Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

As I mentioned last week, Donald Trump has filed a claim against the Department of Justice as a precursor to filing suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He seeks $100,000,000 in damages based on Florida tort law arising out of the execution of a search warrant issued by a United States Magistrate Judge at Mar-a-Lago. https://www.scribd.com/document/758312804/FILE-5305#fullscreen&from_embed

Trump's claim is fatally flawed for numerous reasons, but perhaps the most curious aspect is Trump's purported demand for punitive damages of $100 million. Unfortunately for Team Trump, 28 U.S.C. § 2674 states unequivocally:

The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages. [Emphasis added.]

The DOJ has six months to approve or deny the claim, after which a civil suit for damages against the United States can be brought. There is a danger that if Trump is elected President, he can order the incoming Attorney General to pay the claim in full.

Trump, through his attorney Daniel Epstein in the District of Columbia, submitted his FTCA claim to the FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge in D.C. That chicanery, combined with the palpable lack of merit of Trump's claims under Florida law, may well evince a conspiracy between Trump and his counsel to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which provides in relevant part:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I don't think a POTUS Trump would summarily order the DOJ to cough up 100MM for his troubles. I suppose in theory he could (does the POTUS have a actual spending limit on his personal authority aside from Congressional parameters?). That seems a stretch to me.

Not to mention it (summarily ordering a 100MM payment) is politically infeasible; imagine the uproar if he tried. Never happening.

[not guilty]

From Donald Trump's perspective, having just been elected to a second term and never having to face voters again, what is the downside? It is unlawful as all get out, but when has that constrained Trump before?

Trump could survive another impeachment -- there is no way that 67 Senators would convict. And thanks to John Roberts and his five fellow clowns, a President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for communications with his Attorney General.

Why else would Trump make a demand for punitive damages which on its face contravenes applicable statutory authority?

[Brett Bellmore]

" It is unlawful as all get out, but when has that constrained Trump before?"

Routinely, during his first term? Remember the 'Muslim ban'?

My guess would be that the inclusion of a request for punitive damages was a PR move. But he's not getting the best lawyers these days, since anybody who agrees to work for him is subject to efforts to disbar them, (Spoiler: It hasn't been just those hundred.) and the big law firms are boycotting Trump.

[Martinned2]

What about the Muslim ban? It was (shamefully) upheld in the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii

[Brett Bellmore]

It was entirely unshamefully upheld in the end after multiple changes, and notice that Trump actually was constrained by the rulings against it?

[Martinned2]

He kept adding fig leaves until the GOP justices decided he didn't have to add any more.

[Sarcastr0]

I grant you he listened to the Court. Or rather his people told him he had to.

1) There's a whole project to make sure he doesn't have such people near him this go-round

2) Obama did the same thing with DACA. Biden did the same thing with student loans. Your standards are inconsistent.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can make the argument that Biden, in constantly coming back with new ways to illegally forgive student loan debt, is doing something similar to what Trump was doing with his immigration policy. I could point out the distinctions, but I'll halfway give you that one.

But it's nothing like DACA, where Obama outright said that he didn't have the constitutional authority to do it, and then went ahead and did it anyway when Congress refused to enact the law he wanted.

[Sarcastr0]

What Obama did by EO is descoped from what he put before Congress.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, I have made that exact argument. It would be disingenuous to suggest that a President is "defying the Constitution" by carefully modifying his/her EO to satisfy the Supreme Court's rulings.

But this is of an entirely different character. There is no ambiguity in the statute to exploit.

[not guilty]

“My guess would be that the inclusion of a request for punitive damages was a PR move.”

No, Brett, the submission of a fraudulent FTCA claim is a crime per 18 U.S.C. § 287:

Whoever makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or agency thereof, any claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, shall be imprisoned not more than five years and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in this title.

Moreover, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) provides:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry [commits a felony.]

These criminal statutes are referenced on the claim form itself in a block labeled “CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR PERSENTING FRAUDULENT CLAIM OR MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS“. [Boldface in original.] Trump and his counsel were therefore on notice at the time the claim was submitted.

In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 371 criminalizes conspiracy to defraud the United States. On page 15 of the claim Trump certified that Daniel Z. Epstein is his legal representative for the attached Federal Tort Claims Act notice to the United States Department of Justice. That evinces concerted action between Trump and Epstein, and Epstein’s submission of the fraudulent claim furnishes an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, Brett, the submission of a fraudulent FTCA claim is a crime per 18 U.S.C. § 287:"

Wait, are you under the impression that would actually stop them from doing it as a PR stunt?

And, anyway, proposing punitive damages wouldn't be a fraudulent claim in the first place. That would instead be if he were suing over a raid that hadn't actually happened, or lied about what went down during it.

But I expect you knew that.

[not guilty]

No I am under no illusions that the criminal law will actually stop Donald Trump and his counsel from engaging in a PR stunt. That crowd is unconstrained by law, as evinced by Trump and another of his incompetent lawyers incurring more than $1 million in sanctions for improperly suing Hillary Clinton and a passel of other defendants for damages under an unhinged, trumped up civil RICO theory, among other claims. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.81561/gov.uscourts.ca11.81561.7.3.pdf

Trump's claim is woefully deficient under Florida law as well, such that filing the false claim is the functional equivalent of "suing over a raid that hadn’t actually happened, or lied about what went down during it."

For example, one of Trump’s purported tort theories is malicious prosecution of the federal criminal prosecution based upon evidence seized under the Mar-a-Lago search warrant. Under Florida law, in order to prevail in a malicious prosecution action, a plaintiff must establish that:

(1) an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding against the present plaintiff was commenced or continued;
(2) the present defendant was the legal cause of the original proceeding against the present plaintiff as the defendant in the original proceeding;
(3) the termination of the original proceeding constituted a bona fide termination of that proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff;
(4) there was an absence of probable cause for the original proceeding;
(5) there was malice on the part of the present defendant; and
(6) the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the original proceeding.

Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Fla. 1994). A “bona fide termination” of the antecedent proceedings has been described as:

a fancy phrase which means that the first suit, on which the malicious prosecution suit is based, ended in a manner indicating the original defendant’s (and current plaintiff’s) innocence of the charges or allegations contained in the first suit, so that a court handling the malicious prosecution suit, can conclude with confidence, that the termination of the first suit was not only favorable to the defendant in that suit, but also that it demonstrated the first suit’s lack of merit.

Cohen v. Corwin, 980 So.2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008), quoting Doss v. Bank of America, N.A., 857 So.2d 991, 994 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Where dismissal is on technical grounds, for procedural reasons, or any other reason not inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, it does not constitute a favorable termination. The converse of that rule is that a favorable termination exists where a dismissal is of such a nature as to indicate the innocence of the accused. In order to determine whether the termination of an action prior to a determination on the merits tends to indicate innocence on the part of the defendant one must look to whether the manner of termination reflects on the merits of the case. Cohen, at 1156; Union Oil of Cal. Amsco Div. v. Watson, 468 So.2d 349, 353-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Trump’s claim on its face fails to show a bona fide termination of the criminal proceeding. The District Court’s dismissal of the indictment was based on the invalidity of the appointment of the Special Counsel and not based upon the merits of the prosecution. There certainly has been no determination of Trump’s innocence.

Trump’s FTCA claim also fails to show an absence of probable cause for the original proceeding. He does not aver that there was no probable cause for the grand jury to indict, nor does it allege that the Magistrate Judge lacked probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. Where a tort claim involves a search or seizure pursuant to a warrant, the fact that a neutral magistrate has issued a warrant is the clearest indication that the officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner or, as SCOTUS sometimes put it, in “objective good faith.” Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012), quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–923 (1984).

[Brett Bellmore]

"as evinced by Trump and another of his incompetent lawyers incurring more than $1 million in sanctions for improperly suing Hillary Clinton and a passel of other defendants for damages under an unhinged, trumped up civil RICO theory, among other claims."

I SAID it could get sanctioned as frivolous, that it just wasn't fraud. You'll notice he didn't get charged with fraud that time, either.

[not guilty]

My point was Team Trump's abject disregard for the requirements of law in general. I wasn't suggesting that Mr. Trump's and Ms. Habba's conduct in the Florida lawsuit was criminal.

Here Trump and his counsel are asserting a claim for, inter alia, malicious prosecution under Florida tort law, which malicious prosecution in fact never occurred. That is fraudulent. The claim further recites at page 14, "For these harms to President Trump, the respondents must pay punitive damages of $100 million." That is a false statement, in that 28 U.S.C. § 2674 states unequivocally that "The United States . . . shall not be liable . . . for punitive damages."

[Brett Bellmore]

"I wasn’t suggesting that Mr. Trump’s and Ms. Habba’s conduct in the Florida lawsuit was criminal."

Like hell you weren't.

"These criminal statutes are referenced on the claim form itself in a block labeled “CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR PERSENTING FRAUDULENT CLAIM OR MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS“. [Boldface in original.] Trump and his counsel were therefore on notice at the time the claim was submitted." Your own words.

[not guilty]

Challenged much on reading comprehension, Brett?

I wasn’t suggesting that Donald Trump’s and Alina Habba’s sanctionable conduct in the Florida lawsuit was criminal in nature.

My quoting the notice of the criminal penalty citations on the FTCA claim form related to Trump's submission of the instant, fraudulent claim through his attorney Daniel Epstein.

[Aoidized]

Yeah, apparently the liberal trope "Everyone is entitled to legal representation" was just a PR slogan.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"But he’s not getting the best lawyers these days, since anybody who agrees to work for him is subject to efforts to disbar them, (Spoiler: It hasn’t been just those hundred.) and the big law firms are boycotting Trump."

1) Perhaps his lawyers should behave better.
2) Perhaps they don't want him as a client because he's a piece of shit who doesn't pay his bills, or because he files frivolous lawsuits which get his attorneys in trouble, or because he engages in criminal conspiracies with his attorneys to violate the law, or because when he engages in a conspiracy to violate the law, he's perfectly willing to throw his attorney under the bus by leaving them out of the loop and tricking them into signing false affidavits.

Nah, it sounds better if you just cry that they're "boycotting" Trump without acknowledging the multitude of reasons why intelligent lawyers want nothing to do with him.

[Michael P]

When did unlawfulness stop Donald Trump? Unlike Joe Biden, Donald Trump actually stopped or substantially revised his actions because of adverse court rulings during his presidency. He didn't say that he didn't have the power (to forgive loans, in Biden's case) and then do it anyway, and then kept doing it after the Supreme Court told him to knock that shit off.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't recall "45" putting out a hit on his opponent either

[Malika]

"then kept doing it after the Supreme Court told him to knock that shit off."

Citation?

[Michael P]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-program/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59989476 for a different example

[Malika]

I was looking for citation for "then kept doing it."

[Michael P]

You didn't know that Joe Biden is still purportedly forgiving college loans? Get out from under that rock, dude.

[Sarcastr0]

The Court did not say forgiving student loans was illegal, of course.

[Aoidized]

Of course they didn't. So they rule something's illegal, Biden slightly changes it, and requires the process to start all over again.

Biden and Harris are despicable thugs, and so are you for apologizing for them.

[Malika]

You don't understand how laws work. An effort to accomplish X goal could be prohibited under Y law or provision but allowed under Z law or provision.

[Brett Bellmore]

They didn't say that forgiving it was unconstitutional. If there were a statute authorizing it, Biden absolutely could do it.

Biden's problem is that there's no such statute authorizing what he wants to do. It really is the equivalent of the suggestion that Trump could just order the government to cut him a check for $100M.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett don’t beg the question.

Armchair didn’t even get to that point got short circuited by ignorant indignation.

[Malika]

"Biden’s problem is that there’s no such statute authorizing what he wants to do."

That's not known, there are different laws that might apply, the SCOTUS would eventually decide if any particular one may. It's certainly not "breaking the law" "kept doing it after SCOTUS told him to knock that shit off" to try other options.

[Malika]

Are you under that rock? Because what I've read about is that Biden has sought different ways of forgiving college loans under different provisions. SCOTUS didn't say "every attempt to forgive student loans" is prohibited, did they? They said "this attempt under this provision" is prohibited.

[Michael P]

The new schemes are illegal for the same reasons the old schemes were and are illegal. The only difference is it's harder to show standing to sue under the new schemes.

[Malika]

Ah, so you concede they are attempts at different relief under different provisions. So, your assertion that Biden kept doing "it" after SCOTUS told them to stop doing "that" is wrong, as the "it" Biden subsequently tried to do has not been determined to be the "that" which SCOTUS forbid.

[Michael P]

Only to the extent that you concede that your argument boils down to "we got better at breaking the law".

[Malika]

Lol, that's like saying if someone applies for a grant or tax credit in an area and is told they're ineligible for those specific grants or tax credit it is "breaking the law" to apply under another grant or credit in that area!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Everyzing nocht zespivickally allovved ees vorbidden!

[Michael P]

Malika is unaware that government employees are supposed to follow the law, rather than find creative ways to exploit ambiguities that require bad-faith reading to discover. Or maybe thinks that the Take Care Clause binds every citizen, depending on how that awful analogy was supposed to be interpreted.

[Commenter_XY]

Why else would Trump make a demand for punitive damages which on its face contravenes applicable statutory authority?

Certainly a healthy part of this (asking for 100MM damages) is political performative theatrics. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

My point is I don't think a POTUS Trump summarily ordering the DOJ to cut him a check for 100MM would fly among his own supporters. That is the reason it is politically infeasible.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember, they're absolutely convinced, or at least determined to claim, that all of Trump's supporters are mind controlled slaves, or something like that, and not actually exercising judgement.

