Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

Left-leaning media have over-noted Trump’s appearance of apathy following Biden’s replacement by Harris. An alternative explanation is that Trump has already committed fully to contesting the election in Congress, not at the polls.

Imagine hypothetically that prior to Election Day Trump supporters throughout the nation gain control—or at least practical disruptive influence—over vote counting at hundreds or thousands of locales, with an eye to delay reports of vote totals past deadlines. Legal experts have appeared on television to opine that would be illegal, and hence can be prevented by lawsuits, court orders, etc.

That strikes me as an unwise response, insufficient to address the potential crisis. Does the Constitution says anything specifically on point about preventing that kind of election disruption? I don’t think so.

Even If tactics of that sort break state laws, so what? How would that have any bearing on federal statutory and Constitutional requirements for what Congress will do if a timely certified count remains unavailable.

Wouldn’t Trump advocates demand the election be thrown into Congress for want of a clear majority? And wouldn’t Trump’s corrupt Supreme Court rule that to resolve even illegally-created election confusions was exactly the Constitutionally-intended purpose of allowing the House to decide?

In the event of an apparently decisive Harris victory, followed by a House decision to hand Trump the election based on a pre-planned nationwide program of state-based voting obstructions—abetted by subsequent Supreme Court complicity—what, if any, actions would be available to the Biden administration afterward? Are there any actions the Biden administration ought to be taking now to prevent such a Constitutional catastrophe from happening in the first place?

Success for any such scheme, followed by a Supreme Court endorsement, could bring a permanent end to nationwide voter control of election results. It would substitute per-state state control instead. That would be a result to guarantee right-wing control of national politics for the foreseeable future, regardless of what a national majority of voters might prefer. If any more-threatening constitutional crisis is possible, it is hard to imagine what it would be.

[Kazinski]

Election fantasies by Lathrop.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It's a hypothetical. What do you find implausible about it?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That Trumps lack of emotional response to Biden dropping out can be explained by his secret decision to contest the election no matter what.

Most likely it's because he isn't an emotional toddler like most Democrats these days.

[Armchair]

It's pretty implausible. But let's take it at face value. Let's use this framing.

1. "In the event of an apparently decisive Harris victory,"
-We will interpret this to mean apparent victory via the popular vote, not the electoral college vote...ie the actual electors in the EC.

2. "a House decision to hand Trump the election"
This would require a deadlock in the aformentioned electoral college. No clear EC winner.

3. "What, if any, actions would be available to the Biden administration afterward?"

Legally, the Biden administration would transfer power to the Trump administration under your hypothetical situation. The Constitution has been followed. The Electoral College vote was a deadlock, throwing the presidential vote to the House. Who voted Trump in via Constitutional means.

If the Biden administration took other measures. For example saying "No, we won the election. We don't CARE what the Constitution says or how the House voted or what the SCOTUS says. We're staying in power"...This would be a gross abuse of power and basically a dictator trying to stay in charge because they say they "apparently" won the election

[shawn_dude]

This appears non-responsive to Stephen's hypothetical.

The EC deadlock, in this case, would be caused by pro-Trump agitators preventing key states from submitting their votes. The votes, as tallied, would provide Harris the EC votes for that state required to win but the state officials refuse to certify if the result doesn't favor Trump. And thus, despite the state election results in favor of Harris, the GOP-controlled state opts to withhold all votes and punt to the House which is also GOP-controlled.

Since this is being discussed on multiple news channels by Democrats, GOP Never Trumpers, and journalists, as something the MAGA movement has been pushing for since Trump lost in 2020, I'm not sure how you came to your framing where you posit a legitimate EC win by Trump (like 2016) where the Democrat concedes (like 2016) rather than the GOP attempting a coup (like 2020.)

[Armchair]

It's responsive.

The simple fact is this. It doesn't matter why the EC deadlocks. It doesn't matter why a state Harris wins doesn't get its electors in place. If it happens, if the EC deadlocks, it goes to the House.

Get court orders, get lawsuits, do everything you can to get your electors in place. But once that vote goes off, if it deadlocks, it goes to the House. No take backs, no "but I won!"

And once the House decides who will be president...then that's it. There's no "But I really won the electoral college and would have just if they'd certified the votes, so I'm President." The Constitution is clear. The House decides. If it happens like that, and the House picks Trump...then Harris got screwed. Wouldn't be the first time it happened. Check the election of 1824 and how Jackson got screwed. He had the plurality in the popular vote. Plurality in the EC. And still didn't get the Presidency.

If Harris persists in "being President" after losing the House vote...then that is unlawful seizure of the executive power, and should be considered treason.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The comment above by Armchair examples the nature of the potential crisis. All he misses is forthright acknowledgement that if it happens once, meaningful voting via the electoral college will be a dead letter thereafter. Every election would devolve instead into a contest to seize control of vote counting processes, state-by-state. The Constitution lacks any guidance for—and does not contemplate—any such process. (That, by the way, is why the present case is unlike the Jackson election example, which did not turn on citizen vote counters.)

Pretense must be dismissed if any fore-ordained House process would hand the election to the vote-obstructing conspirators. That would make the conspirators effectively the electors.

But isn’t it the rule that it would be the new, post-election House which would decide? And without an accepted ballot count from all the precincts, how could anyone claim constitutionally legitimate knowledge of what the state-by-state composition of the new House would be?

So if the mess Armchair insists upon is indeed called Constitutional—for instance by the Supreme Court—what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong is any premise that politically activist citizens who inveigle themselves into vote counting responsibilities get to determine the outcome of an election.

Counting votes must always be about ascertaining the outcome of an election; it must never be about causing the outcome of an election. If the latter is what actually happens, then a President sworn to uphold the Constitution is obliged by his oath to take forceful action to prevent it.

Arrest of conspirators for election fraud, or even as insurrectionists, could be an appropriate legal response. Lawyers might have other suggestions. Of course, whatever a President chose to do, under recent precedent action pursuant to his/her oath would be cloaked in immunity.

But even arrests of election conspirators might not resolve uncertainty about the correct count. And survival of the nation might depend on public confidence that a correct count had been ascertained. If uncertainty continued, the nation would indeed be in a pickle.

One could hope the Supreme Court could be counted upon to step in, and order a nationwide recount under politically neutral controls the Court would specify, to be completed prior to Inauguration Day—or perhaps even later if necessary. That would strike the nation as more legitimate than the alternative—arrest of Justices as conspirators, and a recount conducted under martial law. I wonder if this Court could see that it would be better—or even entertain any inkling of the risks it would subject the nation to—if it tried to call constitutional a fraudulent or conspiratorially-stolen election.

And of course I doubt President Biden has the backbone to invoke his oath, and take action to thwart that kind of conspiratorial election stealing before it gets to the post-election stage of constitutional crisis. If Biden does nothing visible to suggest he will take action against a MAGA election conspiracy, that can only embolden would-be conspirators.

Thanks to Armchair for illustrating the chaos a MAGA election conspiracy threatens to unleash.

[Armchair]

But what Lathrop here is missing, is that the proposed scenario is extremely implausible.

Let’s start with the US Constitution. Technically speaking, by federal law, a vote IS NOT REQUIRED for the electors to be chosen. The States can simply appoint electors on their own. In such a situation where it’s “clear” that Harris has won an election, but the vote isn’t counted, the state legislature can simply say. “Harris won, we’re putting electors for Harris in place”. (Legal restrictions in the various states are a different matter).

So, the vote can be interfered with, and under the Constitution, it may not matter, so long as the legislatures put the electors in pace.

Again, technically speaking, under Constitution, you DO NOT NEED A POPULAR ELECTION for the President.

What you would actually need is some broad conspiracy among the state legislatures and the executives and the judges and everything else, for such a scheme to work. Which is just implausible.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Again, technically speaking, under Constitution, you DO NOT NEED A POPULAR ELECTION for the President.

Armchair — It's hard to take that comment seriously. No state in notably more than a century has practiced any such bar to a popular vote. No one alive remembers any such thing. I do not think an incumbent politician in any state would have the nerve to propose doing it—except in service of an attempt to justify after the fact a fraudulent attempt to steal an election. A MAGA politican might do that.

[Riva]

There’s your insane TDS deranged hypothetical and then we have reality in which Democrat activists tried to keep President Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment and now we Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin admitting the Democrat plan to invoke the “Insurrection Clause” to disqualify President Trump from office if he should win reelection. The reality is that Democrats are actively planning to undermine the democratic process, not President Trump. Not surprising since they did the same thing in the coup installing Kamala.

[Malika]

Uh, Trump has already famously, and in unprecedented fashion, resisted the results of the EC.

[Riva]

Nope, he pursued all available legal remedies to address election fraud. And when they were exhausted, left office. But that's past, and if election challenges bother you so much, why are you not condemning Democrats for their plans to undermine the election results, not for fraud, but simply because they don't like the result?

[hobie]

"Nope, he pursued all available legal remedies to address election fraud. And when they were exhausted, left office."

Yep. That's all that happened. Do you ignorami actually believe that or is it all just a cynical ploy to save face...when, and let's be honest, you have no face to save here

[Riva]

That President Trump left office is pretty much indisputable given that the country has lived under the nightmarish hell of the Biden/Harris administration. Was even Carter worse? But like I noted above, the issue now is the democrat plans to undermine the democrat process, which I guess you applaud.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

You can never satisfy the zealot. For them, that Trump left office peacefully is only further evidence of his plot to become dictator for life by lulling the populace into a sense of false security.

I refer to what Lathrop wrote as "Trumptator fan fiction".

[shawn_dude]

In bizzaro world where January 6th was "peaceful."

[Malika]

"Nope, he pursued all laughable legal remedies to address election fraud."

[Moderation4ever]

Is it any more of a fantasy than that of election fraud in 2020?

[hobie]

Fantasies indeed. Lathrop, do you honestly believe that an American presidential candidate would try to illegally overthrow a national election? And, even further, do you actually believe members of his own party in congress would participate and vote to nullify the faithfully cast votes of millions of American citizens?

[NvEric]

Elections never get disrupted by regular people, so there's validity to your first hypo.

A Harris decisive victory ? Does not seem possible without another fraud filled election like stopping counting so that new ballots can be manufactured.

If there is an election this year, any disruption of it, by any means, contrary to a reasonable outcome, will be unfortunate. Disruptions are from only certain types of people steeped in those ways.

[santamonica811]

Depends on what you mean by "decisive."
If you mean Harris wins by 10 points nationwide? Nope, that's not gonna happen. But if you're talking about a decisive win in the electoral collage, then I think it's not only possible, but it's likely. I don't think anyone would be shocked if the winner of Penn also wins Mich. (And maybe even Wisc, although I could see that state going for Harris even if Penn and Mich go Trump.). Or that the winner of Georgia also wins Nev and Arizona.

The last two elections were "decisive" in terms of the electoral college--even in 2016, when Trump badly lost the popular vote.

[darkknight9]

"Depends on what you mean by “decisive.”"

For myself personally, its an incredibly high bar that I don't think will ever be topped. '84 Presidential election. That's decisive. 🙂

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't there supposed to be per-state control of elections?

[darkknight9]

"Imagine hypothetically..."

Never discuss hypotheticals with people who don't already have a firm grip on reality.

[gVOR08]

10 hypothetical upvotes.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Left-leaning media have over-noted"

Translation: "Left leaning media agreed on a narrative, and then leaned into it so much that even Lathrop thought they were over-doing it, and was moved to suggest an alternative narrative."

Look, narcissism is, along with psychopathy, the key mental trait of high level politicians; Who would think they were the best guy in the country to be President who wasn't narcissistic? Who would have a chance against the other psychopaths if they had to work within normal moral boundaries?

Trump isn't planning for what to do if he loses, because he doesn't actually believe he CAN lose. That's why he was convinced that 2020 was stolen: There's no way that doddering fool could have beaten him in an honest election, right?

He might be planning on how to respond to the inevitable attempt to steal the election again. He won't be planning on stealing it himself because he's Trump, and he doesn't need to steal elections, he's that good.

If you're getting from this that I don't really like the fact that the GOP nominated Trump, (A opposed to understanding on the level of psychology why it happened.) you're getting what I'm laying down. In a sane world neither major party would be running the candidates they're running.

Barring some accident to him or me, I'll likely be voting for Trump t his fall. But it won't be a happy vote.

[Martinned2]

Translation: “Left leaning media agreed on a narrative

Do you think they all got together in a room? And, more to the point, do you think left leaning media conspiracy meetings allow cigar smoking?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, they're well known hypocrites so it's possible but more likely Salems, Newports and weed.

[darkknight9]

And clove cigs.

[Kazinski]

Oh you poor naive waif.

Look up Journalist listserve, although the scraped that on there are several listserves where journalists get their message together online before they serve it to the public.

[Martinned2]

Oh, I can imagine lots of things. But I was curious what Brett was imagining.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I pretty much figure there's a Journolist type organization in the background. Maybe several. Or at this point maybe it's all coordinated by their getting marching orders from the DNC.

I used to poo-poo that sort of thing, I thought they all settled on the same line to push through some sort of flocking behavior. Then Journolist broke, and I found out I was wrong: They actually WERE coordinating narratives behind the scenes.

Then more recently we find out that the Biden administration was literally handing out scripts for press conferences. And the media were taking them, and following them!

That's the sort of thing you don't unlearn. No matter how much people demand you unlearn it.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I pretty much figure there’s a Journolist type organization in the background. Maybe several.

How can you type this and now know how it sounds?

[ThePublius]

What's wrong with that statement?

[Kazinski]

Sounds legit to me.

Lots of Journalism Apostates like Bari Weiss formerly of NYTimes, Taibibi formerly Rolling Stone, Glenn Greenwald founder of the Intercept have acknowledged it.

You don't really think the Russiagate sytampede, and The Hunter Laptop reverse stampede happened by accident do you?

[Sarcastr0]

‘I pretty much figure, with no evidence, that there are multiple overlapping conspiracies in the background.’

You should have *evidence* for your stories. Some journalists going post-left isn't evidence of much beyond there's an audience for that.

The paranoid style of conservative politics indeed.

[Kazinski]

Since its already been documented multiple times, your hand waving isn't going to move the needle.

Do you really think this happened by accident (from Gallup last October):

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The 32% of Americans who say they trust the mass media “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to report the news in a full, fair and accurate way ties Gallup’s lowest historical reading, previously recorded in 2016. Although trust in media currently matches the historical low, it was statistically similar in 2021 (36%) and 2022 (34%).

Another 29% of U.S. adults have “not very much” trust, while a record-high 39% register “none at all.” This nearly four in 10 Americans who completely lack confidence in the media is the highest on record by one percentage point. It is 12 points higher than the 2016 reading, which came amid sharp criticism of the media from then-presidential candidate Donald Trump -- making the current assessment of the media the grimmest in Gallup’s history. In 2016, U.S. adults were most likely to say they had “not very much” trust (41%)."

They did it to themselves, and most of them are going broke because of it.

[Riva]

Yeah weird how there was a reaction to a journalistic establishment that rewrote the rules and abandoned all objectivity in its crusade to "get" Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

There is a thing called willful blindness.

[Sarcastr0]

People don't trust the media so unsupported media conspiracies are probably real?
Wow, what an ad popularum fallacy.

[Malika]

Kaz cites a poll result. GOPers have for years whined about media bias, and lots of people now dislike the media, so CHECKMATE LIBS, proves the media is bad!

Wow.

[Sarcastr0]

Says a lot that for some, 'don't trust the media' is the same as 'believe conspiracy theories about the media.'

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — You need to unpack those polling results. All they do is reiterate what everyone already knows—that if polled MAGAs will deny that they trust mainstream media.

To show anything new, interesting, or meaningful, you would have to show that lots of MAGAs do trust media, but a previously-unnoticed large fraction of others have joined on the side of distrust.

I do not think even you suppose that has happened.

[Swede425]

Who are you going to believe?
Gaslighto or your lying eyes?

[hobie]

I heard Mother Jones' international desk is besties with the Washington Post's advice column corps. So Brett ain't entirely wrong

[David Nieporent]

Of course, Journolist wasn’t anything like what you describe; it was not in fact "coordinating narratives behind the scenes."

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you think they all got together in a room? "

They don't have to. They share the same social and educational backgrounds and the same political views. So, they are already predisposed to react the same way to events.

They also follow the spin put on things by industry opinion leaders. NYT for starters.

[hobie]

Took the same English Lit course at Vanderbilt = professional collusion. Got it.

[Martinned2]

Wait, you think that the New York Times is influential among liberals? The newspaper that has a "[good news], here's why that's trouble for Harris" headline at least every other day?

[Bob from Ohio]

There are no liberals left here, just leftists.

Its not conservatives reading it. Though I seriously doubt the accuracy of your headline discussion.

[Martinned2]

Oh, no, lots of liberals read it. They just don't take their agenda from it.

[Aoidized]

I agree with this.

The problem is that many if not most Americans don't care about policies, but whether the candidate is a "nice person" or "exciting."

A lot of people acknowledge that Biden/Harris' policies have been a disaster for everyone but the rich, but they don't seem to care when it comes to voting. It's very weird.

[Bwaaah]

I wouldn't underestimate how many voters become driven by a single emotionally significant issue, such as abortion, and a very simple understanding of it [for example, to them] being a broad indicator of respect or disrespect for women. They call them "wedge" issues, and they get that label because so many people don't just connect emotionally with them, but their voting choices are mainly driven by those issues.

Similarly, DJT is by himself seen by many as being not unlike the Spawn of Satan, and for many voters, that feeling alone renders all other political/policy concerns as secondary.

[Aoidized]

Anyone who votes purely on abortion should not be voting at all.

[jb]

LOL, up until Dobbs there were tons of single-issue abortion voters on the right.

[Brophy]

Yes, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote in an ideal world. Ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to vote for President, he should be elected by the House of Representatives.

[Martinned2]

Agreed. In an ideal world the US would be a parliamentary democracy.

[Krayt]

Not without a similar constitution that grants powers to government, rather than the dictatorial parliamentary assumption of vos populi vox dei.

[hobie]

Candidates that talk about pointless, venal things and not policy issues are bad. Got it

[shawn_dude]

Which former president raised taxes on the middle class to fund a massive tax-cut for the rich?

Was it:
a) Obama
b) Trump
c) Biden

[Riva]

One of the candidates competed and won in the primary process, that you apparently don’t like, and the other was installed in a pseudo party coup, which you also seem not to like. There’s no pleasing some horses.

[hobie]

Candidates that did not participate in the primary vetting process such as debates...bad. Got it

[Riva]

A debate is not a primary or a caucus. If the voter objects to the absence of a candidate from a debate, they can vote against the candidate. Quite a different thing never to have never won a primary or a caucus and be installed by the party. “hobie” won as many primaries as Kamala. Got it now?

[hobie]

Candidate that did not participate in vetting process now is good. Got it

[Riva]

Actually no, you don't "got it." Likely also true for most things in your life. Probably unemployed too, unless the Harris campaign is paying you to embarrass yourself here.

[David Nieporent]

Trump isn’t planning for what to do if he loses, because he doesn’t actually believe he CAN lose.

Trump isn't planning for what to do if he loses because Trump simply isn't a planner. But his inner circle people are.

[ThePublius]

"...Trump’s corrupt Supreme Court...."

You are unhinged.

[Sarcastr0]

I wouldn't call them corrupt, but they bent over backwards to legalize *ahem* 'tips.' And they gave Trump a level of immunity that would have let Nixon off the hook.

They kinda suck.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 14 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"And they gave Trump a level of immunity that would have let Nixon off the hook.

They kinda suck."

Still havent read the opinion have you

[Sarcastr0]

Don't know which opinion you're referring to. I've read some, skimmed others.

I like to read functionally, for comprehension, not performatively so I can claim I did.

I don't tend to read opinions uncut much these days.

One thing I would recommend is secondary sources. Will Baude has podcasts on both cases in the recent weeks.
Though you get a lot more out of them if you at least skim the opinions.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 23 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Don’t know which opinion you’re referring to. I’ve read some, skimmed others."

Do you Really not know what opinion you referred to ?
Its the opinion you falsely clamed gave Trump immunity that would have gotten nixon off.

Your comment shows that you either did not read it or that you didnt understand it.

[Sarcastr0]

I mentioned 2 cases. Not sure how you missed that in my very short comment.

Forgive me if I don't trust your expertise in understanding....well, anything.

[Joe_dallas]

forgive me when I point out you frequent errors and your lack of understanding of basic concepts and commonly known facts

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"commonly known facts" = Joe_dallas bullshit that he won't cite because it would expose that he's a fucking liar who just makes shit up.

Carry on, sock-puppet brigade! Fucking coward won't even admit it.

[Joe_dallas]

Jason Cavanaugh 45 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
“commonly known facts” = Joe_dallas bullshit that he won’t cite because it would expose that he’s a fucking liar who just makes shit up.

JC - do you really need citations for information most people learn in high school? Or are simply embarrassed by the level of ignorance most woke leftists display.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Keep pretending like your cover story still holds up, Joe!

You have sock-puppet accounts because you aren't an honest individual. You don't cite your sources for the same reason.

You're a coward who's full of shit and lies through his teeth, and everyone here knows it.

(Even Sonja_T, the account you won't acknowledge as being one of your sock puppets, because you're a fucking coward as previously mentioned, lol.)

[David Nieporent]

Still havent read the opinion have you

Yes, of course, and Sarcastr0 has characterized it accurately, as any lawyer could tell you. Of course, as a climatologist/virologist/microbiologist/physicist, you might not have understood it very well.

[not guilty]

Last month’s SCOTUS decision indeed would have conferred immunity on Richard Nixon after leaving office:

We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312 (2024).

Nixon’s most culpable conduct involved his abuses of official power. The House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 approved three articles of impeachment: https://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment/

Perhaps some of Nixon’s misconduct involved unofficial acts, but that was so inextricably intertwined with abusive, official acts that the instant SCOTUS opinion would pose significant evidentiary obstacles to presentation of even the unofficial acts to a jury.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — You have not quite said it, but your commentary raises in my mind a question whether the Trump immunity decision has amended the Impeachment Clause. If a president is impeached and removed from office, is the new standard that if tried afterward for his crimes he enjoys criminal immunity for official conduct? Where is there constitutional authority for any such presumption?

[hobie]

Unhinged indeed. Now then, if a justice were to have accepted over $4M in grease then, yeah, we could talk corruption

[Moderation4ever]

As a poll worker I noted something different during training for the last election. We, the poll workers, are now being briefed on handling violet altercation at the polls. How to handle disruptive people and when to call 911. This is not good. People that work the polls are your neighbors and we are not going to let people disrupt our elections. We care about democracy and will stand up for the people's right to vote for their leaders.

[Aoidized]

Democrats don't really care about democracy. If they did, they wouldn't intentionally replace Americans with third world immigrants solely for votes.

[Malika]

That's not happening, Bircher.

[Aoidized]

It absolutely is. Why do you think the Biden administration is rushing through naturalization in the past few months?

If you naturalize 10 low quality third worlders, 9 will vote Democrat.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/12/us/immigration-us-citizenship-rates.html

Look at the pics. Nearly all of them are black, Asian, or Hispanic. None from the former Soviet bloc or anywhere else in Europe. Why?

[Malika]

"If you naturalize 10 worthless low income third worlders, 9 will vote Democrat."

It's like a deconstructionist's dream sentence!

[Aoidized]

Do you think America is served well by importing people with no skills or education?

Do we need more gang bangers or house cleaners?

[Sarcastr0]

1. I'd slow down your volume of replies for this guy given his empty shitposting frequency. I have him muted because his deal is pretty repetitive, by YMMV.

2. If you haven't been to a naturalization ceremony, you should try to. It's humbling how much those folks love their new country.

[Aoidized]

No, they love the free shit they're about to get.

[Malika]

Are the people with low skills and education the ones getting naturalized? I mean, I doubt you'd pass the naturalization test. Or the Chuckee-Cheese kid's menu seek and find, for that matter.

[Aoidized]

It's not hard to memorize. There are tons of American citizens who can barely speak English.

[Malika]

Let's not talk about you.

[shawn_dude]

How to say the GOP is inherently racist without saying the GOP is inherently racist.

[Aoidized]

There's nothing wrong with prioritizing your own race. Everyone else does it. To say that it's only immoral if whites do it is bullshit.

[Bwaaah]

Moderation4ever: "People that work the polls are your neighbors and we are not going to let people disrupt our elections. We care about democracy and will stand up for the people’s right to vote for their leaders."

It's hard to grasp how truly local has been voting administration, and how deeply true is your point. I would add that mail-in voting tends to move administration/counting from local precincts and poll workers to more centralized state-level workers. It's still a big, quite transparent, people-driven job with surprisingly good checks and controls that could only be subverted through the type of grand conspiracy that is highly impractical and practically impossible to hide from the light of day.

Our neighbors do our elections, and overwhelmingly, they do so with a non-partisan intent to let voters make their choices. Our state-level election workers tend to be very similarly minded.

[Moderation4ever]

I cannot speak for places other than my own city, Madison, WI, but mail in ballots and early vote ballots are all counted at the polling sites by the same workers taking care of in person voters. Ballots are collected at the clerk's office and then shipped to the voter's polling place where they are processed and counted. It does not matter if I vote in person, mail in my vote, or vote early at my library my vote is counted at my assigned polling place on election day.

[Bwaaah]

That's very interesting, and reassuring to me. I've only examined a couple of states in detail, and that wasn't how it worked for mail-ins. In either case, I maintain strong confidence in these state-run systems.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

In North Carolina, mail-ins are counted by the County Boards of Election. Also, as someone who has been a pollworker and election judge for 30 years in three different states, I strongly concur with everything you wrote here.

[DaveM]

I am a veteran poll worker in Virginia. We are getting similar training, but the fears of violent altercations are completely without merit, in my experience. People who show up to vote in person are very civic-minded. They are neighborly. They invariably want to wear an "I Voted" stickers. They bring their kids to watch.

I have experienced some altercations at the polls, but only once in 20+ years something that was instigated by a voter -- a guy got a little upset that he had to vote provisionally, didn't understand why, etc. All the other events involved candidate staff or volunteers. And in those cases, it was really just a matter of reminding them that -- as you say -- "we don't allow that here", please go outside the 40ft. marker at the door and continue your conversation there.

[Riva]

I think another more likely hypothetical would be that multiple swing states mysteriously stop counting (at the same time of course), remove poll watchers and end up with totals of unverified harvested ballots to Kamala. With some “unexplained” computer/printer failures in majority republican districts too. Maybe also water leak or two, some pizza boxes to cover windows and some delivery of ballots with no verifiable chain of custody.

[Aoidized]

It worked the first time, and the media participated by harping on the "no evidence." I agree there was no evidence, but that was because the Democrats destroyed whatever evidence there could have been.

[ReaderY]

But of course, you don’t have any evidence of that!

You just believe it because Trump told you to believe it. And of course you simply don’t believe the great deal of contrary evidence that various Republican-appointed judges cited in their many decisions tossing out Trump’s claims. Doubtless you believe that federal judges appointed by RINOs like Reagan and Bush are all just crooks who shill and cover for Democrats.

[Aoidized]

No. I believe that when you intentionally make it look like you're cheating, Occam's razor applies.

[Malika]

Everything looks like cheating to you cult followers. It's a joke, baby sore losers.

[Aoidized]

Covering the windows and trucks full of ballots in middle of night sure looks like cheating.

[David Nieporent]

There were no trucks full of ballots in the middle of the night, and covering windows does not actually prevent people who are in a room from seeing what's happening inside that room.

[Aoidized]

Then why cover the windows? Why hide anything?

[David Nieporent]

Because people outside the room were being disruptive.

[jb]

LOL, and why did Republican election administrators in places like Arizona and Georgia go along with this nefarious plots? And why didn't a single judge who looked at these situations decide that something looked fishy?

At least people like Brett avoid looking like lunatics by saying the problems were rule changes, not massive fraud in the election-counting process (that for some reason they only figured out how to do for the Presidential race).

[Aoidized]

Because the judges knew they couldn't rule with no evidence, even if the reason for the no evidence were Democrat Party shenanigans.

[jb]

That's a remarkably effective conspiracy, to not leave a single shred of evidence behind!

Even if the Democrats are so good, it still doesn't explain Georgia and Arizona.

[Malika]

Lol, why not throw in the Michigan stripper poll worker, ftw!

[Riva]

Everything I noted actually happened in 2020. And 2022 gave us mysterious computer/printer failures in Arizona. Now DHS and the FBI are warning of possible problems in 2024. But strange you think this is somehow funny. They don’t think it’s too funny in Venezuela.

[Malika]

Your Orange Cult Leader claimed the stripper thing happened too.

[Riva]

I have no idea WTF you're talking about, but, as noted above, we saw in 2020, multiple swing states mysteriously stop counting (at the same time), the removal of poll watchers, extended counting of harvested ballots, a relaxation of verification standards, the last minute delivery of mail-in ballots, and even pizza boxes used to hide any observers (that would be in Detroit). Arizonans trying to vote in 2022 were greeted with some “unexplained” computer/printer failures. And government warnings actually were given in 2024. But I guess none of that happened because "stripper"?

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea WTF you’re talking about,

Bot finally says something correct. Which is why the rest of its comment is just outputting the same fake pre-programmed stuff it already said.

[Riva]

Nieoporon, you really must try to control your unhealthily obsession with me. And bots. The bot fixation is really most troubling. To borrow the democrats new favorite word, it’s just weird.

