERESON3A20Kamala20HarrisE28099s20Michael20Dukakis20moment.20She20and20her20running20mate20may20come20out20oft_d%3DInstapundit20C2BB20Blog20Archive20C2BB20JAMES20PIERESON3A20Kamala20HarrisE28099s20Michael20Dukakis20moment.20She20and20her20running20mate20may20come20out20oft_t%3DJAMES20PIERESON3A20Kamala20HarrisE28099s20Michael20Dukakis20moment.20She20and20her20running20mate20may20come20out20oft_cs_o%3Ddescversion%3De621ec0efa439e4ab046fb8b5c626aff

[Bored Lawyer]

And her voice makes my ears hurt. If she is elected, then I am putting the volume down and putting on closed captioning.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

At least she doesn’t rape couches like Vance. I’ll tell you one thing—I’m not letting him anywhere close to my love seat!!! Or my settee for that matter!!

[Bored Lawyer]

I have no idea what you are talking about and don't care. No VP is coming within 100 miles of my couch. Their ear-drumming splitting voice, OTOH, is annoying.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

JD Vance is sexually attracted to couches!! It’s sick!!

[Bored Lawyer]

Let’s cut right to the chase: J.D. Vance has not fucked a couch. Or, if he has, he did not write about it in Hillbilly Elegy. If you had not yet heard this false rumor, (1) I’m jealous, but (2) that means I can drag you down to my level by explaining what’s going on.

On July 15, Vance was announced as Donald Trump’s running mate. Shortly after, X user @rickrudescalves (whose account is now private) wrote, “can’t say for sure but he might be the first vp pick to have admitted in a ny times bestseller to fucking an inside-out latex glove shoved between two couch cushions (vance, hillbilly elegy, pp. 179-181).” It’s an indictment on Vance’s demeanor that so many people believed this without question, but it is, in fact, a lie. Sorry to Kathy Griffin and everyone else who fell for misinformation.

https://www.thecut.com/article/jd-vance-couch-sex-rumor.html

There, you made me look it up.

[M L]

"It’s an indictment on Vance’s demeanor that so many people believed this without question"

Ha ha.

That some online leftists fabricated a puerile smear and the rest of the online leftists collectively supposedly bought it without question is an indictment of . . . . the person being smeared, yes, right, of course . . . .

[Bored Lawyer]

I saw that. It's more absurdity, but I wanted to focus on the falsehood.

By that theory, Barack Obama is at fault because people believe he is gay, and Michelle Obama because people believe she is a man.

[Estragon]

“Bought it”

I think you may be overstating your case here.

To me, it just once again demonstrates the value of humor in the political arena. The memes are legion, and go hand-in-hand with the diet Dew absurdity. The utes love their memes, don’t they?

As someone much smarter than me pointed out: the funniest part is not that people believe the guy got it on with a glove wedged in some cushions (I seriously doubt many believe that— although, to be fair, he has a bit of a couchfucker kind of face), but of course now Trump campaign staff is going to have to make sure Vance isn’t photographed near— let alone seated upon— any couch, sectional, settee or loveseat until November. Which in it of itself is a kind of mental/expended energy tax they will be forced to pay.

[Estragon]

Speaking of which: does anyone have their copy of Hillbilly Elegy available? I am curious what is actually on pp. 179-181

[Dr. Ed 2]

Me too -- and surprisingly, WalMart does NOT sell the book...

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Are you looking for the Letters to Penthouse for people attracted to couches??

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I wouldn't be surprised if *any* young male did this, nor if *any* young female inserted something inside her -- I'm thinking of one particular case where it was a hot dog and a piece broke off inside her.

I spent a lot of time in higher education (and not as a janitor), I've seen a lot of young adults (of all 57 genders) do stupid things and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he fucked a couch. Hopefully he cleaned up after himself, I've had to deal with others who didn't.

The nice thing about AIDS protocol is that you can say "body fluids -- bio-hazard" and get someone ELSE to clean it up.....

[Dr. Ed 2]

I will tell this -- after a week-long building "takeover" by the Marxists, UMass had to replace all of the furniture in the building.

Seems that every piece of furniture had been "cristened" by protesters performing at least one sex act on it. Much of it was also broken because it wasn't designed to support the weight of two (or more) individuals fucking each other on it.

He fucked a couch. Golly gee, as long as he removed the glove afterwards and put it into a trash can, I wouldn't even have bothered to file an incident report -- I've seen so much worse...