[Sarcastr0]

You say worse about liberal judgement every day in here.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, I get all of the legal stuff, and I really appreciate NG posting it. But there is a practical, common sense element that gets lost here. There is no way in hell it (a POTUS Trump summarily ordering DOJ to pay him 100MM for his legal troubles) would fly with Pres Trump's supporters , let alone enemies. It is just totally infeasible.

You're right about the characterization; sad we are now at this point. There is no going back.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not that impressed with his posting the legal stuff. For instance, he cites 18 U.S. Code § 1001, to establish that false statements can be a crime, and then neglects to quote subsection (b): " Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding."

You want me to believe he copied and pasted subsection (a) and didn't even glance at subsection (b)?

He's engaged in something not far from Sovereign Citizen nonsense, in order to rationalize that Trump can be criminally sanctioned for making bad legal arguments.

[not guilty]

Brett, I am fully aware of § 1001(b). Donald Trump is not (yet) a party to a judicial proceeding regarding his FTCA claim. Neither he nor his counsel has submitted any statements, representations, writings or documents to any judge or magistrate regarding that claim.

Have you read the claim that I have linked to upthread? It was submitted to Derek Piper, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, FBI at 601 4th Street NW, Washington, DC 20535. The attachment to the claim is addressed to Chetan A. Patil, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General (Torts Branch), Federal Tort Claims Act Section, Torts Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 888 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044.

Here is the link again for your convenience: https://www.scribd.com/document/758312804/FILE-5305#fullscreen&from_embed

Step 1 for construing a federal criminal statute such as 18 U.S.C. § 1001(b): pull your head out from up your ass.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

[okay, I don't wanna be the fifth person to say the same thing...]

[David Nieporent]

Remember, they’re absolutely convinced, or at least determined to claim, that all of Trump’s supporters are mind controlled slaves, or something like that, and not actually exercising judgement.

I mean, Trump himself said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.

[Malika]

This is what I've been saying. Trump is an incredibly hard guy to defend because he regularly says and does things that will undercut even intelligent supporters' attempts to defend his comments and actions. All pols make gaffes but it's like he's not trying or is incapable.

[Martinned2]

In fact that makes it really easy to defend him. Trump's whole thing is to say things that no reasonable person would take seriously. That makes it really easy for him to avoid scrutiny in the press, and occasionally that also helps him avoid legal trouble.

[bernard11]

You know the old saying, "If it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all."

Applies to Trump supporters' judgment.

And yes, I do think many are pretty close to being cultists, including you, Brett.

[Magister]

His own supporters who believe he won the 2020 election, who are OK with him being a dictator (for a day), and would allegedly not stop voting for him if he shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue? After an insurrection, rape, fraud and all the profiteering in his first term, something he did would not fly among his own supporters?

Anyway, what would they do? Storm the White House?

[bernard11]

My point is I don’t think a POTUS Trump summarily ordering the DOJ to cut him a check for 100MM would fly among his own supporters.

Two flaws:

1. It would fly among many. Have you read some of the defenses of Trump's behavior offered here?

2. Even if it didn't, what could they do? Refuse to issue the check? So we get a Saturday Night Massacre, working down until you find the Bork in the crowd.

[John F. Carr]

The government paid huge sums to victims of mass shooters under circumstances where it was immune from liability. Who can overrule a decision to settle? Not taxpayers.

In Massachusetts there is a fund from which judgments against the state may be paid without individual appropriation. The legislature adds more money when the balance runs low. Once the legislature refused to fund the account when there was a particular judgment the Speaker of the House did not want to be paid.

[Krayt]

I dunno. Would it piss off the opposition? Yes. That may be sufficient.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — I continue to wonder how it could be that the Trump immunity decision does not conflict with the Impeachment Clause, which states a former POTUS can be tried for crimes after he is out of office. As you say, that cannot mean Trump would be impeached and removed from office.

But could it mean that paying him punitive damages is not only illegal (but presumably irrelevant because, immunity), but also unconstitutional (or can unconstitutionality also be declared irrelevant at the whim of this corrupt SCOTUS)?

By the way, are you suggesting you think Trump could be charged federally now, or only later after he got paid damages, or never, because SCOTUS?

[Frank Drackman]

I'll tell you one Former POTUS who isn't complaining about the SCOTUS decision,
Sleepy Joe (see what I did there? "Former POTUS")

Frank

[not guilty]

"By the way, are you suggesting you think Trump could be charged federally now, or only later after he got paid damages, or never, because SCOTUS?"

The submission of a fraudulent FTCA claim is itself a crime, per 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 1001. Conspiracy to defraud the United States is criminalized by 18 U.S.C. § 371. These offenses became ripe for prosecution upon submission of the claim on August 7, 2024.

Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for these offenses, as his criminal conduct occurred while he is out of office.

[Brett Bellmore]

Submitting a fraudulent FTCA claim would be something like submitting one over an event that hadn't actually happened, or materially lying about what had happened during it. Not advancing legal arguments concerning a real event that end up being shot down. THAT might possibly get sanctioned as frivolous, but it's not going to be charged as conspiracy to defraud, fraud requires misrepresentation.

Well, I suppose when the topic is anti-Trump lawfare, I suppose you can't entirely rule out their trying to leverage a frivolous argument into conspiracy to defraud, but it's still a stupid argument to make.

[Michael P]

NG is a longstanding proponent of stupid arguments against Donald Trump.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Isn't citing an inapplicable statute in support of a civil claim a "misrepresentation"?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I continue to wonder how it could be that the Trump immunity decision does not conflict with the Impeachment Clause, which states a former POTUS can be tried for crimes after he is out of office."

It's not that complicated, if you've actually READ the immunity decision. Presidents can still be tried for crimes they commit while in office, whether or not they're impeached over them.

Congress can impeach a President over literally anything they find offensive, regardless of whether or not it's a crime. If they impeach him over a non-crime, that doesn't magically make it into a crime for post-impeachment prosecution purposes.

The immunity decision had mostly to do with Presidential exercises of the power of the office not constitutionally being capable of being made crimes, because the Constitution expressly authorizes them. Not being crimes in the first place, impeachment doesn't turn them into crimes.

[tylertusta]

I don't see any conflict between the Impeachment Clause and Trump. I even think that should a President be impeached and convicted, Presidential immunity evaporates and otherwise immune conduct- even for "core" acts- can be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can't turn lawful conduct into a crime just by impeaching somebody for it. And the Trump immunity decision established that Presidential exercise of core powers is constitutionally lawful conduct, it cannot be criminalized.

That's not to say Congress can't impeach over anything at all they don't like. They could impeach Trump next January 21st over his having a bad comb-over. But that wouldn't make bad comb-overs illegal.

[David Nieporent]

You can’t turn lawful conduct into a crime just by impeaching somebody for it. And the Trump immunity decision established that Presidential exercise of core powers is constitutionally lawful conduct, it cannot be criminalized.

As always, your certainty rarely is consistent with your accuracy. Immunity is different than legality. Immunity says that the president can't be prosecuted even though the acts in question may be unlawful.

[tylertusta]

The Court only considered the question in light of the prosecution that Trump currently faces: one where the defendant is a former President but has not been convicted in the Senate. The Court did not address (or even opine!) whether otherwise immune conduct can be prosecuted after a conviction in the Senate.

Furthermore, consider what impeachment & removal actually does in our system: it checks the power, breaching any separation that otherwise would exist. If it can perform the ultimate check on power- that of removal- then certainly it can also check any claim of immunity that a notional ex-President might claim.

I say this in light of the text of the Impeachment Clause:

…but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

And no, I don’t mean this in the sense of Congress impeaching Trump over a comb-over just so Trump can be prosecuted for that comb-over, since there’s no law making his hair a crime.

[Josh R]

The decision clearly stated the President gets absolute crimnal immunity when exercising his core powers. That holding did not depend on the fact Trump was not convicted by the Senate.

[Bored Lawyer]

Lathrop is utterly confused.

The Impeachment Clause does contemplate criminal prosecution after impeachment. That in no way contradicts the immunity found in U.S. v. Trump. There are still plenty of criminal acts a president can commit in office that are not covered by immunity. I already explain ad nauseum why bribery is not within the immunity found by the Supreme Court. There are many other non-immune actions that a president might be prosecuted for. (My perennial favorite federal crime is mailing dentures without a license. If a president did that, he would not be immune.)

Punitive damages are a civil matter, and I see nothing in the Trump decision that would reach those. There is a general civil immunity which was around long before the decision, and that fits within that rubric.

As for Trump being charged for bringing a frivolous claim, one he has not yet brought such a claim in court. Two, I am dubious that filing a legally frivolous claim constitutes a "conspiracy to defraud the United States." Fraud generally involves deception to gain funds, not claiming something which the law says you are not entitled to. "Gimme damages that the law says I am not entitled to" is not fraud, although it's remarkably stupid.

[David Nieporent]

Lathrop is utterly confused.

Is it a day ending in 'y'?

[Bored Lawyer]

Depends on the language your are speaking. Montag, Lundi and Lunes (German, French and Spanish, respectively) lack a 'y.'

[ReaderY]

One possibility is that impeachment followed by conviction in the Senate removes the immunity, at least for the charges in the articles the President is convicted of.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's a possibility, but I don't see anything in the Trump decision to support that.

[tylertusta]

I see that the lawfare spitballing from the left is still in full swing.

[Riva]

Not just lawfare (although this is certainly one of their more repulsive tactics, maybe their worst), but democrats have decided to double (triple? more?) on the phenomenally stupid Charlottesville hoax by repeating the lie again in their platform. Almost as shameless as bragging about Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal, which they also do. Repulsive is an inadequate word for the Democratic (now apparently full communist price control) party.

[tylertusta]

Lying about your political opponents is a tale as old as time. Tell that lie loudly and often enough and it becomes accepted as the truth... for a while at least.

The actual truth is only revealed when maintaining the fiction no longer has political value.

[Malika]

What Charlottesville hoax? Are you guys saying it was AI generated now?

"the Democratic (now apparently full communist price control) party."

Lol, Riva-bot doesn't recall that it called Democrats communist *before* these calls for price controls (but now says it's "now apparent"). Memory error!

[Ed Grinberg]

What Charlottesville hoax?

Google: "steve cortes what happened in charlottesville"
(note: I tried linking to this PragerU video, but the system just won't let me. How odd...)

[Riva]

He is well aware of the lie. Best to just ignore a toddler having a tantrum. He'll tire out soon.

[Malika]

Much fewer people keep up with y'all's Bircher theories than bot may calculate.

[Malika]

No, I'm not giving any clicks. You should be able to state the nature of the "hoax" in a sentence or two.

[Ed Grinberg]

It's a 5-min. video for God's sake...

[Riva]

This is a comedy of the absurd, all anyone would to do is listen or read the verbatim comments of President Trump in which he unequivocally condemned Nazis, neo or otherwise. If they wanted to understand more, they might learn that Antifa thugs made their mostly (not) peaceful presence known as well. And that even the NY Times reported on other groups that were there simply to oppose the radical tearing down of the statue and renaming of the park. But the race exploitation lie goes on because that's what democrats do.

[Malika]

It's radical to take down a publicly maintained tribute to a traitor white supremacist literal slaver?

[Malika]

Then it should be easy for you to quickly summarize. Interesting that you are not.

[Riva]

What part of it's a lie don't you understand? Lie, as in the verb meaning to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.

[Nelson]

The Charlottesville Unite the Right rally that was organized, attended, and enthusiastically supported by neo-Nazis.

“this PragerU video”

PragerU? LOL! When The National Enquirer’s standards, are too strict, there’s always PragerU.

[Riva]

Multiple groups were there that day in addition to Antifa thugs and other bad actors. The NY Times even confirmed that. And President Trump clearly, in no uncertain terms, condemned Nazis, neo or otherwise. But now Kamala has adopted the lie. I think I see the problem here. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
Ignorant and obedient, you've proved you're loyal to the democratic party if nothing else. (That quote would be George Orwell, if you were curious)

[Sarcastr0]

What other groups, Riva?

Where is the NYT quote, Riva?

[Riva]

President Trump's comments that unequivocally condemn all bad actors, including any Nazi iterations, can probably be found almost anywhere. That is enough to expose the lie. But if more is required for some reason, the NY Times, August 16, 2017: “’Good people can go to Charlottesville,’ said Michelle Piercy, a night shift worker at a Wichita, Kansas retirement home, who drove all night with a conservative group that opposed the planned removal of a statue of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee. After listening to Mr. Trump on Tuesday, she said it was as if he had channeled her and her friends… who had no interest in standing with Nazis or white supremacists…”

[Sarcastr0]

You said 2 things.

1. Multiple [conservative] groups were there that day.

2. The NY Times confirmed the above.

Michelle Piercy...Googling finds National Review saying the following: "Michelle Piercy, who travelled to Charlottesville to participate as a neutral peacekeeper for American Warrior Revolution, a group that stands up for individual free speech rights and acts as a buffer between competing voices, knew there was going to be violence, but went anyway. "
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/the-very-fine-people-trap-and-how-to-avoid-it-today/

American Warrior Revolution, eh? Well, they have a consent decree with Charlottsville now to never come back.

Oh, and they seem to like them some lynching:
https://popular.info/p/extremist-groups-descending-on-virginia
"On December 13 [2019], the leader of American Warrior Revolution, a paramilitary organization allied with the militia movement, posted a video to its Facebook page...that McEachin's statement amounted to treason and McEachin, who is African American, should be lynched."

Seems like she's a violent racist who just managed to be quoting saying she wasn't a Nazi.

I see why you don't post things now. You're bad at it.