[ReaderY]

As Stalin, one of Trump’s heroic Great Leader role models, put it, “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”

One thinks of Napoleon in Orwell’s Animal Farm remaining silent as Squealer waxed oratorical about the wonders of the new mill. Napoleon knew that speeches just don’t matter.

[Frank Drackman]

I like JS’s “Fuck the Pope” Quote

[Darth Buckeye]

Lathrop is guilty of projection. There is plenty of evidence that it is the DEMOCRATS who have obtained control over much of the vote counting process in major cities throughout the country.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Do you have evidence Democratic vote counters have abused that control for partisan purposes? If so, you ought to cite it. If you have nothing to cite, you ought not be making up stuff like that.

[Josh R]

The simpler version of this is states are unable to certify their results in time because Trump-enabled county canvassing boards will refuse to certify their results. Thise states will not be included in the vote count on Jan 6, thus depriving anyone of 270 EC votes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

But what would Putin do?

He'd probably do just that, and then dare anyone to challenge him for doing it (knowing which side has most of the guns).

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

Did you wake up early from this nightmarish fever dream and type it out while it was still fresh so that you could be the first to copy/paste your insanity to the Thursday Open Thread?

Seek professional help, SL.

[Brophy]

It doesn't matter who wins the election since both sides produce the same policies: hot wars in Gaza and Ukraine, a cold war against China, and wildly excessive wasteful spending, deficits, money printing, and inflation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even to the (limited!) extent that's true, there are a lot of side issues where the two parties are quite different. You might not care about them, but other people do.

[David Nieporent]

Left-leaning media have over-noted Trump’s appearance of apathy following Biden’s replacement by Harris.

Surely you mean lethargy, not apathy. He's been whining like a little bitch about Harris replacing Biden.

[Bored Lawyer]

Odd, since what did he think the result of debating in June would be? If he wanted Biden, he could easily have refused and said he would debate in September or October. At that point, replacing Biden would have been a lot harder.

[Josh R]

I'm guessing his campaign didn't think it through, resulting in what may go down as the worst mistake (debating in June) any presidential campaign has ever made.

[David Nieporent]

It seems pretty likely that Trump just could not imagine that anyone would voluntarily step aside. Trump would rather burn down the GOP than let it shove him off his perch; he therefore assumed that Biden would never give up control, no matter how bad of a shape Biden's candidacy was in.

[Drewski]

Two words: Monkey Business.

[Bored Lawyer]

Here's another hypothetical. At the debate between Trump and Harris, he announces that Harris is really a lizard alien from outer space. He then rushes over to her, rips her mask off, and we see a lizard person, complete with green scales and yellow eyes.

Everyone gasps, but then the legacy media assures us that, yes, we always knew Kamala Harris was a lizard person from outer space, and she always presented herself as such. And that's why Biden picked her. (Mutterings of DEI are quickly squelched as Speciesist.) And, in fact, lizards are far better than humans at running a country.

Then some legal scholars file a suit, claiming that being born on another planets means one is not a native-born American, so Harris is disqualified. Which a court dismisses for lack of standing.

So Harris cruises to victory on a Lizards Rock theme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQespETRVa4

Sound plausible?

[David Nieporent]

Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.

[DaveM]

Projecting pretty hard on this one, I think.

[Don Nico]

Lathrop,
You've joined the worst of the conspiracy theorist. You are spinning all-too-common Dem-fear-mongering

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — We've got Trump on television, praising by name 3 Georgia election-denier/election-officials for their upcoming contributions to his, "victory," in November. We've got verifiable evidence of widespread MAGA harassment of poll workers. We've got long lists of names of election-deniers who have been appointed to election-related jobs in other states, after erstwhile election workers quit.

I have no idea why you routinely counsel complacency, no matter what the evidence. I do understand why doing that is a widespread practice. To assume bad stuff which might not happen cannot happen is a way to avoid uncomfortable consideration of what to do to prevent bad stuff from happening. A lot of that discomfort comes from fear of other folks' feedback and opinions. Overton windows—just not talking about uncomfortable stuff always makes some folks feel protected by the frame.

[not guilty]

Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), was decided, six states have held statewide referenda on abortion rights. Voters in each state have decided in favor of abortion rights, including in red states such as Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio.

In November up to eleven states will have abortion rights referenda on the ballot, The vast majority of these referenda have been citizen initiated. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/dashboard/ballot-tracker-status-of-abortion-related-state-constitutional-amendment-measures/ That will likely boost voter turnout in each of these states. When the right to choose abortion was constitutionally protected, voters for whom that was a priority were free to focus on other issues. Now the issue has become much more salient in determining whom to vote for. The blastocystophiles are accordingly hoist with their own petard. (W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, act 3, scene 4.)

FWIW, Donald Trump has not yet disclosed how he plans to vote in the abortion rights referendum in Florida. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/14/florida-referendum-trump-abortion-00173957

[Mr. Bumble]

You have a problem with Federalism?

[Krayt]

We love democracy!

Until we don't.

Until we do again!

[Bwaaah]

Some of us waiver very little on that point, favoring democracy not because it delivers what we want, but because the alternative can be reliably expected to deliver less.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Federalism" is meaningless without explaining the proper division of state and federal power.

It is not "federalism!" if a state tries to ban the buying of protected books. There is no local option for religious establishments.

[Mr. Bumble]

It is Federalism to leave to the states those thing not enumerated among the powers of the federal government.

…and just what is a “protected book”?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is Federalism to leave to the states those things not enumerated among the powers of the federal government.

There are things that both the federal and states do not have the power to do. The 10A references the principle.

Anyway, that is a vague principle that only is clarified with specifics. So, rightly applied the right to choose whether or not to use abortion or to have an abortion should be a constitutional right.

Do you want a technical analysis of what types of books are protected? I’ll let others handle it.

[Mr. Bumble]

"So, rightly applied the right to choose whether or not to use abortion or to have an abortion should be a constitutional right."
Your opinion is duly noted but that's not what the SC ruled.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To circle back, to determine what "federalism" means in practice, we have to determine the proper division of state and federal power as well as what powers are denied to both.

Someone doesn't have a "problem" with federalism if they argue the states do not have power over a specific thing. We can debate if they are right about the specifics.

The opinions of everyone here can be "duly" noted, including when they disagree with what the Supreme Court has decided.

Disagreement at some point repeatedly leads to actions that address the situation, including new judges who change the law [as was done in Dobbs] and other things.

[Nelson]

"It is Federalism to leave to the states those thing not enumerated among the powers of the federal government."

So all rights are provided by government? Is that really what you believe? Because that's what you're saying, since it wasn't a federal power under Roe, it was an individual right.

It isn't federal vs. state, it's citizen vs. government. And there's no justification for the government making that decision.

[Joe_dallas]

no state has tried to ban the buying of books. The closest that has materialized was McCain Feingold. Fortunately, the SC overruled the law in CU which the decision was widely denounced by the left.

[Malika]

If a state or city enacted a prohibition of carrying firearms on certain public property is it not a ban on the carrying there because people are free to buy and carry elsewhere?

[Joe_dallas]

Malika
His comment was in regard to books, not firearms.

[Magister]

Joe_dallas, ask your sock puppet how analogies work.

[Joe_dallas]

Ask yourself how analogies are supposed to work.

[Malika]

We should probably ask the person who doesn't seem to get them. Y'know, you!

[Joe_dallas]

Let me explain to the person who doesnt under analogies

Bronx made the claim that "if a state tries to ban the buying of protected books"

I stated that no state ban books, then mentioned the federal statute that did ban books, which was overturned by the SC in the CU decision. A decision widely denounced by leftists.

Milka's attempt at an analogy was widely off the mark.

[Malika]

Lol, joe dallas, amateur expert climatologist, epidemiologist, etc.. really doesn't understand how analogies work.

He said guns, but we were talking about books!!! Lol.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika - Quit being stupid - this is the post I responded to

JoeFromtheBronx 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
“Federalism” is meaningless without explaining the proper division of state and federal power.

It is not “federalism!” if a state tries to ban the buying of protected books. There is no local option for religious establishments."

Bronx was discussing Books

[JoeFromtheBronx]

States have banned the sale of books in the past, including prize winning ones. Quite a few court cases determined the proper guidelines, resulting a high bar. “Federalism” now does not include the power of a state to ban God’s Little Acre or Peyton Place.

This was done relatively recently. The 1A was ratified in 1791. The 14A in 1868. It took until the 1960s to settle the basic principles.

States still in a limit sense ban the buying of some books. Obscenity laws, some of which apply to books, have not all been repealed. Laws also limit sale to minors in various ways.

A person might also wrongly sell books in violation of copyright or in some other illegitimate sense.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

My "claim" btw was fairly standard. I took an obvious case. The fact states generally don't ban books is sorta the point.

[ReaderY]

I think this was decided by the 13th Amendment. As pro-choice folk argued back then, and just as loudly and with just as much merit as you here, the basic abolitionist argument was fundamentally religious in character: abolitionists argued that obviously objectively scientifically inferior and developmentally lower beings shouldn’t be enslaved merely because they supposedly had “souls.” There was even one of these religious fundamentalists on the Supreme Court. As the religious fanatic McClean put it in his Dred Scott dissent, “A slave is not a mere chattel. He is amenable to the laws of God and Man, and is destined for an endless existence.” Surely you would object to such unabashedly religious language as reasoning behind a Supreme Court opinion. Indeed, greater violation of the Establishment Clause would be hard to imagine.

And yet this gross violation of religious neutrality, this expllicitly and objectively religiously fundamentalist doctrine whose proponents didn’t even try to pretend wasn’t religiously motivated, was written into our constitution, as the 13th Amendment.

It seems to me that its ratification basically modified the Establishment Clause in this regard, putting an end to claims that the idea that particular classes of human beings should be protected merely because they are human and for no other reason violates the Establishment Clause because it is merely a religious idea. After the 13th Amendment, which put this “merely religious” idea into the constitution itself, such claims are simply no longer viable.

After the 13th Amendment, the idea that protections should be extended to previously unprotected classes because “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…” became a permissable basis for legislation, the Establishment Clause notwithstanding. If the framers of the Declaration of Independence had wanted to say “born” rather than “created,” they knew how to say so. And if they had not wanted to refer to a “Creator” and “created,” they could have done so as well.

[Malika]

"And yet this gross violation of religious neutrality, this expllicitly and objectively religiously fundamentalist doctrine whose proponents didn’t even try to pretend wasn’t religiously motivated, was written into our constitution, as the 13th Amendment."

Where in the 13th text is this religiously fundamentalist doctrine to be found?

[shawn_dude]

If you wear the special 3-D constitutional glasses, "a well-regulated militia" disappears in #2 and "because God said so" appears in #13.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

You don't need "A well regulated militia," to disappear to properly interpret that it does not change the plain meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You could, if you were not trying obfuscate the truth, reference similar documents in existence at the time from which the framers directly drew, such as the Constitution of the State of New York that assign all people a role in the militia.

ARTICLE XII
DEFENSE
[Defense; militia]
Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.

What an asshole.

[Bored Lawyer]

What a dumb comment. You can have religious motivation for a neutral legal provision. The 13th Amendment banned slavery. The justification for that was largely religious and moral. Why that should be so hard for you to understand, I can't fathom.

[ReaderY]

In exactly the same place it is to be found in simple prohibitions of abortion.

[Ed Grinberg]

from Wikipedia:

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion.

Which means that if the citizens of any state wish to ban abortion, they may (constitutionally) do so. Federalism in action.
Hope this clears it up for you, JoeFromtheBronx.

[Josh R]

Congress may also enact nationwide abortion policy. Either way, not guilty's point is people deciding this at the polls might help Harris turnout.

[Bored Lawyer]

Really, under what power? (Yeah, I know, the Commerce Clause, which means Congress Can Do Anything Clause.)

I have always thought that laws against abortion are homicide laws. In fact, New York used to codify its abortion law along with other homicide offenses.

Homicide is generally a state-law issue, except for certain federal locations or the high seas.

[not guilty]

The federal statute prohibiting so-called partial birth abortions, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, requires as an essential element of the offense that the performance of the abortion be in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. That is not a high hurdle to surmount. For example, if any of the surgical instruments were moved across state lines, that element would be met.

[Nelson]

"I have always thought that laws against abortion are homicide laws."

That's because you erroneously believe a fertilized egg is a person. Until your side actually proves that to be true, it is hyperbole and emotionalism, not factual.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think Dobbs was wrongly decided. There is a constitutional right to choose an abortion. A wrongminded Supreme Court case does not settle the case for all time as Lincoln pointed out after Dred Scott was decided. Federalism correctly applied protects abortion rights.

[Sarcastr0]

not guilty's point seems more that throwing abortion in to the federalist system is not doing great for pro-lifers, or Republicans.

So the better question is how are you feeling about federalism? And women voting?

[Aoidized]

Women should never have been allowed to vote, but abortion is not the reason. It's just a symptom.

[Malika]

Here it comes, these are your people Speaker Mike!

[Aoidized]

If you limited voting to white Protestant men, you'd have the most conservative government known to man.

Non-whites and women voting leads to leftism. It's not really up for debate.

[Malika]

"If you limited voting to white Protestant men, you’d have the most conservative government known to man."

Not arguing there! Interestingly, neither are any of our self-proclaimed conservatives...Hmmm.

[Aoidized]

If a group of people can only get elected when low-IQ and emotional whiny people participate in the democratic process, doesn't that say something about that group?

[David Nieporent]

I wouldn't say that you're low-IQ and emotional[ly] whiny; I'd say you're a troll.

Okay, you're a troll who's also low-IQ. Okay, you're a troll who's low-IQ and also emotionally whiny.

[Nelson]

"If a group of people can only get elected when low-IQ and emotional whiny people participate in the democratic process"

True, but we have to let culturally conservative people vote. You can't justify eliminating 25 percent of the electorate from voting just because they can't accept that the country rejects their indefensible cultural conservatism.

[Riva]

And it doesn’t hurt that voters are mislead regarding the scope of the pro-abortion measures and kept ignorant of the real sponsors. But if the citizens of any individual state have so little integrity and respect for life, that’s their choice. It is not a major issue on the federal level notwithstanding shameless and insulting democrat attempts to exploit the matter. But exploit they will, just like they’ll play the race card, and cheat like hell. They have nothing else.

[Aoidized]

It all comes down to the media being evil and corrupt.

[Sarcastr0]

GOP isn't pushing unpopular policies, it's the Dems forcing people to believe the GOP policies are unpopular!

You are a treasure!

[Aoidized]

You're a lying idiot. The GOP is pushing unpopular policies, but the policies would not be nearly as unpopular if the media wasn't lying about what those policies were

[Malika]

This guy is priceless! Sure, the GOP is pushing unpopular policies, but the mean media is making them more unpopular!

[Riva]

Looking at the republican platform, the “unpopular” polices aren’t jumping out at me. What I don’t see is abortion. But apparently republican polices are so unpopular that Kamala is stealing some, like no tax on tips although in her administration they engaged in a redoubled effort, wait for it, to tax tips. I’m sure the two faced communist can be trusted. Maybe she could find the courage to actually answer some questions in the near future?

[Malika]

Who's talking abortion, not us?

Except when I am!

"But if the citizens of any individual state have so little integrity and respect for life, that’s their choice."

Stupid Riva-bot, lol.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump throwing out random stuff based on the last person he talked to isn't a policy platform.

The GOP platform, as you well embody, is anti-liberal at the moment. Their 'policy positions' are wedge issues and thinly veiled attacks.

You don't even know what communism is, so the no policy party is well pitched to you!

[Riva]

Uh huh. So unpopular and incoherent that the duplicitous communist Kamala is stealing the policies, although her administration explored new and clever efforts to tax the shit out of tips. But that was before she was losing in Nevada. I guess she could explain to the public, as soon as the little communist finds the courage to face the press.

[David Nieporent]

although her administration explored new and clever efforts to tax the shit out of tips.

Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are different people.

This talking point is just (wait for it)… weird. I mean, Rivabot is programmed to lie; that's a given. But usually one can figure out what it's based on — it's typically distorting something specific. But here? It's just completely made up out of whole cloth.

[Riva]

It's the Biden/Harris administration Nieoporon you abysmal idiot. She owns the failures too. As for your weird obsession with me and bots, I don't know what to say. I'm not a licensed mental health professional.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody in history has ever called a presidential administration the "president/vice president administration." That's something just made up.

Kind of like the claim about tips.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Uh….

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey Nos; don't hold your breath waiting for an acknowledgement that he was wrong.
Being Notimportant means never having to say you're sorry.

[David Nieporent]

Uh….

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

I stand corrected. Mea culpa. I have never seen or heard a person describe a presidential administration that way.

[Riva]

Didn’t make up the Biden/Harris administration Nieoporon, I wish I had and this was just a nightmare. No, the little communist whole heartedly supported the Big Guy, praised him and his policies, even vouched for his competency, before the party coup of course. And voting in tie breaks for bills the administration supported. And then there’s the border Czar thing. And I would have thought a communist would have been good at securing a border? Live and learn I guess. You are particularly dim for the average Nieoporon, I must say though.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh jeez, who turned off the AC in Rivabot’s server room?

[Bwaaah]

David Neiporent acts as if the expression "Nobody in history has ever" is reasonably interchangeable with "I have never." (Note his explanation in his apology.) He acts as if that's an obvious error resulting merely from ambiguity. It is not.

Such definitive remarks are almost always unprovable, and therefore typically imply factual overreach.

David does those "[blah blah] never" remarks quite regularly. People call him on them. And he doesn't learn. His apology was merely a response to the accusation that he doesn't apologize. Nobody can [correctly] say David Nieporent never apologizes.

[Riva]

It is interesting, although predictable, that when Sarcastr0 lacks any defense of the cringy little communist and her record, he always resorts to the infantile little insults. Now, I don't mind a clever insult but this is not that thing. And sooner or later, Kamala is going to have to put on her big girl red scarf and defend her background. Don’t think anything is going to suffice as a response to that coming catastrophe.

[Sarcastr0]

Original Policy Do Not Steal.

You're really in your prime today.

[Riva]

So she isn't copying President Trump's policies? Actually, she probably isn't but only because she's lying to the voters. If given power, she'll revert back to taxing the shit out of tips as evidenced by her administration's past actions.

[Sarcastr0]

If they are good policies you shouldn’t care.

Shades of the GOP raging at Clinton for triangulating and stealing all their ideas.

Really shows how little you care about good policies happening, and how much you just wanna win and own the libs.

[Riva]

At least now you’re acknowledging that President Trump announced a good policy. But I doubt Kamala will keep any campaign promises. Her administration pursued the opposite policy in going after tips. She might be able to explain as soon as she stops hiding and finds the backbone to have a press conference.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, I don’t think it’s good. I do think Harris seems to have stolen it.

But I doubt Kamala will keep any campaign promises
What a wanky new goalpost.

Just broken hammer level of failed tool utility.

[Riva]

I don't think it's a new goal post. Her administration's obvious and original goal, based on their actions, was to tax the living shit out of tips. When the little communists finds the courage to take a question or two, maybe she can explain.

[Sarcastr0]

Are...you unfamiliar with the concept of goalposts in an argument?

I think you are!

Amazing!!

[Riva]

Sorry punky but you are apparently unfamiliar with rhetoric and the concept of not allowing your opponent to define the issue. Especially true for Marxist gaslighting clowns (I know you hate being called a communist so I'm being nice)

[Sarcastr0]

Haha, yeah you didn’t fail to understand the very basic flaw I pointed out in your post, you’re just refusing to let me define the issue!

You're not shitting your pants, you're refusing to let your anus define it's terms!

The bot is really humming today!

[Riva]

There's really some quality educational background shining through that comment punky.

[ReaderY]

Frankly, most of these measures are pretty clear about what they intend to accomplish. The idea that voters are somehow being mislead has never struck me as having much merit.

Dobbs returned the matter to the political process. The political process has not been rigged here; it just turns out that more voters disagree with you than you had hoped.

Just because the political process doesn’t come out your way doesn’t permit you to claim it was rigged or voters were duped. Proponents of legal abortion have been very clear about what they want. Nobody is being misled about it. You simply have to try to persuade voters to change their minds.

I have consistently supported the idea that Roe was wrongly decided and the arguments against abortion are legitimate. But given the decision to commit the matter to the political process, the political process has to be run fairly, whether that leads to the “right” outcome or not.

[not guilty]

Dobbs is an execrable decision. But I am pleased to see that it is biting its supporters in the backside when abortion rights are on the ballot. There is a proverb about being careful what one asks for.

[Nelson]

"You have a problem with Federalism?"

Not at all. But taking a decision away from an individual and giving it to the government isn't federalism. It's authoritarianism.

The government has no legitimate interest in whether or not a woman has an abortion. A fetus isn't a person. If you want to prove otherwise, then you have a valid position. Until then, you're just using government force to coerce a citizen, which is wrong.

[Kazinski]

Nothing to post on the Smith-Chutkan prosecution of Trump this week?

Oh that's right, Jack Smith has asked for a three week delay so he can further analyze the Supreme Court immunity ruling.

"U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has signed off on a three-week delay in Donald Trump’s federal election case at the request of special counsel Jack Smith.

It’s the first time Smith has ever sought a slowdown in the case, in which the former president is charged with conspiring to steal the 2020 election and disenfranchise millions of voters. For more than a year, amid numerous efforts by Trump to delay, the special counsel argued that the gravity of the historic case required urgency and should be brought before a jury expeditiously. But Smith’s request to postpone a filing deadline this week is an acknowledgment that any chance of bringing the case to trial in the near future has all but disappeared."
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/09/trump-election-case-special-counsel-delay-00173469

[Mr. Bumble]

Aw geez Kaz, did you have to poke the sleeping dog?

[Bob from Ohio]

"did you have to poke the sleeping dog?"

Speaking of dogs, nige and Kirkland have not posted for a while.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I feel like Nige's contract must have run out. Artie does tend to take a breather every now and then, and he's only been away a week. Probably just need to say his name one more time....

[Michael Ejercito]

Interesting that they describe the charger as "trying to steal the 2020 election".

[John F. Carr]

It has been argued that initiative petitions allow lawmakers to ignore public will. You don't have to throw the bastards out to get your way. In red states voters can reelect anti-abortion lawmakers while creating or preserving a right to abortion. In California voters can reelect lawmakers who like racial discrimination while overruling them with an initiative petition on that one issue.

I think you are right about turnout, and that will help Democrats this time. As long as they are showing up to vote for abortion they might as well tick off the other (D) boxes.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I don't think the votes are a problem, ultimately. What is happening is exactly what Justice Alito wrote in his Dobbs opinion would happen. The People (not unelected Justices) are deciding the issue for themselves, via the ballot box, and the world did not end. And it is completely unremarkable.

For the majority, nothing changed at all. Example: People's Republic of NJ changed nothing.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, yes, yes.

Roe, through federal edict from the bench, stalled the political process vis-a-vis abortion. Dobbs put the process back in gear, and did indeed return decision-making to the states, and now, the people. As the wheels turn, we see that regard for the will of carrying mothers is a widely held sentiment, in Red states like Blue, that is not so easily offset by regard for the State’s power to intercede on behalf of the fetuses they carry.

[Nelson]

"Roe, through federal edict from the bench, stalled the political process vis-a-vis abortion."

That's because the rights that abortion bans infringe on aren't subject to the political process. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. If you don't like other people getting abortions, go fuck yourself.

Or try to prove that a fetus is a person with rights. But you cowards will never do that because you know you will lose. You're rather use the government to force your beliefs on innocent people and complain when they force you to stop.

[Bwaaah]

"That’s because the rights that abortion bans infringe on aren’t subject to the political process."

They weren't (much) for decades. But they are now.

The rest of that stuff you wrote is a reaction to other people's statements/beliefs, not mine.

FYI, I favor a state-granted right to have an abortion. I'd prefer that right be granted by state governments, not the federal government. But if it is granted at a federal level, it will at least have to pass through a legislative process subject to political contention and requiring a strong enough political consensus. I can tolerate differing moral perspectives between states, and their sovereignty, pretty much like I tolerate them between countries and cultures.

[Nelson]

See, I don't think it is a function of government at all. There is no justification for any government (federal, state, county, city, whatever) to infringe on fundamental rights.

Anti-abortionists use the false claim of federalism to shield themselves from having to admit they are unconstitutionally restricting fundamental rights like bodily autonomy.

[David Nieporent]

See, I don’t think it is a function of government at all. There is no justification for any government (federal, state, county, city, whatever) to infringe on fundamental rights.

I think a screenshot of this paragraph is in the dictionary next to "begging the question."

[Bwaaah]

I leave it there as such.

[Nelson]

How so? Whether through a natural law, common law, or precedent argument, both bodily autonomy and medical decision-making have been established as fundamental rights.

I start from that premise, which leads to the conclusion that it isn't a justifiable exercise of governmental power, absent a compelling argument of a conflict of rights.

The largest problem (of many) in the anti-abprtion argument is that those fundamental, established rights can't (or shouldn't) just be brushed aside because some random third party thinks it's wrong.

It would be a different discussion if anti-abortionists attempted to establish a legal status for a fetus. But they don't, because that would involve many other issues including, but not limited to, IVF.

Instead, they just handwoven about it being "murder" (which it isn't), "evil" (which it isn't) and some jibberish about a Moloch death cult (which is just weird) and expect that to be sufficient to justify government intrusion into established rights.

So how is that "begging the question"?

[David Nieporent]

How so? Whether through a natural law, common law, or precedent argument, both bodily autonomy and medical decision-making have been established as fundamental rights.

Nice use of the passive voice. Who do you contend did this establishing? At that level of abstraction, neither of those things are established in the U.S. You've got Glucksberg; you've got Abigail Alliance, you have, of course, Dobbs itself. The entire war on drugs represents a rejection of that notion. Obviously there are also countervailing cases, like Lawrence v. Texas.

But your argument is circular: abortion is a fundamental right, so therefore it violates people's rights to impinge on it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"For the majority, nothing changed at all."

Considering how you are neither a woman, nor someone who actually respects any woman on the planet, I don't think your statement of how they were or were not impacted should be taken as anything other than utter horseshit from a rank misogynist.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, 35/50 states were unaffected, and changed nothing in their laws, post Dobbs.

[Nelson]

So only 15 states are authoritarians who hate individuals having the right to make moral decisions for themselves? And are hostile to individual rights? And in your world, that's perfectly fine?

[Bwaaah]

And you, Jason, not being a fetus, can't possibly understand the predicament we're talking about.

You, evidently, are a call-them-some-name-acist.

[Sarcastr0]

....how many commenters here do you think ARE a fetus, not including yourself?

[Jmaie]

Is Bwaah a man? Who can say...

But anyways, I get the claim that men should have no say whether a woman should get an abortion, and am largely sympathetic to it (excepting when espoused loudly and obnoxiously, then my annoyance kicks in). But that fact that 35/50 states (and what, 90% of the population?) still have the same access is not really in dispute. What does a persons sex have to do with statistical facts?

[David Nieporent]

FWIW, Donald Trump has not yet disclosed how he plans to vote in the abortion rights referendum in Florida

Not a strong enough description. He has refused to say how he plans to vote on that referendum. He has said that he's going to say at some point, but much like releasing his tax returns — which he was very eager to do — he will likely keep finding reasons not to.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Assuming convicted felons are legally allowed to vote in the abortion rights referendum in Florida...

[David Nieporent]

The irony is not lost on me, but in fact he would be allowed to; for an out of state conviction, Florida applies the law of the state of conviction. New York allows people who aren't serving custodial sentences to vote. There's virtually no chance Trump will be serving such a sentence on election day.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I commented when Dobbs was handed down that it would prove one of the most politically costly court victories in history. I continue to hope I was correct.

[santamonica811]

The barking dog who was always chasing the car. But when he finally caught it . . . .

[Brett Bellmore]

There was political calculation behind the GOP establishment's longstanding policy of always promising to overturn Roe v Wade, but never, ever delivering. It wasn't a brilliant calculation, because they never figured in their own base noticing that they were running a bait and switch, but it wasn't entirely stupid, either.

Dobbs put abortion back to where it always belonged as a constitutional matter: A normal policy decision belonging at the state level, to be resolved by state level politics.

Now, because for many decades state level politics were forbidden to decide abortion policy, the pro-life movement could adopt, and GOP politicians run with, more extreme positions than the political equilibrium would support. Yank away Roe, and suddenly a lot of things past that equilibrium went into effect, and aided by the media being decidedly more pro-'choice' than the general population, there's a bit of a backlash.

But at the same time the pro-'choice' movement has its own unpopular excesses, which that media bias can't entirely hide, and fury over Dobbs has led them to over-reach, too. They're going to face their own backlash in time, because their preferred policies are also far from the political equilibrium.

There's going to be a lot of political sloshing going on for the next decade or so, but in the end Dobbs will restore what Roe destroyed: Local policy aligned with local opinion, and abortion ceasing to be a national issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, to be clear: That's a win for the pro-life movement relative to having the courts enforcing nationally a near maximal pro-'choice' position. Whether it's a win for the GOP I don't know.

[Sarcastr0]

'Full on chaaarge' will tend to not get you the best political outcomes.

But between the pie in the sky ideologues, and the 'never compromise' haters that's basically where the GOP is.

There will be some victories, but net net y'all been shooting yourself in the foot since Obama's Admin.

I'd be glad to see it, except shooting the moon to overturn elections and do purges of 'communists' is still pretty bad.

[Aoidized]

Sounds like the Democrats when going after gun rights or supporting gay sex/marriage.