[David Nieporent]

Mr. I Don't Make Things Up is now claiming that there was lots of furniture at UMass that was not designed to support the weight of two people. Apparently they buy furniture made out of paper-mâché.

[Estragon]

I mean… the cardboard beds at the Olympics are apparently a thing? Oh god…. am I defending Ed?

[OtisAH]

I love how accepting Dred is about JD Vance fucking a couch. Especially since it’s probably not true (it’s not true).

Still, why hasn’t JD Vance denied fucking a couch yet? What is he hiding? Will the NYT and WaPo run multiple articles a day on this very important subject? As I said, it’s not true… *but people are talking about it!* And under Cokie’s Law, that means it must receive wall to wall news coverage for weeks on end.

[grb]

Bored Lawyer : "And her voice makes my ears hurt"

As opposed to Trump's whiny incoherent wandering babble?

Is that what you're claiming?

[Bored Lawyer]

I am not talking about the content, I am talking about her voice. She could read the Gettysburg Address and still have an annoying voice.

[OtisAH]

Funny factoid I heard the other day:

Going back decades, sound production has apparently been hard-wired for lower voices. And this apparently results in higher voices becoming distorted, which makes them harder on the ears when broadcast. The person dropping the factoid offered that it may explain, partly, people’s reactions to Clinton’s voice as well as Harris’s.

Just this morning I heard a recording of Harris that provided one data point in support of the factoid. Her high voice definitely hit my ear wrong *and* there was literal distortion in the recording.

Of course, knowing this changes nothing. I don’t expect an industry-wide recalibration of sound systems to address the discrepancy. And I don’t mean to place all blame regarding criticism of voices in the higher range on sound systems. But (if) that’s truly a thing, we should expec complaints about Harris voice to continue.

[Bwaaah]

"sound production has apparently been hard-wired for lower voices"

That's such a broad, unqualified "factoid" as to be, for the most part, bullshit. Yes, there are some audio encoding algorithms optimized for mid-range spoken words, as in telephony, that sacrifice fidelity at the ends of the human hearing frequency spectrum. But typical encoding algorithms and technologies used widely today easily and accurately capture the audio range of high-pitched voices.

Kamala's voice can be annoying. That's not an audio reproduction problem.

[Stella Link the dog]

In the old analog days, audio information within hearing range but beyond the frequency response of the recording system was filtered out by the recording system itself and annoying audio artifacts were largely absent. Essentially, the recording system just ignored frequency content outside the range of the system. Problems appeared with digital, however. If audio is recorded with a system that accurately records very high and low frequency information and that information is then "compressed" (for example to MP3) problems can occur - very annoying problems. Not so many years ago, the best solution seemed to be to filter out the higher frequency information in the analog domain to guard against the "aliasing". I suppose that today it is likely that effective filtering can be done within the digital domain entirely.

[OtisAH]

Well, I was aiming for “broad” because I don’t know much about it. And it’s easy to see my description is inadequate for the simple reason that vocal sopranos exist and have recording careers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Funny factoid: The definition of “factoid” is,

” an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print”

Merriam Webster tracked down the origin:

“Did you know that Norman Mailer coined the word factoid?

We can thank Norman Mailer for factoid: he used the word in his 1973 book Marilyn (about Marilyn Monroe), and he is believed to be the coiner of the word. In the book, he explains that factoids are “facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority.” Mailer’s use of the -oid suffix (which traces back to the ancient Greek word eidos, meaning “appearance” or “form”) follows in the pattern of humanoid: just as a humanoid appears to be human but is not, a factoid appears to be factual but is not. The word has since evolved so that now it most often refers to things that decidedly are facts, just not ones that are significant.”

These days it’s often just used where the word “fact” is more appropriate, so props for using it correctly!

[jb]

Hopefully this "women's voices are shrill and I don't like to listen to them" catches on as the next talking point for Republicans in general. Might as well pile on the misogyny these days.

[Bored Lawyer]

Nice deflection. One woman is not "women."

[OtisAH]

Nice obtuseness. “Shrill” is also one of the regular attacks you clowns used on both Clinton and Warren and continue to use against AOC and the like.

[Kazinski]

I may have to recess her.

I don't think it will hurt her much, every 18-24 year old is saying, "yeah, you should see some of the idiots in my dorm".

[Commenter_XY]

Just remember, I said that support would erode for VPOTUS Harris the moment she opens her mouth. I was not disappointed, Bored Lawyer.