[Riva]

Bringing more BS lies to the original Charlottesville lie does not actually somehow add up to truth. The National Review (in no way a friend to President Trump) points out the attempt by some leftist hack(s) to smear Michelle Piercy. They in no way endorse this characterization. Strange how the NY Times made no mention of this. And I have no idea WTF this “popular.info” site is. I suspect just more of the same smears in some leftist feedback loop. Let’s go with a real contemporaneous report, not leftist rants. So I’m calling BS on your hack “sources.” The record speaks for itself and President Trump’s unequivocal condemnation of all bad actors, Nazi or otherwise, is indisputable.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry my sourced rebuttal exploded your attempt to appeal to the authority of the NYT. Figures you’d say it’s lies all lies.

You are a very simple bot and the unexpected must be denied.

What other groups, Riva?

[Riva]

Your source are biased anti-Trump screeds. (National Review even dedicated a whole issue to TDS rants in the 2016 campaign) I have relied on the actual record. To reiterate, President Trump clearly and unequivocally condemned all bad actors, whatever variation of Nazi they might have been. Relying on politically biased sources to somehow transform his actual words into something else doesn’t actually prove anything, apart from your commitment to the lie. No one serious believes it, on this planet or anywhere else in the known galaxy. The matter is closed.

[Sarcastr0]

Bare denial is all you got. NRO is lying you insist. The ,after is closed you cry.

You opened this whole thine up.
You made 2 claims. You have failed one and not even tried on the other.

What other groups?

[Riva]

People can chose to listen to President Trump’s actual words or the rants of Sarcastr0’s leftists. I suggest Sarcastr0 get a new lie. This one is stale. As noted, the matter is closed.

[Sarcastr0]

What other groups, Riva?

Returning to your original post won't answer the question:
What other groups were all these fine people in?

The only example you brought turned out to be a violent right-wing militia.

So yet again, to make it clear that repeating yourself doesn't answer the question: What. Other. Groups?

[Riva]

The. Matter. Is. Closed. Now, go get to your little crazy protests in Chicago.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: Michelle Piercy was a member of a heavily armed right wing militia group that showed up to a Nazi rally specifically to stand with Nazis and white supremacists. That the NYT uncritically reported that they weren't Nazis says something about the NYT.

[Riva]

No, it says the leftist activists trying to put new refinements on the lie are in fact still lying. But the smears against Michelle Piercy are themselves a distraction. President Trump did not say Nazis, neo or otherwise, were fine people. He absolutely, unequivocally condemned them. People can believe President Trump’s own words or leftist hacks promoted by other leftist hacks. Or we can use the words of George Orwell, “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” Now hurry up and get to the insanity in Chicago before you miss out. This lie is exhausted and needs a break.

[David Nieporent]

President Trump did not say Nazis, neo or otherwise, were fine people.

He said that some of the people he saw in Charlottesville supporting the statue honoring treason and white supremacy were fine people. And those people were all Nazis. QED.

[Riva]

Such an obsession with lying and beclowning yourself. Are you sure the Kamala campaign isn’t slipping you a few bucks to embarrass yourself like this, like she has to pay other internet supporters? That’s ok, I know the NDA would prevent any comment. Don’t worry, I won’t tell that fat slob Bragg.

[Sarcastr0]

Morning, Riva.

Still not finding any other groups, eh? Taking refuge in tepid insults, it looks like?

[Riva]

And just to end this complete horseshit from the left, and maybe it goes without saying, but the real absurd thing about Nieoporon’s lie, echoed by other parrots here, is that it is defending a lie that was never made. Creepy Joe’s Charlottesville lie was claiming that President Trump literally called Nazis “fine people.” It was not “President Trump literally condemned Nazis in no uncertain terms, but we all know he really meant Nazis were fine people because only Nazis were there so he was surreptitiously calling Nazis fine people.” And to compound the ridiculousness of Nieoporon’s rewriting of President Trump’s actual words, not even he has disputed that Antifa was there, contributing its hallmark mostly peaceful violence. So it absolutely wasn’t just Nazis of whatever stripe. Was President Trump calling Antifa thugs fine people?

[Sarcastr0]

So you now are arguing Trump was saying Antifa were the good people?

Your increasing anger and pointing left seem a mask for how little substance you have on your claim here.

[David Nieporent]

Bot's broken again! Still spewing the same false talking point over and over again. Its programmers should be ashamed of themselves.

[Kazinski]

For once I agree with NG.

If filing lawsuit alleging true facts on a dubious legal theory were a criminal offense we could imprison a third of bar nationwide.

Trump would be a small price to pay to rid us if all those grifters and leaches.

If we can extend that theory to include criminal defense attorneys who file knowingly frivolous appeals, and prosecutors who overcharge or intentionally distort the law like say the obstruction statute used against Trump and the J6 defendents we could probably get another 1/3 of the bar.

Project 2025:
"First kill imprison 2/3 of all the lawyers"

[Mr. Bumble]

Another group would spring up touting "you may be entitled to compensation".

[ReaderY]

What’s the least bit curious about this? It’s pretty cheap advertising and will probably bring in a lot more in donations than whatever the “penalty” the lawyer filing this is hit with. It’s probably a very reasonable business expense, more cost effective than television advertising.

I’m sure his lawyer will easily be able to argue that there’s no fraud here. The lawyer would be able to argue, for all the reasons you say here, that the United States couldn’t possibly have relied on it, or even taken it seriously. And of course the donors aren’t being defrauded either. Trump DID file a suit alleging what it alleged, so there’s no falsity or deception in saying so.

Best of both worlds.

[Brett Bellmore]

There is no relevant "relying on" somebody's claim for punitive damages. It's not a factual assertion to begin with, capable of reliance.

[John F. Carr]

It will be difficult to prove a culpable mental state on the part of Trump. And this time he might well have evidence to back up a claim of selective prosecution. He may be the first person to contest an election in his particular style. He is not the first person to present a meritless claim.

The government should deny the claim promptly. If the case gets to court a judge might be able to influence the outcome of a collusive suit.

[not guilty]

Trump's FTCA claim does not allege that "selective prosecution" is tortious under Florida law. https://www.scribd.com/document/758312804/FILE-5305#fullscreen&from_embed

[John F. Carr]

In a hypothetical prosecution of Trump for asking for punitive damages he could surely find other meritless claims against the United States that did not result in criminal charges.

[Riva]

Nice try at deflection. President Trump is not barred from all damages and whether there are any legally compensable damages is certainly an issue, like damages are at issue in every claim or trial. But more importantly, that does not erase or excuse the gross weaponization of the legal process, including the Appointments clause violation, employed by Biden’s DOJ to attack a political opponent. Not Guilty is more concerned with protecting the government from compensating its victim than the repulsive lawfare abuses. Who is the party of rights again?

[David Nieporent]

Trump, through his attorney Daniel Epstein in the District of Columbia, submitted his FTCA claim to the FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge in D.C. That chicanery, combined with the palpable lack of merit of Trump’s claims under Florida law, may well evince a conspiracy between Trump and his counsel to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which provides in relevant part:

I'm sorry, but this is a nutty theory of prosecution. Filing a claim with false assertions of fact could certainly be deemed an attempt to defraud. But filing a claim based on a bad legal theory is not fraud. Half the lawsuits I see involve people asking for relief to which they are not entitled. It could be sanctionable, but not prosecutable. And even if it were the latter, nailing Trump for it is loony; how can he possibly have the mens rea? He didn't draft the claim and isn't a lawyer.

[tylertusta]

It's as if you're almost getting why the counts against Trump in DC are bullshit.

[not guilty]

"I’m sorry, but this is a nutty theory of prosecution. Filing a claim with false assertions of fact could certainly be deemed an attempt to defraud. But filing a claim based on a bad legal theory is not fraud. Half the lawsuits I see involve people asking for relief to which they are not entitled. It could be sanctionable, but not prosecutable. And even if it were the latter, nailing Trump for it is loony; how can he possibly have the mens rea? He didn’t draft the claim and isn’t a lawyer."

With due respect, that commentary overlooks the nature of the inchoate offense defined by 18 U.S.C. § 371. What the government must prove in order to obtain a conviction under the "Defraud Clause" of that statute is well summarized in § 8.21 of the Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions. https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/476 The essential elements which the prosecution must prove are:

First, beginning on or about [date], and ending on or about [date], there was an agreement between two or more persons to defraud the United States by obstructing the lawful functions of [specify government agency] by deceitful or dishonest means as charged in the indictment;

Second, the defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one of its objects and intending to help accomplish it; and

Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act [on or after [date]] for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy, with all of you agreeing on a particular overt act that you find was committed.

A carefully drafted indictment can properly allege all of these elements in a manner provable beyond a reasonable doubt, based on what has become public knowledge. The conspirators include, at a minimum, Donald Trump and his FTCA lawyer Daniel Epstein. The object of the conspiracy is to put a nine figure sum of money into Trump's pocket, to which he is not lawfully entitled, at the expense of the United States.

The means of the conspiracy include, inter alia, Trump's authorizing, and Epstein's composing and submitting to the DOJ, a totally bogus claim under Florida tort law, including a claim for punitive damages which the FTCA expressly prohibits. Epstein's submission of the claim to DOJ constitutes an overt act. The claim was submitted at such a time that Trump, if he is elected to another term as President, can appoint a stooge as Attorney General who will order DOJ to pay Trump's unlawful claim, notwithstanding that the claim is wholly without merit under Florida law and that the claim is for payment of punitive damages contrary to the prohibition of 28 U.S.C. § 2674. If this is a novel factual theory (it is), that is because Trump in this regard is sui generis.

The mens rea applicable to § 371 is twofold: (1) intent to defraud the United States by obstructing the lawful functions of the DOJ by deceitful or dishonest means, and (2) becoming a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one of its objects and intending to help accomplish it. Trump and Epstein intend to put money from public coffers in Trump's pocket unlawfully, and each knows that the other is working in concert toward that goal.

An agreement to defraud is an agreement to deceive or cheat. The crime of conspiracy is the agreement to do something unlawful; it does not matter whether the crime agreed upon was committed. Trump need not have full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy.

An overt act does not itself have to be unlawful. A lawful act may be an element of a conspiracy if it was done for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy. The government is not required to prove that Trump personally did one of the overt acts.

The bogus nature of the claim under Florida tort law is part and parcel of the unlawful scheme. As I have detailed elsewhere on this thread, nothing in Trump's purported claim for malicious prosecution evinces a bona fide termination of proceedings in his favor. Nothing shows the absence of probable cause for the United States Magistrate's issuance of the search warrant, and there is no showing that the federal grand jury in Florida lacked probable cause to indict Trump subsequently.

[not guilty]

To the extent that Trump’s FTCA claim makes a fleeting reference to “abuse of process resulting from the August 8, 2022, raid of his and his family’s home at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida”, that is not an actionable tort under Florida law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2674, “The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances[.]” All of the actions Trump complains of would be privileged under Florida law if engaged in by private individuals.

The elements of a cause of action for abuse of process under Florida law are: (1) an illegal, improper, or perverted use of process by the defendant; (2) an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising the illegal, improper, or perverted process; and (3) damages to the plaintiff as a result. Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67, 69 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013). Trump’s claim shows no “illegal, improper, or perverted use of process” by federal officials in obtaining and executing a search warrant issued by a United States Magistrate Judge.

Even if the complaint did allege misuse of the search warrant, there would be immunity from suit for damages under Florida law for actions that occur in judicial proceedings. Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 209, 44 So. 357 (1907). This immunity extends to statements made to the authorities prior to the initiation of criminal proceedings — such statements are absolutely privileged as being within the course of judicial proceedings. Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla. 1992):

This rule of privilege as applied to statements made in the course of judicial proceedings is not restricted to trials of actions, but includes proceedings before a competent court or magistrate in the due course of law or the administration of justice which is to result in any determination or action by such court or officer. This privilege extends to the protection of the judge, parties, counsel and witnesses, and arises immediately upon the doing of any act required or permitted by law in the due course of the judicial proceedings or as necessarily preliminary thereto.

Ibid., quoting Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538, 540-41, 123 So. 916, 917 (1929) (italics supplied in Fridovich). “Indeed, in Ange the Court found that an absolute privilege barred an action for defamation based on statements made in the office of the county judge to whom the defendant had gone to obtain a warrant. 98 Fla. 538, 540, 123 So. 916, 917.” Fridovich, at 67.

In Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), the Florida Supreme Court extended the litigation privilege, already applicable to defamatory statements (slander and libel) and perjury, to all other torts so long as the act complained of occurs during and has some relation to the proceedings. “Absolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding.” Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 384 (Fla.2007).

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I agree that his claims are legally meritless. That doesn't have anything to do with the point. Asking for something based on a stupid legal theory is not an intend to defraud, because there is no deceit in sending a letter saying, "You were mean to me; I want $100 million as a result."

[not guilty]

Context matters here. When a legally meritless claim is made on behalf of a person as a precursor to that same person ordering an illegal transfer of the money in order to enrich himself, that evinces a scheme or artifice to defraud. An overt act need not itself have to be unlawful. A lawful act may be an element of a conspiracy if it was done for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy.

[David Nieporent]

precursor to that same person ordering an illegal transfer of the money in order to enrich himself,

Okay, but you've just invented a fact out of whole cloth here.

[not guilty]

No, I have not invented anything. The FTCA claim is dated August 7, 2024. The DOJ has six months to consider the claim, per 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). If Trump takes office on January 20, 2025, he can order the Attorney General to approve the claim. In that Trump's claim includes purported damages which by statute are not awardable, such an order would be fraudulent.