[jb]

Dude, the gay marriage thing is long over. Public opinion has entirely shifted to supporting it. Even in a hyperpolarized political environment, the Respect for Marriage Act passed with significant support from Republicans in both the House and the Senate.

[Aoidized]

Well said. In the end, most people support abortion up until 15 weeks. The Republican controlled states, by setting the limits at 0-6 weeks, set them way before most people will support. That is hurting them.

On the flip side, the media is helping by lying, and many doctors are violating their oaths by participating. For example, there are doctors who have refused to carry out medically necessary abortions that they know are allowed by the new laws, so that they can claim "My hands were tied by the law!" They're doing this, with the help of the media covering these rare cases, to engender support against the laws.

[Malika]

Republicans in those states have put doctors in a terrible bind. You want them to just trust that vindictive pro-life fanatic prosecutors won't charge them and make their lives hell for a few months even if they do get lucky and an elected judge or a local jury decides they were right about their medical judgement.

[Aoidized]

Has there been a single instance of that happening, anywhere? Contrast that to Democrat Party prosecutors going after gun owners.

[Malika]

A two year suit by Indiana AG against the doctor that broke the 10 year old needing an abortion story but having to go to another state to get one just ended.

Think about this. Pro-life conservatives are such fanatics that not only were they not shamed a bit about passing a law to have the government force a 10 year old girl to carry her rapists' baby to term, they were so vile that they launched a legal vendetta against the person who brought it to light.

Remember, all they had to do was put in an exception for minors or rape victims. Yet. They. Wouldn't. They really, really value forcing 10 year olds to carry their rapists' babies to term.

[Aoidized]

No, the Indiana AG went after the doctor for violating medical privacy laws.

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol. You asked for an example. You got it. You pretend the motivation is other than what it obviously was. You can tell the purported reason (violation of privacy laws) was a pretext as the AG dropped the suit two years later achieving nothing but harassment.

[Aoidized]

No, I asked for an example of a doctor being prosecuted. At most this was a civil suit, and the the doctor was fined. Any evidence it was pretext?

[NOVA Lawyer]

The Indiana AG first falsely accused the doctor of failing to properly report the abortion. When that was stymied by facts, he filed a complaint with the Indiana Medical Licensing Board. The Board rejected all the claims except one were rejected. The one claim received a majority vote of the Board and the fine was $3,000.

So, yeah, first false accusations, then threw a bunch of mud at the wall with only one charge getting a majority of the state licensing board (i.e., it was not unanimous) on a claim she violated privacy laws. However, the Indiana University Health System reviewed the case and said she didn't. So, yeah, the AG was on a political crusade and grasped at straws to make her pay somehow, though he had a very thin basis to do so and it's doubtful the state AG usually files these sorts of complaints about when doctors talk to the media about publicly significant cases without naming names or providing PHI.

But, of course, physician's are risk averse when it comes to losing their licenses or going to jail, so they tend not to do things that have even a small chance of landing them in jail. Therefore, examples of actual prosecutions are going to be rare. (Examples of physicians not providing medically advisable treatment, or achieving the same result via procedures that won't be labeled as abortions do exist.) The chilling effect is intended and real:

The Texas AG has threatened to prosecute any doctor who provides an emergency abortion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's what he actually said.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Here’s what he actually said."

Which is a very obvious threat. "The TRO will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas' abortion laws." And naming Dr. Karsan with a warning to the doctor and facilities employing the doctor to consider the consequences.

It's bizarre if you are trying to pretend this wasn't a threat.

[Brett Bellmore]

I’m not pretending it wasn’t a threat. I AM denying that “The Texas AG has threatened to prosecute any doctor who provides an emergency abortion.”

The law he was threatening to enforce permitted emergency abortions. Just not under the full range of circumstances that abortion rights advocates would like.

So that “any” was a lie.

And a relevant lie: They wouldn't have written "any" if "some" would have had the impact they wanted. But "some" would have been honest...

[Sarcastr0]

Brett ignored all the lying and chilling effects.

Kinda shameful, but he's always been one to claim the law's on his side, whatever selective ignoring it takes!

[NOVA Lawyer]

I'll grant the "any" by the article's author (quoted by me) goes too far.

He didn't threaten that he would prosecute literally "any" doctor who performed an emergency abortion.

But he did mean to put all doctors on notice that any doctor performing an emergency abortion might be prosecute and, therefore, any and all doctors considering providing emergency abortions would be chilled and that was the intent. The idea was to change behavior to stay far away from the line as there was obvious disagreement as to where, precisely, the line under Texas law is and any doctor might be prosecuted if the AG or local prosecutor disagreed with the doctor's medical judgment.

Which goes to the original point, "the chilling effect was intended and real."

[Malika]

"No, the Indiana AG went after the doctor for violating medical privacy laws."

Cool story, bro!

Pathetic.

[jb]

The Texas AG went to court to block a judge's ruling that doctors could make good faith judgment about performing abortions to protect women's health, which seems like a pretty good sign if they actually performed the abortions they would get prosectued:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/04/texas-abortion-ban-lawsuit/

[Michael Ejercito]

It might help if these doctors could show they have in fact been threatened with prosecution by vindictive pro-life prosecutors.

Not one of them could present a Twitter-files-style record showing so.

[ReaderY]

I’m not sure there was hypocracy. I think pro-life folks were genuinely surprised at the political outcomes. No doubt they engaged in wishful thinking. But everybody does that to some extent. There’s a big difference between over-optimism and fraud.

[Nelson]

"Dobbs put abortion back to where it always belonged as a constitutional matter: A normal policy decision belonging at the state level, to be resolved by state level politics."

Abortion doesn't belong in the political process at all. It's an individual right, not a government interest.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lots of things are colloquially "individual rights" without legally being such. Absent the legal connection, it's just your opinion, which not everybody shares.

[Sarcastr0]

it’s just your opinion, which not everybody shares

Uh, Brett....

[Brett Bellmore]

Can you be a little bit more specific? I'm not sure whether you're implying that an enumerated right I've pointed out is just my opinion, or you're complaining about an unenumerated right I've expressed support for.

[Nelson]

Bodily autonomy and medical decision-making are both unenumerated rights. If you want to infringe on them, you'd better have a better justification than "almost 15% of us believe that a fertilized egg is a person".

Your beliefs are largely rejected, so claiming that they should have any validity or power to coerce others isn't a rational or justifiable reason to ban abortion.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, your whole thing on ever single legal or policy topic that comes up here is that no one disagrees with you legitimately.

Because you're so super correct, the only reasonable explanation for deviation from your position is that everyone secretly agrees with you and is lying about it.

You say this about Constitutional doctrine, about economic policy, about Covid, about President Trump's legal troubles.

So when you say "it’s just your opinion, which not everybody shares" that is a level of failure of self-examination that is truly superlative.

[David Nieporent]

There was political calculation behind the GOP establishment’s longstanding policy of always promising to overturn Roe v Wade, but never, ever delivering.

Sigh. Once again, your conspiracy theory is nutty, Brett. They did deliver. For decades, they kept nominating anti-Roe judges.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Working mothers peaked in 2000, the tide is turning.

[Frank Drackman]

So was ending Slavery, sometimes like that stupid Spike Lee movie, you have to “Do the Right Thang”

Frank

[Malika]

After ending slavery the GOP enjoyed decades of federal electoral success.

Everyone knows Franck is a fool (the kind of fool, interestingly, drawn to Trump), but it's also important to remember he's a real idiot.

[Frank Drackman]

The Repubiclowns also Disenfranchised millions of Southerners, for a few Erection Cycles anyway, how well did they do below the Mason & Dixon line from 1880 to 1980??

Frank

[ReaderY]

It seems to me that the analogy is reasonable regarding the 14th and 15th Amendments. The Republican administrations initially tried to enforce them. But they garnered so much opposition they basically stopped. From the end of the 19th until into the 2nd half of the 20th century, they basically went unenforced in the American south.

[DaveM]

If your inference is that the Democratic Party will gain political power by championing the destruction of human life in the womb, and that this is something you earnestly hope and wish for, I pity you. That is truly dark.

[Nelson]

No one is saying that, because an abortion doesn't destroy human life. A fertilized egg has 3-to-1 odds against it ever becoming a human being.

No one laments the destruction of a bag of acorns by saying "An entire oak forest was destroyed" because that's insane. Calling a fertilized egg a human being is just as insane.

Anti-abortionists seem perfectly capable of distinguishing between possibility and actuality ... unless it's about abortion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Another one bites the dust...
https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2024/08/14/the-president-of-columbia-university-has-resigned-effective-immediately/?p1=hp_featurestack

Goof riddance....

[Commenter_XY]

Bye douche Minouche.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am surprised at the "effective immediately."

[Commenter_XY]

I am pleased, not surprised.

[Bob from Ohio]

Elise Stefanik notches another scalp!

Trump really should have picked her.

[Commenter_XY]

Douche should be pursued civilly, if anything, to make her life unbearable and not worth living. This is one time I am hoping someone does to her what she did to others...in spades.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Can't control the terror supporting savages you helped to create?
You can always Peace Out!
Don't worry, though.
Some other terror supporting libtard will sweep in to pick up the reins. Maybe this one can do a better job of pretending that THIS BEHAVIOR IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE!

[John F. Carr]

It sounds like she had to resign because she was not supportive enough of the anti-Israel protests.

[darkknight9]

They finally finished the new Kashmir bridge.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg3w71mkxwo
The article eventually gets around to talking about how it might help farmers and tourism, but only after mentioning its military and strategic value a bunch of times.

I want to tell folks who look at me like I’m speaking a foreign language why that’s a big deal for many reasons but I cant decide if I should invest time in educating others now or wait until the bridge gets damaged/blown up.

[John F. Carr]

I looked at the giant structure and wondered how many beams needed to be cut to make it fall down.

Post-9/11, Massachusetts made bridge plans secret because terrorists would use them for planning.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Another rogue judge:

https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2024/08/14/a-teen-was-falling-asleep-during-a-courtroom-field-trip-she-ended-up-in-cuffs-and-jail-clothes/?p1=hp_featurebox

[darkknight9]

A guy named Todd had to elbow me in the ribs hard when we were on a similar field trip sitting in the jury box because I had nodded off.

And was snoring loudly.

It was a case about insurance payout and whether or not the decedent's relatives would be paid because there was an issue as to whether or not it was a cleaning accident or a suicide.

Evidently, as my ex has alleged more recently, I snore loudly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Somehow the judge thought it was his place to teach the kid a lesson, and that he could use the power of his office to do it.

Power tends to go to one's head.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The usual serious comments by liberals and juvenile insults by conservatives. Another Thursday.

[Mr. Bumble]

Says the guy who did porn movie reviews for This Day in Supreme Court History.

[Martinned2]

Don't act like you don't watch porn...

[Mr. Bumble]

Not what I said or implied. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone complaining about the quality of comments.

[Martinned2]

You don't think there can be high-quality porn reviews?

[Mr. Bumble]

No and in any case such a review wouldn't be coming from the capt. Seen any "high quality" porn lately?

[Martinned2]

You've spotted the linguistic ambiguity. Isn't the English language great?

But yes, of course I occasionally see high quality porn. And other times I see high quality reviews of things that may or may not be high quality porn. How about you?

[Mr. Bumble]

I'll open a new window and get back to you.

[Martinned2]

Careful that you don't accidentally click on any TS porn!

[Bob from Ohio]

"I occasionally see high quality porn"

Maybe one day you will find areal woman and won't need it.

[Martinned2]

There are two kinds of people in this world. People who say they watch porn, and people who lie saying they don't.

[Bob from Ohio]

"people who lie saying they don’t."

Prove it.

Maybe Dutch people all do, I'll take your word on it.

[When I was in college, the program board had a porno movie night. Debbie Does Dallas and something else I can't remember. 5 minutes of seeing men's dicks when getting blow jobs was enough for a lifetime personally. You tastes may differ.]

[Sarcastr0]

Bob pushing the thesis that porn is too gay for him.

[Bob from Ohio]

Does your wife know who watch porn?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, good news Martin; Caligula The Ultimate Cut will be released in theaters soon.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/15/entertainment/how-a-classy-a-list-historical-film-turned-into-a-17m-hardcore-porno/

[Sarcastr0]

Of course she does.

We shared some of our favorites when we were dating.

Get with the times.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Get with the times."

No.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It is a case of appropriateness -- are porn reviews appropriate for a forum involving Constitutional law?

With the exception of the legal aspects of Caligula -- that it is historically accurate and hence not porn -- I'd argue not.

[Magister]

But apparently Dr. Ed 2's murderous fantasies are perfectly appropriate.

[Frank Drackman]

I don’t, I enjoy a little being left to the imagination, I think if I ever did see Barbara Eden’s Va-jay-jay (1969 model, not todays) I’d be dissapointed

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Wet Dreams of Jeannie?

[Bwaaah]

I Dream of Va-jay-jay?

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think you understand what serious means in this context.

Perhaps effortful would work better?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bumble,

If you look back on those porn reviews, and some of the followup comments by others here, they reveal a depth of humanity, a maturity, and a thoughtfulness that you seem to lack.

[Malika]

Remember, Bumble famously demonstrated here at VC that he didn't understand how blow jobs work. I think sex is a weird, icky thing for him. Because he's weird.

[Frank Drackman]

And having Testicles, that you seem to like, I mean lick, I mean lack, or maybe all 3!

[Kazinski]

Whats to be serious about?

I am on a floating barge restaurant on the Tonle Bassac River just a hundred meters or so from where it diverges from the Mekong at what is effectively the start of the Mekong Delta just south of at the confluence of the Tonle Sap river in Phnom Pehn.

I suppose i could post about something serious like the hot regional news that the Prime Minister of Thailand was just removed by the Supreme Court after a lawsuit by 40 military officers.

His transgressions? He appointed as a cabinet minister a former suporter of a previous prime Minister who had been convicted of fraud.

Seems pretty sketchy to me. This comes on the heels of the SC recently banning a major political party, i think it was because they weren't supportive enough of the Monarchy.

[Martinned2]

Sure, but is it legally sketchy or just politically/morally sketchy. Because Thai law is famously not super-democratic, but not an arbitrary dictatorship either. So for any specific court decision "legally correct but morally wrong" is definitely an option.

[Bwaaah]

All I can imagine is a PBR boat moving up the river, with thick jungle-lined banks and VC hiding in the brush. Apocalypse Now infects my thoughts of those parts, like Deliverance does of the mountainous southeast U.S.

But reality sets in...it's a floating restaurant...AHHHHhhhhhh. Nice!

[Frank Drackman]

Love to see Sergeant Pepper Waltz's Schutzstaffel goons try shooting paintballs at Peoples in Tampa or Houston.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I;m waiting for the fun in Chicago next week.

Burn, baby, burn....

[Malika]

What a sicko psycho.

[Frank Drackman]

Tear the roof off da mutha-fuck-a

[Estragon]

Do you ever stop and reflect for a moment on how or why you got this way?

[Jmaie]

Seattle's ex-city council member and avowed socialist has announced plans to disrupt the convention. I thought that such things were generally not announced in advance?

[shawn_dude]

Oh... I need to use that myself! Let me try it on...

"Donald J Trump, ex-president and avowed dictator..."

Hmmm... seems to work.

[Nelson]

LOL!

[Jmaie]

Avowed as in she proudly proclaims it, so not entirely sure what point you're trying to make?

avowed
adjective
ə-ˈvau̇d
Synonyms of avowed
1 : openly acknowledged or declared

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/avowed

[Nelson]

I see. If you are something, but you refuse to admit it (see: Trump and born-on-third-base trust fund baby, Trump and terrible businessman, Trump and ... well the list goes on and on), it's different? Gotcha.

[Nelson]

And, to be fair, he said he would be a dictator on day one. So he is an avowed dictator. But he promises just day one. Unless he doesn't get everything he wants ...

C'mon, what am I thinking? Dictators are well known for ending their dictatorships after one day, right?

[Martinned2]

Thanks to the Big Cases Bot Bsky account, which I might unfolllow because it tweets a lot, I've discovered that there is still a Trump v. Clinton litigation pending over the 2016 election. It's now in the 11th circuit. How??? Why???

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66801076/donald-trump-v-hillary-clinton/?order_by=desc

[not guilty]

On March 24, 2022 Donald Trump filed an unhinged civil suit against Hillary Clinton and a plethora of other Defendants in federal court in the Southern District of Florida seeking damages on a wide variety of factual and legal theories. On September 8, 2022, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all claims as barred by the statute of limitations as well as for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction over certain Defendants and sua sponte suggested that sanctions against Trump and his counsel were warranted. The District Court thereafter imposed more than a million dollars of sanctions against Trump and his counsel. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.81561/gov.uscourts.ca11.81561.1.3.pdf

Trump is appealing the order of dismissal and the orders of sanctions. The Appellants' brief is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.81561/gov.uscourts.ca11.81561.91.0.pdf

[Martinned2]

Thanks. There are 131 documents in the appeals docket alone, and I didn't particularly relish the idea of going digging through them to find out what the actual story was. (Particularly since I don't have access to PACER.)

[Martinned2]

This is an interesting federalism problem:

Last week’s Google search antitrust decision is spilling into other regulatory efforts around search, with the Ohio attorney general and Google firing off opposing letters about the significance — or the irrelevance, depending on point of view — of that ruling to an Ohio judge overseeing litigation where the state is trying to classify Google search as a closely regulated “common carrier.”

Surprisingly, at least to me, Google doesn't seem to be arguing that this whole common carrier situation is pre-empted by Federal (antitrust) law generally, or by the upcoming remedy in US v. Google (search) specifically.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being a common carrier might be a comfortable position for them. I don't expect the normal business types at Google are all THAT enthusiastic about the hardliners' obsession with political censorship and deplatforming; It gets in the way of profits, after all.

Getting declared a common carrier might be considered a win by the pure financial types.

[Sarcastr0]

Just another institution with leftists in charge and forcing all their employees to do unprofitable leftisms.

Man unprofessional leftists are amazing at getting in charge of all the things!

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, the march through the institutions is a real thing.

The problem here is hiring somebody you think is a professional accountant or manager, and they turn out to be a professional leftist who does accounting on the side.

The corollary to "the personal is political" is that "the professional is political", too, after all.

Seriously, you can deny this, after seeing so many major corporations going left and losing their shirts over it?

[Sarcastr0]

I absolutely deny it, Brett, it's not a real thing. It's never been a real thing, other than in your head.

Your business judgement may not be all your unearned confidence thinks it is.

Major corporations are doing *fine*; their leftism is largely all cosmetic and get woke go broke is not really happening absent some anecdotes that largely seem transient.

Even journalist wasn't actually coordinating stories.

This Long March is you being the fan-fiction believing paranoiac you have such a reputation for.
It's like McCarthyism but somehow even stupider.

[Dr. Ed 2]

McCarthy was right -- he was just drunk.

[Nelson]

Of course you think he was right. You can't even get it right when it's ancient history and completely documented.

[bernard11]

Hey, the march through the institutions is a real thing.

It's a figment of your paranoia.

Seriously, you can deny this, after seeing so many major corporations going left and losing their shirts over it?

I have not, in fact, seen that. Maybe you could provide a list of the "many major corporations" who lost their shirts this way.

[jb]

Usually the examples they hold up are the most successful companies in the world, but I guess maybe the whole economy is also biased in favor of leftist ideas.

[Nelson]

Remember when Bud Light was going to die and InBev was going to go out of business because the professional whiners got their panties in a bunch about a trans person?

Today, InBev is ... still the largest alcohol company on the world. BlackRock is still the largest investment fund. Disney is still the largest theme park operator.

They keep projecting victory. It just never actually happens.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and Bud Light is still shit beer, but with a lower market share.

[Nelson]

Bud Light is total shit. It's one of the many I refer to as beer-flavored water.

And they'll end up with the same market share they had before. Performative outrage doesn't have any staying power and InBev has a massive marketing budget. It's not even a contest.

[Aoidized]

That's probably right. How much of the censorship on Youtube relating to guns and other things were demanded by the woke left?

[apedad]

Arizona man pleads guilty over threatening to kill FBI agents, politicians

Tomasi posted the graphic threats over a more than two-year period between May 2021 and November of 2023. primarily on the social media platform 'www.patriots.win', which describes itself as the “community of choice for President Donald J. Trump.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-man-guilty-threats-kill-fbi-agents-politicians/story?id=112852939

I'm sure some of our fellow VC commentors (and probably some bloggers!) are on patriots.win so be sure to let that community know you lost a good one (for about 10 years).

[Martinned2]

the social media platform ‘www.patriots.win’, which describes itself as the “community of choice for President Donald J. Trump

Wait, the claim is that Trump prefers this social media platform over the one that he owns?

[Mr. Bumble]

" Isn’t the English language great?

[Michael P]

Maybe it's where pro-choice Trump voters hang out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Four words: Republican Congressional Softball Team.

If we are going to hold sides responsible for their crazy radical losers, then the Dems need to answer for that schmuck.

[apedad]

The guy died from the cops returning fire so I'm not sure what else you want us to do.

Oh I know!

Let's have better gun control laws.

[Bob from Ohio]

If Scalise was not there, no cops to return fire. They were his protection detail.

[Frank Drackman]

It was baseball, do you intentionally try to get the simplest facts wrong?

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’m sure some of our fellow VC commentors (and probably some bloggers!) are on patriots."

Sarcasto seems to be, he apparently hangs out at several such sites. At least he claims to know what is said there.

[John F. Carr]

This is the docket, which is not quite up to date. The plea agreement is item 40.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68099396/united-states-v-tomasi/

I don’t know what federal law has to say about conditional threats: “If X happens I am going to commit crime Y”. Much of what Tomasi wrote was either a conditional threat or a generalized wish that violence happen.

For example, he admitted to writing “Any FBI fag have a problem with that come to my house and see what happens. Shoot before they even pull their guns out of their trunk and you shoot to kill.”

It’s like saying “any teenage punk comes to my house looking for my daughter I’m going to fill him full of lead.” A conditional threat.

A Biden appointee, the US Attorney redacted the f-word in the press release.

Tomasi also admitted writing “Execute every single FBI agent and employee, including the maintenance staff. Execute every single one of them." That is a generalized wish of violence.

The guy who was recently sentenced for threatening to shoot up Jews at Cornell made much more specific, unconditional statements.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Any relation to Rollo Tomasi?

[Armchair]

What's wrong with populism?

So, populism gets bad rap. But...what is it really. Populism, at its heart, is a response to elitism and its potential negative side effects. What do I mean?

Well, elitism at its core is a simple concept. The elites (experts) should run things...which on one level makes sense. Let's use a nuclear power plant for an example. You want an expert running that. Not the "common man". And the people, on one level get that.

However, elitism can run amok and fail through a number of distinct ways. These are...
1. Corruption
2. Elites make policies that help the elites at the expense of the people
3. Elites extending their expertise to areas where they aren't actually experts
4. Elites failing at their expert roles
5. Elites using their position to protect themselves from criticism of points 1-4.

When these events happen, the people often step up (populism) and go "What now? Perhaps changes are needed". That's populism.

[Martinned2]

You're right. The British people have had enough of Experts. The People should get what they want, even if what they want is logically or practically impossible! Who cares about facts anyway? Facts, schmacts!

[Armchair]

If you don't want to engage in a productive manner, you can simply choose not to respond.

[Sarcastr0]

Your Huey Long impression isn't great. I wouldn't quite your day job.

[Armchair]

Come back when you learn how to apologies for your lies and blood libel.

[Sarcastr0]

Until you provide even one receipt for that scurrilous accusation, you're revealing yourself to all as a huge piece of shit.

Putting you being a piece of shit aside, Huey Long is a great object lesson in why your thinking here is flawed.
Populist leader. Broken corrupt system of elites. Didn’t work out so well for the populous.
Luckily FDR was around.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Didn’t work out so well for the populous."

IDK, he made a lot of improvements to Louisiana.

What exactly did he do that was bad for the populous? [Besides personal corruption but that is the norm for that state. Huey was only average in that regard.]

[Sarcastr0]

Bob from Ohio, defender of Huey Long!

His corruption famously managed to exceed the pretty high norm for the state.

[Bob from Ohio]

So, just vibes that he was bad "for the populous". No examples.

"His corruption famously managed to exceed the pretty high norm for the state."

Do you have evidence for this or just vibes again?

The movie was just based on him you know.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you check out the Ken Burns documentary? That's where I learned most of what I know about the guy.

I find it *wild* you've decided Huey Long being not so bad actually is the hill you want to die on.

[Bob from Ohio]

I get my history from well researched and written books, not tv.

"hill you want to die on"

I'm just asking you to support your assertions. Like usual, nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

Go forth and try to bigfoot Ken Burns with all the no sources you are pointing to that Huey Long was just normal levels of corrupt.

Sorry I can't link my source. That does not mean it isn't legitimate.

I note that you have taken the opposite position affirmatively, and yet you've not linked anything either.

[Bwaaah]

Vibes. Gaslight0. All vibes, gratuitous accusations, jerking off through faux political discourse. An intellect that towers over [small] ants.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, I could Google for the proposition that Huey Long was extraordinarily corrupt:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/truth-about-huey-long/

It's just Internet contrarianism that is making you and Bob defend a socialist just because I said he sucks.

[Bob from Ohio]

Devil citing National Review for his purposes. Her main source is Arthur Schlesinger!

Gotta like a guy who does this:

"When one legislator became too vocal in his criticism of Long, the governor drilled a hole in the state capitol’s ceiling above his desk to pour a steady stream of water upon him."

Always had a weaknes for rogues.

[Sarcastr0]

Not the most graceful concession, but I guess that's the best Bob will offer.

He'll never be the bigger man.

[Bob from Ohio]

"concession,"

Not so. The NR article doesn't really prove his corruption was unusual. I freely admit he was corrupt.

I put "most corrupt Louisiana governor" in google and Edwin Edwards came up as the first entry.

[Sarcastr0]

The NR article doesn’t really prove his corruption was unusual
Bob, you're a moron.

"historian Arthur Schlesinger explained in a 1986 Ken Burns documentary about the populist politician, was the closest thing to a dictator the U.S. has ever seen."

"Some fetishize his authoritarian regime as the zaniest chapter in Louisiana’s colorful history, ignoring the long-term damage he caused in both governance and reputation to the state."

"Long’s penchant for diverting state funds for his own purposes became especially flagrant when, as governor, he appointed himself chief legal counsel for the state in its lawsuits against private businesses. He billed liberally, lining his pockets with so much taxpayer money that he could afford to maintain multiple residences, including one at the luxurious Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans."

"Long controlled everything in Louisiana public life, from using the Louisiana National Guard as his personal police force to coaching LSU’s football team. When the media wouldn’t do his bidding, Long created and distributed his own newspaper. In it, he mocked his political adversaries and smeared anyone who spoke against him, endangering their livelihoods and the safety of their families.

To maintain his schemes, Long demanded unwavering allegiance from everyone, ranging from elected officials to low-level civil servants. If you resisted, you paid dearly."

What threshold for unusual do you have? Ah yes, none, because you're just bad faith fighting for it's own sake.

[Armchair]

Funny. Sarcastr0 complaining about the bigger man.

Meanwhile he adamantly won't apologize to me for his clear lies about my argument, which he caught in the very next statement. In his words, something like......

"Fuck you, you will never get anything from me ever".

And then Sarcastr0 reminded us all of his blood libel.

[Ilya Snowman]

There should be posters in every American city paraphrasing Huey Long (or Mencken, or whomever is the true source):

When fascism come to America it'll be called anti-fascism.

Anti-fascism --> Antifa

With the Antifa symbol on the poster.

[Ilya Snowman]

What a bizarre dispute to have, by the way, given your present-day Clintons and Bidens.

[Martinned2]

OK, I will translate my comment into non-sarcasm:

There are two defining characteristics of populism, I would say:
1. The one you've spotted, of creating a false narrative of "The People" against "The Elites".
2. An utter indifference to facts or logic, telling "The People" whatever they want to hear, or at least whatever the populist politician thinks they want to hear. Typically the assumption is that "The People" are idiots who can be fed any fact-free drivel the politician finds convenient, and who won't remember what they've been told even the week before, so consistency is not a requirement.

So yes, populism quite rightly gets "a bad rap". In fact, its rap isn't nearly bad enough.

[Armchair]

Thank you for being productive.

1. There is a narrative of the people against the elites. I wouldn't necessarily say its "false" (although it can be in some situations). I think you would agree, in some situations, the elite really do prosper at the expense of the people.

2. Populism itself can be abused. But that doesn't mean the reasons it exists in the first place are inaccurate. If the people see, for example, the top 1% eating like kings, while there is large spread misery in the bottom 99%, wouldn't some people question the elites, with good reason?

[Sarcastr0]

You: "Thank you for being productive."

You: "Come back when you learn how to apologies for your lies and blood libel."

What a hypocritical piece of shit, eh?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro can't help but fling poo.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm being baselessly accused of blood libel. You want me to rise above that? Fuck you.

[Commenter_XY]

Next, you'll tell us next how some of your very best friends are Jews.

[Malika]

Pathetic playing of the anti-Semitism card. Way to cheapen it!

[Sarcastr0]

The burden isn't on me, Commenter.

[Bwaaah]

Burden met long ago. Malika at your wing is a strong flank.