Her churlish behavior, and her risible comments Thursday after meeting PM Netanyahu were a major fail on the international stage; she is supposed to represent the country.

It is why she will lose.

The whiny, screechy voice just makes it easier.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It hasn't seemed to hurt Trump.

[Bwaaah]

Interesting. I've heard many critical characterizations of Trump. "Whiny" and "screechy" were never among them. That strikes me as a canned opportunistic retort, sort of like, "that's what SHE said!"

Looks like you were making a quick tear through the comments and this is one of the turds you left behind.

Quite seriously, it seems to me that the typically higher pitch of a female voice presents a challenge to modulate pitch and cadence so as to avoid triggering the sensation of sounding "shrill," which is a tone widely perceived negatively. I try to hear (all people) with a forgiving ear. But there's always a risk of hearing the tone, reminiscent from my childhood, of my friend's annoying, very annoying, mom. (My mother had a high-pitched voice, but thankfully, was typically pleasant in cadence.)

I think Trump has a somewhat masculine way of delivering his brand of scorned bitch. That masculinity does little to obscure the fact: a scorned bitch. Not whiny. Not screechy. But quite a scorned bitch. (Jeeze, Louise...could he not, please? Oh, no. He does. He will. He must.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You really think Trump has a "normal" male voice? Wow. I don't.

I wouldn't have used those exact words to characterize Trump's voice, but "whiny", most definitely fits. How much effort do you think I put into my comments, anyway? Certified: GOOD ENOUGH.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the "whiny" appellation, but I do appreciate the "scorned bitch" observation. Choice.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. He can be whiny. A whiny, scorned bitch.

But not screechy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

J.D. Vance figures the law should be used to make it more difficult for women to escape abusive, violent marriages.

You can take the hillbilly out of the backwater, but . . .

[Frank Drackman]

He'll still just be a convicted pediophile and mediocre Big-10(can't even count) Defensive Coach

[Ilya Snowman]

Once there's a sizable Islamic population in the United States, AIDS, what'd you reckon will happen, socio-economically, to those ladies who face Islamic divorce?

What about the crypto-additional wives per the covert polygamous marriages?

Hint: there's ROBUST, empirical evidence of what happens in other Western countries to women in both situations.

Carry on screeching about 'phobias' and 'inclusion', clinger. Your fellow Americans' tolerance for you is coming to an end, though...

[F.D. Wolf]

In a 4-3 party-line decision, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a man cannot sue a restaurant for injuries caused by a bone in item advertised as "boneless chicken wings".

https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2024/SCO/0725/230293.asp

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm torn. First, what idiot gets injured by eating a bone?
On the other hand, what part of "false advertising" doesn't apply?

[Estragon]

“I’m torn”

Natalie Imbruglia fan??

[Brett Bellmore]

I did back at the 70's. Laid my gum open on a razor sharp bone chip in a Sausage McMac. I was weeks healing from it.

[Bwaaah]

I'm trying to learn a lesson from your experience, and having trouble finding a good one.

[Frank Drackman]

Once again, Common-Law Harris's political career benefits from an Older Man pulling out

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol that's a good one

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who knows how many abortions she's had....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I now understanding why Prof. Whittington joined this blog.

[OtisAH]

Way to go, piece of shit! You’ll be on Gutfeld in no time!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Well waddya know? Someone leaked the elite’s orders to the serfs re: Kamala the Border Czar

https://twitter.com/burackbobby_/status/1816523387948400854

And to no one’s surprise, we’ve already seen this message showing up on this board by the usual bootlicking suspects…

Is there like some sort of discord channel for bootlickers and their elite braintenders? Like a Journolist, only gayer and stupider?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kagan supports enforcing the Supreme Court ethics code. As would anyone who thinks Supreme Court Justices should be bound by ethics. And, no, as impeachment is simply not viable as the only enforcement mechanism as then it will never be enforced. At least not during our lifetimes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/25/supreme-court-kagan-ethics-code-reform/

[Frank Drackman]

Kagan needs to get fucked, like Mrs. Clarence Thomas's wife does.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Every day provides fresh insight concerning Prof. Kerr's decision to publish his scholarly work at the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Ilya Snowman]

And yet you're here, day in and day out. Year after year...

[Estragon]

You mean prison barge Ginny?