In my original comment I stated, "There is a danger that if Trump is elected President, he can order the incoming Attorney General to pay the claim in full." That fact is central to the § 371 conspiracy which I have described. I posited upthread that "The object of the conspiracy is to put a nine figure sum of money into Trump’s pocket, to which he is not lawfully entitled, at the expense of the United States."

The success of the conspiracy is of course contingent on events that may not occur. Success of the conspiracy, however, need not be shown in order to convict the conspirators. If the defendants' actions constituted a conspiracy to impair the functioning of the Department of Justice, no other form of injury to the Federal Government need be established for the conspiracy to fall under § 371. See Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640, 647 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1184 (1996).

[AmosArch]

When leftoids go on and on about how much better Europe is compared to the US and how we need to be more like them watch this clip to find out what they mean.

https://youtu.be/i54OubtcCFg?feature=shared

[Martinned2]

My hypothesis is that this sort of stuff leads to fundamental misunderstandings between Americans and Europeans (as well as mock outrage, of course), because Americans are used to law enforcement that only comes at one setting: Violently arresting people and throwing away the key. In Europe, the police also just come and chat with members of the community, and the courts don't simply throw away the key.

In this case, being an asshole on the internet sometimes results in the police, on behalf of society, telling you to knock it off. But that's not the same thing as being swatted and locked up for a decade, which is what Americans assume their police does all day.

[Brett Bellmore]

They didn't just chat with him. They arrested him. Over comments on a FB page that they didn't like.

If that doesn't outrage you, you're already wearing your chains in your head, and just waiting on somebody to come along and place the physical ones on your neck.

[Martinned2]

Yes, but an arrest isn't the end of the world, the way it is in the US.

[Mr. Bumble]

Tell us how it was "the end of the world" for anyone but Jan 6 protestors.

[Martinned2]

In the US people who are arrested get their personal information plastered all over the internet, for one. e-Brandished for life.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's a different issue.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Our oppressive police state isn’t a big deal: when we arrest people for exercising their rights, we keep it secret!

[Martinned2]

Now you're just trolling.

[Brett Bellmore]

It isn't the end of the world in the US, either. But a jack boot is a jack boot, even if it only rests on your face for a few hours, instead of forever.

[Martinned2]

UK police don't wear jack boots. That's my whole point. They don't even have guns, most of the time. If you get arrested, the police says "I'm arresting you". There are no handcuffs or purp walks involved.

[Brett Bellmore]

A gun might be the only thing that's NOT on that tactical vest she's wearing; Is that a kitchen sink in one of the pockets?

It's still a goddamn arrest, over a stinking FB post the government didn't like!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It doesn't help that the police in the UK are generally idiots.

But, this is simply a consequence of not having a First Amendment (or a constitution, for that matter), and allowing all sorts of "good reasons" to prosecute speech. Naturally, the police (who are, as I mentioned already, idiots) make it up as they go along, or as their idiot supervisors have made it up already.

[Martinned2]

Having a more absolutist approach to free speech definitely has consequences, both good and bad.

The UK does, of course, have a first amendment. Here it is (well, the speech bit anyway): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nonsense.

Not only is the ECHR protection of speech itself a cruel joke, but the UK was just a Parliamentary vote away from expunging it from the law books entirely, post Brexit.

That's nothing like the First Amendment.

[Martinned2]

If you want to complain about Parliamentary Supremacy, or about the lack of respect that the Conservatives have for human rights, I'm right there with you. But that doesn't change the fact that, as long as it is in place, the Human Rights Act controls the actions of the police.

[AmosArch]

If Trump sent out cops to arrest people who said mean things about him on the internet I'm sure you'd tip your hat at them with a wink and a smile as if they were just fetching a cat out of a tree or giving a little kid a lollipop. Its just an arrest. Not the end of the world after all.

[Sarcastr0]

Hypothetical hypocricy is most of what your arguments devolve to.

[Kazinski]

How about 18 months for yelling “Who the Fuck is Allah” at a demonstration?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sutton-man-61-chanted-f-151500758.html

Who the fuck do they think they are?

“He said protesters broke out of an enclosed area of Richmond Terrace and towards Whitehall, directing their anger towards police officers.

Spring’s role in the disorder was shown on police body worn camera footage in court where he was seen making threatening and hostile gestures towards police, calling officers “c****” and joining in chants of “you’re not English anymore” and “who the f*** is Allah”.

A bunch of fucking Nazi cunts is who they are.

[Martinned2]

Yes, if you're a Nazi cunt who incites a riot, you can go to prison for a lot longer. As you can in the US.

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

Nazi boy trying to call others "Nazi cunts" is hilarious. Eat shit Nazi Martin.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You seem much more authoritarian to me than Martinned2. What do you think you're accomplishing by calling him a "Nazi"?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You think you can go to jail in the US for yelling, “Who the fuck is Allah?” and calling cops cunts?

[Malika]

Sadly, too many cops and judges think so.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-orders-alabama-driver-apologize-face-jail-telling-officer-get-as-rcna152006

[Noscitur a sociis]

Unimpressive though that episode appears to be, it is worth noting that the speaker was not arrested.

[Martinned2]

No, but I think you can go to jail in the US for inciting a riot regardless of which exact words you use to do so.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or inciting an "insurrection".

[Martinned2]

Inciting any sort of crime, really.

[Kazinski]

No, your words need to be pretty explicit to be charged to incite a riot.

[Martinned2]

That depends on the circumstances of the case. Context matters.

[Bob from Ohio]

"inciting a riot "

None of those words are inciting a riot. Not even close.

"Lets burn this police station to the ground" might be.

I get it, you have approved opinions so you don't care what happens to others you think are Nazis.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You might want to tell that to Vinni...

[ThePublius]

Your understanding of the police in the U.S. is highly distorted, probably based on lunatic stuff you watch online.

[Martinned2]

That must be it.

But seriously, it's not my understanding of US policing that is the issue, but Americans' understanding of what police does.

[Brett Bellmore]

Our understanding is that, properly, the police come after you if you've broken a law, and otherwise are supposed to leave you alone.

And expressing opinions the government doesn't like isn't something that can be illegal here.

[Martinned2]

expressing opinions the government doesn’t like isn’t something that can be illegal here.

Same here.

[Noscitur a sociis]

L, as they say, OL.

[Martinned2]

It's called rule of law, I know it might be confusing to you.

[Commenter_XY]

No, not same there.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In which country?

The whole point is that expressing "wrong" opinions IS illegal in the UK (and most other countries, by the way). The UK has the rule of law; it's just that the rule is much weaker on free speech than US law.

[Kazinski]

if the whole world turns into Nazis asking people how many fingers they are holding up, it would still be wrong.

That really shouldn’t be that hard to acknowledge.

Who the fuck is Kier Starmer?

and in case i misspelled it, i don’t care enough about the cunt to expend any effort to spell his name right. By the way his approval rating in the UK has gone from +19 when elected to -7 in about 6 weeks, that i can remember,

[Martinned2]

You can swear at Sir Keir Starmer as much as you like. Whatever these blowhards might claim, you can't get in trouble in the UK for saying things the government doesn't like. You can, however, get in trouble for breaking the law.

[Kazinski]

"You can, however, get in trouble for breaking the law."

You make my point for me.

Its a Nazi law that criminalizes someone's speech.

You get thrown in Prison in Russia for criticism of the war, because you are breaking the law.

You get thrown in Prison in Hong Kong for protesting the loss of democracy, because you are breaking the law.

Women get jailed and beaten in Iran for not covering their heads and wearing makeup because they are breaking the law.

[Sarcastr0]

Laws that criminalize speech are bad, but they're hardly the unique evil that is Naziism.

Our own country has had such laws. You calling us Nazi at our Founding because of the Alien and Sedition Acts? Or Nazi until Cohen v. CA?

You seem more interested in showy drama today than anything else.

[Martinned2]

You realise that the US also has many laws that criminalise speech right? Just to pick an example:

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-16-providing-material-support-designated-terrorist-organizations

[Kazinski]

I thought you were a lawyer, surely you know the difference between material support and speech.

There are laws that criminalizes libel, but not until its been found to be libel, and then repeated.

But other than that no, i don't know of any laws that criminalizes pure speech matter how abhorrent.

People today are outside the DNC explicitly calling for Hamas to repeat October 7, no one will go to jail for that speech, even though Hamas is a terrorist organization.

[Bob from Ohio]

"courts don’t simply throw away the key"

Most US felons get probation for a first offense. Many get it for later offenses also.

Murderers and rapists get harsh sentences, yes. I realize its only 13 months for raping a child in the UK but we take actual crime more seriously here.

[Malika]

"Most US felons get probation for a first offense. "

Good news for Trump!

[Mr. Bumble]

Unless they are J6 "felons".

[Heedless]

Yes, if you are part of a mob that smashes down the doors and windows of the US Capitol building during the certification of the presidential election, that is probably going to be reflected when it comes time to sentence you for trespassing. Even if it's your first offense.

(No, the fact that some of the rioters appear to have believed that there were special bonus visiting hours that suddenly opened up just for them is not a defense. Some arguments are too stupid to be accepted even in an American courtroom.)

[Commenter_XY]

Chicago....Have fun this week. 🙂

[not guilty]

The last major party nominee for President to have not run in any primaries was Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Prior to that was Adlai Stevenson in 1952.

[Commenter_XY]

That is a very interesting observation, NG. Do historical outcomes rhyme...? 🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, they do not. Except in the cases of historical counter-factuals.

[Frank Drackman]

and were great Presidents!!!!!

[Josh R]

HHH received votes (write-in?) in DC (38%), NJ (20%), MA (18%), IL (17%), and PA (9%). Stevenson received no votes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ideal time for an attack somewhere else.

DC???

[Noscitur a sociis]

Never stop not making things up, Dr. Ed!

[Frank Drackman]

as the Late/Great "Hizzoner" Richard Daley said in 1968
"The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder."
and I'm guessing no "Moment of Silence" for the Dead at Abbey Gate, "Lincoln Riley" (AKA Laken Riley) the 400,000 Fent-a-nol Overdose Deaths during Parkinsonian Joe's (didn't he used to be somebody) rain???
Loved Illinois Governor JD Pritzker when he played "Fat Dom" on the Sopranos,

Frank

[Malika]

illterate Bumpkin works to preserve Disorder
in the english Language!

[Frank Drackman]

Off Topic, but can someone put out a "Revolting Alert"/APB for the Revolting Reverend Arthur? I’m going through Klinger/Bettor/Stomping withdrawal, I’m guessing a “Lost Weekend” with the wrong Klinger, or maybe the Reverend’s been……………………………………………….
“Replaced”????
I’m sure he’ll come back eventually, like Herpes

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

I don't want anything bad to happen to Arthur.

[Krychek_2]

I'm reading a really interesting book, Dying of Whiteness, by Jonathan Metzl, who documents how the politics of white racial resentment is killing whites; they are literally dying as the consequence of their own racial prejudice. He talks, for example, of a 41-year-old white taxi driver in Tennessee who was suffering from an inflamed liver that ultimately killed him. Because the Tennessee legislature had refused to expand Obamacare or Medicaid, he was not able to find the care that he needed. "As he approached death, he stood by the conviction that he did not want government involved. 'No way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens,' the man told (the author). 'Ain't no way I would ever support Obamacare or sign up for it. I would rather die.' And so he did."

The book also cleared up what had been a mystery to me, which is why people like that continue to vote against their own economic self interest. Poor rural whites see the Republican Party as the last bastion in support of white superiority at the top of the pyramid. So they see voting for the party that keeps them at the top of the racial hierarchy as being higher on their self-interest priorities than getting necessary medical care, having a job, or keeping food on the table. I guess people really do get the government they deserve. Unfortunately the rest of us do too.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why do these deplorable clingers, these people making up human residue, who are bound to have progress shoved down their throats and to be stomped into submission by better Americans - why do these people refuse to vote for the better Americans who have their *true* interests at heart?

[Malika]

You seem to be responding a strawreverend rather than Krychek or the book he's describing.

[DaveM]

"why people like that continue to vote against their own economic self interest"

And there we have it. Elitism lurks behind every door of modern libertarian thought. I've been reading Libertarian content for a very long time, and I've been listening closely. What I've discovered is that Libertarians don't really believe in human agency. They don't really believe that others outside their tribe deserve to be respected.

What they believe in is themselves. They believe they are better. The Rev, bless his heart, at least is honest about this; he specifically refers to (and even capitalizes himself!) as "your Betters".

More than anything, this absurd smugness explains why people don't vote for libertarian candidates. People don't like pride, it's very off-putting.

You should never, ever, presume to speak for someone else. The very idea that people can act against their own self-interest is just ridiculous on its face. All this really means is you wouldn't act the way they're acting.

For your own reasons.

[Michael P]

Why do you think Krychek_2 or Jonathan Metzl are expressing "libertarian thought" in arguing for bigger government from a single anecdote that supposedly illustrates why white people are just too darned racist for their own good?

[Sarcastr0]

People who support a party often think a lot of other people are voting wrong.

I hear that about liberal Jews on here all the time.

This is not elitism. It can be smug. What’s the Matter with Kansas is made me wince for exactly this reason. Though as with many things like that YMMV.

[DaveM]

I'm all for opining that other people may be wrong, I do that quite often myself (and have had it said of me in equal measure). This is another level lower: speaking for someone, as if they can't even know their own minds on a matter. Bah.

[Sarcastr0]

"X is voting against their own self interest" is a really common kind of political rhetoric, at least at the layperson level.

You're right politicians tend to stay away from it.