[Sarcastr0]

Bwaah, going to bring any receipts for your accusation of blood libel?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If the "burden was met long ago," it should be easy to link to even one antisemitic thing he has written in the comments here. Until any of you can do that, your accusations are garbage, and tell us more about you than him.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“Populism itself can be abused. But that doesn’t mean the reasons it exists in the first place are inaccurate. ”

We (not you and I, but the royal we) had a conversation about communism in a thread on the VC the other day. The gist was communism was evil, though it’s origin was spawned, in significant part, by actual injustices and inequities by the then current laissez faire system. (Some people mistook the idea that it was intended to be, or purported to be, a solution to real problems, as a defense of communism. It wasn’t. It’s just the fact. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but the destination is still hell.)

Which takes us to you. You don’t seem to understand that populism is pretty much like communism. There are lots of people who glom onto it because they think it’s a good idea. There are a few at the top that know better and always (or very nearly always) co-opt the movement to attain power, almost always with the goal of authoritarian control of the government.

You are right that populism is often spawned by real neglect of the masses. You are wrong to the extent you imply that it gets a bad rap. It’s usually a largely emotional, irrational response to real problems that, like communism, is a cure worse than the disease. Populist movements are nearly always led by demagogues who, if not already in the elite, have the objective of becoming the new elite and no real interest in anyone’s welfare but their own and their cronies’.

Populism is not quite like communism in that, if it is focused on a genuine issue, e.g. universal sufferage, rather than promoting a leader and taking over the political system generally, it can have positive results. But populism deserves all the bad rap it gets. Populist movements almost always result in increased misery for whatever countries they afflict.

[Jmaie]

When has a populist movement ever made it's way to power? I was under the impression they generally peter out and are absorbed into the existing power structure.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Erdogan. Hugo Chavez. Juan Peron. Viktor Orban. Law and Justice in Poland.

They sometimes succeed in taking power, almost always with very negative effects on the government/country, particularly with regard to freedom (greatly reduced), corruption (greatly increased), and general competence and equity. This is because populist movements are almost always led by charismatic demagogues who actually just see the opportunity to get power and actually don't really care about the masses as they claim. They just use them for their own cynical ends.

[Armchair]

Other populists. Gandhi (both of them), William Jennings Bryan. Ronald Reagan. Bernie Sanders. Andrew Jackson.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Ronald Reagan isn't really a good example. He used some populist rhetoric, but I don't think he qualifies as a populist. He was an established political figure who worked his way up the ranks of a traditional, long-standing political party and he appealed to elites as much as the common man. The term may be somewhat amorphous and needs a precise definition to have any real conversation about it. But, in my book, Reagan does not really qualify.

William Jennings Bryan and Bernie Sanders were unsuccessful in ultimately obtaining power. it's definitely a good thing William Jennings Bryan never gained the presidency. He was anti-intellectual, by which I do not mean anti-elite but anti-the use of intelligence. Instead, he believed in the wisdom of the common man (somewhat like believing "common sense" is sufficient for complex policy matters) and so his final causes were the dead ends of Prohibition and anti-evolution. He is the poster child for elevating emotional, shallow principles over effective, reasoned policies.

It's also probably good Bernie Sanders didn't win and definitely good that most of his more populist ideas were never adopted. I don't get the sense that he is anything other than an honorable man with good intentions, but that's despite his sometimes wacky populist ideas.

[Armchair]

A few points.
1. Communism is not inherently evil. It's inherently fatally flawed on large scale. There's a difference. Communism is like a dam built out of loose sticks. It may work OK on the stream that goes through your backyard. But try it on the Mississippi, and it utterly fails. But neither the dam, nor communism, are inherently evil.

2. Communism has a singular end goal...state control of the means of production. Since that is fatally flawed, it's why communism doesn't work (on scale). Populism, by contrast, has multiple different goals depending on the circumstance, that work towards power for the common people.

[Armchair]

4. A good example of populism and its debate between the elites and the people is the People's party (or Populist party) in the United States during the 1880s to 1890s. This arose in response to the increased power that the trusts and mega--corps had during the gilded age. Among their requests was a return to a bimetallic system of money (The silver and goal standard). The elites of the financial system insisted on the gold standard, while the people wanted a silver and gold standard. The elites ultimately won that argument. But Milton Friedman has looked at this and noted that staying on the pure gold standard had highly adverse consequences...Another case of the elites profiting at the expense of the people.

[Armchair]

(Out of order, getting 403 forbidden results here)

3. Populism has multiple potential end states. One is overthrow of the current government, if it is especially inflexible in the hands of the elite

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yep. And one common end state of successful populist movements is installing the populists' chosen leader in the existing government. Which usually ends in the populist leader eroding the rule of law and democratic institutions in order to retain power and profit from his office and abandoning most, if not all, of the principles the populist movement was originally organized around (other than persecuting whatever religious, ethnic, or other out group the leader targeted to keep emotions high).

[Armchair]

But I think you need to ask the question...is eroding the law and such a consequence of the "populism" part? Or is it a consequence of the "overthrowing" part.

If you see an elitist or royalist revolution, or a military coup, don't the same things happen?

The issue isn't the "populist" part. It's the revolution part.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You misread me. Often populist movements/leaders don't "overthrow" the government, they win an election. And then proceed to dismantle democracy and the rule of law.

And, no, my whole point is that the "populist" part is usually an amorphous, emotional rage against "elites" or some ill-defined problem, and that rage is channeled and steered by charismatic leaders to get power rather than to solve any actual problem. They actually don't want to fix the problems, because they need that emotion to get to power. That's why populist leaders so often target minorities of some type as the source of the problem.

The common people usually are the most unsophisticated of the country and so usually don't have a great grasp of what a real solution would look like and, so, are gullible that this charismatic person is, for example, "the only one who can fix it" and/or that it's easy to fix the problem (whether inflation, "too many" immigrants, or a cultural phenomenon with which the populists are uncomfortable).

[Armchair]

For example the French or American revolutions. Alternatively, populism can also work within the system -the election of Andrew Jackson-, which works with more flexible government systems.

Or populism can influence the elites in power to give more power back to the people (for fear of the elites losing power completely). All of these work fine. Populist can be both right wing and left wing, depending.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The People's Party is a good example of populism that was pushing specific issues (including collective bargaining, graduated income tax, direct election of Senators) and is the sort that can do good if the ideas are good. (Some were, some weren't.)

It was not a populism organized around an individual charismatic leader making vague promises about combating (perceived) cultural or economic ills without actually having a coherent plan and, at least with respect to the leader, just rhetorical to stir passions to seize power. That's what most populist movements devolve into.

[Armchair]

The people's party was arguably centered around Bryan. And there were perceived ills.

Again, it seems like you're cutting populism down to just the bad examples, while cutting out all the reasonable or good examples.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"The people’s party was arguably centered around Bryan. And there were perceived ills."

No, it wasn't.

"The Populist Party emerged in the early 1890s as an important force in the Southern and Western United States, but declined rapidly after the 1896 United States presidential election in which most of its natural constituency was absorbed by the Bryan wing of the Democratic Party. A rump faction of the party continued to operate into the first decade of the 20th century, but never matched the popularity of the party in the early 1890s."

Bryan siphoned off much of the support of the People's Party (the Populist Party), basically destroying it as an independent movement.

One of the reasons the Populist/People's party is a reasonable or good example is because it was never usurped by a single charismatic leader and, instead, for it's entire significant existence was organized around ideas and specific policy proposals rather than an amorphous rage against the elite and a demand to "do something" with all faith put in one charismatic leader (who, again, usually is just using the movement for his own ends).

[NOVA Lawyer]

The reference to communism was to communism as the government of a country. In such circumstances, it always and inevitably produces evil. If you want to split hairs, maybe you can dispute that communism is not "inherently" evil. But, in practice, as a nation's governing system, it always is.

Populism is, as my comment noted, unlike communism in that it does not always result in a worse state of affairs. It just usually does.

[Ilya Snowman]

You've omitted a third, distinct characteristic of things styled as 'populism': the use of a label to delegitimize, to PRESENT as being intellectually incoherent and/or groundless. when they're in fact not.

[darkknight9]

I think they're tired of expats too.

[Moderation4ever]

I would say the problem with populism is that leaders can drive people to bad ends using divisive ideas that are not based in facts. Your example of the nuclear power plant is a good one. Experts can show that show that nuclear power has a better safety record than other forms of energy production. The populist leader just hammers away on Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island. Experts should not lead but rather supply information to leader that they weigh carefully. Populist lead with emotion and that is a problem.

[Sarcastr0]

Something more interesting than 'populism, is it good? is the distinction between policymaking experts and scientific experts.

Institutionally, the second should not be feeding 'should do' to anyone; that's a values-based judgement for our policymakers. And vice verse, our policymakers should not be saying 'this is what the science dictates' they should be more open about the cost-benefit the evidence is feeding.

[Martinned2]

As an economist, I am absolutely on board with the idea that economists shouldn't be telling anyone what to do. (At least not based on their expertise.) But they should explain the consequences of choosing A or B.

In economics there is always an alternative option. It's just that sometimes the alternative option is so unpleasant that everyone pretends that it doesn't exist. Which is fine, unless the unpleasantness of the unstated alternative is actually more of a matter of opinion.

[Sarcastr0]

My wife is an economist!

Anyhow I think you are largely right but do jot forget that the delimitation of alternatives is itself a pretty burly policy choice.

[Bwaaah]

"My wife is an economist!"

So was Milton Friedman.

[Sarcastr0]

I like Friedman, actually. Great insights on the power and goals of monetary policy.

I think the Austrian school doesn't have the right of it, and most who adopt it these days do so because of their politics not it's veracity, but you seem to think I should hate the guy?

[Ilya Snowman]

'But they should explain the consequences of choosing A or B'.

They should feel free to do so ONLY if their theories yield credible predictive power, such that they can be taken seriously when claiming what the consequences of choosing A or B will (likely) be.

Alas...

[Armchair]

Let's run with the nuclear power plant example. It's a nice example.

The people are generally fine letting the experts run it. But what if...

1. The experts are taking bribes and profiting. - Corruption.
2. The experts are creating policies which provide electivity to the homes of the experts and their friends, while other areas get brownouts. - Elite selective policies.
3. The experts in the power plant also decide that they should decide what type of food people can buy...because they're experts. - Expanded expertise
4. The experts running the power plant fail, and there is a major explosion. - Failure of expertise.
5. The experts running the power plant cut off power to those who question their policies - Retribution.

In each of these cases, aren't the people justified in questioning the experts and calling for changes?

[Martinned2]

"people" certainly are. It becomes more problematic when you start talking about "The People", as if that's somehow a uniform group, and a group that doesn't include the experts.

[Armchair]

One of the issues is the "experts" (or elites) implicitly protect their own (pretty often), as they are benefiting, in multiple ways.

The "people" can be considered the outgroup here.

[shawn_dude]

The discussion here is assuming elites are one group and the people are another. They aren't. Elites are a subgroup of the people. Some elites join the populist movement, some elites resist it, and other's control it. The elites that resist it may do so because they understand the trajectory is worse for the people or because they believe it'll be worse for them. It's not helpful to assume motives for this subgroup. The elites that control it stand to benefit greatly from the movement and their motives should always be suspect. And because of that, populism is suspect.

The current populist movement in the US is led by a member of the elite with a history of fraud and the main trajectory of this movement is overtly anti-democratic with a goal of setting up a new government in the same framework as Hungary or Russia.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Be careful, if you disagree with armchair you are guilty of blood libel.

[shawn_dude]

There are a number of posters here that go bananas if you even criticize Israel's current government. They sling accusations of anti-Semitism from an endless pile of stones. Imagine what they'll do to an actual anti-Semite using accusations of "blood libel."

Lemme prep the popcorn.

[Ilya Snowman]

They scream that it's 'Islamophobic' and that you're bigoted against THAT group instead.

Mindless hypocrisy at its finest.

[Moderation4ever]

Questioning experts is a good thing. That is why the most reputable journals peer review articles before printing them. But are your questions to the expert on facts, just hearsay or just emotion? No matter how safe a nuclear power plant may be, some people will object to them being built especially if it is near them.

[Armchair]

Again, the issues here aren't necessarily the item of interest, but how elites can use their position to seemingly benefit themselves.

Imagine a power plant. And the homes of the elites are consistently well powered, while those of the poor are consistently suffering from brownouts.

And when the people ask, the experts say "it just has to be this way, trust us".

What should the response be? What would you say? Do you still just "trust" the experts when it seems their views consistently seem to benefit the experts?

[Sarcastr0]

Populists also use their positions to benefit themselves, of course.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's why nobody hand-wrings about how people are questioning the judgement of the populists.

[bernard11]

In each of these cases, aren’t the people justified in questioning the experts and calling for changes?

The questioning is justified when this happens, whether the plant is run by experts or random folks picked off the street. Experts are no more or less prone to corruption than anyone else, and are much less prone to incompetence.

The notion that these possible problems only arise when experts run things is silly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I may not be an expert in nuclear power, but I *am* bright enough to put my emergency generators on high ground and not where a tidal wave could take them out.

[Krayt]

Counter unelected appointees severed, by design, from immediate democratic response to actions, with demagoguery and hot air?

Thank god for great choices!

[Bob from Ohio]

"What’s wrong with populism?"

Nothing. Four of our top 8 presidents were populists.

Jackson, Polk, TR, Reagan.

[Martinned2]

It's quite typical that you have two presidents in there whose main achievement is that they made the Indigenous Americans suffer. (Who, conveniently, were not part of "The People".)

[Bob from Ohio]

"were not part of “The People”

Theory was they were "sovereign nations" so yes, not part of the "people" of the US. Were "East Indians" part of the people of Holland?

[Martinned2]

Theory was they were “sovereign nations” so yes, not part of the “people” of the US.

That doesn't make it morally OK to steal their land and murder their people.

Were “East Indians” part of the people of Holland?

The Dutch did many things over the centuries in many continents that were morally wrong. And, if asked, we say so.

[Bob from Ohio]

"if asked, we say so."

Darn nice of you! Like a murderer saying sorry before the trap drops.

We didn't steal anything. We conquered it, after a 300 year war. The world is better off for it.

Maybe Indians should have moved away from a hunter gatherer existence and invented the wheel or gunpowder and they could have resisted better.

[bernard11]

Um. What exactly is the difference between conquest and theft?

When the robber points a gun at me and takes my wallet he is using superior force to seize my property. Why is that "theft" rather than "conquest?"

[Bob from Ohio]

Why do we have different words to describe superficially similar but different things? IDK, ask Noah Webster.

Conquest is permanent and involves territory and governance. If the robber moved into your house by force and stayed there, that would be a sort of conquest. But no one would ever call it that.

War and murder both involve killing but we recognize the difference.

[bernard11]

OK. Then I'll rephrase.

Why is conquest morally superior to theft?

Offhand, it seems worse. The theft is a one-time event, that doesn't take everything you own. Conquest is unlimited, and the consequences for the victim are often much worse.

[Ilya Snowman]

So why do you persist in living in America, Bernie?

[shawn_dude]

One the populist movement identifies a useful scapegoat, any success of that movement comes at the scapegoat's expense. For Reagan's administration, LGBT Americans, especially those with HIV, were decimated; hundreds of thousands have died. Trump's movement is going after African Americans, LGBT, and women.

[Ilya Snowman]

Pretty sure it was rather the HIV that decimated the Gaymericans...

What's so ridiculous about your American discourses, so OBVIOUSLY false and insincere about you idiots, is that YOU talk about these power imbalances whilst rationalising your exploitation of others. For example, when you exploit central and south Americans as neo-serfs in your country ('no one is illegal!' You're JUST racist to oppose mass immigration of unskilled illiterate labour), as your middle class shrinks and your poor get poorer. You do this as you attack your poor!

Or when people point out HOW feminism is itself used to engaged in, or buttress racial-class warfare. You have NO credible responses, to the left or right, to the global south or the more civilised Western countries.

You're hypocritical idiots. More importantly, you are SEEN, by the whole world now, to be hypocritical idiots. You're mindless ideologues who misrepresent yourselves as epistemic and moral authorities (and others as ignorant or 'phobic') literally the whole world is aligned against YOU now.

The con is over. You're fucked, and your own people are going to annihilate you.

[Ilya Snowman]

Is that why you like Starmer so much? Because he makes the indigenous Brits suffer and wishes to cultural genocide them?

[Kazinski]

Theiry Bretion's open letter to Elon Musk apears to be a spectacular own goal. Not only does it appear to be reputiated by just about every EU Bureaucrat of prominence its also brought awareness to Americans about the potential for the EU to assume the mantle of the worlds speech police.

[Martinned2]

It will be interesting to see what that does for his future career. In the next month or two EC chairwoman Von der Leyen will announce the portfolios that each Commissioner will have. She can’t reject any of them, absent serious evidence of criminality or such like, but she can definitely park them in terrible jobs that no one wants. (Historically that would have been the Commissioner for Multilingualism, but I’ve been informed that that doesn’t exist anymore.)

Of course there is a limit to how far down the pecking order she can shove Breton. After all, he is French, and at least nominally supported by Macron. But he’s definitely not getting the job he really wants: Commissioner for Competition. And he’s not going to be an Executive Vice-President (or whatever VDL calls that job this time) of the Commission either. Maybe she’ll punish him by giving him the big new job she’s announced, of Commissioner for Housing. That would be perfect: Very high profile, absolutely no powers to actually do anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

"After all, he is French,..."
Well that explains a lot.

[Martinned2]

He spent much of his professional life in the private sector.

Breton was vice-chairman and CEO of Groupe Bull (1996–1997), chairman and CEO of Thomson-RCA (1997–2002) and chairman and CEO of France Télécom (2002–2005). In 2005 he entered politics serving as Minister of Economy, Finance and Industry (2005–2007) in the governments of Prime Ministers Jean-Pierre Raffarin and Dominique de Villepin, during the presidency of Jacques Chirac. From 2007 to 2008 he was a professor at Harvard Business School before joining group Atos from 2009 to 2019 as its CEO.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you subscribe to the Peter Principle.

[Martinned2]

I do, of course.

In Breton's case, the main problem is that he's a very vain man. He certainly likes the attention. And picking a fight with Elon Musk gets him that. Beyond that, I suppose I've seen much worse politicians. Compared to the people who've been running the UK for the last 14 years, and the people who are currently running the Netherlands, he's a godsend.

[Mr. Bumble]

What an evil god you have.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you just got triggered by the word godsend or something and didn't comprehended the rest of the comment?

The Tories fucked the UK but good.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty much everybody with any sense subscribes to the Peter Principle. It's one of those things like thermodynamics, where once you actually understand them it becomes hard to imagine what a universe that didn't operate that way would look like.

[Commenter_XY]

Simpler explanation - The guy is an asshole, full of himself = Theiry Bretion

[Krayt]

It is a bit bothersome the response attack against this guy has used the latest fad, interfering with an election. Why not good old government censorship? At least “dangerous speech!” has been around for at least 5 years.

And all that crap is fallout from clever rhetoriticians in intramural political battles in the US the last 8 years. USA! USA! USA!

[Kenneth Almquist]

I couldn’t find any reporting indicating that the letter had been repudiated by any EU officials. The Financial Times had a piece with the headline “Brussels slaps down Thierry Breton over ‘harmful content’ letter to Elon Musk,” but the assertion in the headline wasn’t repeated in the article itself. It is true that Breton didn’t discuss the letter with the Commission or the EU President before sending it, but that would be an issue only if the letter didn’t represent concerns shared by other members of the commission, or if he didn’t have the authority to send it.

[Armchair]

In other news, as predicted, Ukraine has expanded the war, and invaded Russia.

We'll see where this goes. I don't think Ukraine is moving quite quickly enough there.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don’t worry, as per Joe Biden when Russia invade Ukraine, “it’s only a minor incursion” and he will soon offer to fly Putin out of Russia as he offered to do with Zelinsky (fly him out of Ukraine) when all of this started.

[Martinned2]

Why would Putin need to do that? Trump will simply force him to give up territory in return for peace, and that will be that. Sorted within days.

[Sarcastr0]

It's been four weeks; you gotta let go.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Four weeks since what? Let go of what?

[Moderation4ever]

You are wrong. Ukraine's incursion is not to conquer Russia but rather to embarrass Putin and put pressure on Russia to stop its invasion. It might help. I don't think anything happen in the Ukraine war until after the election and Putin knows who the US President is.

[Sarcastr0]

I was pleasantly surprised by how effective it was. But indeed don't see a way for Ukraine to capitalize on it.

[Don Nico]

"But indeed don’t see a way for Ukraine to capitalize on it."
That is exactly the point.

[Mr. Bumble]

"You are wrong. Ukraine’s incursion is not to conquer Russia ..."
I didn't say it was.

[Sarcastr0]

He wasn't replying to you.

[Armchair]

"You are wrong. Ukraine’s incursion is not to conquer Russia "

I didn't say it was. A Ukrainian invasion of Russia is...unlikely...to conquer it.

A far extreme goal may be to conquer Moscow. An extreme stretch. But based on how quickly the whole Wagner group advanced on Moscow last year...not necessarily impossible.

[Armchair]

What are Ukraine's alternate goals in its invasion of Russia. From easiest to most difficult. 5 and 6 are quite difficult.

1. Provide another front to draw off Russian troops.
2. Have land in Russia to "trade" for Ukrainian land, in any peace negotiations.
3. Put additional political/military pressure on the Russian war front by forcing evacuations, while destroying/conquering critical Russian infrastructure towards keeping the war going.
4. Put enough pressure on Russia to cause some to consider a change of power
5. Complete an encirclement of the forces engaging Ukraine on the Southern Front,
6. Conquer Moscow, forcing a regime change.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yeah, it's mostly 1, 2. and 3. But definitely cheering for Ukraine's success in all their goals.

[Commenter_XY]

Only 1 and 3 (partly) make any sense to me.

2, 4-6 will not happen.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If #2 doesn't make any sense to you, I'd keep that tidbit to yourself and try to hide the fact that you're a complete moron.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, do you truly believe that UKR will be able to sustain a military counter-offensive that is roughly 9 miles wide x 30 miles deep (right now) against Russia, and hold ~200 miles of RUS territory while peace negotiations play out over a period of months?

I don't think that is realistic, Jason. So no, #2 makes no sense to me at all. What is much more realistic is in the coming weeks RUS will make UKR leave by 'force attrition' (we will see a UKR retreat b/c they cannot lose men).

#3 is the one (partly) option that is on the table and do-able, to me. The fact that RUS did not threaten/use unconventional weapons to stop the advance when their doctrine calls for that was eye-opening (to me). More likely, Putin knows the counter-offensive will go the way of the last counter-offensive....it will peter out.

UKR doesn't have the manpower for another front, so #1 is out.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I agree that Russia will regain control of its territory fairly quickly. With regard to point 1, the question is whether Putin leaves sufficient forces along the border to prevent a repeat of the invasion. If he does, that leaves him with fewer forces to deploy inside Ukraine.

Israel could have stopped the Oct. 7 attacks, but since they didn’t know when or even if Hamas would attack, that would have required stationing forces along the Gaza border indefinitely. Putin faces a similar problem: If he wants to prevent another invasion he needs to defend the border continuously, whereas Ukraine is only expending resources when it actually attacks.

[shawn_dude]

And, to point #4, if this forces Putin to increase the draft such that it bites harder into the political class and middle-class Moscow families are losing sons to Ukrainian bullets.

And point #0 which is Zelenskyy has to do something before the US presidential handoff in 2025 when the US might become Russia's ally instead.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think it matters much if it is just UKR doing the counter-offensive; Putin knows the UKR force would would be enveloped. RUS have many more reserves, many more troops. There is not a manpower problem for RUS.

For UKR, there is a manpower problem.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Jason, do you truly believe that UKR will be able to sustain a military counter-offensive that is roughly 9 miles wide x 30 miles deep (right now) against Russia, and hold ~200 miles of RUS territory while peace negotiations play out over a period of months?"

The ignorance on display here is truly remarkable.

They don't need to 'sustain' a 'counter-offensive,' They need to simply hold ground - something Ukraine has been very capable of doing whenever they've actually had the weapons they needed from the West.

Russia did not have defense in layers, and do not have fortified positions from which to attack to try and reclaim their territory. Ukraine prepared very deliberately for this for some time, and Russia isn't going to be able to just throw some conscripts at it and fix things.

#1 is already happening, by the way. You're too fucking ignorant of the situation to be commenting publicly about it, and everything you've predicted has been wrong.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, is that all Jason = UKR simply needs to 'hold ground'. I see.

You mean 'simply hold ground' like they've been doing for 2.5 years, since February 2022? That kind of simply hold ground, Jason? 🙂

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's a shame that you have no idea how fucking dumb you come across with such a remark.

When Ukraine hasn't been starved of ammunition by Republicans refusing to do the right thing, they have in fact held their territory just fine, and as demonstrated in the past and present, taken ground.

Your Jewish grudge against Ukraine has done nothing but distort your perspective of facts that are obvious to everyone else and make you look like more of a goddamn fool every day. When you don't know what you're talking about - and sure as fuck you do not, keep your mouth shut.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Jason, do you truly believe that UKR will be able to sustain a military counter-offensive that is roughly 9 miles wide x 30 miles deep (right now) against Russia, and hold ~200 miles of RUS territory while peace negotiations play out over a period of months?"

This is a dumb question. Jason has already addressed it. But #2 doesn't only work if Ukraine has equal territory to trade off. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence would understand that any Russian territory is useful to trade off for Ukrainian territory (even if just part of it). And, while it may be difficult to hold until peace talks, it also acts as an effective trade off if Russia is diverted (#1, which as pointed out to you, is already happening; it's weird that you predict #1 won't happen when it already has happened....maybe only try predicting the future, because you're pretty bad at predicting the past, lol) and, via the diversion, Russia becomes vulnerable at another point.

Ukraine has proven to be adept tacticians and superior strategists.

Capturing Russian territory is useful as demonstration of their ability and determination, as well as useful for #1 and #3. And the counter offensive has some potential for #2. The others are much less likely, but it's an undeniable tactical win for Ukraine, which may turn into a strategic win.

[shawn_dude]

I think making the war in Ukraine more widely understood by Russians would be another goal with the slim but non-zero chance of increasing domestic pressure on Putin. It's telling, for example, that Putin has largely pulled his cannon-fodder from minority communities and not from places like Moscow.

[bernard11]

I agree with this. The war seems not to have been fully brought home to the Russians. This might help, and create some pressure on Putin.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree that UKR has not taken the war directly to the Russians. One might ask...why not? One might discover...even though the weaponry that America provided can easily reach interior RUS, UKR were specifically told not to do that in order to not widen the conflict.

But now, the Biden/Harris policy has utterly failed, so they now wish to directly attack RUS with American weapons. Newsflash: Bad idea.

Hopefully saner heads are working out a face saving deal.

[Don Nico]

Throughout history the Russians have been ultimately capable of defending Mother Russia.

[Don Nico]

And how did that work out for Prigozhin?

[Don Nico]

"It might help. "
Or it might lead to a 1 kT explosion in Kyiv.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s all fun & games until Roosh-a brings a Hydrogen Bomb to the party, Roosh-a won’t do that? all the Experts said Roosh-a wouldn’t invade too

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, I’ll say it again. Per Joe Biden it was a "minor incursion”.

[Bwaaah]

One great thing about the war in Ukraine is that we get to battle Russia without putting American lives on the line. All blood spilled is foreign blood. We pay for it by printing money to pay for weapons (and all of our other excesses), and fund the effort through the dilution of people's assets (i.e. inflation). And Putin is stupid enough to let us win our "bloodless" war.

I, for one, am uncomfortable with these theories.

[Commenter_XY]

It is all a matter of perspective, Bwaaah.

If US foreign policy is to fight the Russians down to the last Ukrainian, and simultaneously help our defense industry, then it is succeeding splendidly.

[Don Nico]

"simultaneously help our defense industry, then it is succeeding splendidly."
Helping to accrue another $1T in debt every 100 days.
Russia my have had 500K casualties. But Ukraine has had 200K.

It was evil of the US and UK to torpedo a peace agreement in March 2022. But hell. None of them were American; so who cares

[NOVA Lawyer]

"It was evil of the US and UK to torpedo a peace agreement in March 2022. But hell. None of them were American; so who cares."

Misinformation.

The claim, such as it is, seems to be that Boris Johnson visited Ukraine and told Ukraine Britain would support them regardless of their negotiating demands (the US is implicated in this theory only to the extent it was understood that if UK stood with Ukraine the US would too).

And the things that really tanked the talks was the discovery of Russian war crimes and Ukrainian success in repelling Russia's assault on Kyiv and successful counteroffensive regaining some ground. That, and Ukraine was always unwilling to formally cede to Russia Crimea and the Donbas.

To be clear, the claim is that Boris Johnson did not pressure the Ukrainians to accept a peace deal that let Russia keep basically all of the Ukrainian land Russia had already taken and get a promise that Ukraine would never join NATO and other concessions to Russia.

Failing to pressure Ukraine into a peace agreement is not "torpedoing a peace agreement" unless, like Putin and CommenterXY, you negate the agency of the Ukrainians. Basically, you are arguing that we should have put our leverage on the side of the Russians to force a peace agreement. That is fundamentally different than tanking a "peace" agreement that Ukraine never wanted to accept in the first place.

Whether wittingly or unwittingly, you and CommenterXY read like Russian misinformation trolls.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"If US foreign policy is to fight the Russians down to the last Ukrainian, and simultaneously help our defense industry, then it is succeeding splendidly."

This is dumb. Ukraine has decided to fight. The U.S. hasn't provided as much support as Ukraine wants (nor has Europe).