[Frank Drackman]

More cushion for the pushin'

[not guilty]

In the District of Columbia prosecution of Donald Trump, proceedings in the District Court will resume upon remand, on or about August 2. Judge Chutkan likely will rule forthwith on outstanding motions that were pending at the time of the stay pending appeal. Hearings on what conduct alleged in the indictment involves the exercise of core constitutional functions to which immunity attaches, which conduct involves non-core official acts as to which the prosecution has rebutted the presumption of immunity and which conduct involves unofficial acts may take up to several weeks.

I am unsure whether the Court can compel Trump's presence at the "mini-trial." He certainly has the right to be present, but I don't know to what extent that right is waivable in this particular context.

Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(a) generally requires the accused's presence at:(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea; (2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and (3) sentencing. Rule 43(b)(3) provides that the defendant need not be present for a conference or hearing on a legal question where the proceeding involves only a question of law.

The type of "mini-trial" that the Supreme Court has ordered upon remand here does not fit neatly into either of these two categories. The hearing is likely to involve the taking of evidence on disputed facts, possibly from both sides, such that it can hardly be said to involve only a conference or hearing on a question of law. The District Court will be required to determine mixed questions of law and fact prior to commencement of trial.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, so if I am following you, Judge 'Red Diaper Baby' Chutkan now has to hold a trial to determine what is official and not official acts (among other motions). And President Trump is required to sit in the courtroom for the entire process.

Is it contempt if he just sends a letter to Judge Red Diaper Baby saying, "Yeah, I am busy taking bullets for democracy and campaigning for POTUS. Can you let my counsel determine when I ought to be present, because that is what I am doing until told otherwise. Have a nice day."?

I know it is not election interference to compel attendance of the leading political candidate for the job (if you believe polls) of POTUS in a courtroom for a legal case brought by his political opponents in the government.

[Moderation4ever]

Maybe not taking bullet, but maybe shrapnel. I don't really see why Trump need to be in court as this is technical stuff. He may want to be in court as it gives him attention and he not getting as much as he wants right now.

[not guilty]

"NG, so if I am following you, Judge ‘Red Diaper Baby’ Chutkan now has to hold a trial to determine what is official and not official acts (among other motions). And President Trump is required to sit in the courtroom for the entire process."

Judge Chutkan is required by the Supreme Court's ruling to determine upon remand: (1) what conduct alleged in the indictment involves the exercise of core constitutional functions to which immunity attaches, (2) which conduct involves non-core official acts as to which the prosecution has rebutted the presumption of immunity, and (3) which conduct involves unofficial acts. As I said, I am unclear on whether Fed.R.Crim.P. 43 requires Donald Trump's presence for hearings on this issue or whether he can waive his right to be present. If he wanted to waive, the Court could insist that he do so in person on the record in open court. The Court likely does have inherent authority to order his attendance.

"Is it contempt if he just sends a letter to Judge Red Diaper Baby saying, 'Yeah, I am busy taking bullets for democracy and campaigning for POTUS. Can you let my counsel determine when I ought to be present, because that is what I am doing until told otherwise. Have a nice day.'?"

Merely sending such a communication making that request would not be contempt. OTOH, if the Court had ordered him to be present, for Trump to actually refuse to attend would be contumacious conduct. Actual imposition of contempt sanctions would require a hearing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile, Trump is still facing a September 18 sentencing appearance before Judge Javert in NYC and is still under a gag order.

[David Nieporent]

The "gag order" that he is "still under" says only that he can't verbally attack the family members of the prosecution/judge/court staff. Why would that be a meaningful restriction to any sane person?

[Mr. Bumble]

The trial is over; why should it still be in place?

[David Nieporent]

The trial is over, which is why the restrictions relating to people involved only in the trial — jurors and witnesses — were lifted. But the case isn't over, so the restrictions relating to people still involved in the case — court staff, prosecutors, etc. — were not.

[David Nieporent]

NG, so if I am following you, Judge ‘Red Diaper Baby’ Chutkan now has to hold a trial to determine what is official and not official acts (among other motions). And President Trump is required to sit in the courtroom for the entire process.

It would be a hearing, not a trial, and she is not necessarily required to hold a hearing at all. That would depend whether there are facts to be sorted out, or whether she is deciding legal questions, in which case it could be done on the papers (or a hearing with oral argument but no testimony). If Trump wants to put on the strongest case that any particular thing was an official act, it might require testimony, though.