[Aoidized]

Liberal Jews aren't "voting wrong" per se, but they're voting evil. They're not real Jews. They think Judaism is about social justice and tikkun olam, not God's laws.

[hobie]

Jews are evil. Got it.

[ReaderY]

A classic “no true Scotsman” argument. Whatever merits “no true Scotsman” arguments may have in a religious context, they don’t really do much in a secular political context.

[Commenter_XY]

Liberal Jews are real Jews. If the Mother was Jewish, that is it. Others convert. I sit with libs in synagogue; I daven with the 'Black Hats' in other shuls on other occasions. All of them are 'real' Jews.

I have come to the conclusion that it is possible to be mistaken in political beliefs and policy preferences, and still be a good Jew.

[Malika]

Is this like when Trump (and others) claim that Jews are not only voting against their interest but are showing themselves to not be Jews when they don’t vote for Trump?

Also, what's ridiculous is to say people can't act against their own interests. I mean, people themselves often look back on their actions and acknowledge that they did.

[DaveM]

Yes, if you can cite an example, it would be exactly like that.

[Malika]

“Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion,” Trump retorted Monday on a talk show.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-jews-upset-with-trumps-latest-rhetoric-say-he-doesnt-get-to-tell-them-how-to-be-jewish

[DaveM]

That absolutely crosses the line from critiquing someone's opinion to saying they don't even know their own mind, I agree.

Trump is an idiot.

[Commenter_XY]

I know, between that and mean tweets, the end of the Republic is at hand. 🙂

(It was inelegant, and hyperbolic - typical Pres Trump)

[Ed Grinberg]

Exactly. But if that is the biggest thing "Jews are upset" about* right now, let me tell you: they may be "real Jews," but they're real stupid too.

* I'm quoting from the PBS article Malika linked.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If anyone here said those same words you'd immediately be accusing them of being anti-Semitic.

Trump though? Oh it's just hyperbole, totes adorbs!

Fuck off.

[Commenter_XY]

If VP Harris wants to say 'Any Jewish person that votes for Republicans hates their religion'...by all means, go for it. It would not make her an antisemite.

[Sarcastr0]

Policing whose politics make them a good Jew and whose make them a bad Jew sure has a history of being antisemitic.

[Bob from Ohio]

“Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion,”

No lies detected.

[Malika]

Lol, Bob wants to be an edgelord so bad he doesn't get that in this he's agreeing with me and others arguing the same!

[Sarcastr0]

You gatekeep my Christianity it stands to reason you would do so for Judaism.

Makes sense for someone as profoundly anti liberty as you to not be good at pluralism.

[Krychek_2]

"The very idea that people can act against their own self-interest is just ridiculous on its face."

Nope. Probably everyone -- certainly me -- has had occasion to look back on a really dumb choice and say, "What on earth was I thinking?" People act irrationally all the time. If they didn't, there would be no drug addicts, and whole lot fewer bad marriages.

[DaveM]

And just who was doing the “looking back” on your really dumb choice? You. You were acting in your own interests all the time, it's just that your interests changed later on.

You see the problem? Anyone capable of self-examination by definition also has agency. Every person speaks only from what’s in their own mind.

[Sarcastr0]

Come one, self-interest isn't a tautology.

1) People can be wrong; this doesn't say much more than that

2) People can vote with interests other than their immediate benefit in mind. See: abortion, for most folks.

[DaveM]

The argument here isn't over whether a person can feel they've made a mistake or not, that's a bunny trail.

The argument is about claiming to be able to speak for another, to say they literally don't even know what they, themselves want.

Which I argue is nonsense. A good example in this same thread is Trump opining that a "Jew who votes for Democrats hates their own religion".

That's just stupid. And elitist. What he ought to be thinking is that he believes that voting for Democrats is wrong, and that he doesn't understand why any Jew would do so.

[Sarcastr0]

That you had to jump to second guessing people on a matter of faith not economics is a pretty telling concession to my eyes.

[Krychek_2]

As I said to Brett, OK fine, make the argument that the guy who would rather die than use Obamacare made a rational choice.

[JD85]

Self-sacrifice is often considered a rational choice.

If they believe that society is better off without such support for anyone, and they value that society above themselves, it's a rational choice.

In addition to the ACA, the same is true for people who might, personally, be better off with an abortion but want to outlaw it for everyone and as a result does not have an abortion(and the hypocritical persons from "The only moral abortion is my abortion" are the opposite, and the worst).

Or a person who runs into a burning building to save their children. They have something they value more than themselves. Not inherently irrational.

[Sarcastr0]

Rational, and yet not in one’s best interest.

It is a virtue I seek more than most others.

But rarely does that go to the point of private martyrdom.

[David Nieporent]

The argument is about claiming to be able to speak for another, to say they literally don’t even know what they, themselves want.

You are bizarrely confusing interests and desires. When I look back and admit that a choice I made was against my self-interest, I am not saying, "Actually, I didn't want to do that." I am saying, "Even though I did it, it was a bad idea to do so."

[Malika]

That’s ridiculous, it suggests that people have no more than in-the-moment interests and can’t even *themselves* conceive of longer term interests that they themselves, in a moment of confusion, weakness, duress, etc., conclude they weren’t true to. But that happens all the time.

If what you're getting at is that as a general matter people empirically and morally know their own interests better than strangers do, well that's libertarianism, but you're making a broader silly claim here.

[DaveM]

No, this has nothing to do with anyone’s ability to make up their own mind.

What I’m getting at is that libertarians have an elitist streak where they claim they know a stranger’s interest better than even the stranger does. This pride pokes itself out every now and then in libertarian commentary.

[Malika]

You said above that a person can't even recognize that they were acting contrary to their own interest at times. That's just palpably false.

And, if a person can recognize that then another person can. Mind you, I think a person should be very reluctant to try to guess what another person's interest is and speak for them as you say, but it's certainly possible for someone to be correct in doing that. I'd say in my life I've had some close friends, family and significant others that correctly recognized I was acting contrary to my long term interests at times.

[DaveM]

The English language is just about the worst language in the world in which to have a dispute over the exact meanings of words, because English is so terribly over-loaded and context-dependent. I suspect that we’re not that far apart in this matter, but I may not be able to state things precisely enough to satisfy every angle.

It’s enough to just agree with you that one should be “very reluctant to try and guess what another person’s interest is and speak for them”. I would like it if libertarians, in particular, were on the extreme end of that spectrum of reluctance.

[Malika]

I think most are, iirc Krychek doesn't identify as a libertarian.

[Krychek_2]

Correct. Krychek read Atlas Shrugged as a teenager and was sufficiently intrigued to be a libertarian for a time, until he figured out that it is basically a philosophy for petulant teenagers.

[Heedless]

Krychek has an endless need to reassure himself that he’s smarter than the people around him. Being a “libertarian” scratched that itch for a while, but as he grew older he found that technocratic liberalism gave him far greater scope to preen about his moral and intellectual superiority.

[Krychek_2]

Heedless, thank you for sharing. I'm sure you've wanted to say that for some time and I hope you feel better now that you've finally gotten it off your chest.

[Heedless]

It's cute that you think I know who you are.

Your type, however, is instantly recognizable.

[Krychek_2]

Your initial comment suggested you’d been reading my comments long enough to form an opinion. That you formed an opinion without doing so speaks to nothing more than your willingness to make snap judgments without real evidence. Noted.

And I don't know how long you've been here, but if you stick around a while you'll find that a lot of the regular commenters are routinely either lauded or scorned based entirely on whether the person responding to them agrees or disagrees with their politics. Your comment tells me little more than that you disagree with my politics.

[Stephen Lathrop]

DaveM, every hyper-rationalist, of whatever political stripe, claims to know other peoples' interests better than they do. That's why doctrinaire Fascists, Socialists, Communists, Capitalists, Religionists, Birchers, Libertarians, Economics Professors, and MAGAs all engage in the same kinds of destructive power grabs.

Where you personally go wrong, however, is not realizing that some folks do know at least some other peoples' interests better than they do—but not because of ideology, because of more experience, better insight, and habitual self-questioning.

You've got whacked out MAGAs running around believing weird stuff, without any hint they ever ask themselves, "How do I know that?" Almost anyone accustomed to ask that question knows those peoples' interests better than they do.

[ReaderY]

And here we have it. Altruism is rediculous. It’s the people who avoid the draft, not the people who die trying to save their comrades, that we ought to admire and emulate.

A society that believes and acts on this can’t be expected to survive for very long. Yes, most people in any society won’t die trying to save others. But in surviving societies they admire the ones who do. They don’t despise them and consider them suckers or wackos.

I am not saying I’d agree with this particular decision. But acting on altruistic motives and ideals is always a virtue, and whether one agrees or not shouldn’t prevent being able to see the virtue in it. And virtue should not go unpraised, even though, as these comments richly illustrate, our society today, like that of the ancient philosophers, all too often despises it.

[ReaderY]

“Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate
To every man upon this earth death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods.”

Altruistic courage in the face of death has to be acknowledged even when one thinks the gods involved false and not worth dying for.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's false consciousness, the notion that people who disagree with the left don't really know what they want, so the left is entitled to impose on them what they'd want if they didn't have some kind of psychological block.

[Krychek_2]

Fine, Brett, so make the case that the guy who died of an inflamed liver because he refused Obamacare acted rationally.

[ReaderY]

I certainly wouldn’t make such a case. but then again, I would also concede that the rational thing for Zelensky to do after the Russian invasion would have been to take the offer of a ride and flee to save his own skin. I wouldn’t attempt to rationally justify this guy’s actions any more than Zelensky’s. Or Churchill’s after the fall of France. Or many others.

Societies survive, human life survives, in no small part because human beings sometimes have other motives than pure rational self-interest.

[JD85]

It's about personal values. Zelensky value the prosperity of his country and people over his own life. Choosing to stay is a rational decision with that belief system. Every single person who hid a Jew during the holocaust. The Dutch resistance who burned the records of who was and wasn't Jewish.

In Vietnam the soldier (Hugh Thompson) who stopped the Mai Lai massacre.

History is replete with such examples.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not claiming he acted rationally, damned few people do.

I'm claiming he acted on HIS view of things, not yours, and was entitled to do so.

[Krychek_2]

And I'm entitled to say that his view of things is irrational.

Just like young earth creationists are entitled to believe that God created the world in six solar days in 4004 BC and I'm entitled to say they're irrational too.

[ReaderY]

Millenia of moral philosophy says it’s rational to say that since one is going to die anyway, one might as well die for a cause one believes in.

In Robert Bolt’s play A Man for All Seasons, St Thomas More was portayed as irrational for being willing to die over such a small thing as not being willing to make a false oath. And yet he was portrayed as having greatness in that irrationality.

I think this quote from Bolt’s More gets at the heart of the matter as to why people like him can be so obstinate:

“Well, finally, it isn’t a matter of reason. It’s a matter of love.”

[bernard11]

What is this acting "rationally" business.

We can only say someone acted rationally, or irrationally, if we know what their preferences, values, and objectives are. Otherwise we are just assuming they should act in accordance with ours.

Is it rational to enter a monastery? Not something I would do, but given the individual's attitude towards faith, worldly goods, etc. it might make perfect sense.

[Frank Drackman]

He could have had the Congressional Medical Plan (Free care at the best Military Hospitals(OK, maybe it's not such a good plan) for a token daily charge (around $20 last time I checked, and I'm guessing it's usually not paid) and unless Hey-Zeus gives him a new Liver he's gonna Die (HT J. Cash) Alcoholism is a fatal disease (I can give up the drinking if I want to, but who would want to? (HT L. Big Town)

Frank

[hobie]

Prideful candidates bad. Got it. Can I quote you in the future on this?

[bernard11]

The very idea that people can act against their own self-interest is just ridiculous on its face. All this really means is you wouldn’t act the way they’re acting.

Depends on your definition of "self-interest" which, in many cases is outside of anything quantifiable.

A lot of votes are cast based on values other than economic gain. Look at the guy in Krychek's comment.

[tylertusta]

"...vote against their own economic self-interest."

The arrogance of people trying tell others what their self-interests are.

You should keep reading books. You might find the truth sooner or later.

[hobie]

In the instant case the man's highest self-interest - to live - was disregarded in favor of politics. I don't see how it is arrogant to point out something so obvious

[tylertusta]

Did the taxi driver die, and on his deathbed decline treatment because it was Obamacare medicine?

Talk is cheap.

[Krychek_2]

Fine, so make the argument that the guy who would rather die than use Obamacare made a rational choice.

[tylertusta]

No, I won't. I'm not the person in that book, so I won't try to pretend to know his situation.

I can say that Jonathan Metzl is an arrogant ass for using anecdotes to define an entire segment of the population.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dying free versus dying while being humiliated by racist Black nurses.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do I sense a story here, Dr. Ed?

[Bob from Ohio]

"really interesting book"

GOP voters are racist does not make something a really interesting book. Many, many such books.

[Krychek_2]

That was all you took from my description of the book? That GOP voters are racist?

[Bob from Ohio]

"documents how the politics of white racial resentment is killing whites; they are literally dying as the consequence of their own racial prejudice." "Poor rural whites see the Republican Party as the last bastion in support of white superiority at the top of the pyramid."

How did I ever reach my conclusion? A mystery!

[Krychek_2]

No, the mystery is that that's all you took. The point of the book is not merely that (at least some) GOP voters are racist, but rather *the actual consequences* of their racism on their own lives. It's those consequences that the book seeks to address.

You of course would rather handwave than talk about those consequences.

[Bob from Ohio]

They aren't racist so there are not any consequences.

I doubt the 41-year-old white taxi driver even exists.

[Krychek_2]

And maybe you're a figment of my imagination too.