It's a neat trick, a Putin like propaganda point, to claim the U.S. is pulling the strings. You either understand nothing about the situation or you are intentionally spreading Putin propaganda.

[Don Nico]

It is an incredibly stupid move by Zelensky. There is no upside whatsoever for Ukraine and it tempts Putin toward a vry serious escalation against Kyiv

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Escalation? Like committing even more war crimes instead of the "normal" number of war crimes?

[Sarcastr0]

You been talking about Putin escalating for ages. Just like RT. Neither of your predictions have come to pass. Almost like it's Russian propaganda.

Potential upsides
1) obvious morale boost
2) materiel captured
3) land for leverage in any peace deal

[Michael P]

Not only did Hunter Biden actually lobby for his foreign funders, the White House hid that fact from the public. So much for the people here who claimed that Hunter Biden was defrauding those clients by promising them influence but never trying to fulfill his promises.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukrainian-company.html

[Armchair]

The corruption here is mind blowing. And it's the same people doing it. It expands to any Harris administration. If we want accountability, we need a change in administration.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Did Hunter Biden engage in blood libel?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in that article describes "corruption." Words have meanings.

[Malika]

He...wrote a letter asking for a meeting! And was rebuffed.

What a piker. Compare and contrast!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/03/21/jared-kushners-2-billion-investment-from-saudi-arabia-what-to-know-after-republicans-delay-subpoena/

[David Nieporent]

Did you bother to read the article? Here's what Hunter Biden did: he asked the U.S. ambassador to Italy whether the guy could arrange an introduction between Burisma and the leader of Tuscany. Apparently he couldn't or wouldn't.

So, no, in fact Hunter was not lobbying anyone for anything and did not get anything.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did anyone "here" ever say Hunter Biden "didn't try" to fulfil his claims of influence?

[Michael P]

Kamala Harris's campaign is lying to the public. Is this really news?

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/13/harris-campaign-google-poltical-ads-news-publishers

[Malika]

Lol, lean into the "lying" thing in your efforts for...check notes...Trump?

Wait, I'll come in again...

[TwelveInchPianist]

I agree. Both sides are constantly lying. It's really frustrating.

[Martinned2]

This bothsidesism is getting really tiring. No honest observer can treat two politicians as equally bad if one of them lies once every speech, and the other one once every sentence.

[Commenter_XY]

You're right, one would think Kamala's nose would lengthen from all the lies she utters.

[bernard11]

Are you serious? Are you blind and deaf to Trump's endless stream of lies and BS.

There is no equivalence here.

[Bob from Ohio]

How many times did Harris falsely assure us that Ol' Joe was just fine mentally? Kinda more important than lying about crowd size or his golf game.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Trump lies every time he says he's fine. That's a bigger deal. Every time he says he understands any subject that is necessary to be an effective U.S. president. When he said he'll balance the budget in 8 years, that he would make the economy great when, in fact, he spent like a drunken sailor before the pandemic to get results equal to the economy of the Obama years, and then spent insanely while baby mismanaging the Covid response (except for supporting the development of the vaccine and the distribution of it, until he didn't).

I know it's a shibboleth to you that Biden was mentally unfit and Kamala knew it and, but for her lies, Biden would be retired by now. But that's dumb. Meanwhile, Trump lies about everything and anything, important or unimportant. There is no both sides here. It's not close. No one even pretending to be objective can say it's close.

It is noted that you have given any pretense of living in the real world where Trump lies like no major party politician ever has in either of our lifetimes.

[Sarcastr0]

The Harris campaign has been editing news headlines and descriptions within Google search ads that make it appear as if the Guardian, Reuters, CBS News and other major publishers are on her side, Axios has found.

Ah, you've never used Google search before I guess.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Presumably Axios has used google search.

If you run an ad depicting fake headlines, you're depicting fake headlines.

[Sarcastr0]

...sure. As has been a technique of Google ads for a long time. Doesn't seem to be seen as lying by the FTC.

Next you'll be outraged the Harris campaign has a PR department that sometimes does spin.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Your argument is that it's OK for her to run ads with fake headlines because Google has done it for a long time?

OK then.

[Sarcastr0]

You're notably not alleging lies in the articles, or in the headline's description of the article's content.

Given that, yeah, this is pretty normal stuff. There's nothing that says a headline must be inviolate or else the article becomes a lie.

[Michael P]

https://dailycaller.com/2024/08/14/wday-radio-kamala-harris-campaign-google-ads-headlines-the-independent/

At least one of the news sources claims the ads materially misrepresented their stories.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You’re notably not alleging lies in the articles, or in the headline’s description of the article’s content."

I'm alleging that the news outlets at issue never ran articles with those headlines, but the campaign ran adds suggesting that they did. That's lying.

[Bob from Ohio]

"As has been a technique of Google ads for a long time."

So they say. Hand in cookie jar explanation I'd say.

[Michael P]

Speaking of someone caught with a hand in the cookie jar:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13740243/colbert-audience-erupts-laughter-kaitlin-collins-cnn-network-objective.html

[Bwaaah]

That is EXCELLENT! People see and increasingly grasp the propaganda games. Colbert looks naive to his audience, and undoubtedly felt the disconnect between himself and the audience. Those are learning moments.

A not-Trump for-Harris friend said to me yesterday that he's been surprised by the uniformly exuberant coverage of Harris. His concern was that Harris's policies appear to be quite the same as Biden's, and yet the media coverage has completely changed. His belief in the major news media outlets as being "balanced" has been shaken by the suddenness and extremity of the contrast.

Gaslight0 can probably explain this to nobody's satisfaction.

[Sarcastr0]

Bwaah, my explanation is your story is obvious bullshit.

A ridiculous attempt at the already ridiculous ‘I was in a hipster coffee shop and all the liberals were whispering my exact take’ type tale.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, now you are against unverifiable stories that support one's position?

[Bwaaah]

Is such a simple honest story so implausible to you? It's not even interesting enough to be worth fabricating.

You're an idiot. And a douche.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a simple honest utterly convenient story that aligns *directly* with right wing talking points of the moment. But in the mouth of a Democrat.

And includes in TYOL2024 a supposed Democratic voter telling you their belief in the major news media outlets as being balanced has been shaken. Just now.

You put on way too much mustard, and it's incredible you think anyone would believe it.

Sorry you're bad at lying; maybe you should do it less to try and win bullshit arguments on the Internet.

[Bwaaah]

I have intentionally fabricated maybe five statements (for very serious self-serving reasons) in my adult life, and none of them here. You probably can’t even fathom such an existence as being plausible.

You would be correct at surmising there would be serious implications to living such a life.

You are an idiot. And you are a douche.

[Sarcastr0]

I have laid out my logic regards to both the fine tailoring of this "anecdote" and the unbelievable relationship to the media posited to this fabricated Harris voter.

Up for folks to judge for themselves now.

[David Nieporent]

A not-Trump for-Harris friend said to me yesterday that he’s been surprised by the uniformly exuberant coverage of Harris. His concern was that Harris’s policies appear to be quite the same as Biden’s, and yet the media coverage has completely changed. His belief in the major news media outlets as being “balanced” has been shaken by the suddenness and extremity of the contrast.

Alternate explanation from the one you are insinuating: the negative press coverage of Biden had little to do with his policies, but was about him personally.

[Bwaaah]

I wasn’t describing my analysis of what he said. I was describing what he said, and his analysis of the issue.

You, like Sarcastr0, seem to have trouble believing I can faithfully represent somebody else’s point of view. I did choose to relay this anecdote because it relates to Stephen Colbert’s surprise *and* it comports with my point of view. But I tried to accurately describe what he said, in good faith to his intended message.

It’s absurd that this is so hard to believe. It’s like disbelieving the seeming reason the audience laughed in the Colbert video. You do know who the NY Times wants to win the election, don’t you?

[Moderation4ever]

Tuesday was Wisconsin's summer primary. As a poll worker I noted that we had a good steady stream of voters through most of my shift. Overall, Wisconsin has a 26% turn out rate, low but good for a primary. I think the participation rate suggest a strong turnout in November. Which I don't think is good for Republicans. I say this because Republicans have a strong base and it would be better for them to have a low turnout overall but having their strong base vote.

Some really good signs for democracy, I saw several moms and dads come in to vote with their kids, getting the kid registered and having them vote for the first time.

One final note for those always whining about election observers. The observer's chairs sat empty at my polling location for my shift. If you think observers are important then you should volunteer to observe and get trained. Don't talk about observers if you are unwilling to do the work yourself.

[darkknight9]

"Wisconsin has a 26% turn out rate, low but good for a primary. I think the participation rate suggest a strong turnout in November. Which I don’t think is good for Republicans."

And you are absolutely right. My hint that its going to feature more folks in November? The highest prez primary turnout in 60 years, and the two ballot issues (both GOP) getting voted down. Now, I'm on the MN/WI border and we don't necessarily get a lot of news from Madison but someone out there was educating folks around the state on the ballot initiatives. Statewide 55k voted for one of the candidates in the GOP US Senate primary. Meanwhile 1.25 million people voted yes or no on the Wisconsin constitutional amendments. (7 to 5 ratio favored No)

Its been close the past 2 prez elections but I don't think any last minute visits are going to help this time. (Here in 'Sconny anyway...)

[Moderation4ever]

I agree that the failure of the referendums on Constitutional change show that the Republicans are not making ground in Wisconsin. Democrats are fired up and unless things change Kamala Harris likely gets Wisconsin.

[Malika]

It's quite plain that Trump is a very, deeply weird person, but which one of his latest weirdisms is the weirdest?

His obsession with crowd size, triggering him into making statements that are easily able to be shown false, or his recent obsession with Hannibal Lecter in speeches?

[Michael P]

And where does that fit in the "weird" scale next to a history of cackling at bizarre points, stealing valor, and a dude calling himself by two different "Queen" names?

[Malika]

I think saying you had a bigger crowd than MLK or that Harris had "no one" at the airport visit is exponentially more weird than laughing, embellishment of service or any internet handle. These are easily disprovable things to lie about, capable of very stark disproval (you can literally lay out photos beside each other). That's pathological, and if you weren't interested in being a hack because the election is making you suddenly nervous you'd probably agree.

And the "late, great, Hannibal Lecter" stuff? Weird AF.

[Commenter_XY]

A better example of Walz Weirdness was feigning deafness when he got busted for a DUI. Stringing the cops along like that? It was not like he was a kid...nope, he was an adult.

[Michael P]

And not only feigning deafness, but lying about the arrest: https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/08/tim-walz-lied-about-1995-dwi-arrest-during-first-congressional-campaign/

[David Nieporent]

A better example of Walz Weirdness was feigning deafness when he got busted for a DUI. Stringing the cops along like that? It was not like he was a kid…nope, he was an adult.

The highest rated TV show was ER; Gangsta's Paradise topped the Billboard charts, the highest grossing movie was Batman Forever, Donald Trump was still just a failed casino operator rather than a game show host, and Tim Walz got a DUI. The year was 1995.

It is now 2024. Think maybe you should find some new material?

Also, he did not in fact "feign deafness" when he was arrested; that's just completely wrong.

[Magister]

1995? Wow, that was even before Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll.

[Joe_dallas]

Kamala’s Running Mate Literally Minted a Coin to Memorialize His Stolen Valor.

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2024/08/14/walz-challenge-coin-n4931634

[Sarcastr0]

Chickenhawking, it's back on the right-wing menu!

[Bob from Ohio]

Chickenhawking is a person who strongly supports or promotes a war or warlike policies but who has never served in the military

That is not what is going on with Walz. He served until it got dangerous, and then lied about it repeatedly for no reason but vanity.

After all, how many people really know the distance between Master Sergeant or Sergeant Major or Command Sergeant Major?

[Bob from Ohio]

difference, not "distance"

[Sarcastr0]

You, who plays a moral void on the Internet, are impugning someone who served our country well and with some distinction.

You do so by fucking up the timeline so you can get a better story.

You lie, you use the troops as instruments of your partisan jollies, and you object to being called a chickenhawk?

If the honor differential fits...

[Michael P]

Walz's defenders are the ones lying about the timelines. And as Walz's commanding officer said recently, Walz only accidentally did a good thing by getting out of the way so a better officer could replace him.

[Kazinski]

I like wierd.

I like felons too.

What else do you got?

[Malika]

Let's keep your family out of this!

[Moderation4ever]

Do you like adjudicated sexual abusers? You can add that to the list.

[Michael Ejercito]

What year did this alleged abuse take place?

Where did this abuse take place?

[Moderation4ever]

Details per your rquest.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

[apedad]

I like how he complains about early voting . . . then votes early.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Felons get to vote early.

(Wait, is that how it works?)

[Josh R]

It's a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder, as was his reaction to losing in 2020. It's what makes him unfit for office.

[Kazinski]

Next week I'm taking a side tri to Malacca in Malaysia, Interesting city.

It was founded about 1403 byca Sumatran Sultan on the run from a Javanese invasion, And it soon became a Ming Chinese protectorte between the Java, Thai and Burmese empires.

Then the Portuguese conquered it in 1511, and became a major Portuguese port between Goa and Macau.

Then the Dutch kicked the Portuguese out in 1641.

Then the British took over from the Dutch in 1828, when after the Napoleonic wars Britain became preeminent in Europe and Asia.

Until finally it became part of independence Malaysia in the '1960's

[Kazinski]

As a side note there were two US expeditions to Sumatra in the 1820"'s and 30's to punish Sumatran pirates across the Malaccan strait. The Pirates had attacked two US ships anout half dozen years apart, and after each of the attacks we sent an expedition to burn their ships, raze their forts, and loot their towns. Those were the only two pirate attacks on American ships in the region, they stoped after the second expedition.

[darkknight9]

"...in Malaysia."

Here we worry if something explosive gets put in our luggage if someone else holds or packs it for us.

For the love of everything good in the universe tape your luggage to your person in a sealed bag and threaten to beat anyone that gets close.

(luggage screener): ...gun, ehh... explosive, meh... DRUGS!!!! SHOOT HIM!! SHOOT HIM!!!!

I guess what I'm saying is they don't like the drugs all that much. 🙂

[Kazinski]

No need to be so paranoid, unless you are carrying drugs.

I did have a somewhat bizarre experience in Transiting the Kuala Lumpur airport one. Waiting to clear customs with wife they brought theough 30-40 people who were being expelled from Malaysia in handcuffs. When they were told to sit, they all sat, when told to stand they all stood.

Im not sure why they were being expelled, but probably illegal workers. Malaysia is one of the richer countries in the region.

[darkknight9]

I've always been frightened of running afoul of the law in a strict country given that I dont have or trade in illegal drugs I *do* take 26 pills and 5 injections a day to live and that much, even in Rx form, scares me when one of the penalties is death. And if they confiscate them also, I'm screwed. 🙁

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, first time I visited the Philippines, an hour out they distributed the customs cards with "Death to drug traffickers!" in bold print on the top and bottom, and a long line to the bathroom instantly materialized. I'd personally done enough research to not even have any cold medicine on me.

Now I'm 65, and on my last visit I had to triage my medications; In the end I only brought the BP medication. I'm fortunate that, aside from that, I'm not on anything that has drastic consequences if I lay off it for a month. Mostly just a stack of well researched supplements like SAMe.

[apedad]

Former Cornell Student Sentenced for Posting Online Threats Against Jewish Students on Campus

Patrick Dai, 22, formerly a junior at Cornell University and originally from Pittsford, New York, was sentenced today to 21 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and a special assessment in the amount of $100 for posting threats to kill or injure another person using interstate communications.

As part of his previously entered guilty plea, Dai admitted that, on Oct. 28 and 29, 2023, he posted threatening messages to the Cornell section of an online discussion forum, including posts that said “gonna shoot up 104 west” (a dining hall at Cornell University that caters predominantly to Kosher diets and is next to the Cornell Jewish Center that provides residential accommodations for students) and “gonna bomb jewish house.” In another post, Dai threatened to “stab” and “slit the throat” of any Jewish man he saw on campus, to rape and throw off a cliff any Jewish women he saw and to behead any Jewish babies. In that same post, Dai threatened to “bring an assault rifle to campus and shoot all you pig jews.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-cornell-student-sentenced-posting-online-threats-against-jewish-students-campus

I feel the 21 months sentence is too low, however, my question is at the 21 months and three years supervision, should his 2A rights be fully restored?

Or because he specifically made threats involving weapons and shooting, should there be another assessment after the 57 months?

[Michael P]

I think there needs to be an assessment. Most people change significantly between 22 and 27 years of age. This guy could grow out of his bad behavior, or he could become worse, and a judge should decide how he had changed before deciding to restore his rights.

[John F. Carr]

I think 21 months is too long. Legally it is sound. It is at the low end of the guideline range for the offense he pleaded guilty to with the aggravating factors of targeting Jews and disrupting school. I disagree in general with the sentencing guidelines, thinking them too harsh. Judges do too. Sentences at the low end of the guidelines range are too common. If judges agreed with the guidelines then typical sentences would be in the middle of the range.

Banning him from owning guns wouldn't keep him from committing the same crime again. He is not charged with attempting to shoot up campus. He is charged with threatening to shoot up campus.

The guy who showed up outside Kavanaugh's house with a gun, he is a candidate for disarmament. He was charged with attempt.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree, but would require psychological treatment for Dai, post sentence, for some period of time.

[Frank Drackman]

It is too long, his sentence should only be a few minutes, depending on the method of Execution

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

I feel the 21 months sentence is too low, however, my question is at the 21 months and three years supervision, should his 2A rights be fully restored?

No.

Any other dumb questions?

[Michael P]

The Democratic Party of Oregon knowingly received a straw donation of $500,000 from FTX, misreported it, and -- as usual -- will not prosecute clear corruption by Democrats.

https://open.substack.com/pub/oregonroundup/p/dems-knew-covered-up-500k-ftx-donation

[Kazinski]

The money was looted from investors too by FTX, and SBF.

The real tell is whether they will try to claw the money back. Seems a no brainer: Illegal campaign contribution from FTX using FTX subsidiary as a front and looted funds.

There are no innocent parties here.

[Aoidized]

They never seem to have enough evidence to prosecute their own. They are despicable thugs.

[Malika]

Can you imagine the mindset of a person who writes and posts this comment on the day Menendez's replacement has been named?

[Aoidized]

The Dems cover it up until they can't anymore.

[Malika]

Captain Unfalsifiable, folks!

[Kazinski]

Why didn't they expel Menendez 6 months ago, like the GOP did George Santos?

[Malika]

"On December 1, the House voted to pass Guest's resolution to expel Santos, 311–114.[117] Specifically, 206 Democrats and 105 Republicans voted for the resolution, with two Democrats[m] and 112 Republicans voting against his expulsion. "

Lol

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're being unfair, Malika. If Kazinski didn't have lies, he couldn't make any arguments to support his positions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That wasn't a lie; that was him speaking out of his nether orifice without bothering to check whether or not his statement was true or false. (In other words, he lacked an intent to deceive.)

[Don Nico]

so what?

[Sarcastr0]

[In October 2022 "The FEC reporting has since been corrected to reflect Bankman Fried as the contributor."

A 2 years ago correction from what is absolutely the pretty usual practice of intentional misreporting the provenance of a donation? At the level of...500K to a statewide party organ?

I don't know for sure the usual threshold for outrage here, but this seems extremely in the weeds.

Especially considering Trump's in a whole other order of magnitude:
"In a letter on Monday, the FEC notified the Campaign Legal Center of the outcome. The nonprofit group first brought the complaint against Trump in 2020, alleging his campaign was “laundering” hundreds of millions in spending from mandatory public disclosure by routing payments through companies that were tied to his former campaign manager, Brad Parscale.

The practice has long been considered against the law. But in recent years, the FEC, which is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, has frequently deadlocked on major decisions such at this one."

[Kazinski]

Bankman Fried stole the money he was donating to democrats.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz yet again has some trouble with the linear time. November 2023 is after October 2022.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah...SBF's donations were legit until the day he got caught. All monies before that came from fair and square takings.

Thanks for teaching, Gaslight0...some important shit about the linearity of time.

[Sarcastr0]

The correction was October 2022
FTX announced bankruptcy and Bankman-Fried stepped down as CEO on Nov. 11, 2022.

What is your theory of corruption here?

[Bwaaah]

What part of Kazinski's remark don't you understand: "Bankman Fried stole the money he was donating to democrats."

[Sarcastr0]

OK, he sucks.

Do you think Oregon Dems were in on it?

[Kenneth Almquist]

> In October 2022 “The FEC reporting has since been corrected to reflect Bankman Fried as the contributor.”

This refers to a contribution to a super PAC where the donor was originally listed as Prime Trust because Prime Trust acted as a middleman in the transaction.

In the linked substack article, the writer makes a fairly convincing case that Prime Trust was also acting as a middleman for a donation to DPO (the Democratic Party of Oregon). However, the writer didn’t ask Prime Trust where the money came from (or if the writer did, he doesn’t mention it). Nor does the writer tell us that anybody else asked Prime Trust that question. Nor does he say that DPO ever identified the donor.

So let’s see what an actual news organization has to say:

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2023/05/after-democratic-party-of-oregon-falsely-reports-source-of-500k-donation-from-ftx-executive-oregon-elections-officials-slash-fine-agree-not-to-pursue-criminal-case.html

Timeline:
Oct. 4: Prime Trust sends $500,000 to DPO
Oct. 9: DPO reports the donation with Prime Trust as the donor
Oct. 28: Nishad Singh’s office says that Singh was the donor
Oct. 31: DPO files an amended disclosure identifying Singh as the donor.

DPO paid a $15,000 civil penalty for failing to correctly identify the donor in its Oct. 9 report. Note that Oct. 28 is a Friday, meaning that when DPO was informed of the donor it filed an amended report the next business day.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.frontpagemag.com/new-york-equal-rights-amendment-to-legalize-discrimination/

[Armchair]

So Harris's campaign strategy is becoming increasingly apparent.

1. Avoid unscripted events at all costs
2. Avoid interviews and press conferences
3. Avoid concrete policy choices.
4. Be "generic Democrat" who doesn't actually make choices on her own".

Even CNN is starting to notice however.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-host-presses-harris-camp-her-avoiding-media-would-kill-you-guys-have-press-conference

It's not surprising really, especially as we know how Harris's campaign bombed in 2020. She just has to hope she can keep the blinds up for another two and a half months without needing to answer questions.

[Moderation4ever]

The thing is there is no requirement for a press conference. Just as there is no requirement for a candidate to release their tax returns. If your campaign is riding along well, you stick with the plan and don't change. I believe Kamala Harris will do interviews but not till the excitement wears off.

[Armchair]

If Harris doesn't do interviews, (plural)..just avoids them entirely...would that potentially change your vote?

Is that a warning flag for you?

[Malika]

It's hilarious to see the hard core GOPers lose their shit over how Harris isn't playing by "the rules."

[Aoidized]

I don't care if Harris plays by the rules. What I care about is the media covering it up. The media would be hounding Trump if he ignored them. Instead, they lie about his supposed "lies."

[Malika]

Posting a "media coverup" comment in the very thread that includes "Even CNN is starting to notice however.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-host-presses-harris-camp-her-avoiding-media-would-kill-you-guys-have-press-conference"

Priceless!

[Moderation4ever]

As opposed to what? A candidate that does do interviews but lies through the interview, like Trump? To paraphrase Joe Biden, I am not comparing Kamala Harris to the almighty, I am comparing her to the alternative.

[Aoidized]

I hadn't thought of it this way, but you're spot on. Being a generic Democrat should hurt given how badly Biden has governed. But the low information types don't seem to care as long as they can abort.

[Malika]

So, among other things, you don't get the whole "generic" concept?

[Aoidized]

Yes, I do. The problem is "generic" Democrat Party policies are awful, whereas they weren't in 1996.

[Malika]

It's dumb to point to a particular, individual politician when talking about the "generic" X.

[Michael P]

Making Harris seem like a generic Democrat is her entire current strategy, though. Blame her campaign for being dumb.

[Malika]

Holy crap, you really did go The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too! My comment was about his arguing a "generic" Democrat must be a *specific* Democrat (Biden).

You're really frazzled by all this, aren't you?

[Sarcastr0]

There always risk in doing press, and the downside is basically at the level of Armchair gets pissy on the VC.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Maggie Haberman: "They are very, very focused on the fact that she's not doing interviews and she's not doing press conferences, which is an issue that strategists care about and an issue that almost no voters care about whatsoever."

[Commenter_XY]

The alternative is that Kamala has no accomplishments worthy of note to discuss. That is actually quite believable. Just ask the question: What has she actually done? Very short and sweet conversation.

[Malika]

You're kidding, right? Well, of course you're not, you're just terribly lacking self-awareness.

Just going to Howard is probably something you never matched. But then there's a law degree and bar passage (she failed it before, but have you ever passed it?). Then a DA, an AG of CA, a Senator, then VP, now nominee for President.

If anyone here's kid did those things you'd *beam.*

[Aoidized]

Howard is one of the easiest schools to get into. Given that she went to a garbage law school checking the black box means she's mediocre. I suspect 155 LSAT at most.

I got a 177.

[Malika]

And yet, you've done so little with that anecdotal potential!

You should probably blame someone else!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You most certainly did not, lol.

[Aoidized]

I mostly certainly did. Are you jealous that I didn't go to a TTT like you did?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nah, you're a cartoon dipshit who couldn't possibly exist in the legal profession, as nobody would tolerate the hate and stupidity that radiates from you like a disease.

[Sarcastr0]

Go back to calling her a slut, maybe that'll play better this time?

I really don't think you're an honest broker on Harris' accomplishments.

At the moment, the test is running an effective national campaign. She's got that going for her. Much to your apparent frustration and chagrin.

[Bob from Ohio]

"calling her a slut"

Nobody called her a slut. Whore.

Women who sell their body for money [political posts] are whores.

[Martinned2]

Not weird at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

So sayeth the porn addict.

[Martinned2]

You think that obsessing about my porn habits isn't weird??? Congratulations, you're now 2 for 2!

[Bob from Ohio]

Not "obsessing", just noting it.

[Commenter_XY]

Fine dipshito, tell us the laundry list of Kamala's accomplishments. See all the white space below....what a surprise.

[Sarcastr0]

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

Not going to engage in your bad faith request much more than that. Because you don't really care, you're just hating.

[Don Nico]

The Wiki article is VERY long on bio and very short on substantive accomplishments.
But I'll read it a third time.

[Aoidized]

She sucks a mean schlong, I hear.

[Don Nico]

That is crude and irrelevan, and besides, you do not know that.

[Moderation4ever]

But the paraphrase Trump from 2016, "Try Harris what have you got to lose?" We know Trump is incompetent, he demostrated that to us during his 4 years in office. Harris may not be better, but she could hardly be worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

You apparently have no idea how much worse than Trump it is possible to be.

[Moderation4ever]

It difficult to image something worse than Trump. This is true because he seemed to be allowed to get away with anything. Republican simply became afraid to cross him. Politicians are many times held in check by their own party. Republicans told Nixon he needed to resign. Democrats told Biden he needed to step out of the Presidential race. Those Republican who bravely stood up to Trump after 1/6 simple caved to him days later. I don't expect Democrats to be like jello with President Harris.

[Martinned2]

There are plenty of US politicians who are just as evil but would be more effective if elected.

[Commenter_XY]

Remember Jimmy Cater, doofus? Evidently not.

[Moderation4ever]

Are you suggesting Jimmy Carter was worse? Jimmy Carter had a number of successes during his term. The fact is no President has presided over more deregulation. Jimmy Carter brokered initial peace talks and deals between Egypt and Israel. History going to show Trump on the bottom of list of Presidents.

[Bob from Ohio]

Jimmy Carter was the worst US president. Only Buchanan can rival him.

Leftists write history now, of course Trump will be low rated.

[Moderation4ever]

What is your metric foryour judgement of Jimmy Carter's Presidency?

[Bob from Ohio]

"metric foryour judgement "

13.5 inflation and 16.25 average mortgage rate in 1980 and the Iran Hostage crisis for starters. Bad at home and weak abroad.

[Don Nico]

Jimmy may have been terrible BUT there were no wars while he was president.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to Don Nico:
No wars but he set the stage for much that followed when he threw the Shah under the bus and set the table for the mullahs.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The alternative to a period of high interest rates was continued stagflation. I think the tradeoff was worth it.

The Iran hostage crisis occurred on Carter’s watch. The 9/11 attacks occurred on Bush’s watch. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred on Trump’s watch. The hostage crisis strikes me as pretty trivial compared to those latter events. I also think that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was worse for America than the hostage crisis, and that didn’t just happen on Bush’s watch; Bush made it happen. If you are still convinced at this point that invading Iraq was a good idea, I don’t suppose that it’s worth trying to convince you otherwise, but most people, even on the right, no longer support the invasion.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“13.5 inflation and 16.25 average mortgage rate in 1980”

lol.. You realize Nixon had 11% inflation and steadily rising mortgage rates (up to 10%), but undoubtedly you revere the crook. His efforts to fight inflation included socialist ideas like price and wage controls. Both ineffectual and the opposite of what any actual economic conservative would support now or then.

More to the point, you understand that the single biggest factor in defeating inflation was the appointment of Fed chair Paul Volcker and supporting his anti-inflation crusade which included Fed rate hikes. Which goes to your second point. You can’t actually be upset at both inflation and the mortgage rates as the latter was an effect of fighting the former. And the fight, while painful, was a success and led, in significant part, to the economic good times of the late 80s.