Is it contempt if he just sends a letter to Judge Red Diaper Baby saying,

Only lawyers, not litigants (except pro se ones) get to send letters to the judge. And it is contempt to defy a court order, yes.

[not guilty]

"It would be a hearing, not a trial, and she is not necessarily required to hold a hearing at all. That would depend whether there are facts to be sorted out, or whether she is deciding legal questions, in which case it could be done on the papers (or a hearing with oral argument but no testimony). If Trump wants to put on the strongest case that any particular thing was an official act, it might require testimony, though."

Since the case is still at the motion to dismiss stage (at least as to parts of the indictment), I suppose that Judge Chutkan could theoretically determine what alleged acts are official or unofficial by regarding all facts alleged in the indictment as true. See United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 78-79 (1962); Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952); United States v. Durenberger, 48 F.3d 1239, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 1995). I think the better reading of Chief Justice Roberts's July 1 opinion, however, is that it contemplates both parties having the opportunity after remand to offer evidence relevant to the official/unofficial acts determination and subject to cross-examination.

Donald Trump bears the burden of establishing after remand that he is entitled to official-act immunity. As a general matter, "[t]he burden of justifying absolute immunity rests on the official asserting the claim." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 (1982); Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2023). From a legal perspective it would behoove Team Trump to offer evidence on the question. The downside for Trump is political -- a full blow evidentiary hearing would expose the extent of Trump's criminal conduct before the general election, with the whole world watching.

[Commenter_XY]

So NG, how long does that hearing take, to go through all the acts under question, and then the motions? What would you guess?

I agree about huge potential downside. Totally. I see that coming next.

[not guilty]

I expect that Judge Chutkan will rule quite promptly on motions that were pending when proceedings were stayed. Donald Trump will likely move to dismiss the indictment based on an invalid appointment of the Special Counsel, as he did in Florida. Controlling D.C. Circuit precedent, In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2019), should make for short work of such a motion.

If the parties present witness testimony on the official/unofficial acts distinction, I would anticipate that that would take a matter of weeks.

[OtisAH]

Problem for Convicted Felon Trump in that testimony scenario is he couldn’t begin to make a coherent argument about “official acts” one way or the other. No matter how many times his attorneys try to prep him. He’d recede right back into pouting and grievance.

[not guilty]

Cross-examining a buffoon like Donald Trump is as much fun as a lawyer can have with clothes on.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Shocker: Antisocial, disingenuous, selfish, vainglorious, autistic, bigoted right-wing jerk Elon Musk is a lousy parent.

Not much of a husband, either.

But the "family values" dumbasses love him, just like they adore Donald Trump.

#Hypocrites
#Clingers
#Misfits

[Corve5]

I don't like Musk, because he has kids out of wedlock. I do appreciate white South Africans though, as they courageously subjugated the black population, knowing that it was the only way for peace and economic success.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Comments like this explain Prof. Adler's continued contributions to this white, male, conservative blog.

But not his conspicuous silence concerning this blog's everyday bigotry.

[Ilya Snowman]

Where did you establish that that racist’s comments were false?

Your value judgment, alone, is not a sufficient answer. Choose reason, choose science. Where is your real evidence that falsifies that racist’s claim?

(Not that you care to know about what is actually happening in SA. You wouldn’t want pesky things like facts and statistical data to get in the way of your ideology, right?)

[hobie]

So you need to be married to have sin-free procreation? Was it Buddha that said that? Because, let's be real, he said a lot of goofy shit

[Corve5]

Illegitimate births are one of the biggest cancers society has. Note that the black population is 75% bastard.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just to mention, I know a couple of expatriate South Africans, and they'd probably punch out this guy if they met him.

[Corve5]

A lot of them are liberals, but many of the older ones realize they made a mistake in eliminating apartheid.

[Corve5]

Arthur Engoron is a piece of bottom feeding pond scum.

[Estragon]

Surely something we can all agree on?

Justice Kagan calls for an enforceable ethics code:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/25/supreme-court-kagan-ethics-code-reform/

[Michael P]

She should learn that there is an enforcement mechanism in the Constitution already. Sad that a Supreme Court justice knows so little!

It takes all of about a third of a second to realize that whomever is in charge of enforcing an ethics code would essentially be the boss of the Supreme Court.

[OtisAH]

I’d say “at least you have your looks” but that’s probably not true either.

[Sarcastr0]

Other federal courts have ethics codes. Do they have bosses other than the Supreme Court?