[Krychek_2]

Over the years, I've met enough people who think like the 41-year-old white taxi driver -- including people with serious health problems who would greatly benefit from single payer -- that there is absolutely no reason to make one up. The author would have absolutely zero difficulty in finding a real one to interview.

[Heedless]

I have a childhood friend who had breast cancer about a decade ago. They caught it late, and had she received the same diagnosis in the 90s, she would have been dead within a year. Instead she is alive and happy and playing with her children.

I don't know her views on single payer, but I do know that without the rapid advancements in cancer therapy paid for by America's (somewhat, and at least for the moment) free market in medicine, the medications she used would not have been available in time.

Had Bill Clinton succeeded in passing single payer, the American market would have vanished, and those drugs would not have been developed so fast. Should my friend have died so that the US could be blessed with its own version of the NHS?

[Sarcastr0]

Counterfactual proving is very easy, and can be quite dramatic.

Doesn't really establish much at all except the worldview of the one authoring the counterfactual.

Insurance companies as middle men don't really seem like they're driving drug innovation to me, actually.

[Heedless]

That was rather my point.

If we are going to legislate Obamacare based on a single Republican with liver disease, there are plenty of anecdotes available in the other direction.

As I said, I don't actually know my friend's position on single payer, but it is perfectly rational to have a disease that you know might be cured faster under the current healthcare regime, but nevertheless support single payer because you believe it is a more just outcome, or that it will achieve more good for more people, or even because you are a committed socialist and believe that it will increase the public acceptance of government intervention in the economy.

People make political decisions that run counter to their immediate interests all the time. That doesn't (necessarily) make them idiots, it just means that their political principles are more important to them than their personal benefit.

[Magister]

Always happy to hear about a fellow cancer survivor. But I see some questions about how this refutes single payer:
1. would those innovations have been available without US government funding?
2. how would the treatment have been paid for in the absence of Medicare (for those old enough), Medicaid (for those who exhaust their own resources) or tax-advantaged employer health insurance?
3. with no government involvement, how would this childhood friend have avoided ineffective or dangerous remedies?
4. Would single payer have led to the cancer being discovered early rather than late?

There are answers to all of these that might have applied to the described situation, just as it's possible that a random anecdote among the comments here might be true and provide a complete enough account to make a useful point. Medical advancements don't do much good to the sizable population that cannot possibly pay for them, and unaffordable healthcare drives a lot of delays in diagnosis that lead to bad outcomes.

[Krayt]

It's long been pointed out it's a conceit on the left that base handouts are the political things they should be concerned with, because that is the worldview you adopt, not coincidentally intimately tied up with positive strokes you are a good person for thinking such.

People can hold other values important. This shocks you. "What's the matter with Kansas?" Things, but not what your echo chamber molds you to think.

[Bob from Ohio]

"People can hold other values important. "

People like him think its perfectly normal for GOP leaning women to vote Dem because of abortion.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, it’s not just abortion. There’s a long list of reasons why it’s a mystery to me why any woman would vote Republican at this point. But abortion is one of them. I would add that as another example of people voting against their own self interest.

On literally every issue that impacts directly on women — discrimination, child care, family leave — the Democrats are far better for women than the GOP is. And that's even before we get to Trump and Vance not even bothering to hide their open misogyny.

[David Nieporent]

On literally every issue that impacts directly on women — discrimination, child care, family leave — the Democrats are far better for women than the GOP is.

Um, pretty much every national issue impacts directly on women. War, regulation, taxes, etc. Why do you assume that women should be voting as women rather than as Americans?

(To be clear, I think the current GOP is insane and nobody should be voting for them. But my comment above was directed more generally.)

[Malika]

An issue can impact women more than men, yes (contraception or menstruation or pregnancy related issues, for examples)?

[David Nieporent]

Right, and that would explain why a woman would be more interested in that issue than a man would be. But that's a different claim than arguing that a woman should be more interested in that issue than in some other issue.

To pick an extreme example: suppose there are realistic prospects of nuclear war. Even though women care more about contraception than men do, women should care a lot more about nuclear war than about contraception, and should vote for the candidate who can successfully avoid the former over the one who offers to protect the latter.

[Ilya Snowman]

When was the last time you cared about learning about, or stating, the truth?

How can they be voting against their economic interests when the blue team wants to impose Western European-style healthcare and other social welfare services in the face of rapid population decline coupled with replacement in the form the large-scale immigration of unskilled illiterate labour? This, where all the evidence shows most of those immigrants’ children don’t do well in school or fare well socio-economically? This, where, not the costs of such systems are rising (even in ones with monopsony drug prices, with ceilings on salaries, etc) and where, mutatis mutandis, there shan’t be enough future high-level earners to fund things under a progressive income tax scheme.

This, coupled with your blue team’s insane, totalitarian, imperialist international misadventures of trying to impose its values on the rest of the world through sundry institutions—a world that finally has the wealth and power to not only to resist, but to undermine such projects altogether?

A blue team which has alienated its working class base and is supported by white females who don’t mate or breed, ie, who subscribe to and promote an evolutionarily inferior meme that has precarious economic knock on effects.

Why don’t you bother to actually learn about the problems faced by other Western democracies and why our own systems aren’t viable—indeed, are already facing crises? Is it because the COST to your own identity, as shaped by your dog shit values, would be too high? Is the truth too scary for you?

Further, when the 'white' working, lower, and middle classes learn more about how DEI hiring practices are not only designed to fuck over their children, but also that THEIR VERY TAXES go towards the fucking over of their own children—to benefit other people’s children’s instead as part of a malevolent, ill-conceived, and totalitarian socially re-engineering programme, do you think they’ll come around to the view that that’s nonetheless in their real interests (not just their economic interests), or do you think their response will instead involve considerable violence?

‘Cause that’s what’s coming.

Millions of your fellow Americans are waking up to this now.

Your fellow Americans will murder you for this. They won’t write you angry letters. They won’t rock out the vote to ensure that you lose. They will kill you and the people you love, Mr Blue Team insider. You’re an evil totalitarian fuckwit. The mask is off now.

It does not matter one whit whether you deem them to be ignorant, misguided, bigoted, etc. (They’re not, by the way.) What really matters is what they think and what they will do.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, you FUCKING moron. We, in the rest of the West, will watch you get your just deserts on television.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The struggle against ballot clutter continues, but carping critics keep finding violations of third-party candidates’ rights.

Law professor Derek Muller, in the Election Law Blog, argues that Michigan’s Secretary of State was wrong to exclude Cornel West from the ballot.

The reason given for the exclusion was that West had not properly completed his “Affidavit of Identity.”

But the relevant statute says: “The affidavit of identity filing requirement does not apply to a candidate nominated for the office of President of the United States or Vice President of the United States.”

Muller suggests that the Michigan Secretary of State was wrong to require an Affidavit of Identity from West.

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=145178

Isn't Muller supportive of the states' noble effort to keep the ballots free from clutter?

[DaveM]

The reason given for an having to file an Affidavit was because he wasn't nominated by a political party, but by petition. This is highly specious, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, I wondered why a candidate wouldn't file such a thing. Surely it's merely a pro forma document? I believe that's correct, here's the language:

(2) An affidavit of identity must contain the candidate's name and residential address; a statement that the candidate is a citizen of the United States; the title of the office sought including the jurisdiction, district, circuit, or ward; the candidate's political party or a statement indicating no party affiliation if the candidate is running without political party affiliation; the term of office; the date of the election in which the candidate wishes to appear on the ballot; a statement that the candidate meets the constitutional and statutory qualifications for the office sought; other information that may be required to satisfy the officer as to the identity of the candidate; and the manner in which the candidate wishes to have his or her name appear on the ballot. If a candidate is using a name that is not a name that he or she was given at birth, the candidate shall include on the affidavit of identity the candidate's full former name.

I can't see anything in there that might explain why West wouldn't want to provide an Affidavit. What's his objection? Anyone know?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm guessing he didn't submit the damned Affidavit because it wasn't legally required, and you've got enough on your plate when you're running for President, without inventing fictional legal requirements to comply with just to do more work.

[DaveM]

Surely a candidate would want to specify how their name appears on the ballot, at the very least. Seems odd.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Did you see that short skirt he was wearing?

He did submit an affidavit but the Sec of State said there were technical defects.

On a hunch I looked up the political affiliation of the Michigan Secretary of state. She is a Democrat, the party which believes it stands to lose votes to West.

Her name is Jocelyn Benson and Wikipedia says she wrote a book entitled, no joke, “State Secretaries of State: Guardians of the Democratic Process.”

“The book highlights best practices of secretaries of state from throughout the country and seeks to inform voters about how secretaries of state across the political spectrum can work to advance democracy and election reform. After working with secretaries of state from around the country while researching the book, she was inspired to run for the office in her resident state of Michigan.”

[DaveM]

On the face of it, seems a rather inspiring tale: person writes a book on election processes, decides to run for office, and wins. I guess I'd have to see what's in the book. Has anyone read it? Are the best practices good ones?

I have no idea what a skirt has to do with anything, but then again I haven't seen any photographs. But unless the skirt had a campaign slogan on it or something, I presume it's just personal taste.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The short-skirt comment is a parody of blaming the victim. Of course this isn’t about what West did right or wrong, but about a campaign by the left wing of he duopoly (and there are corresponding events in the duopoly’s right wing) to engage in vote suppression and election misinformation by limiting voter choices.

I would like to see the best practices the secretary advocated before taking office, and see if vote suppression is among those best practices.

Maybe she’s simply preserving her political viability by paying her political dues to the party which elected her – allowing her to promote *other* reforms.

Or it could be that she’s simply enforcing such election statutes as haven’t been struck down by the courts – an administrative duty, I’m told. But these statutes, as Prof. Muller’s commentary shows, bear alternate interpretations. Of two possible interpretations, one of which perpetuates vote suppression and one of which does not, why not choose the interpretation which does *not* perpetuate vote suppression?

Naturally, this could all have an innocent explanation, but if so it’s up to the vote-suppressor to prove she had no other alternative, under the powers given to her, than to enforce an unjust law.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"The statute left me no choice than to exclude this candidate from the ballot, and that's why I urge the legislature to change the law to allow ballot access."

[Krychek_2]

Just to be clear, opposition to ballot clutter does not come from any fear that allowing anyone to be on the ballot would actually change the outcome. Maybe once a generation or so a Ross Perot or a Ralph Nader comes along who really does change the outcome, but not very often. The election result is going to be the same whether the Libertarians or Cornell West are on the ballot or not; they'll get maybe 1% of the vote if they're lucky.

No, the objection is why should the state pay the cost of adding what is essentially a vanity candidacy to the ballot? If you want to run a vanity candidacy, knock yourself out, it's a free country. But no reason the taxpayers should have to pay for it. Or have to wade through lots of clutter.

I personally favor the Canadian system in which anyone can run and get on the ballot, but you have to make a deposit equal to a certain percentage of the annual salary for the position you're running for. And you only get your deposit back if you get a certain percentage of the vote. That way, everyone has equal access to the ballot but a candidate has to make a judgment call as to whether he's willing to risk payment of what can be a hefty fee for a candidacy that never had any real shot at winning.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Canadian system would certainly be better than the American one.

But it shares a common problem with the American system, and that is the bias in favor of wealth.

A Ross Perot, no matter how "eccentric" he is (if he were poor he'd just be crazy), can mount a major campaign and finance it himself. *His* candidacy, no matter how much it's based on vanity, is viable.

And if, hypothetically of course, a major-party candidate is afflicted by vanity, then that wouldn't keep him or her off the ballot. The wealth of his/her party and financial supporters would sustain the campaign.

But to require extra time and effort for a poor candidate to get on the ballot, then can you seriously argue, "even if he'd been able to spend his few resources on actual campaigning, not ballot access, we know for a fact he wouldn't have gotten enough votes to really count"? That assumes a counterfactual where the candidate was actually able to devote himself/herself to seeking votes, not running to stay in place like Alice through the looking glass.

[Bob from Ohio]

"maybe 1% of the vote if they’re lucky."

1% of the vote might make the difference in Michigan and hence the nation

[Krychek_2]

By "vanity candidate" I did not mean the candidate is running because of ego; if that were the standard then lots of candidates shouldn't be on the ballot. No, I had in mind a candidacy in which the candidate himself recognizes that he has no real support and is essentially wasting everybody's time.

The cold, hard reality is that wealth does impact on political viability. Trump was only able to run for president because he had money. Someone who was a Trump clone in every respect except for only having a personal net work of $50,000 would never have gotten a candidacy off the ground. It's not really all that different, conceptually, than how does one become the CEO of IBM or General Motors. There are probably lots of people who would make perfectly fine IBM CEOs but who have simply never succeeded in marketing themselves in the way that one needs to in order to be competitive for that kind of position.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We’re operating on a couple of different assumptions.

First, we disagree on the good faith of a government which undertakes to decide who can be voted for, and which votes will be suppressed. Is such a government acting out of concern for the public welfare?

Second, we disagree about who gets to decide which candidates should be given a chance to win. I say the voters, you would share that responsibility with the government.

The government starts by setting up a first-past-the-post system allowing mere pluralities to win, without having any runoffs (instant or otherwise). Then, having created that voting system, the dominant parties notice that votes which they think “belong” to them are “stolen” by third parties, allowing the other major party to win.

Instead of dealing with that situation by (a) allowing run-offs and (b) actually addressing the grievances of third-party voters, the duopoly, and the government it controls, decides to engage in vote suppression so as to suppress parties on the alleged ground that they can’t win, but on the actual ground that they may cause an established party to lose.