To Reagan’s credit, he kept Volcker and understood (1) that the Volcker plan (which ultimately pushed mortgage rates up to 18.6% under Reagan) was the way to defeat inflation, (2) that Carter would get the blame for the pain, and (3) Reagan would get the credit for the good times when the plan worked. Which it did.

Your scorecard of Carter is based on a complete misunderstanding of the economic problems of the 1970s and early 80s and what fixed them.

[Commenter_XY]

I suggest nothing. Jimmy Carter absolutely sucked, was a shitty president, and was resoundingly rejected by the American electorate.

Joe Biden was the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter; he just adds a layer of venality Carter never had to his incompetence.

[Aoidized]

We know what Harris is. We've seen it for the last 4 years, as Biden's policies are her policies.

[Moderation4ever]

Well let's see, Joe Biden got the vaccines out to people, rebuilt the economy after the Trump recession. Rebuilt diplomatic relations with our allies. Joe Biden passed bipartisan legislation. The economy is good, employment up, and crime down. The world is a shit show but Joe Biden has alliances and is handling things well. So, if she sticks with Joe's policies, I am good with that.

[Aoidized]

LOL. The vaccines started under Trump, you moron. He didn't rebuild anything. He spent $6 trillion in deficit spending and caused massive inflation. The economy is not good. It's inflationary.

[Moderation4ever]

Vaccines were developed under Trump and he get credit for that, but the distribution came under Biden. It was the distribution of the vaccines that really started the end of the Covid pandemic.

[Don Nico]

"that really started the end of the Covid pandemic."
That and viral evolution. However, the lockdowns grossly raised the costs of the pandemic and CDC ruined its credibility with the public

[NOVA Lawyer]

The lockdowns happened under Trump with his and his administration’s encouragement. (Until he changed his mind, but, you know, for them until against them.) Likewise, whatever damage CDC did to its credibility happened under the Trump administration (you can't give him credit for the vaccines because that happened during his administration but not blame him for decision by the CDC which was during his administration given he regularly had press conferences with the CDC).

And, in any case, your entire comment was weird as reasons why Harris is worse than Trump given that these were his fuck ups (assuming, as you seem to, that they were fuck ups).

[Commenter_XY]

We know Biden is incompetent and his policies are for shit.

Biden managed to fuck up in Europe, fuck up in the middle east, and fuck up in South America - a perfect foreign policy trifecta. Were that not enough, we have millions of illegal aliens you dipshits want to call newcomers. Inflation has crushed real wages, gasoline is up ~50%.

There is no daylight between Kam Kam and Brain Adilpated Biden, that is what they themselves tell us. Kam Kam has a record, with her boss.

Can't wait until she starts talking about it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Biden managed to fuck up in Europe"

Lol. By expanding NATO and standing with Ukraine against Russia? Which is in contrast to, as Trump has basically promised to do (one of the few promises he'll keep), allowing Putin to take as much of Ukraine as he wants?

I'm sure you somehow fault Biden for Russia's aggression and believe Trump's idiotic boast that Putin wouldn't have invaded if he was president because he showed such strength vis a vis Russia by (1) trying to get Russia back into the G7 (Putin having been thrown out as punishment for Crimea), (2) repeating Putin's propaganda that Crimea really belonged to Russia anyway, (3) repeating Putin's propaganda that Russia's war against Afghanistan was a just war started by the Afghans, (4) taking Russia's side in a dispute between Russia on one side and the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the other, (5) threatening to leave NATO and questioning whether there was any point to it (which dovetails nicely with Putin's wish list).

Such strength! Putin must have been so scared. /sarc

"fuck up in the middle east"

Can't wait to hear how Biden was responsible for October 7, but Netanyahu has no responsibility despite literally funneling money to Hamas in a cynical ploy to outflank the moderates in Palestine and thereby thwart a two-state solution. Brilliant!

"fuck up in South America"

I can't even imagine how you blame the various problems in South America on Biden, most of which predated Biden and many of which also got worse under Trump.

"we have millions of illegal aliens"

We had millions of undocumented migrants prior to Biden. During the Biden administration, the U.S. had the best recovery in the world, so, yeah, a lot of more people came.

"Inflation has crushed real wages, gasoline is up ~50%."

You mean worldwide post-pandemic inflation? And do you realize that real wages are right where they were immediately prior to the pandemic (Q1 2020 and higher than Q4 2019))?

As for gasoline, I'm sure you realize the president does not control world oil prices which is the primary driver of gasoline prices. (And you inflate the degree to which gas prices have risen or are picking the depths of the pandemic which is cheating.)

If you didn't have shallow, misleading talking points, you'd have no talking points at all!

Next up, CommenterXY complains because it's raining at his house and Iceland has volcanoes.

[Frank Drackman]

I don’t blame Sergeant Major Pepper-Waltz for avoiding Pubic events, lots of real Wah Veterans out there who don’t take kindly to Stolen Valor violators, and unlike Crooks, most of them know how to shoot (I have know knowledge of any specific threat, and pray it doesn’t happen, would make a hero out of the Schmuck)
Frank

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Does Harris' campaign strategy involve blood libel?

[Don Nico]

It does not need to... but Israel is heading under the bus.

[SRG2]

The disgusting Andrew Bailey. Missouri's AG, is at it again with keeping in prison someone who had been ordered to be released.

https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2024-08-12/judge-holds-missouri-department-of-corrections-in-contempt-for-refusing-to-release-prisoner

I am not sure whether he is doing this for votes. I also wonder whether he cab be sued. Prosecutors have absolute immunity in conducting their prosecutorial function. But there isn't necessarily such immunity when carrying out other activities related to it.

[Malika]

There's no rich President (or his lackeys) involved so there's no due process problem for most Republicans.

[apedad]

(Here's a new 21st century issue!)

US space industry struggles with ‘constitutional crisis’ in quest to bring shipments back to Earth

Western Air Force bases could become ports of entry for pharmaceuticals manufactured in space if Congress approves this year’s massive defense omnibus.

Under the House’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Western missile ranges could someday enable a steady stream of new cargo returning to Earth: parachute-borne orbital labs carrying lucrative and highly potent forms of existing drugs.

Those labs are the creation of Varda Space Industries, the first company to successfully carry out commercial space manufacturing — and to date the only commercial space company to bring cargo back to U.S. soil.

Varda has since its founding been stuck in what representatives portray as a regulatory black hole: Its products can go up, but they can’t easily come down.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4828100-commercial-space-industry-regulation-reform/

[darkknight9]

No worries. As long as they keep flying Boeing to get there, the drugs and the astronauts aren't coming back.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

VP Harris remarks at a press gaggle in Arizona:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/08/10/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-in-press-gaggle-phoenix-az/

She also speaks to the press off the record (on background, I believe? a useful technique):

" She often visits with the press pool seated at the back of her plane (something Biden did just twice in more than three years), but speaking only off the record. "

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2024/08/07/why-harris-isnt-taking-questions-00173115

Reference is made to policy proposals. There will be the usual Democratic Convention platform. She has made a few general proposals. She will make more.

But the election is going to be about general matters and personalities, including defeating Trump. Like most elections.

[Michael P]

Conclusion: The left is not interested in policy. Or maybe they know their policies are electoral losers.

[Malika]

The Trumpist Right loves policy. I mean, in about two weeks he's going to come out with his Obamacare replacement. No details right now, but it's gonna be great!

Many people are saying!

[Sarcastr0]

Hey Michael, what are some of your favorite GOP policy pushes currently?

I ask because most of your time you spend punching and looking left, so I really don't know your issue mix.

[Michael P]

Cutting wasteful spending, especially the corrupt kind like buying votes through debt write-offs. Border enforcement. Politically consistent prosecution policies. Saner tax structures. Ending the Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine (including Crimea). Ending Hamas as a relevant quasi-military entity. Neutering China's aggression in that region.

[Malika]

"Cutting wasteful spending, especially the corrupt kind like buying votes through debt write-offs."

So, Trump's farmers bailout, OK?

"Politically consistent prosecution policies. "

IKR? Let's get on that Indiana AG!

"Ending the Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine (including Crimea)."

By giving them Crimea!

"Neutering China’s aggression in that region."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVnoc-ISUag

[Sarcastr0]

"Cutting wasteful spending" is not a policy until you specify WHAT wasteful spending.

Border enforcement is a policy, and the main GOP brand at the moment.

"Politically consistent prosecution policies?" No one is pushing that.

"Saner tax structures" No one is pushing that.

"Ending the Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine" how?

"Ending Hamas as a relevant quasi-military entity" how?

-2 policies that are yours not the GOP's (prosecution policies and tax structure)
- One that's both yours and the GOP (border)
- 3 bipartisan foreign policy goals that lack implementation (one that half your party is against)

I appreciate the engagement. But do you really think the left can't do that or better?
This kind of mix of pet projects and pablum is what happens when your party stands largely on negative partisanship.

[Michael P]

Cutting wasteful spending absolutely is a policy. You just don't want to admit that the corresponding Democrat policy is to spend wastefully.

Yes, Trump-Vance and the GOP will do better than the Harris-Biden administration has done and better than a Harris-Walz administration would do.

Where is Kamablah's statement of her policy goals? You want to snipe and gripe about the GOP, but Dems realize that they have a choice of either offending their base or striking terror into centrist voters. You complain about "negative partisanship" but you and your buddies are STILL going on about unbacked accusations of "weird" and nothing-but-vibes.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a policy until you specify what spending or via what selection procedures. Otherwise it's just 'I support doing good things.' level of vague.

Trump-Vance and the GOP will do better than the Harris-Biden administration has done and better than a Harris-Walz administration would do
Yes, exactly that kind of vague.

Where is Kamablah’s statement...and there's the pivot.
To attacking the other side.

Negative partisanship. It's what GOP voters crave.

Harris' policies? She's absolutely slow rolling them. But I don't think that means she has none; that's just the tactically smart thing to do while your opponent is angrily flailing and pining for Biden.
You should start with Biden's policy pushes, seems to me.

[OtisAH]

My guess is it’s far more practical than tactical. By the time most campaigns begin the candidate has worked out policy positions over the course of months, if not a year or more. Harris has had a campaign for 3 1/2 weeks. Prior to that she was Biden’s VP doing VP and Biden campaign things. She was not hashing out her own policies for 2028 or with an eye on being the 2024 nominee. Besides, the electorate will already likely assume or expect that her policies will largely mimic, continue, or improve upon Biden policies, which are all pretty basic dem priorities. The only folks “stressing” Harris’s lack of interviews and policy pronouncements are horserace journalists and MAGA concern trolls.

[Sarcastr0]

I may be underestimating how long it takes to come up with a policy platform, but it doesn't seem a big lift for a national politician.

I could be wrong though - this is not my biz. Good point.

[Michael P]

Let me remind you of what I started this sub-thread with:

Cutting wasteful spending, especially the corrupt kind like buying votes through debt write-offs.

You edited out that specific to accuse me of ... not providing specifics, and now you are adding on to the insultingly bad behavior by accusing me of not criticizing Harris-Biden policy pushes.

[OtisAH]

Wow, you are so dumb.

[Michael P]

... says the person who lumps CNN in with "horserace journalists and MAGA concern trolls".

[OtisAH]

See? Like I said, so dumb.

[Bwaaah]

I must be dumb too, because Michael P makes sense to me, and you don't.

[OtisAH]

Oh shit, Bwaaah has become self-aware!

[bernard11]

I note that Heritage has decided to postpone publishing its "Project 2025" until after the election. They gave some BS reason, but the fact is they know it's a political disaster for Trump.

And yes, Trump is lying when he says he knows nothing about it.

So the GOP is not very keen on publicizing its policies, it seems.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah, because, like, everybody needs to pretend that Project 2025 is the GOP platform. And if you swallow that b.s. Democrat spin like a tool with his head in the sand, you can ignore The 2024 Republican Party Platform that's hidden away on gop.com under the title, "OUR PLATFORM."

Spin it, baby...spin it.

[Magister]

Yeah, it's like complaining about all the whores at the whorehouse and just ignoring the piano player in the front parlor. Whatcha gonna believe, 920 pages of whoring, or 16 pages of bland piano playing?

[Bwaaah]

When you consider the short attention spans of people and the implications of a Republican party rallying around a single figure, the platform is much simpler than 16 pages (and it's in ALL CAPS). I know it's just populist tripe, but in the public theater of politics, that's all there is anyway (you know...like "affordable healthcare" and "good schools")...

* SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY
* END INFLATION, AND MAKE AMERICA AFFORDABLE AGAIN MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD, BY FAR!
* STOP OUTSOURCING, AND TURN THE UNITED STATES INTO A MANUFACTURING SUPERPOWER
* LARGE TAX CUTS FOR WORKERS, AND NO TAX ON TIPS!
* DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND OUR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
* PREVENT WORLD WAR THREE, RESTORE PEACE IN EUROPE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND BUILD A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY -- ALL MADE IN AMERICA
* END THE WEAPONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
* STOP THE MIGRANT CRIME EPIDEMIC, DEMOLISH THE FOREIGN DRUG CARTELS, CRUSH GANG VIOLENCE, AND LOCK UP VIOLENT OFFENDERS REBUILD OUR CITIES, INCLUDING WASHINGTON DC, MAKING THEM SAFE, CLEAN, AND BEAUTIFUL AGAIN
* STRENGTHEN AND MODERNIZE OUR MILITARY, MAKING IT, WITHOUT QUESTION, THE STRONGEST AND MOST POWERFUL IN THE WORLD
* KEEP THE U.S. DOLLAR AS THE WORLD’S RESERVE CURRENCY
* FIGHT FOR AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE
* CANCEL THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE MANDATE AND CUT COSTLY AND BURDENSOME REGULATIONS
* CUT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ANY SCHOOL PUSHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY, RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY, AND OTHER INAPPROPRIATE RACIAL, SEXUAL, OR POLITICAL CONTENT ON OUR CHILDREN
* KEEP MEN OUT OF WOMEN’S SPORTS
* DEPORT PRO-HAMAS RADICALS AND MAKE OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES SAFE AND PATRIOTIC AGAIN SECURE OUR ELECTIONS, INCLUDING SAME DAY VOTING, VOTER IDENTIFICATION, PAPER BALLOTS, AND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP UNITE OUR COUNTRY BY BRINGING IT TO NEW AND RECORD LEVELS OF SUCCESS

(For those who insist on a "platform")

[ReaderY]

Capitalization can be fun.

[Bwaaah]

Capitalization is very bad for readability. It can also represent an inflated sense of self-importance in whomever uses it. I was just trying to be faithful to the author, at the expense of readability.

[shawn_dude]

The GOP is infamous for avoiding policy proposals because:
a) it doesn't excite their base
b) the majority of Americans oppose most of them

Harris has already provided some high level policy information related to subjects like women's health and LGBT rights.

The Right has it's own, detailed policy proposal called "Project 2025" and it's been quickly tucked under a rug because, no surprise, the majority of Americans don't like it. But, like most things on the right, it's been steadily leaking out into the public to the point that Trump is pretending he has no connection to it. Who in their right mind thought internment camps and mass deportations was going to play well with the average citizen?!

Still waiting on the right's policy for replacing Obamacare almost two decades after they claimed one was coming.

[Martinned2]

I went to the Harris Walz campaign website the other day to find some kind of list of policy stances, but there wasn't one. All there was was 15 different ways to donate money. I get that American politics is all about the $$$, but is it too much to ask to have some kind of corner of the website devoted to actual policy? Or is there some separate website that I'm not aware of where I was meant to be looking?

[Magister]

I had no trouble finding "Meet Kamala Harris" and "Meet Tim Walz" on the campaign website. These are mostly past accomplishments, but enough to infer policy positions. A month after taking over the campaign it doesn't seem a bad approach; she represents the status quo and has more to lose than gain by taking a new direction from the administration's past practice. (I do expect more after the actual convention approves the party platform next week; the previous draft is from when Biden was still the candidate.)

[shawn_dude]

While that is a fair criticism, I'll note that Kamala is still the VP and still obligated to support Biden, especially given the way she rose to the nomination. Where her policies differ, she's in a tough spot as it could undermine Biden's current presidency.

[Aoidized]

Stop sugar coating with euphemisms like "LGBT rights." What you mean is that you think biological males should be allowed to go into the girls' locker room and that gay men should have a right to "marry" whomever they want and consummate that marriage by finishing inside the other man's rectum. Say it like a man.

[Joe_dallas]

Michael P 6 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Conclusion: The left is not interested in policy. Or maybe they know their policies are electoral losers."

The left actually is very interested in policy - they just dont want the public to know what their policy actually entails.

Harris's policies are fairly well known - at least by those who pay attention.
her voting record in the US Senate
Her 2000 Campaign policies.
her campaign and foreign policy advisors.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/3121319/10-radical-harris-positions-the-media-is-helping-her-hide-list/

[Longtobefree]

I no longer can tell if I am agreeing or rebutting you; but there is a democrat party platform – – – – –

[Dr. Ed 2]

I notice that both Heels Up and The Deserter are going for the White Male vote.

[Longtobefree]

Too many white males still have guns and don't want to have them confiscated.

[Frank Drackman]

Too many want to see someone try to confiscate them

[shawn_dude]

You have the right to be as boorish as you like but I'm telling you, as a veteran who served in a foreign country, calling Walz a "deserter" or claiming "stolen valor" just pisses veterans off. The guy served 24 years and retired with honor. Fuck you for dishonoring his service.

[bernard11]

Fuck you. "Heels up." You're a disgraceful human being.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Majority supports court reform:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4824095-republicans-support-supreme-court-reforms/

We should not be afraid of it, it's not a threat to republican values:

https://verdict.justia.com/2024/08/15/americans-should-not-be-afraid-to-reform-the-supreme-court

[ThePublius]

The SCOTUS doesn't need reforming, especially not from Congress or the Executive branches. What if SCOTUS threatened to reform Congress? There's a lot more reforming to do there!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

SCOTUS rulings on administrative law have "reformed" Congress and the executive in practical effect & Justice Gorsuch is quite public about his policy position on how that is a good thing.

[Kazinski]

Which is a good thing.

Congress should make the law, not the administration.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congress made law.

They are allowed to give the administration some flexibility on details. For those who care, this is how it always was done.

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/08/justice-gorsuchs-critique-of.html

[Joe_dallas]

https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-three-years-anniversary-68f5bc4a3cdd9d07dcecd5d6d391df5c

Biden's signature achievement -
The taliban parading with US military equipment

[Bob from Ohio]

"Biden’s signature achievement"

Not just Biden.

"In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” Harris was asked about being the last person in the room regarding major decisions, something that Biden has said is important to him in his working relationship with the vice president. Harris confirmed that was the case regarding the move to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by Sept. 11." Politico By Allie Bice 04/25/2021 10:50 AM EDT

[John F. Carr]

Was there any good way out of Afghanistan?

[Krayt]

From Drudge's description of the link

[Trump] calls Harris "Incompetent socialist lunatic" with "laugh of a crazy person".

Arguendo, how bad do you have to be to struggle to fight to a draw with her?

[Ed Grinberg]

or maybe:
How out-there-insane are millions of Americans (if the polls are to be believed)?!

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/kamala-harriss-tenure-as-attorney-general-was-even-worse-than-you-think?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

another article by someone who has first hand knowledge of Harris unethical professional ethics

[John F. Carr]

A woman died at Disney World. Her husband sued alleging Disney killed her with bad food. Disney moved to compel arbitration on the grounds that the man had previously signed up for Disney+, which has the usual tech company terms of service allowing the company to kill you without consequence. The motion is still in the media coverage stage and the judge has not ruled on it.

If Disney's lawyers were smart they dictated that the scope of the arbitration clause must be determined by arbitration.

[Aoidized]

The question isn't whether the arbitration should be enforceable for Disney+, but whether the affiliate language should cover any other suit against Disney.

[darkknight9]

Holy read the EULA Batman!

"The entertainment company argues it cannot be taken to court because, in its terms of use, it says users agree to settle any disputes with the company via arbitration.
It says Mr Piccolo agreed to these terms of use when he signed up to a one month free trial of its streaming service, Disney+, in 2019."

Cripes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At what point does the concept of "unconscionable contract" apply?

[John F. Carr]

When the arbitrator says it does.

Federal law requires judges to pretend that arbitration is fair. The "arbitration is unconscionable" defense has been tried and rejected.

Judges can decide if arbitration agreements are facially invalid, for the same reasons that apply to any other contract. Arbitrators get to decide if the contract is invalid as applied.

[Martinned2]

Just for context, here is the EU unfair terms in consumer contracts directive from 1993, which declares as unfair and therefore void terms in consumer contracts that have the object or effect of:

(a) excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that seller or supplier;
(...)
(q)excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01993L0013-20111212

I would have thought/hoped that such a thing existed in the US as well...

[John F. Carr]

Item (q) is the opposite of U.S. law. Under the Federal Arbitration Act states may not prohibit non-negotiable arbitration clauses. In the past 20 years Congress has exempted some sexual misconduct from binding arbitration. There is talk of federal regulations to make more exceptions.

Item (a) is more complicated. In my state a seller of consumer goods may not disclaim certain implied warranties. This rule is not universal. Many states have a rule (the economic loss rule) saying that personal injury claims are more likely to survive legalese than claims for consequential damages. Gross negligence is more likely to survive legalese than ordinary negligence. In most cases, an attempt to disclaim liability for gross negligence is unenforceable. Waivers of ordinary negligence claims are common. If you want to use a climbing wall the facility owner may require you not to sue. They really mean, not to sue unless they do something really awful. I passed up a trip to an axe-throwing venue because I didn't want to sign the waiver.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The breathtaking part is that, if this is upheld, such a company could enforce, universally and for the life of the consumer, a limitation which related to an unrelated agreement of nominal value which was fully completed within one month. Worth it?

[John F. Carr]

The events of 2020 convinced Massachusetts lawmakers to allow discipline of police officers. Traditionally municipalities have bargained away the right to fire bad cops. An attempt to impose serious discipline would normally be overturned by an arbitrator. Now a state commission has the power to "decertify" a police officer. State law says a decertified officer can't work in law enforcement. Decertification is not the town's decision and the arbitrator can't overrule it.

The list of decertified officers has now grown to 23. The latest three:

* Officer pleaded guilty to federal insider trading charges, sentenced to three months.
* Officer retired to settle unspecified charges against him, including the vague "threatening to commit a crime".
* Officer had his police dog attack a handcuffed suspect.

There is a national database of decertified officers. A careful public employer might consult the database before hiring a new officer. Of these three, two wouldn't work again as police officers anyway because one is a felon and the other has a big pension. Maybe most of the decertifications are also pro forma. At least a few are good news for people who don't like violent cops, like the dog releaser and former Springfield officer Gregg Bigda.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The thing I like is that POST includes campus police officers.

The other thing is that in small towns, the appointment of police officers is often political -- brother or son in law of a selectman, etc. The POST commission, being state, eliminates the nepotism bias.

The problem is that I don't believe POST extends to armed private security guards -- it's a good start but armed private security always had a lot of crazies who couldn't make it (or be hired as) cops.

[John F. Carr]

Private security guards don't have qualified immunity. Sometimes they don't even have the system on their side.

[shawn_dude]

Although, security guards don't get qualified immunity.

[dwb68]

Trump didn't look much better in last nights NC address. At least he is taking everyones advice and getting out on the trail.

Yes, Harris is busy moving to the center an co-opting his policies. Trumpism sounds better when its not from Trump lmao.

With 23 days before early voting starts in some swing states, I still dont see any reason to change: Harris will be the 47th President. Trump may change his stripes, but I dont count on it.

Of course she's a liar and chameleon, thats why we need GOP Senate as a check. But so far, I dont see any evidence Trump is up to the task of staying disciplined, prosecuting the case, and talking about policy without rambling and airing personal grievances of the past. Nobody cares. Move on.

[Aoidized]

I agree with that. Between the media helping her, she can lie bout her positions, or not speak about them at all, and not be called out.

And Trump doesn't know how to stay focused and call her a liar.

[Kazinski]

It's a dead heat they are basically tied in the national polls, and the swing state polls.

I think Trump will pull it out, but I won't miss him when he is gone.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you actually believe the polling? I do not think it is a dead heat.

We will basically know by Rosh Hashana (roughly a month b-4 election), and after the debates.

[dwb68]

Polls are a lagging indicator. They are trending her way, so he's far behind at this point.

She has awful political instincts, so she will make an unforced error. Whether she does it in time, or whether its big enough for Trump to make up ground...not sure. It has to be big enough that independents go back to hating her as much as Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect she's making multiple unforced errors, and they're largely not being reported.

In a race like this, early voting is a serious headwind for Trump, because she will have banked a lot of votes before the media's efforts to keep the electorate in the dark about just what they're voting for fails. She doesn't need her errors to be forever buried, just for the public to learn of them too late.

[Sarcastr0]

I expect she’s making multiple unforced errors, and they’re largely not being reported.

Incredible.

[Michael P]

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2024/08/07/why-harris-isnt-taking-questions-00173115

She often visits with the press pool seated at the back of her plane (something Biden did just twice in more than three years), but speaking only off the record. And when she has chosen to comment on the record on something in the news, Harris has spoken to the pool on the tarmac, making statements but not taking questions.

Her behavior suggests she has a lot to hide.

[Sarcastr0]

No it doesn't. Your comments suggest you wish you were as creatively crazy as Brett, but you can't quite get there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Her behavior suggests she has a lot to hide."

She's just talking to the second tranche of campaign workers, her press.

[dwb68]

idk, I am following it pretty closely, and imo Walz is so far the only one. She hired a bunch of Obama advisors and they are (very wisely) keeping her off camera and moving her to the middle. She’s doing roughly the same speech at every event. How long can she keep it up? Biden hid in the basement for 8 months and won, because Trump beats himself.

[Brett Bellmore]

It might be more accurate, I suppose, to say that she has MADE a lot of unforced errors in the last few years, and the media are cooperating with her in memory holing them, while she "very wisely" minimizes her unscripted exposure to the public so that they'll vote with as little idea of who they're voting for as possible.

It might be "very wise" for a candidate who who holds unpopular positions on numerous topics to avoid exposure as much as possible, but it's not good for democracy. Ideally these two should have to speak at length, extemporaneously, at least an hour a day, to provide maximum opportunity for their true selves to accidently let any mask slip.

[dwb68]

All true. *Someone* (cough) needs to spend a lot more time prosecuting that case than airing 2020 personal grievances, and forcing her to do unscripted media.

[shawn_dude]

If you look at her record and account for times when she was required to take certain positions in support of local law, she has a fairly balanced and pragmatic approach in support of law enforcement, common-sense gun regulations, and other centrist positions. She also signed up for "Medicare for all" early but then changed her mind. To most on the far left, she's a centrist. To those on the far right (which I'd argue includes all MAGA folks), she's practically a Marxist. The truth is in the middle. Or, more precisely, the center-left. If elected, she'll likely govern much like Obama did.

[Aoidized]

"Common sense gun regulations" are far-left, they're not moderate.

[dwb68]

commons sense gun regulations LMAO like a ban on assault rifles and mandatory buybacks. Or like the absurdity that has become of CA gun regulations. Totally common sense for a San Fransisco liberal.

[shawn_dude]

I'm sure Trump is super-happy the loony that shot him in the ear was able to get an AR-15 so easily. If we're to extend the usual GOP talking points about mass shootings in grade schools to Trump, there's nothing we can do to prevent crazy people from getting rifles and shooting loud-mouthed ex-presidents.

Thoughts and Prayers.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He should be glad he chose to use an AR-15...

[Commenter_XY]

I told you Brett, the moment Kamala opens her mouth, it is trouble for her campaign.

[shawn_dude]

And yet, for Trump, the "late, great Hannibal Lecter" and toilet-flushing gaffs don't seem to slow his momentum much. If Kamala's gaffs would impact her reputation with Democrat and Independent voters but Trump's gaffs have no impact on his voters, that isn't a good look for Trump voters. It's great for Trump's ability to wield political power, yes, but only because his voters are caught up in a cult-like adoration of him regardless of what he does.

[Commenter_XY]

You don't have to believe me. But I am telling you now, once Kamala opens her mouth, her numbers will drop. Her tepid defense of Weirdo Walz was telling; who on earth vetted that guy? And let's not dwell on the 'stand by your man' aspect here. Her failure to do that hurts her.

[shawn_dude]

It's gotta bug the right that "weird" has stuck so easily to their brand. How did that happen, they wonder? Because, once you strip the "threat to democracy" hyperbole and get right down to it, it's just obvious and true.

I don't think "stand by your man" works in your favor here, unless you're just being misogynistic. Something about "Hang Mike Pence!" and a gallows comes to mind.

[Don Nico]

Ms Harris has NO good reason to "open her mouth." Her present campaign strategy (and Trump campaign stupidity) is working very well for her

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Exactly. Why would she choose to wrestle with the pig if she's doing fine by staying out of the pigsty?

[Aoidized]

The moment Kamal opens her mouth, any number of men shoot a sticky load inside.

[bernard11]

the media’s efforts to keep the electorate in the dark

Your decline into insanity continues.

[Malika]

"I think Trump will pull it out, but I won’t miss him when he is gone."

Expound.

[Frank Drackman]

Check the polls a week after the next 9-11

[apedad]

(Intersection of pro sports, legal, finance, and broadcast media)

NBA’s $76 Billion TV Deal Features Unique Role for In-House Team

The National Basketball Association’s $76 billion broadcast deal with The Walt Disney Co., Comcast Corp., and Amazon.com Inc. leaned heavily on in-house legal staff experienced in the complexities of multi-tiered media transactions.