[OtisAH]

On June 2, 2024 FOX News’ Rachel Campos-Duffy interviewed Convicted Felon Donald Trump and asked if he’d release the Epstein files. They aired an abridged version of his response then released the full answer afterwards. His response?

“I guess I would. I think that less so because, you don’t know, you don’t want to affect people’s lives if it’s phony stuff in there, because it’s a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. But I think I would.”

Let’s speculate about the “phony stuff” from the Epstein files Convicted Felon Trump wishes to keep quiet.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's pretty obvious that, if you were in Epstein's position, you'd invite a fair number of important people over for good, clean fun, and then record them in your private logs as getting it on with a 13 year old. That's just basic self defense, isn't it? Maximize the number of people who don't dare let you get in trouble. Just sticking to incriminating guilty people probably wouldn't cut it.

He was giving a lot of famous people rides and parties, too many to reasonably assume they were ALL pedophiles.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's speculation usually finds constant liberal secret plots, but he can also turn no evidence and speculate his way into conservative innocence!

[OtisAH]

I’ll remember you said that, Brett. Because you certainly won’t.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The MAGA party struggles visibly while it tries to figure out how to attack a younger target than they expected to assail. If that struggle continues—as looks likely—at what point should the MAGA party consider taking a leaf from the opponents' playbook?

Why not recognize the advantage to dump their age-addled, criminally convicted, multi-indicted, lying disaster of a bigoted vote-repelling candidate, and wipe the slate clean like the Ds did? The window to do that remains open now, but the opportunity will not last indefinitely.

The Ds currently enjoy a flood of goodwill, earned simply by bypassing a nagging political anxiety. Trump's candidacy is a far greater and more threatening anxiety. Get rid of him, and the Rs will likely ride their own towering wave of goodwill to an easy victory.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Because it's the MAGARINO party now. There's nobody "there" to take such a step.

[OtisAH]

Convicted Felon Coward Trump has officially run away from debating Kamala Harris on ABC. The famously yellow-bellied Convicted Felon Trump was already expected to flee what was certain to be a humiliating experience for him. It’s now likely we will only see a debate if it’s aired by Newsmax from the dining room of Mal da Lardo. Here’s a link on the story from Wonkette because they’re awesome and will likely cause the functionally literate folks here to reach for smelling salts and resoil their already soiled underwears:

https://www.wonkette.com/p/trump-officially-pulls-out-of-deba

[Mr. Bumble]

Get back to us when Harris is officially nominated and the debates are hosted by Fox.

[not guilty]

I can easily see how Donald Trump, a career perpetrator, would want to avoid debating a career prosecutor.

[Mr. Bumble]

You guys keep confusing prosecutor with prostitute.

[David Nieporent]

Successful women are all whores! Another bit of the wit and wisdom of MAGA!

[Mr. Bumble]

You made it plural and also assume Kameltoe is successful.
Her "suckcess" is the ultimate example of the Peter Principle; literally.

[OtisAH]

You wouldn’t recognize “success” if it was laughing at you six inches in front of your face. Which it always has been and you’ve never recognized it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Convicted Felon Coward Trump has officially run away from debating Kamala Harris on ABC. ”

Huh? It was Biden that ran away from the second debate, not Trump. Trump never agreed to debate Harris.

And after what happened at the first debate, why should he debate anybody before they’re the official candidate?

If he wins, they’ll just switch candidates again.

[David Nieporent]

Huh? It was Biden that ran away from the second debate, not Trump. Trump never agreed to debate Harris.

I think when Trump is called a coward for backing out, he ought to go with this excuse. I think it will play very well.

And after what happened at the first debate, why should he debate anybody before they’re the official candidate?

If he wins, they’ll just switch candidates again.

1) The second debate is scheduled after the nomination, so no, they can't/won't.
2) Trump's team's position wasn't "We'll wait and see if she's nominated before we commit to debating her."
3) Why would that matter anyway? Why would Trump's participating in a debate be contingent on who the nominee is? Why wouldn't a presidential candidate say, "I'll debate whoever the other party's nominee is"?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Because it will make a big difference?

And it's so unfair!

[JasonT20]

Ran away from what? He never agreed to debate Harris.

Depends on what people mean by "ran away." The facts: Trump had committed to a debate against Biden on Sept. 10. Now that Biden dropped out and Harris is the presumptive nominee, he is no longer committing to any debate.

And after what happened at the first debate, why should he debate anybody before they’re the official candidate?