[Malika]

This is the same guy who was ok with the Arkansas SOS keeping the abortion referendum off the ballot for a similar "clerical" requirement, right? Let the people, not the government decide indeed!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't agree that voting rights include the right to referenda or initiatives. If I believed *that,* you'd certainly have caught me in a logical trap, wouldn't you? But no such luck. Too bad.

[Malika]

“I don’t agree that voting rights include the right to referenda or initiatives.”

“First, we disagree on the good faith of a government which undertakes to decide who can be voted for, and which votes will be suppressed. Is such a government acting out of concern for the public welfare?

Second, we disagree about who gets to decide which candidates should be given a chance to win. I say the voters, you would share that responsibility with the government.”

He’s a fake, dudes.

When he says “we disagree on the good faith of a government which undertakes to decide who can be voted for, and which votes will be suppressed” he doesn’t mean “we disagree on the good faith of a government which undertakes to decide what can be voted for, and which votes will be suppressed.” He’s totes cool with that (voter’s rights’ champion that he pretends to be!).

When he says “Second, we disagree about who gets to decide which candidates should be given a chance to win. I say the voters, you would share that responsibility with the government” he doesn’t mean “Second, we disagree about who gets to decide which issues should be given a chance to win. I say the voters, you would share that responsibility with the government”

Did anyone see Cal thrown from his principle horse by the issue of abortion? You all did? Yes, me too!

So, "voter suppression" where "the government" decides vs. "the people" is A-OK with Cal/Mal. Remember that when he clutches his pearls.

[Magister]

Ghost candidates and Republican operatives submitting the papers for Kanye West to be on the ballot in swing states - I don't want these dirty tricks which have affected, or might affect, the outcome of elections. I am glad that the Democratic Party has avoided the dirty tricks. I see no reason to think that the Michigan Secretary of State is not simply calling balls and strikes, but it would still be unfortunate if our democracy depends on the incompetence of Republican operatives.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I suppose it would be too complicated to point out to you that, in my quoted remarks, I said “*who* can be voted for” and “candidates.” A distinction seemingly going over your head between voting for people for public office – the essence of republican government – and voting for referenda.

This isn’t even a subtle point, but it’s too subtle for *you.* At least you pretend it is. Whether you actually know better or not I can’t say.

"these dirty tricks"

If real, these dirty tricks would be a result of laws your people passed: the first-past-the-post plurality victory laws. Now you're trying to fix a bad law your people passed, by adopting a policy of vote suppression.

[Magister]

Referenda are a clear solution to laws passed by somebody that block republican government. (I was of course addressing Krychek_2's claim that nobody fears that candidates who have no chance of winning might change the outcomes of elections; Republicans spend so much effort trying to put such candidates on the ballot because they expect it will help them win.)

The obvious solution to that sort of gamesmanship is ranked choice voting; Republicans oppose it and have banned it in a number of states they control, so a referendum might be the only hope of getting it there. But as usual, Margrave prefers and defends the party of dirty tricks that opposes the kind of change he champions.

And Margrave still won't commit to what an acceptable fee or signature requirement for ballot access would be. If we get the phone book ballot, I'll be running under the "This Is The Dystopia Margrave Wanted Party" somewhere around page 300.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“as usual, Margrave prefers and defends the party of dirty tricks that opposes the kind of change he champions.”

You admit I support runoff voting, instant or otherwise, but still make the Trumpian, evidence-free assertion that I defend Republicans even if they oppose such reforms.

“Referenda are a clear solution to laws passed by somebody that block republican government.”

I don’t know about “clear” – they may be a good or bad idea, but even assuming they can coexist with republican forms of government, they’re not equivalent to a republican form of government.

The retarded equivalence between elections for office and referenda (some states don’t even have the latter) is precisely that – retarded. A supporter of voting rights in elections for office, who opposes duopolist attempts to throttle that right, is not bound for the sake of some imaginary, loony “consistency” to support unlimited referenda.

Of course I've said what a reasonable signature requirement will require - none at all. You'd think, with all that fire and smoke you're breathing, you'd put that front and center in your catastrophizing about phone book ballots. But you find it rhetorically convenient to pretend I support some kind of signature requirement. What purpose are you seeking to achieve here?

When I repeatedly say that candidates should have a campaign committee, including a treasurer, to get on the ballot, y'all ignore it and say I'm against any restrictions, or only want to fill out a form, which is a terminological inexactitude.

As for ballot access fees, how about seeing what fees major-party candidates have to pay for minor offices, and charge that to everyone? That seems reasonable - it provides equality among the parties and won't be that high because even the major parties don't have war chests big enough to pay inflated filing fees throughout the country.

Outside of Presidential elections, Florida recognizes at least formal equality between major and minor parties, without creating phone book ballots - a fact so inconvenient that y'all keep going back a quarter of a century to Bush v. Gore - and if that's the most recent example you can come up with for your scaremongering, Florida must not be doing that bad on ballot access. Anyway, as I said, Florida can impose discriminatory requirements in Presidential elections which aren't governed by the state constitution's nondiscrimination provision.

(Incidentally, one of your own, a pro-abortion duopolist, got elected on a phone booth ballot, so I'm not sure why you're even using that as your dystopia.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Instant runoff voting would be a great idea in a world where the average voter carefully considered all the candidates, and had well ordered preferences. This is not that world.

In the real world, where voters barely examine second choices and are scarcely even aware of third, ACTUAL run off elections are far superior, because the new election with known candidates prompts the voters who will participate to examine their new choices, and actually form considered preferences.

And so actual, rather than instant, runoff is better for reflecting the considered views of voters. Even if instant would be better in a fictional world where voters genuinely had considered, ordered preferences for all the candidates on the first go round.

[David Nieporent]

And so actual, rather than instant, runoff is better for reflecting the considered views of voters. Even if instant would be better in a fictional world where voters genuinely had considered, ordered preferences for all the candidates on the first go round.

Your premise makes little sense. With IRV, voters who don't have considered, ordered preferences for all the candidates at the time of the election do not need to vote for any candidates for whom they feel like they don't have enough information. But the voters who do have such information/preferences can cast their votes accordingly. With the more traditional (not "actual"; IRV is an actual runoff) runoff, the voters will never get a chance to do so, because the other candidates are off the ballot.

But in any case, even if traditional runoffs were mildly better for the reasons you say, you ignore tradeoffs. IRV is cheaper, faster, and more efficient, both from the administrative side and from the voter's side.

[Magister]

So what are the fees you think are acceptable, Margrave? Seems you've made these arguments for at least a year and never provide a consistent answer.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Piss off, weirdo, I told you what to look for, now do your own research.

[Magister]

Ducking the question again, and as usual with insults. Margrave has in the past criticized one state for its excessive fees and then praised another that has higher fees.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Shove it up your ass, you’re running cover for vote suppressors and practitioners of election misinformation.

[Magister]

Margrave scores another self own. The vote suppressors (reducing voting times, purging voter roles of misidentified felons, robocall schemes to discourage voting) and practitioners of election misinformation ("Stop the Steal" and a raft of other conspiracy theories) are for the Republican party, the party which Margrave prefers. And Margrave has nothing but scatological retorts.

[Malika]

"The short-skirt comment is a parody of blaming the victim. "

A ridiculous one. It's like saying the US swimmer who was disqualified for a prohibited turn was the victim of something.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The event judges should have the absolute right to decide who wins or loses the contest.

In elections, it's the voters who are the event judges, and they, not bureaucrats, should decide who gets how many votes. Vote suppression should not even be thought of.

[Malika]

There are rules to swimming and rules for appearing on the ballot. If you've asked all the other people to comply, why should an official give someone in either case a pass?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

But which rules should apply to appearing on the ballot?

There are rules to appearing on the ballot in Iran – some supreme religious council has to approve the candidates in advance, based explicitly on ideological criteria. But I don’t think even an American duopolist would *publicly* support such a blatant vote-suppression law.

[Malika]

Lol! No one is arguing for explicitly ideological criteria for ballot access.

But someone is arguing for voter suppression (for referendums and initiatives).

It's you!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's hard to tell whether you're stupid or just putting on a surprisingly good impression of an imbecile.

[Malika]

"Did you see that short skirt he was wearing?"

Hyperbolic non-response to DaveM.

[Longtobefree]

My guess:
other information that may be required to satisfy the officer

[hobie]

It's heartening to see all the Mask-Hating Patriots (MHPs) so concerned about getting black men on the ballot, and poor, wronged Joe Biden back on the ballot. Glad to see concern and compassion return to you fellas

[Stephen Lathrop]

Under a Harris administration, could an enlarged Supreme Court overturn the Trump immunity decision, allowing prosecutions to go forward without the hindrances the Roberts Court put in the way?

[Martinned2]

Theoretically? Sure. Is it going to happen? No.

[not guilty]

A future Supreme Court, whether enlarged or not, can overrule the immunity decision and allow prosecutions to go forward. That is quite unlikely to happen, though.

[Krayt]

Would this be the non-political court, definitely not formed, not no way, not no how, to git 'im?

[Kazinski]

Enlarge the court with a specific intent to prosecute one man?

I heard about a play once with a line about that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sure, but I don't see it happening unless Trump actually leads a Civil War after losing the election (again). Reconstruction is a bitch.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Someone explain to me why the coverage of the hacking of Trump's emails is so different than the coverage we got in 2016 when Hillary Clinton's emails were hacked.

[Martinned2]

It's diffe[R]ent

[Joe_dallas]

Definitely different
1)HRC private server set up to bypass security for govt emails
2) server used to transmit classified info

No classified docs or classified info sent via email you say in your response.
Then why did she bleachbit the hard drive?
Then why did she smash her blackberry's with a hammer?

[Sarcastr0]

Your 1) is your personal hot take, your 2) is only true in retrospect.

Other than that, great jerb. Learning from facts is for suckers, I always say!

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.wsj.com/video/clinton-bleachbit-controversy-journalpedia/58A31249-7241-4660-8924-A08F83E8821D

[Joe_dallas]

The FBI did not have the Clintons’ personal Apple server used for Hillary Clinton’s work emails … An Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive that contained Hillary Clinton’s email archives was lost …Two blackberry devices provided didn’t have SIM cards or SD data cards … 13 Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost, discarded, or destroyed with a hammer … Various sever backups were deleted over time … After the State Department, and my colleague Mr. Gowdy here notified Ms. Clinton that her records would be sought by the Benghazi Committee, copies of her emails on laptops of both of her lawyers were wiped clean with BleachBit … After those emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archives were also permanently deleted from the Platt River Network with BleachBit … And also after the subpoena, backups of the Platt River server were manually deleted.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/05/hillary-clinton-email-device-destuction-nr-sot.cnn

[Sarcastr0]

None of this supports your initial thesis.

No new goalposts.

Also destruction of media is part of SOP for record retention and destruction. You need more than this to prove anything untoward. But this is what the right has had and unstated unclear crimes being covers up has become unquestioned wisdom.

You probably believe in the Clinton Death List.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 15 mins ago
Flag Comment
"Also destruction of media is part of SOP for record retention and destruction."

Not after issuance of the subpoena

[Sarcastr0]

Which could be intent or could be oversight.

You're writing scenarios you don't have the facts to establish.

[Joe_dallas]

Bleachbit and hammer after subpoena?
Full knowledge of private server violating security? (at least should have had full knowledge ?)

Are you that gullible or just inane or just intentionally dishonest

[Sarcastr0]

You are assuming very strongly that Hillary did that or caused it to happen.

"Full knowledge of" is opening up yet another new thesis.

I guess you're not doing to well defending the theses you have (we're up to what, now, 3?) so you're trying to open up another one?

Do some homework on this that isn't reading powerline and perhaps you'll not fold like origami next time you're asked to prove yourself.

[Joe_dallas]

State department personell are required to sign documents stating the understand the classified security requirements. She spend 8 years in the WH , 2 years in the senate.

Are you trying to claim she did know the security requirements. You are pulling S - out of you back side.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t say anything like that. You have a whole unsupported story going on that when I say isn’t true you try and switch the burden.

Lame.

[Michael P]

The complicit media does not want to admit that the Harris-Biden administration has enabled Iranian hackers much the same as they they have enabled Iranian support to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

[Malika]

Again, you really have to feel sorry for folks like Michael P trying to defend their cult leader when he himself cuts them off at the knees regularly. Trump literally invited the hacking and release of Clinton's emails. Talk about "enabling!"

[Michael P]

Yawn. You don't care how many times your lies are debunked, you just keep repeating them, and thereby make yourself look like a fool.

[Malika]

Unlike yourself, I don't lead with lies to start. Sorry your candidate keeps putting you in that position though.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika 7 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Trump literally invited the hacking and release of Clinton’s emails. Talk about “enabling!”

WTF ? Do you have a citation for that inane statement?

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

Selective memory with the amount of attacks you make on others for dishonesty? Well, you sure do make some choices!

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 35 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

Just proving your gullibility
Trump was inviting the Russians to find the 30,000 missing emails. Basically pointing out the HRC deleted the emails.
Spot the difference

[Sarcastr0]

Funny, that's not what he said. What he said looked a lot like literally inviting the hacking and release of Clinton’s emails.

You don't get to rewrite what Trump said by retranslating it to what you're sure he means.

I mean, I guess you get to, but then we all get to point and laugh.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 21 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Funny, that’s not what he said. What he said looked a lot like literally inviting the hacking and release of Clinton’s emails.

Sacastro – did you ever try to find the actual quote?
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” Trump said in a July 27, 2016 news conference.

4th time you have been wrong in 4 straight posts

[Sarcastr0]

How does that not precisely prove me and Malika right?

You just posted it!