The league’s lawyers drive strategy in negotiations over media rights and other deals, said four sources familiar with the situation. They played a role in securing an 11-year deal that will see NBA games broadcast on Comcast’s NBC, Disney’s ABC and ESPN, and Amazon Prime Video, according to one of the sources.

The NBA and its 30 franchises derive the bulk of their value from revenue generated by media rights deals. The transactions have expanded—both in size and scope—with the advent of streaming and digital broadcast partners.

Unlike a publicly traded company doing a traditional M&A deal with the assistance of outside counsel, leagues like the NBA rely on legions of lawyers they already employ to take the lead.

“NBA lawyers live and breathe these television deals every day,” said Tim Browne, a former in-house lawyer for the league who now leads Polsinelli’s sports and entertainment practice.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/nbas-76-billion-tv-deal-features-unique-role-for-in-house-team

Life is good for these guys.

[Kazinski]

Yeah there is a lot of money in it:

https://www.si.com/media/charles-barkley-gave-up-100-million-to-stay-at-turner

"Charles Barkley Says He Gave Up $100 Million to Stay at Turner"

I hope he lands on his feet. TNT's studio show is much more entertaining than the games.

[hobie]

An article in the NY Times asked the teacher of troubled, angry special needs students: When someone is upset, what is the one question you ask them?

The teacher said, 'Do you want to be helped, heard or hugged?'

So which is it, Hayseeds?

[Frank Drackman]

One of these days Hobie-Stank you’re gonna say “Hayseed” to the wrong Hayseed. Like Foghorn Leghorn did with his Feathers, I hope you keep your Molars numbered, for just such a Catastrophy
Frank

[hobie]

Clearly, our special little Navy Seal Hospital Ward wants to be heard...not helped nor hugged. Should probably drop the 'heard' part. It gives our braggadocious armchair special forces kooks too much wiggle room

[Frank Drackman]

Because I'm a nice guy, I'll tell you how Dentists number teeth (I can do a Vasectomy, Yes, I'm a Gas Passer, in the old days, you learned to do them in Med School, I&D a Perianal Abscess, but any thing to do with teeth creeps me out) Starting on Right Upper, you go from 1-16, most peoples don't have 1 or 16, as those are the Upper Wisdom Teeth, and then you go down to Left Lower, from 17 to 32, again, with 17&22 usually being absent,
and what am I even talking about this with Hobie-Stank? He's the whole reason they came up with the Tatoo: Teeth Ratio, if Hobie-Stank's ratio is less than Unity, I'm Pete Booty-Judge

Frank

[hobie]

Frankie, normally I don't give oxygen to the children and trolls here, but I'm feeling charitable today. So, brave wounded warrior, consider yourself blessed

[Frank Drackman]

We know what you give children and it ain’t Oxygen

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman. Shamelessly seeking props for his so called 'service'. A stain on our veterans. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part to withhold victimizing you this past year

[John F. Carr]

Former Green Beret Jordan Goudreau is charged with arms smuggling for assisting the anti-Maduro resistance in Venezuela last time Maduro won a disputed election. While the Trump administration denied involvement in Goudreau's plot, the Trump administration did want Maduro gone. National Security advisor John Bolton later referred to the attempt to replace Maduro as a coup, stirring up liberal writers who hadn't read his book or they would have known everything years earlier.

But Trump is gone and Biden is trying to be more friendly with Maduro. Goudreau probably didn't get any written assurances from Trump's people. Such is the risk of clandestine operations. If you are caught we will deny any knowledge of your actions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No doubt Biden also wants Maduro gone. The carrot he had offered Maduro was spat out; time for the stick...

[Commenter_XY]

Kudos to Real Madrid FC for capturing UEFA Super Cup. Congrats to Mbappe for scoring his first (of many, many to come) goal with the club.

With the addition of Mbappe, this RMA team will be unstoppable. Possibly the strongest front line in history (Mbappe, Vinicius Jr, Rodrygo, Bellingham). Young, too. Ditched a bunch of oldsters over the break.

They should easily win Copa Del Rey, LaLiga, and then Champions League (again).

[Malika]

Mbappe is an amazing talent.

Did you see the Olympics? I was delighted to see the USWNT win Gold in a thrilling match. In the Men's side, how about Morocco? Wow.

[Commenter_XY]

I did, Queenie. I did see the WNT and MNT play. After the US men were eliminated, I was rooting for ESP. As LaLiga fan, of course I will root for ESP (after USA, of course).

Two athletes stand out: Cole Hocker and Quincy Hall. I have never see such a display of pure human willpower to win. I literally had tears for them; I was very proud of them, as an American.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/3121319/10-radical-harris-positions-the-media-is-helping-her-hide-list/

Harris's radical positions which are supported by the woke leftists.

Do democrats really want to support a president that advocates for those policies?

[Aoidized]

As long as she supports the right to kill babies and the right of a transgender "woman" pre-surgery to insert his HIV infected member into a little boy's backside and spread HIV, why not?

[Magister]

Most things in the list of ten "positions" are non-positions or false or misrepresentations or actually a popular position.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes very popular positions with the Woke leftists.

[Magister]

Woke leftists apparently are a majority of the country. Who knew?

[Joe_dallas]

Harris supports cutting police funding

Magister - ask the people of south minneapolis who have seen massive increase in crime whether cutting the police presence is still popular.

[hobie]

Don't defend policing agencies such as the FBI. Got it. Can I quote you later on this, Joe?

[Magister]

Joe_dallas, too stupid to do anything but repeat lies from the right wing. Harris never advocated "cutting the police presence".

Fact-checking Trump’s misleading statement that Kamala Harris ‘wants to defund the police’

[Joe_dallas]

Mag
You are exceptionally gullible to believe a far left “fact-checkers” propaganda .

even CNN calls that claim BS

Kamala Harris praised ‘defund the police’ movement in June 2020 radio interview

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html

[Joe_dallas]

ABC says politico fact check is BS

https://abcnews.go.com/US/harris-2020-redirect-resources-police/story?id=112378103

[Joe_dallas]

Kamala Harris donated last year to defund police group backing DC ‘sanctuary city’ law

https://gazette.com/news/wex/kamala-harris-donated-last-year-to-defund-police-group-backing-dc-sanctuary-city-law/article_20c33a0e-29a3-544d-8d86-9e4d61494487.html

[David Nieporent]

Legal Aid is not "defund police group."

[Magister]

Joe_dallas should have posted at least one of this blizzard from his sock puppet accounts.

A bunch of claims Harris wanted to defund the police that try to justify it with the same things from the fact check I posted. like "reimagining" and not "militarizing police". It seems odd that a conservative would not want "to take a look at these budgets and figure out whether it reflects the right priorities".

[Joe_dallas]

Mag – You got fooled – I gave you three other sources - yet you come back with same piece of denial

[Magister]

Because your three sources just interpret the same information differently than the fact check. I realize you are a hopeless cultist who worships the biggest liar, but I’m still going to mock you for it.

(Adding in that you only tried to defend one thing from your list.)

[Longtobefree]

According to the democrat party platform, yes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You've read it?

[ReaderY]

The recent invasion of Russia by Ukraine has led to pictures of devastated villages and destroyed buildings circulating that look remarkably like pictures of similar destruction in Gaza. Moreover, Putin and Russian supporters have consistently accused Ukraine of deliberately targetting civilians.

Where are all the opponents of genocide so active on this blog? Why aren’t they actively calling for the ICC to indict Zelensky for war crimes? Why aren’t they calling for an arms embargo of Ukraine?

The silence in the face of such obvious evil, full of images visually no different from ones that our resident military ethicists and international law experts repeatedly assured us represented unquestionable evidence of war crimes, is simply devastating. Where are your ethics? Your morals? Your sense of justice?

https://images.app.goo.gl/KQu3tGwVrokuFf286

[Malika]

"Moreover, Putin and Russian supporters have consistently accused Ukraine of deliberately targetting civilians."

Uh, come on.

[ReaderY]

They’re just as credible as Hamas, and people believe Hamas when it says similar things (with similar hypocrisy).

[hobie]

Bombing civilian infrastructure bad. Got it. Can I quote you on this later, Reader Y?

[Commenter_XY]

They have none = Where are your ethics? Your morals? Your sense of justice?

[shawn_dude]

The image you link to shows one impacted area and not the rest of the village. Yet nearly all of Gaza looks like that. Both Israel and Russia are carrying out intentional campaigns to starve the areas they're bombing. Ukraine is providing support and handing out food in Kursk. Your hyperbole here, in the face of obvious facts to the contrary, isn't helping your cause.

https://www.aol.com/ukraine-making-point-treating-russian-115822435.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Your Secret Service at work.
First the break into a beauty salon so someone can pee and now this:
EXCLUSIVE and BREAKING: During a Donald Trump visit to North Carolina yesterday, a woman Secret Service special agent abandoned her post to breastfeed with no permission/warning to the event site agent, according to three sources in the Secret Service community.

Shortly before Trump's motorcade arrival -- I'm told five minutes beforehand -- the site agent was getting ready for the arrival. (The site agent is the person in charge of the entire event's security.)

The site agent went to do one final sweep of the walking route and found the agent breast-feeding her child in a room that is supposed to be set aside for important Secret Service official work, i.e. a potential emergency related to the president.

A working agent on duty cannot bring a child to a protective assignment. The woman was out of the Atlanta Field Office.

The woman agent was in the room with two other family members.

The agent and her family members bypassed the Uniformed Division checkpoint and were escorted by an unpinned event staff into the room to breastfeed, the sources said. Unpinned means they have not been cleared by the Secret Service to be there.

When contacted about the incident, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said the incident did not have an impact on the event. and it's under review.

"All employees of the U.S. Secret Service are held to the highest standards," he said. "While there was no impact to the North Carolina event, the specifics of this incident are being examined. Given this is a personnel matter, w
https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/1824059727766290534

[Sarcastr0]

a woman Secret Service special agent

Y'all just can't help yourselves.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that should go without saying in a story about breastfeeding.

But it seems like you actually should be happy the author felt the need to clarify -- it shows the latest round of wishful-thinking gender weirdness is really starting to take root!

[Frank Drackman]

My Mother never breast fed me, she said she liked me as a Friend!

[Sarcastr0]

Most normal people who have dealt with events in which there is no nursing mother's room find this breach of protocol (protocol that didn't include this pretty common eventuality) not really a crisis.

"a room that is supposed to be set aside for important Secret Service official work, i.e. a potential emergency related to the president."
Is some pearl-clutching and embellishment. What emergency involving the President would require a non-secure room be set aside?

The right working the anti-working-women side of the street is a horrible idea, but some can't help themselves. The divorced dad energy is strong in them, even if they are not in fact divorced or dads.

I'm all for a deep investigation of the Secret Service. We've been earing about hiring issues and cultural issues and training issues for at least 3 administrations now.

This is not evidence of that issue, other than they have bad SOP.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"This is not evidence of that issue, other than they have bad SOP."

"Other than the bad standard operating procedure, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like your husband's security detail?"

[Frank Drackman]

Well Mr President, you can’t say Butler PA doesn’t love you!(not fair, Crooks wasn’t from there)

[Sarcastr0]

An SOP for an org of any size in this day and age that doesn't include something for nursing mothers, either formally or via discretion from manager types is badly drawn.

The Secret Service is full of issues; this, without more, is a symptom only of their hidebound culture missing common pickups.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Other than the hidebound culture missing common pickups, Mrs. Lincoln..."

[Bob from Ohio]

"doesn’t include something for nursing mothers"

FFS. She was not in a normal work place, she was in the field.

A law enforcement officer bringing a baby to the field is dangerous and foolhardy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Was that consistent with the SOP?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Any" org? You mean that, SWAT teams, say, should have provisions for a member to bring along their infant, and take a break from busting down the door to go off and nurse?

Look, Sarcastr0, you're trying to defend the indefensible here. According to the account, she abandoned her post without even notifying anybody, and allowed multiple people past the defense perimeter without their being checked out.

There are simply some jobs where, if you're a mother with an infant you want to nurse, you should take maternity leave.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, THE AGENT LEFT HER POST -- soldiers have been executed for doing that. And how athletic is a breastfeeding post-partum woman? is she physically qualified (RIGHT NOW) to be an agent?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Most normal people who have dealt with events in which there is no nursing mother’s room find this breach of protocol (protocol that didn’t include this pretty common eventuality) not really a crisis. "

A LEO brought her baby on a field assignment! "Protecting" someone who was shot at a month ago!

You find this normal?

[Life of Brian]

Most normal people who have dealt with events in which there is no nursing mother’s room find this breach of protocol (protocol that didn’t include this pretty common eventuality) not really a crisis.

Most straw men aren't. The issue, captured succinctly in the headline, is a Secret Service agent on protective detail secretly knocking off for personal business right at go time.

Wrapping it in the "working woman" flag doesn't change that calculus. Male agents can't just sneak off from their posts to do whatevs, whenevs either.

[Sarcastr0]

Was she on protective detail? RealClearPolitics sure as heck suggests it without saying it, but they don't say that.

This looks to me, based the above, like a biased hit job. Maybe more details will come out, and I'll change my mind.

Certainly if this leads to an actual audit of the Secret Service I'll be happy with that. But if it just leads to shitting on working mothers, well, the GOP sure is working hard to alienate women these days.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Was she on protective detail? "

Ok, genius, why was she at the Trump rally then?

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t know.

This is a response people should give more often.

[Bob from Ohio]

The Tweet says she was on protective detail.

"A working agent on duty cannot bring a child to a protective assignment."

You are just playing your Last Reasonable Man card because you knee jerked into "GOP hate women" territory.

[Sarcastr0]

You're not quite that naïve. That doesn't quite say that she is on protective detail, does it?

Could be unclear wording, but RealClearPolitics is absolutely not above leaving a strong impression of something that is not true, without quite saying it.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are just pathetic.

Take the L and move on.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't trust the media. Except here where you know what they mean to say, even if they don't quite say it.

This is why you're a sucker.

[Ska]

You should have taken your own advice three hours ago.

[Mr. Bumble]

He can't because he is a douche.
Douche

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

For the life of me I don't understand why people continue to engage with him.

[Bwaaah]

He looks like easy prey. But no matter hard you stomp on him, he comes right back like nothing happened. He's like the Black Night.

[Sarcastr0]

Creepy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ah, it has come out now that the agent in question violated all sorts of SOP. She didn't bring the baby there, but members of her family did, and were allowed into the secure area (also in violation of SOP). In short, it should never have happened.

Which is so bleeding obvious, nobody will be found to disagree with it, so the lasting impression will be simply that of the MAGAloons hysterically teeing off at "women" and "working mothers" in general. Well done!

[Sarcastr0]

Nice follow-up; appreciate it.

[apedad]

Luckily the incident didn't stop Trump from giving his (brilliant!) speech on the economy.

Trump made little effort to stick to the topic on addressing economic policy during his speech, mixing pledges to slash energy prices and "unleash economic abundance" with tit-for-tat insults on Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.

"This is a little bit different day, because this isn’t a rally. We’re talking about a thing called the economy. They wanted to do a speech on the economy. A lot of people are very devastated by what's happened with inflation and all of the other things," Trump told the audience in Asheville.

"So we're doing this as an intellectual speech. You're all intellectuals today. Today, we're doing it, and we're doing it right now. And it's very important. They say it's the most important subject," he added.

[Michael P]

Did Trump talk about what can be (gesturing forward with right hand), unburdened by what has been (gesturing backwards with left hand), or is only Harris so sinistrophobic?

[Sarcastr0]

Michael P has just discovered political slogans and he is super mad about them.

Tune in next week when he discovers TV ads using black and white still photos.

[hobie]

I've never heard of law enforcement or military personnel bringing infants to live duty out in the field, or where snipers could be lurking. And if they did I would expect them to be immediately charged with child endangerment. However, since I see no credible news organizations have picked up this story, and it's coming from a single-source rightwing kook on X, and it triggers the bee in the rubes' bonnets about women in military and law enforcement, and it registers as true with hayseeds like Bumble here...I' think I'll give it a pass and let you huckleberries have your latest little fantasy

[Josh R]

The UAW sued Trump and Musk for their comments on firing striking workers as violations of 29 U.S. Code § 158. Does their speech violate the statute? Is it protected by the First Amendment?

[Michael Ejercito]

It is.

[Aoidized]

Of course it is. This is a campaign tactic.

[Michael P]

Send the UAW's lawyers back to the salt mine!

[JasonT20]

I think it is illegal to fire union workers on a strike that has followed labor laws, but I would still think that their speech is still protected by the 1st Amendment.

However, since Musk has publicly endorsed Trump, it will be hard to claim that this was a journalistic interview rather than a campaign event or campaign advertising. Thus, it would likely violate donation limits, even taking it as a personal donation from Musk rather than a direct contribution from the company (not allowed at all).

[SRG2]

A Trump-supporting friend wondered whether I was outraged at the undemocratic process by which Biden was shoved aside and Kamala installed.

It seems that only Trump supporters are outraged, just as it was largely Trump supporters who were outraged when the Democrats kept Bernie off the ballot.

Do they have any idea how ridiculous they sound? It would seem not.

It's pretty obvious that the outrage is really over the unfairness of the Democrats selecting the person they think has the best chance of beating Trump and - in this case - removing someone those very same Trump supporters deem (probably correctly IMO) unfit to run again.

[Frank Drackman]

Pete Booty Judge and his Wife Jizz are pissed, as well as Mee-Shell Hussein, Poke-a-Hontas, Juan-Queen Castro, Calvin Loathsome (AKA Gavin New-Scum), and the usual gang of Idiots who would have run if Parkinsonian Joe’s Senility had been released for public viewing in January rather than June.
Think Cums-a-lot would win a DemoKKKrat primary that people actually got to vote in?

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, last time around she quit before anyone had a chance.

[M L]

No, millions and millions of Bernie supporters were outraged by that. The far left and some Democrats have long been disgruntled with things like this.

But yes, Trump supporters are motivated to be salty about the antidemocratic switcheroo in part because of perception that it hurt their candidate’s chance of winning. And, some of them are just “concern trolling” and trying to foster left wing dissension. I wouldn’t say they absolutely cannot have a principled objection to the way things went down, though.

Now, Kamala’s being extremely far left (the most left senator of all of them when she was senator) takes some wind out of the sails of any potential significant far left opposition to her coronation. It’s not like Hillary, when the far left considered her too moderate and were voting in droves for Bernie on policy.

Kamala performed uniformly terribly in her presidential primary run because she just wasn’t liked and didn’t generate much enthusiasm or interest. But she was always very obviously the darling favorite of the government-media complex, and the press gushed over her during and leading up to that primary. If she is indeed the type to spread her legs for pecuniary and political gain, that would be very instructive as to she would end up being such a favorite. But in any case, it is no surprise, then, that she was selected for VP and eventually installed as the candidate for president without ever having to win a primary, and indeed despite abysmal primary performance even while being the establishment favorite. The fact that she has long been the obvious favorite of the deep state and their mouthpieces is the most damning thing about her, in my opinion.

[Sarcastr0]

ML would like to tell us all about his deep understanding of millions and millions of Bernie supporters.

He'd also like to tell us all Harris is on the extreme far left. Which is bad.

He's very concerned on behalf of people he generally hates.

[Life of Brian]

No kidding. Who could possibly have a clue what Bernie supporters might think about Democrats keeping Bernie off the ballot without interviewing each and every one of them?

[Sarcastr0]

Better question - how many Bernie Sanders supporters are there in 2024.

[David Nieporent]

What "ballot" was Bernie "kept off of"?

[Krayt]

It’s ironic they were first in line to declare him senescent, so much so he shouldn’t be president. Ummm, you got your wish and the nation will be protected from him!

Are there any other roughly octogenarians who should step aside?

[not guilty]

"It seems that only Trump supporters are outraged, just as it was largely Trump supporters who were outraged when the Democrats kept Bernie off the ballot."

When has Bernie Sanders been kept off any ballot? He has been elected in Vermont numerous times as an Independent -- three times to the Senate (currently running for election to a fourth term), eight times to the House of Representatives and four times mayor of Burlington -- and he has twice run for the Democratic nomination for President.

[hobie]

Don't bring facts into this, please

[OtisAH]

Convicted Felon Donald Trump gave a speech on economic policy in Asheville yesterday:

“This is Tic Tacs, right? I don’t know if I like the company. I’ve never met. I have no idea. They’re so lucky. This is the greatest commercial they’ve ever had. This is Tic Tac. This is Tic Tac. This is inflation. Inflation is destroying our country.”

I dare anyone to dispute that.

[Frank Drackman]

Are Tic Tacs a Country in Europe? Is Roosh-a a bigger country than Tic Tacs? Did Roosh-a invade Tic Tacs, and that's basically wrong? Did Tic Tacs cry in the 1970's when Joe Biden didn't want them bussed to his son's school?
I know, I'm a piece of shit, try to come up with something original, and speaking of Shit, where's the Revolting Reverend Sandusky been lately?

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Solitary?

[Aoidized]

Convicted by felonies in a kangaroo proceeding front of a mestizo judge, prosecuted by a black DA, and in front of a female jury made of mostly of people of color. Who cares?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Someday when you are allowed to leave your house, I very much hope you speak to someone exactly like that and see what happens.

It is unsurprising that you don't post under your real name. You'd rightfully get your ass beat or killed and nobody would so much as blink.

[Aoidized]

I don't leave my house without my gun, and usually two, so I'll say whatever I feel like.

[not guilty]

Walking around unarmed takes a combination of brains and testicular fortitude that not everyone is blessed with.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nah, you're a Keyboard Kommando through and through. If you were as bold as you want people to think you are, you'd be posting under your real name.

If you're too cowardly to do that, you sure as shit aren't some tough-talking street warrior.

You spread your racist bullshit here, but in real life someone would kill you for it and you know it. I hope that day comes quickly.

[Michael P]

The governor and I and we were all doing a tour of the library here and talking about the significance of the passage of time. Right? The significance of the passage of time. So, when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to create these jobs. And there is such great significance to the passage of time when we think about a day in the life of our children and what that means to the future of our nation, depending on whether or not they have the resources they need to achieve their God-given talent.

- "Kackles" Harris

She will probably revise her next delivery of that speech to steal the idea that Tic Tacs are among those necessary resources.

[Frank Drackman]

Preview of Bill Maher's next live "Real Time"
"Now I'm not saying Kamala's gonna win Georgia, but Laken Riley's already voted for her.....
Twice!!!!"
Too soon? use John Louis, it's just as funny

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

The question is, will Brian Kemp vote for Trump after he insulted Kemp's wife Marty.

[Frank Drackman]

who gives a fuck? Only reason Kemp won is "45" endorsed him and he got to run against Aunt Jemimah, even then he barely won,

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Just thought it an interesting question. I wouldn’t vote for a person that insulted anyone in my family.

BTW: will Georgia go Harris?

[Frank Drackman]

Cums-a-lot called everyone who didn’t support forced Screw-el Bussing Race-it’s, see how that plays in MI, WI, PA

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Frank, Take a moment calm down and put your comment in plain English.

[hobie]

I don't think he can calm down. As a token doctor, he just establishes your weight and age and administers a sedative many of us on the street can and do self-apply. Well paid, but unimportant, he seeks validation as an REMF. So thank the poor bastard for his service. Like all veterans, he needs your approval. Unless I'm wrong and veterans don't seek approval. If so I apologize.

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank, you just said so many stupid things I'm surprised you're able to wipe your own shit-hole without ass-istance. Ask Michael Jackson how easy it is to administer Propofol. Yeah, all Anesthesiologists do is knock you out, and all Sully Sullenberg did was set up the Autopilot, and didn't you know? most Surgery is done by Robots, and serving as a Battalion Surgeon for a Marine Infantry Battalion that went through the mine fields into Kuwait isn't actually a "REMF" like you even knew what it was, and you're as wrong (and Queer) as a Football Bat, like most Veterans, I don't give a fuck for your "Thank You for Your Service", or your reasons for why you didn't serve ( I know "Homo, much better now"), I served because the Navy paid for Med School, and most of us had to do a 2 year "Tour" on a ship or with a Marine Corpse unit.
And like most real men, I didn't want to stay back with the Squaws and Elderly.
Oh, and after Desert Storm, I got to be a Flight Doc, with 202 hours in FA-18 Deltas, how many you got? (I think the Navy still gives their Flight Docs a few months of hands/on Flight Training) That's right, You'll die and never get to see Hale-Bopp over the Adriatic at FL 400 (because it's not due back until 4397)
Because that's who I am, and you're Hobie-Stank

Frank

[hobie]

All you rubes can thank me for this exposure. You see how easy it is? You question his credentials and he folds like a cheap suit. Like Little Marko, he doubles down on his service. Thank you for your service, Frankie. Thank you for your service. All I have to do is turn the screws just a little bit to make you cry

[Frank Drackman]

"Folding like a Cheap Suit"? fuck, you're older than I am, what next? Your killer bit with Bro Tambo and Mr. Bones?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OMG, so much ballot clutter!

By court decision, Cornel West is placed on the ballot in North Carolina:

https://ballot-access.org/2024/08/12/cornel-west-wins-north-carolina-ballot-access-lawsuit/

...and Robert Kennedy, Jr. stays on the ballot

https://ballot-access.org/2024/08/12/robert-f-kennedy-jr-wins-north-carolina-ballot-access-lawsuit-in-state-court/

[Frank Drackman]

It was 20 years ago today,
Sergeant Waltz didn't want to play,
He didn't even try to smile,
His fat ass couldn't run a mile,
So may I introduce to you,
he's back after all these years ,
Sergeant Waltz's Stolen Valor Band!
He's Sergeant Waltz's Stolen Valor Band,
He really didn't want you to know
He's Sergeant Waltz's Stolen Valor Band
sit back and let the Suckers go,
Sergeant Waltz's Stolen, Sergeant Waltz's Stolen
Sergeant Waltz's Stolen Valor Band
....
Too bad Rush Limbo isn't around anymore

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Scuttlebutt has it that Robert Kennedy Jr. might endorse Kamala Harris for position in the administration. But it seems unclear who is most likely to lose votes to Kennedy. I am sure the campaign gurus are running the numbers for the best way to play this. My own feeling is that Kennedy enough of a loon that it not worth the price to Harris.

[Frank Drackman]

RFK Jr a Loon? he’s friggin Professor Steven Hawkins compared to Cums-a-lot, and that’s with Pork Tapeworm Eggs in his Squash(Doc Slang for Brain), what’s Cums-a-lot’s excuse?

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Whose butt did you skuttle to come up with that?

[ThePublius]

What do you have against verbs and indefinite articles?

[OtisAH]

The scuttlebutt is that he has tried reaching out to the Harris campaign, possibly with a cabinet spot in mind, but the Harris campaign is not taking his calls. Nor should they.

[not guilty]

Do you know the real reason that Maria Shriver married Arnold Schwarzenegger?

They wanted to breed a bulletproof Kennedy.

[Michael P]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-tears-into-kamala-harris-after-she-ignored-his-deal-offer

“The Democratic Party of RFK and JFK was the party of civil liberties and free speech,” the notorious vaccine skeptic wrote, referring to his father and uncle. “VP Harris’ is the party of censorship, lockdowns, and medical coercion.”

Kennedy is not wrong about the second part, at least, but he is also making it clear that he would have sold out those "civil liberties and free speech" values if it meant more political power for himself.

[shawn_dude]

Which is why he's going to peel off more votes from Trump than Harris.

[Michael P]

Is that why he ran in the Democrat primaries (until they got axed)? Is that why Democrats are suing to keep him off the ballot?

[OtisAH]

Convicted Felon Donald Trump gave a speech on economic policy in Asheville yesterday:

“Let them have their convention, and who knows how that’s going to turn out? Joe Biden is a very angry man, they took it away from him, they usurped it, they took it away from him, terrible terrible. I’m not sure they picked the right guy in him but he got 14 million votes — he got 14 million votes, she got no votes and you look at what happens, that’s not the way it was supposed to happen. They’re a threat to democracy, right? As they say.”

Convicted Felon Trump is simply wrecking Harris on kitchen table issues.

[Martinned2]

That's quite an economic policy he's got there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"quite an economic policy"

As good as this?

"Yamiche Alcindor@Yamiche
On Friday in North Carolina, Vice President Harris intends to announce a plan to prevent corporations in the food and grocery industries from unfairly jacking up prices on consumers, by imposing the first-ever federal ban on corporate price-gouging in these industries."

Price controls!

[Martinned2]

Well, sort of? What you're quoting there is actually an "economic policy", albeit not necessarily a very good one. Rambling about Biden and the Democratic primary process is not, in fact, an economic policy at all.

[Commenter_XY]

You got there first, BfO.

Kamala, in a moment unburdened by any previous moment, has decided to emulate Castro. Ask the Cubans and Venezuelans how price controls have worked out. This is what Kamala offers. Listen, can Kamala price control the cost of Wawa coffee...because that would actually be helpful. My wife loves that damned coffee and it is getting expensive. Price controls over food and grocery industries...is she serious? I thought we turned the page on communism. Well, people outside of SFO did.

At least tariffs are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

[Martinned2]

LOL, way to overreact. What she said there can mean any number of things, ranging from things that are sort of OK, to things that are really bad and/or unconstitutional.