Biden wasn’t the “official” candidate during the last debate, so you’re basically saying what you do in the last sentence.

If he wins, they’ll just switch candidates again.

In September? There would be steep legal obstacles to doing so that close to the election. While even Republican state legislatures would be under a fair amount of pressure to accept a new nominee that late under truly extraordinary circumstances (like a candidate actually dying or being so ill as to make it impossible to continue). Biden’s cognitive state (whatever it really is, under medical analysis) didn’t rise to those kinds of circumstances, in my opinion, but it also was before the Democratic Party convention, so there shouldn’t be any issue switching.

Thinking that a bad debate performance from Harris in Sept. would make the Democrats actually try to switch is implausible on its face. Trump waffling on committing to a debate under the previously agreed terms is showing weakness. It makes it look like he thinks he could win easily against an obviously too old Biden, but has substantial doubts that he can beat Harris.

Trump learned from his father and Roy Cohn to never show weakness, but the problem is that Trump doesn’t understand what real strength is. So he ends up showing his weaknesses all the time to people that aren’t in his cult.

[David Nieporent]

Trump learned from his father and Roy Cohn to never show weakness, but the problem is that Trump doesn’t understand what real strength is. So he ends up showing his weaknesses all the time to people that aren’t in his cult.

He appears to believe that refusing to apologize is a sign of strength.

[OtisAH]

I especially like how Convicted Felon Donald Chickenshit’s cowardice is reflected back at him by his cult members. Sad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. Your guy ran right out of the campaign after debating him.

Why shouldn't he hold off on debates until Kamala can no longer pull the same thing?

[OtisAH]

You just keep making excuses for why Convicted Felon Dullard Trump is too scared of Harris to debate her.

“I know Donald Trump’s type.”

- Vice President Kamala Harris, after referencing her prosecutions of sex offenders, frauds, and cheats.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why shouldn't he hold off "wiping the floor with her"?

Yes, that does show confidence--in her.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Convicted Felon Coward Trump has officially run away from debating Kamala Harris on ABC. "

Ran away from what? He never agreed to debate Harris.

And after what happened at the first debate, why should he debate anybody before they're the official candidate?

If he wins, they'll just switch candidates again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Missed the edit window on my move.

[JasonT20]

delete

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're doing a lot of work trying to justify cowardice.

Really the only takeaway from your comment is that you are not a principled person, which aligns perfectly with being a Trump supporter in the first place.

[JasonT20]

moving post

[Magister]

You found a post moving? Which post was it? You can't just endorse the touching emotional content of a post without a little more detail. Come on, don't make me read the entire thread.

[JasonT20]

Ha, no. I had tried replying to someone, but it started it as a new comment. (Seems to happen sometimes). I was going to move it to where it should have gone, but then I was getting a “you have already posted that” error message. Now it worked.

[edit: except that I still didn't get it in the right place, as I ended up replying to TwelveInchPianist's comment about how he had done the same thing, basically.]

[Magister]

Well, thanks. So now I'm glad I didn't read the whole thread.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well now, that was some ringing endorsement from Obama and Michelle. What great good luck that Harris had a camera at the ready and was miked up.

[David Nieporent]

The thing about MAGA is how dumb all of their arguments are. They look really stupid because they pretended there was some doubt about Harris, even after the party immediately consolidated behind her. Then they seized on the last possible argument to that effect: Obama hadn't endorsed her, which must mean that they're still trying to replace her before the convention. So he immediately does endorse her, and the best they can come up with is, "It looks like the Democrats were prepared for this and made it a photo op!" I mean, like, no shit? Of course they did. Why wouldn't they be prepared for it, and why wouldn't they make it a photo op?

Of course, professional campaign flunkies for Trump have no choice but to make bad arguments when they don't have good ones; it's their job. But people like Mr. Bumble have so little sense of dignity that they repeat these things as if they were good.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get back to me when Obama starts campaigning with and for Harris.

[Sarcastr0]

Get back to me when that matters to anyone. Even you.

Obama isn't Trump. People don't need to kiss his ring to be electable.

[Sarcastr0]

Palace politics doesn't play well in America.

Looks more like sour grapes.

The attempt to delegitimize the change of candidates has more or less already failed. Bumble's just a bit slow on the uptake.

I'm sure but Monday he'll be onto something about how she's goin to turn America into Jamaica or some such rot.

[Mr. Bumble]

Has Beyonce changed the title of the song to Fweedom yet?