[Bob from Ohio]

Susan Crabtree@susancrabtree
"EXCLUSIVE and BREAKING: During a Donald Trump visit to North Carolina yesterday, a woman Secret Service special agent abandoned her post to breastfeed with no permission/warning to the event site agent, according to three sources in the Secret Service community.
Shortly before Trump's motorcade arrival -- I'm told five minutes beforehand -- the site agent was getting ready for the arrival. (The site agent is the person in charge of the entire event's security.)
The site agent went to do one final sweep of the walking route and found the agent breast-feeding her child in a room that is supposed to be set aside for important Secret Service official work, i.e. a potential emergency related to the president.
A working agent on duty cannot bring a child to a protective assignment. The woman was out of the Atlanta Field Office.
The woman agent was in the room with two other family members.
The agent and her family members bypassed the Uniformed Division checkpoint and were escorted by an unpinned event staff into the room to breastfeed, the sources said. Unpinned means they have not been cleared by the Secret Service to be there.
When contacted about the incident, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said the incident did not have an impact on the event. and it's under review.
"All employees of the U.S. Secret Service are held to the highest standards," he said. "While there was no impact to the North Carolina event, the specifics of this incident are being examined. Given this is a personnel matter, we are not in a position to comment further."

We are in the best hands!

[Bob from Ohio]

Sorry, did not see Bumble had already posted this.

[Commenter_XY]

Interesting that the USSS and FBI have released practically nothing on Timothy Crooks. And our free press is strangely incurious.

No radio recordings (really?) of the Detail Team. No timeline produced. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Crooks was not alone when he went to the rifle range several times. No video at the range? Really? Oh Ok, nothing to see here.

Conclusion: It was accidentally on purpose.

Can a POTUS fire the USSS and replace them with another team else he chooses (i.e. Seal Team 6)?

O/T: The election will come down to AZ, GA, WI. Looks pretty good, actually.

[Sarcastr0]

Conclusion: It was accidentally on purpose.

You did not support this conclusion.

You and Brett can have fun. Call Alex Jones, I'm sure he's already on the case.

[Commenter_XY]

Not fun, sad.

Some time ago, back during the Mueller Russia Madness, there was an anonymous intel person quoted in WaPo who said that the American people were about to learn that everything they had been told for decades from both sides (R, D) was a lie. In subsequent years, what that man said has proven to be correct. Many things we were told that were true, were in fact deliberate lies. Eisenhower warned us, what he said to guard against has happened.

Our MSM (the free press?) has morphed into advocacy journolists. One would think there would be many pointed questions from the press about the assassin who tried to kill a presidential candidate. And individual accountability seems unattainable.

You're telling me the premier security/protective agency of the world (SAS might be better?)....did not have an agent on the rooftop of a building 150 yds away, with a direct line of sight to a presidential candidate making a speech; did not prevent the protectee (Trump) from taking the stage knowing a threat was present; did not stop Crooks after one shot (Crooks managed to get 8 shots off...wtf kind of protection is that?!); did not record their radio communications...but hey, it is all good. Nothing to see here. All of these are just innocuous, random circumstances.

Yeah, Ok.

[Sarcastr0]

there was an anonymous intel person quoted in WaPo who said that the American people were about to learn that everything they had been told for decades from both sides (R, D) was a lie

Just brain worms.

[OtisAH]

Nah, they’ve moved on. Their work is done.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yeah, what ever happened to "Q"?

[Longtobefree]

At least pull the SS out of DHS, and fire all the diversity hires and replace them with clones of Channing Tatum?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Item: A military judge has set an Aug. 20 deadline for both sides to brief him on whether Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had the authority to revoke the plea bargains reached with the 9/11 defendants.

Ted Olson, whose wife was killed in the 9/11 attacks, is one person supporting a plea deal as a means of closure.

Don't know if there is any strong legal argument that Austin did not have the authority. I do think the decision was misguided.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree. The 9/11 defendants will die in prison of old age no matter what. The plea deal allows closure now.

[tylertusta]

Closure for whom exactly?

[Commenter_XY]

The other way we could obtain closure is to summarily execute them.

[Martinned2]

Sure, why not? After torturing them for 20 years, how much lower can you go?

[Bob from Ohio]

"how much lower can you go"

Killing 3,000 innocents by hijacking planes and flying into buildings?

Being in prison isn't torture though.

[Commenter_XY]

Will you weep for them, m2? I think not.

I won't either.

[Martinned2]

I try to have better ethics than terrorists and torturers, yes.

[Sarcastr0]

Ethics is internal, not external - if your sole guardrail is personal sympathy you're not really ethical at all.

[Martinned2]

Who said anything about "personal sympathy"? All I said is "let's not torture people, not even terrorists". I get that that's a controversial statement in the US, but it really shouldn't be.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I was aligning to your comment not opposing it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

For the victims' families, obviously.

[Frank Drackman]

An open Thread without “Klingers” “Bettors” “Stomping”??? This is like the 3 Stooges after Curley died (Shemp wasn’t too bad, but Joe Besser?)

Frank “Take Joe Besser, please!”

[Martinned2]

Any opinions about whether RFK jr. actually lives in New York?

In court, Mr Kennedy sought to make the case that he has been renting a bedroom from a friend in Katonah, roughly 40 miles (65 km) north of Manhattan.

The friend, Barbara Moss, testified in court that she charges Mr Kennedy $500 (£301) a month. She also said there was no written lease.

Mr Kennedy also offered evidence of his residency by showing that he pays New York state taxes and has a law practice in the state.

However, in her 34-page ruling, Judge Ryba said "the overwhelming credible evidence introduced at trial" suggested that Mr Kennedy only held a New York address for "political standing".

“Given the size and appearance of the spare bedroom as shown in the photographs admitted into evidence, the Court finds Kennedy’s testimony that he may return to that bedroom to reside with his wife, family members, multiple pets, and all of his personal belongings to be highly improbable, if not preposterous,” the judge wrote.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jlgyzzyz4o

[Commenter_XY]

Nothing says 'Democracy' like a NY courtroom.

[Roger S]

Some people travel a lot. RFKjr has substantial ties to NY state. I thought that was sufficient.

[Martinned2]

As I understand it, the question was whether his address was what he said it was, which I understood to refer to is usual place of residence. At least, if I was asked for my address, that's what I would put down. But I haven't read the judgment, so maybe I've misunderstood something.

[shawn_dude]

The pet issue seems to be a big deal because he’s know for doing animal training which requires a lot of regular attention and reinforcement. If he’s a fulltime resident of NY and these pets are in California with his wife and kids, then that doesn’t corroborate his claim.

And California is infamous for interpreting its own residency broadly for the purpose of collecting taxes so this ruling could create additional issue for him back in his real home state.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What's a little election fraud among friends?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's been a hot summer, agreed.
But *another* G-4 level solar storm?
Anyone ever investigate the amount of heat that these storms produce, and how much THEY are warming the planet???

https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/tell-us/2024/08/13/aurora-borealis-perseid-meteor-shower/

[Longtobefree]

Yeah, maybe so. But are you going to serve the summons for climate damage?

[Krayt]

I believe solar output has been accurately tracked for several decades now, both above and below the atmosphere.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's negligible. The amount of energy the Sun puts into these storms is a tiny fraction of its total output.

[M L]

Looks like more Democrat election fraud, must be a day ending in y.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3120079/actblue-donor-fraud-investigation-biden-harris-campaign/

[Longtobefree]

Why we need 30 round magazines:
https://notthebee.com/article/california-woman-killed-in-dog-attack-was-mauled-by-pack-of-25-great-danes-running-loose-for-years

[John F. Carr]

The US Attorney for Central California announced criminal charges against five people related to actor Matthew Perry's death last year.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/five-defendants-including-two-doctors-charged-connection-actor-matthew-perrys-fatal

The main charges say the defendants conspired to provide him with ketamine. The harshest provisions of the Len Bias law do not apply to ketamine, which is a schedule III drug. Death resulting from a schedule III drug raises the statutory maximum from 10 years to 15 years. Death resulting from cocaine (as in the case of Len Bias) has a range of 20 years to life.

The case is United States v. Sangha, 2:24-cr-00236, (C.D. Cal.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Gena Rowlands , the original "Gloria" (although Sharon Stone wasn't bad in the remake), has passed away at age 94.

[Estragon]

If you have a piece of land surrounded by water and the level of the water rises one foot, would that piece of land have:

a) more beachfront property
b) less beachfront property
c) the same amount of beachfront property

??

[Mr. Bumble]

Not enough information.
Does Alcatraz Island have any beachfront property?

[Estragon]

I assure you, there is enough information to accurately answer this question. Substitute “shoreline” for “beachfront” if you are confused.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Actually there is not enough information to answer that question.

If the island is only 6" tall at its highest point, then you no longer have any 'beachfront' property. If it is shaped like a butte and the shoreline is a 5' cliff all the way around, then the area did not change at all.

[Estragon]

Then allow me to rephrase my question. Instead of an island that looks like the top of a mesa— imagine Madagascar.

[Estragon]

Or the continent of your choice

[Michael P]

There is not enough information. Imagine that the island is flat and 3" above the original water level, but has ten-foot exactly vertical cliff walls all around. If the water level rises a foot, it will have exactly the same amount of shoreline. If the cliff walls lean outward, or if there's a small gap that starts 6" above the original level, there will be more shoreline -- almost twice as much in the case of the small gap.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“There is not enough information.”

If you assume this may be a very idiosyncratic piece of property rather than the typical beachfront property, you can play games with the “shoreline.” But the problem was “beachfront”. Water against a cliff is not beachfront. It can be oceanfront, the edge of the property can be shoreline, but it’s not a beach and not beachfront.

if you’re going to try to win on hyper technical grounds, you have to be precise in your terms too. You lose. There will, except in some very idiosyncratic situations you have not described (and I leave as an exercise to you to figure out if you can), be less beachfront property if the water level rises in the scenario Estrogen posited.

And, generally, in the U.S. and around the world, rising sea levels will reduce beachfront property. There is enough information to know that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

[Michael P]

I exaggerated the details to make the point clearer, you goof. The original hypothetical did not present enough information to answer it, as evidenced by the significant restatement that Estragon made later.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It wasn't a significant restatement, it was restating the plainly obvious intent of the original question. He merely excluded an island that "looks like the top of a mesa." There are so many of those.

Again, you went hyper technical, but relied on shoreline rather than beachfront. You were wrong.

[shawn_dude]

Are we defining “beachfront property” narrowly using geography only? Because all those people in McMansions along the Florida coast are going to lose their homes in a 1′ increase of sea level, thus shrinking the width of Florida. So that would be “less beachfront property.”

BUT

If we’re attaching the dream-life quality of “beachfront property” and defining it as fabulous sandy beaches, then the cheaper homes across the street will not end up with “beachfront property” because what they’ll have is “crumbling, moldy, home with a tetanus and vermin risk”-front property instead. And that’s assuming the beachfront homes collapse don’t take their insurance provider down with them and the folks across the street are unable to meet their obligations for their mortgages. In which case, you’ll have additional vacant homes, some of which are partially flooded and rank with rotting seaweed and breeding grounds for mosquitos. And that would also mean "less beachfront property."

[shawn_dude]

AND

That means local and state governments that relied on the rich beachfront property taxes and underwrote the beachfront property insurance policies will lose significant revenue sources along with financial reserves creating a domino effect across the state as property is rapidly devalued and the wealthy jump on their jets and fly to the next beachfront home.

[Brett Bellmore]

"then the cheaper homes across the street will not end up with “beachfront property” because what they’ll have is “crumbling, moldy, home with a tetanus and vermin risk”-front property instead."

In your fantasy world nobody actually ever does anything to deal with problems, huh?

[Bwaaah]

"In your fantasy world nobody actually ever does anything to deal with problems, huh?"

No. In their world, it's best handled through a giant collective effort of everybody who *doesn't* live in the house. An expert, "blue ribbon" panel will study the problem for three years and articulate a non-specific, generic model of a house with mold near the ocean. They will also propose a mitigation scheme that they will call "comprehensive." Supporting legislation (including special interest bastardization of initial recommendations) and funding will be produced in the course of the subsequent 4-7 years.

The first phase of that mitigation scheme will be to lower the ocean. The mold, specifically, will be dealt with in phase three in which state inspectors will examine individual homes and produce Individualized Mitigation Strategy (IMS) reports. Homeowners can then use those IMS reports to solicit competitive bids from state-licensed Climate Mitigation Repair (CMR) companies.

Obviously, some people will google, "how to get rid of household mold," and figure out their particular issues from there. But in the broader picture, that's not a "comprehensive" strategy.

Try to think more like a person who wants to solve *real* problems, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

The answer is contingent as all get out, since beaches are not typically static structures, but instead dynamic, and can shrink and grow even independent of water level.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What a silly question. All you'd have to do is tilt the Earth back the other way.

(But not too much...)

[dwb68]

Harris to propose $25K in down payment support for 1st-time homebuyers

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-propose-25k-payment-support-1st-time-homeowners/story?id=112877568

I read this, i couldn't believe it. Price controls and now this.
Really, what? No, this is not how you appeal to swing state voters, as a tax and spend California liberal.

If team Trump cannot capitalize on this, shame on them.

[shawn_dude]

Yeah, telling blue-collar workers that home buying assistance is evil will be a real winning message among the Millennials and younger voters. That and student loan forgiveness really piss them off.

[dwb68]

If you think so you dont understand blue collar workers. They want good jobs, not commiefornia budget busting freebies.

[Commenter_XY]

Please, by all means, keep shouting from the rooftops. 🙂

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He thinks everyone wants to be a sugar baby suckling on Uncle Sugar's taxpayer tit.

[Krayt]

All house prices go up $25,000.

Then claim it was unexpected.

Then blame it on their greed.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Then they'll put price controls.

[tylertusta]

And then complain that new houses aren't being built anymore.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not a policy I would support, but look what something similar did for Margaret Thatcher. More recent versions of Tories have also tried various other "home buyer assistance" programs (with somewhat less success).

[Michael P]

Leftists are weird, part 184037: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/08/this-is-bad-because.php

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That blog still exists!?!

[Martinned2]

You realise that that blog post doesn't contain any reporting of anything "leftists" have said or done, right? It's just some Trumpists speculating about how "leftists" might hypothetically react to this lady.

[Michael P]

I realize you have trouble reading.

https://x.com/ThePhillipHolz/status/1823697402416476491

That's the kind of statement you are implicitly defending.

[Martinned2]

That tweet is not mentioned in the blog post you linked. In what sense was I defending it, implicitly or otherwise?

(Not to mention that the author of that tweet seems to be a twitter troll with no obvious ideological stance.)

[Martinned2]

It's been pointed out to me that there is a problem with the Imane Khelif criminal complaint, at least insofar it's directed at people like JK Rowling and Elon Musk.

It's art. 113-6 and 113-7 on extraterritoriality:

ARTICLE 113-6
French criminal law is applicable to any felony committed by a French national outside the territory of the French Republic.
It is applicable to misdemeanours committed by French nationals outside the territory of the French Republic if the conduct is punishable under the legislation of the country in which it was committed.
The present article applies even if the offender has acquired French nationality after the commission of the offence of which he is accused.

ARTICLE 113-7
French Criminal law is applicable to any felony, as well as to any misdemeanour punished by imprisonment, committed by a French or foreign national outside the territory of the French Republic, where the victim is a French national at the time the offence took place.

So a crime committed in the US by an American against an Algerian isn't covered by French criminal law. That leaves a very small possibility of arguing that cyber harassment is committed in the place where the message is read - location of crimes & torts is complicated - but more likely the prosecution is limited to things written by French nationals and those present in France.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'd say that the bigger problem is the rapid pace of the trend toward authoritarian use of state power to punish/control speech.

[Martinned2]

You would say that, because you are clearly keen to make sure that everybody within earshot knows you are an idiot.

[John F. Carr]

That is a very broad law, retroactively criminalizing acts overseas on acquisition of French nationality.

[OtisAH]

Wealthy widow Miriam Adelson threw a fundraiser for Convicted Felon Donald Trump, who had some comments regarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom he bestowed upon her in 2018:

“That’s the highest award you can get as a civilian. It’s the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor. But civilian version, it’s actually much better because everyone [who] gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, they're soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead. She gets it, and she’s a healthy, beautiful woman, and they’re rated equal, but she got the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and she got it for — and that’s through committees and everything else.”

I guarantee you won’t find even one America-hating commie Marxist Chinese lefty who would ever think of saying anything like that.

[Estragon]

His aversion to wounded soldiers is pretty well documented at this point. Equating this nations highest award for valor in combat with a congressional medal awarded to civilians based on… (in this case) her being a “committed doctor, philanthropist, and humanitarian” and ohbytheway the top GOP donor in the 2016 cycle is so perfectly transactional Trump.

I mean FFS— they gave one to Rush Limbaugh— and even he had more achievements to point to.

Oh sorry— did I say “equating” the two awards? That’s inaccurate— he said Miriam’s was “better”.

All this from the same people trying to swiftboat Gov. Walz after his 20+ years of actual service— people who are going to vote for someone who avoided his own military service on the basis of bone spurs. It’s sort of beyond parody at this point.

And then the economic speech where he’s talking about a 65% increase in the cost of school lunches. You know who figured that out? Minnesota!

I am coming around to the admittedly tin-foil adjacent view that Trump is being to set up to fail by certain of his own people. Having him do these events where he’s so clearly out of his element, it feels like sabotage from within. There was always going to be a moment when Trump outlived his usefulness to the reactionary Christian ethno-nationalist types— has it arrived? He’s not on the right of this movement— not by a long shot. And clearly he’s not a true believer in any kind of political philosophy other than me myself and I. They are going to need a scapegoat if/when the GOP goes down in November.

Where are all the calls for Trump to stand aside for the good of the party, ala Biden?

[Estragon]

“Usefulness to the reactionary Christian ethno-nationalist types”

Speaking of which, anyone notice the output from Calabresi has really dropped off since Biden dropped out? Where are my love letters to Aileen Cannon and assertions about Clarence being the BEST EVAH?

It’s almost as if previously he viewed Trump as such a lock that he was willing to write such things in the hopes of eventual career advancement. Now that that prospect is in question— crickets. I wonder what writing on the wall Steve is seeing? Will he be able to salvage a reputation as a leading ConLaw expert after such purple prose?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I hate saying this, but "to be fair to Trump", when he said the PMF was "better" than the CMH, we was probably saying that from the recipient's perspective, it's better to get such an "equivalent" honor without first having been shot, maimed or killed.

But it's still a bonkers way of looking at it, which goes hand in hand with what he thinks about those who actually do military service ("losers" and "suckers").

There are some very smart people lurking behind Trump, and they know he can't live forever. But most of his people ("the best people") don't seem to be able to look beyond their elongated noses, so I'm not sure I buy the boat you're floating. But let's definitely find out!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm a bit surprised that we haven't yet seen a blog entry about these oral arguments in Nguyen, et al. v. Bonta, et al. before a 9th Circuit 3-judge panel. It's one of those times where you have to feel bad for the state's attorney...even though he doesn't appear to be very good at oral arguments...because he's been handed a turd of a case that he has to argue anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv9RXRqKfLU

[Martinned2]

For context, the issue is whether California’s ban on purchasing more than one handgun or semiautomatic, centerfire rifle in a 30-day period is constitutional.

To which my response would be: Show me where it says in the constitution that it isn’t.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

To which my response would be: Show me where it says in the constitution that it isn’t.

You could have saved yourself the embarrassment of that idiotic response by simply watching the video. But as usual, you just couldn't help yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why didn't he just say, "This is a facial challenge, and in your hypothetical the proposed purchaser would likely have a good as applied challenge. But for a facial challenge the law must be unconstitutional in every case."?

I mean, he'd still lose, because there isn't any actual historical analog to what the state is attempting here, but at least it would have been a valid argument.

[Martinned2]

"Historical analog"? So we've given up on textualism?

[Brett Bellmore]

If we were doing straight textualism, he'd lose instantly, because the law in question unambiguously "infringes" the RKBA. "Historical practice" is the Court's way of avoiding strict textualism, by permitting infringements which were uncontroversial at the time the amendment was adopted.

[Martinned2]

Why? Being able to buy arms is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for bearing or keeping them. Not to mention that the statute at issue doesn't outlaw buying weapons.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, really? Does that logic work for other rights, too?

[David Nieporent]

You're areamanning again. The law in question does not unambiguously infringe the RKBA. In order to say that one would need to first establish what the RKBA consists of. You keep wanting to pretend that the 2A says, "Congress shall pass no law regulating gun possession/ownership." But it doesn't.

[Martinned2]

That is conspicuously not an answer to my question.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It was a reference to where your question was more than amply answered. That answer didn't cease to exist just because you're too stupid and/or lazy to avail yourself of it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm quite confident you've already seen the 2nd amendment, so why did you even bother asking such a, yes, stupid question?

[Martinned2]

Also not an answer. Buying is neither "keeping" nor "bearing".

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the guy representing the state tried going there, and got shot down so fast his head spun. Can't keep what you can't obtain.

So, freedom of the press doesn't mean they can't ban selling or manufacturing printing presses, paper, and ink? But if you somehow owned one anyway, and found some paper in the attic, they couldn't stop you from using it?

No, constitutional reasoning doesn't work like that.

[Martinned2]

Someone can gift you a weapon, or you can inherit it.

In any case, my point isn't that I would necessarily accept this argument. My point is that all the reactionaries who complain about penumbras until they're blue in the face don't seem to have a problem with them when guns are involved.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In any case, my point isn’t that I would necessarily accept this argument. My point is that all the reactionaries who complain about penumbras until they’re blue in the face don’t seem to have a problem with them when guns are involved.

Your point is one that could only be seriously made if you have the IQ of a doorknob. In fact I'm betting the average doorknob likely has a better grasp on the difference between embracing "penumbras" and objecting to childish absurdities of the sort you're allegedly hypothesizing here...which is every bit as stupid as the playground-level "The second amendment says you have the right to a firearm, but it doesn't say anything about a right to ammunition!!!"

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sometimes you really need to know when you should keep quiet, Martinned2. That retort is among the dumbest comments of the past month.

How many books are you allowed to publish in a week? How many times are you permitted by the Constitution to see your friends within a set timeframe?

JFC.

[Martinned2]

Freedom of speech and of the press are explicitly mentioned in the first amendment, so I'm not sure why you think "publishing" is a good analogy.

How many times are you permitted by the Constitution to see your friends within a set timeframe?

This, on the other hand, is an excellent question. There is nothing in the constitution that settles anything like this one way or another. If a state made a law regulating this, that would be quite a discussion. (Which exactly illustrates the point I made in the thread about masking: The US constitution is wildly out of date, and as a result everything gets shoved into the first amendment.)

[Brett Bellmore]

The right to keep and bear arms are explicitly mentioned in the second amendment. He was obviously analogizing between the two amendments, pointing out that trying to approach the 1st amendment the way you'd approach the 2nd would be instantly rejected.

As for your last point, freedom of association is a clear cut 9th amendment right, which gets stuffed into the 1st amendment because the judiciary don't acknowledge the 9th amendment.

[Martinned2]

Being able to buy arms is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for bearing or keeping them. The same is not true for publishing vs. speech/press.

[Mr. Bumble]

That’s fucked up even for you.
I know it's Friday and your five hours ahead of us but being drunk already is not good.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Please stop trying to one-up yourself.

https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-127/does-the-second-amendment-protect-firearms-commerce/

Also, Heller approvingly cited51 the 1871 Tennessee case Andrews v. State,52 which explained that “[t]he right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms.”53

The Heller rule — that there is a qualified right to the commercial sale of arms — does not utterly forbid statutes governing non-commercial sales, gifts, or loans; but those statutes enjoy no presumption of constitutionality. They would have to be proven constitutional under some form of heightened scrutiny.

Under the original meaning of the Second Amendment, the Heller Court was correct to recognize that commerce in arms is part of the Second Amendment right. The Fourth Circuit’s bare assertion in Chafin that there is nothing in the original meaning about firearms commerce demonstrates only that the Fourth Circuit was unaware of that history.

Moreover, the text of the Second Amendment point to the necessity of commerce in arms. The Second Amendment aims to provide the conditions for “[a] well regulated Militia.”54 State and federal militia statutes of the period were unanimous in requiring all persons subject to militia service55 to provide themselves with specified types of rifles, muskets, or handguns. In late eighteenth-century America (like at every other period in American history), firearms were not like apple pies, which a typical family could make at home. Firearms were like books or newspapers: they were items of commerce that were nearly impossible to produce without specialized equipment and skill. In order for the militia to be armed, it was necessary that there be thriving business in the commercial manufacture and sale of firearms.

The right to engage in the commercial sale of arms is subject to presumptively constitutional regulation, and even for private noncommercial sales the right is not necessarily absolute. The right to commerce in firearms was one of the rights at issue during the American Revolution, and it is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, as the Supreme Court described in Heller.

If you're going to tell an American what our Constitution does or does not mean, I suggest you first start by making sure you're right, and then check again.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Martinned2,

If you want to argue that the Second Amendment does not grant an individual right, then make that argument. if you are trying to make an argument in the current legal landscape where the Court has definitively ruled that it does, your argument is dumb and misguided.

Accepting that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, yes, that absolutely implies the right to buy them. As Jason and others point out, it absolutely is analogous to restrictions on how often you can get together with your friends, whether the government may stop you from buying more than 100 sheets of paper for your newspaper each month, and the like.

You appear to be woefully out of your depth here.

You've suggested that you might be able to keep and bear arms without first buying one because you might inherit a gun or be gifted it. Well, you might inherit a printing press or be gifted paper too. That doesn't stop you understanding that the right to a free press includes the right to buy the things necessary to operate them (again, with reasonable regulation that is not premised on suppressing speech or preventing people from keeping and bearing arms).

I think there's reasonable argument about what the Second Amendment meant to protect. But once you allow that it protects the right of individuals to own guns for person protection, the Constitution doesn't allow states to say you can keep them and you can bear them, you just can't buy them.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Being able to buy arms is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for bearing or keeping them."

Stupid comment of the day.

Let's try an analogy:

"Being able to obtain an abortion from another is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for having an abortion."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Being able to buy arms is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for bearing or keeping them.

Even ignoring that you appear to not know what the word "sufficient" means, the stupidity of that comment cannot be overstated.

[Martinned2]

In Getty Trust v. Italy, the European Court for Human Rights ducked some of the tricky issues, but did conclude that Italy owns the antique Statue of Victorious Youth on display in the Getty Museum, which the museum acquired under somewhat creative circumstances in 1977.

Italy is allowed to have a law that says that it owns historical artefacts found in Italy, or at least that it can claim back ownership from the Getty, and that normal adverse possession rules don't apply.

https://strasbourgobservers.com/2024/08/16/who-owns-art-over-time-the-judicial-saga-of-the-statue-of-victorious-youth-in-getty-trust-v-italy/

Given recent discussions about the proper way to draft human rights protections, the logic is that:
- Yes, the Getty has a right to property in this statue, in the sense of art. 1 Protocol 1, which protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of property.
- But no, Italy's interference with that right is not disproportionate, pursues a legitimate objective, etc.

[John F. Carr]

"normal adverse possession rules don’t apply"

As a general rule in the USA, adverse possession of real property does not work against the state. I don't know about personal property.

[M L]

Joe Biden’s Migrants Create $5.5 Billion in Taxpayer Spending for New York City’s Agencies, Landlords

New York City’s government has distributed $5.5 billion in taxpayer funds to landlords, companies, and city agencies since 2023 to help illegal migrants settle into New Yorkers’ housing, workplaces, schools, and communities.

The taxpayers’ expenses are growing rapidly: “New York City taxpayers have spent $308 million on migrants since July 1,” the New York Post reported on August 15.

That migrant funding is a gusher of cash for the city’s CEOs, landlords, and city employees, according to the city’s “Asylum Seeker Funding Tracker,” which was quietly updated by Mayor Eric Adams on August 15.

The winners include the more than 200,000 migrants — many of whom sneaked past U.S. border guards — and the city’s investor community that celebrates the city’s extraction of poor migrants from their home countries. Meanwhile, the middle-class population share has dropped to 48 percent, down from 61 percent in the early 1970s, which was just after Congress restarted mass migration in 1965.

Since 2022, — or “fiscal 2023” — landlords and the city’s restate industry have raked in $2.19 billion of taxpayer funds via the migrants invited by President Joe Biden and his compliant Vice President Kamala Harris.

Companies offering a grab-bag “services and supplies” took in $2.22 billion, as the migrants crowded into shelters and jobs that would otherwise have helped lift Americans out of poverty.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2024/08/16/joe-bidens-migrants-create-5-5-billion-in-tax-stimulus-for-new-york-citys-agencies-landlords/

[Sarcastr0]

“Asylum Seeker” “Migrant” “Illegal Migrant” “many of whom sneaked” These are all different groups being conflated by Breitbart because Breitbart is very bad.

But I can’t see if there’s an actual policy issue here through all this deceitful conflation and bigotry.

[Estragon]

I am not entirely sure that Trump grasps the difference between political asylum seekers and people committed to insane asylums.

[ThePublius]

That's only because you suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.

[M L]

Washington Post (lol) opinion piece:
When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.
https://archive.is/wzutv#selection-567.0-571.74

[David Nieporent]

It's a stupid idea. Whether it's bad depends on the details; "price gouging" is such an ill-defined term that a law against it could ban lots of things or almost nothing. But that's the first time I've heard Nixon called "communist."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's populist, not communist.

But the intended audience has no idea what either of those terms mean, and probably doesn't buy groceries or gasoline anyway...

[myself]

In other news DeSantis's Florida is being fascist again (at least he realized burning them was a bad look).