[Michael P]

We've gone over this over and over again, and you act like you never learn.

The "missing emails" were missing because Clinton deleted them from her server, making the government records among them unavailable to the US Government. Hacking her current servers would not find them. It was a sarcastic suggestion.

The bit about the press rewarding Russia "mightily" is another marker of sarcasm.

It's ironic that you're so bad at detecting sarcasm.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, the 'Trump was joking' tactic.

Very much in tension with Joe claiming the quote had a literally different meaning.

You two should get together and decide which spurious defense of what Trump said you're going to aim for.

[Michael P]

Are you drunk already, or have your wits rotted so much that you can’t remember the first half of a short comment by the time you start typing an angry response to the second half?

[Sarcastr0]

You picked up Joe’s argument but with a thesis in opposition to his.

[Michael P]

Joe simply focused on the surface meaning of the joke.

You really don’t understand how humor works. You are probably confused by "A man walks into a bar. Ouch!"

[Joe_dallas]

MP - Its a case of an intentional mischaracterization of what was actually stated and woke leftists repeating the mischaracterization even after they have been proven wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, you two work it out like I said.

[Ilya Snowman]

Why are you responding to Tankie (SarCASTRO) as if you expect an honest reply from him? As if you expect anything other than spin and lies?

Haven't you learned what that creature is yet?

[Riva]

Even with the lapdog media, the Kamala campaign has to buy off social media influencers to try to sell her grossly unpopular policies. And the real joke is she makes them sign NDAs. Someone call that fat slob Bragg.

[Sarcastr0]

Id like to think its because something was learned on 2016.

In reality by all accounts it’s because there was nothing interesting this go round.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/08/13/iran-email-hack-republicans-media-response/
WaPo editor in chief says as much.

[OtisAH]

“Nothing of interest” was not an impediment in 2016 either. Didn’t stop anyone from putting every bit of info they had under screaming headlines. The debate stuff was of some mild general interest. But how much other coverage can you remember that didn’t involve poorly disguised innuendo about sex lives or ingredients and cook times?

[Sarcastr0]

I think the reading is gossipy interest in addition to national or public interest.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure it's because this was Trump's campaign email while a private citizen, not an email account he was using as President for official business to discuss classified information, so it didn't compromise government security.

Wasn't that obvious enough?

[Malika]

Weren't Clinton campaign staff emails hacked and leaked and then published by the press?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I thought you were referring to her private server being hacked while she was SoS, not her campaign email.

[Michael P]

Were the Clinton campaign's emails hacked? The DNC's emails were hacked, and published because they showed the DNC was cheating in debates to favor Clinton. I don't remember Clinton emails being hacked or published separately.

[Malika]

Is that why John Podesta's risotto technique email was published?

[Michael P]

If you count Podesta's personal email account as "the Clinton campaign's email" then you should be chanting "lock her up" for destroying government records that were illegally kept on her personal email server. This is why serious organizations have dedicated email setups and make people use them.

Also, most of the newsworthy bits of Podesta's email ordered the 2016 primary season: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

Although the Clinton campaign's incompetence might have enabled the hack: https://lawandcrime.com/politics/hillary-clinton-email-hack-john-podesta-phishing/

[Malika]

You said you don't remember Clinton campaign email being hacked. Wasn't John Podesta the chairman of the campaign?

[Michael P]

I didn't remember his emails being hacked, or I would have been specific from the start.

I still wouldn't count his personal email account as "the Clinton campaign", unless we're talking about the epic incompetence exhibited by the IT crew there.

[David Nieporent]

It wasn't his personal email account in that sense; he used it for work, too.

[DaveM]

I believe you are correct. The issue with Clinton's emails weren't that they were hacked, but that they were destroyed -- and then she "salted the ground upon which it once stood" via low-level reformating, liberal application of Beachbit, and, in the case of personal devices and external hard drives, literally hammered into shards.

[Malika]

There were lots of issues, some certainly involved officials of the Clinton campaign having their emails hacked, leaked and then published by the press.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett standing up for the integrity of the US media.

Sure, dude.

And haven't you had it explained in detail that Hillary did not do what you think?
You have; you just hate to learn things that might wreck a libs bad narrative you have.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've commented before on your inability to distinguish between "asserted" and "explained". Just add another instance here.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN absolutely explained it to you.

You don’t get your own facts, you just get to look silly.

[David Nieporent]

I’m pretty sure it’s because this was Trump’s campaign email while a private citizen, not an email account he was using as President for official business to discuss classified information, so it didn’t compromise government security.

Wasn’t that obvious enough?

As is so often the case when you are "pretty sure," you are wrong. Hillary's emails were not in fact hacked. (Or, if they were, it never came out.) It was her "campaign email while a private citizen" that was.

[JD85]

I don't agree with you on much Brett, but I think you are correct here.

Hillary had a stand alone server that also included work emails and similar. The Trump server / emails are strictly related to his campaign and personal affairs. Hillary should never have had such a private server with any government information.

They are not the same.

[Armchair]

Not sure. Perhaps because Trump's emails got hacked and there was nothing really incriminating in them?

[Dan Schiavetta]

We don't know what was in the Trump emails! Where is the info dump??

As for incriminating, there was nothing in Hillary's. In fact if that's all there was in the back and forth between her and her campaign staff, it painted a picture of an unusually honest politician.

[David Nieporent]

The main difference is that the Hillary campaign emails were sent by the hacker(s) to Wikileaks, where they were published indiscriminately. The media was just mining what was already public. Trump's campaign emails were apparently sent by the hacker(s) to the media, who use more discretion in deciding what to publish.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A distinction without a difference.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Was there any blood libel?

[Martinned2]

I've raised this point in the past, but here's a nice example from Germany:

The German state of Baden-Württemberg organized its wood marketing activities in an anticompetitive manner from 1978 to 2015, an appeal court in the state has ruled. A lower court will now look to calculate the damages for excessive purchase prices in a lawsuit brought by a legal services provider representing 36 sawmills.

Germany in many ways has much stronger federalism than the US. For example, in Germany there are no federal courts except the supreme court(s). But that doesn't mean that the states are somehow exempt from antitrust law.

[ducksalad]

Germany in many ways has much stronger federalism than the US.

Give them some time, it's only been 75 years. US federalism didn't really start to break down until ~120 years in.

[Martinned2]

Germany did a big federalism overhaul about 20 years ago, to undo/redo some of the federalism creep that had accumulated in the first 50 years. They looked at all the areas where the Federal government had taken over since the adoption of the basic law and decided whether, based on a coherent theory of federalism, these should become exclusive* federal competences or should be transferred (back) to the states.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6deralismusreform

* German federalism has always involved two categories of federal competences: exclusive federal competences and shared competences. The problem was that the latter category became ever more monopolised by the Feds.

[Ilya Snowman]

Germany is an American puppet state, as many in 'Schland have come to realize.

But deceptive appearances are very important to you, yes?

[Bob from Ohio]

"states are somehow exempt from antitrust law."

Why are states engaged in business activities?

[Krayt]

Fundamental Theorem of Government Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day 1.

[Martinned2]

In this case, they are not. They are just collaborating with those who are. Facilitating a cartel, if you will.

[Michael P]

The BLS is reportedly going to revise (later this week) employment reports for the year ending March 2024 downward by a million jobs. Unexpectedly, as they say.

Last year, the downward revision was "only" 306,000 jobs. Thanks, Kamala and Joe, for biased estimates of underperformance!

[Sarcastr0]

Again if you want to juke the stats you don’t release corrections.

Your intimation is based on 2 data points.

Did you bother to check how often revisions go in which direction and if it changes depending on the administration?

[Michael P]

Belated corrections don't fix the full effect of fake news. This is a well established fact. Often, belated corrections have very little effect.

https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-022-00434-1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211368120300280

[Sarcastr0]

Why bother correcting at all?

You have done no work to establish this is untoward or in any way in bad faith.

You have yet another want to believe vibes-based conspiracy.

The economy is doing OK so like so many on the right you turn to conspiracies and away from reality.

[Michael P]

Belated corrections set the baseline for the next set of estimates. Without them, government would end up claiming things like billions of jobs in the US.

Are you really as dumb as you act?

[Armchair]

"Are you really as dumb as you act?"

Yes.

[Joe_dallas]

Armchair 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
“Are you really as dumb as you act?”

Yes.

I would attribute it to extreme partisanship

[Sarcastr0]

The irony!

Tells us more about your expertise in economics, and public health, and virology, and neuroscience. Among many others.
And how all of those align with your priors, amazingly.

[Sarcastr0]

Again until you establish a pattern you are just making things up from 2 data points.

Tilted shows you are coming in way too hot.

BLS also shows their work.

When they said inflation was high they were accurate enough for you.

[Tilted]

Your intuition is right on this one. These annual revisions are often negative and, at least in recent years, their direction doesn’t depend on the administration.

I haven’t counted to be sure but my guess is that there have been more negative revisions than positive ones, and that’s certainly true over the last decade.

A couple of notes for background: These annual benchmark revisions come each February (as part of the report on January employment) and are revisions to the previous March’s numbers. So in February 2024 we got a revision of the March 2023 number, with that revision being extrapolated to surrounding months and to subcategories.

The 306,000 which Michael P referred to was actually a preliminary estimate of what the March 2023 revision would be. The BLS issues preliminary benchmark revisions in August which are then finalized the following February – that’s where the 306,000 came from. The actual revision for March 2023 (announced in February 2024) was 187,000 – or 266,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis. In a couple days we’ll get the preliminary revision for March 2024.

For the curious, the last 10 revisions (NSA) have been:

To March 2014… +67,000
2015… -172,000
2016… -81,000
2017… +135,000
2018… -16,000
2019… -489,000
2020… -121,000
2021… -7,000
2022… +506,000
2023… -187,000

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for doing that spadework, man.

[David Nieporent]

Your intimation is based on 2 data points.

No; it's based on one data point and some gossip about another one.

[Aoidized]

Anyone believes anything from Pedo Joe or Kameltoe Harris' BLS is an idiot.

Including the very understated inflation numbers.

[jb]

I posted a couple of months ago when they revised the numbers upwards, and of course no one was interested in the discussion at the time.

Turns out the initial estimates aren't perfect and get routinely revised in both directions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That doesn't matter. You just have to assume bad faith, and carry on from there!

[Joe_dallas]

https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1825248254893953351?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1825248254893953351%7Ctwgr%5E8ea7ee1e012b3cf22aec0b0a2d924f37e4078f67%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F667608%2F.

"Lets wait and see what happens on Wednesday

[Sarcastr0]

Any comments on what Tilted posted? Because boy it sure makes zerohedge look like a dishonest drama queen.

[ReaderY]

Ukranians are using flamethrowers to flush the Russians out.

Randal made a very important concession last week. He said that civilian deaths and property destruction in the Ukrainian invasion of Russia couldn’t amount to war crimes or genocide because the Ukrainians are invading only a small proportion of Russia, so there is always proportionality with respect to the country as a whole.

That’s a critical concession. It concedes that it just doesn’t matter if the Israelis aren’t doing anything different from any other power at war. What they do is always disproportionate because of the smallness of the region they are invading, so any invasion covers a disproportionate amount of territory and kills a disproportionate number of civilians. In other words, the “proportionality” rules are essentially rigged, gerrymandered, so that small countries, and especially Israel, can’t do exactly the same things that it’s perfectly OK for bigger countries to do.

That’s a critical concession.

[Malika]

Not sure what Randal claimed, but I can say that it does make sense that for densely populated areas you should have to be careful to limit "collateral damage," and that would apply to any nation working in those conditions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know Randal or what he said, but whether what Ukraine does in Russia is a war crime depends on the international laws of war, not what some internet Randal may or may not have "conceded".

[Malika]

GOP Congressman Calls Out Comrades Hypocrisy on IVF

“There’s like 700,000 children that are either being destroyed, or frozen for some period until somebody stops paying rent. Or worse yet, being experimented on,” Rosendale said.

He also thinks birth control is quite fishy.

“Let’s address the fact that we have young girls,” Rosendale said, whose family member “takes them at the age of 13 and starts getting them on the pill just so that they can control her menstrual cycle. OK? And then now all of a sudden she’s done this for 15, 20, 30 years before – before she starts having children, and it creates major problems, OK, with her system.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4757078-matt-rosendale-anti-ivf/

[Moderation4ever]

As I have noted before there are two consistent philosophies on birth control, IVF and abortion. One is life begins at conception and all BC, IVF, and abortion should be restricted. The other is that BC, IVF, and abortion are medical issues between patients and their doctors. Republicans struggle because they are trying to find a middle ground philosophy that doesn't exist. There is no rational for a 6, 12 or 15 week abortion ban.

[Aoidized]

If a 36 week abortion is a medical issue between patient and doctor, why not euthanasia of a 2 year old?

[Moderation4ever]

How many doctors provided 36 week abortions last year? You are talking about something that doesn't happen.

[Malika]

He does that a lot.

[Mr. Bumble]

If it doesn't happen, then why the opposition to laws that prohibit it?

[Malika]

You want to apply this reasoning to other areas, like gun control?

[Moderation4ever]

Isn't the libertarian philosophy that government should not make laws that are unnecessary?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ask a libertarian.

[Martinned2]

I think that's everyone's philosophy. The question is how you decide what is unnecessary.

[Nelson]

"why the opposition to laws that prohibit it?"

Because unnecessary laws should never be considered.

"Let's pass a law that doesn't need to be passed so snowflake anti-abortionists don't piss and moan" is a terrible reason for a law.

[jb]

Because a two year old isn't housed in the body of another person. (And it turns out that parents do have to make difficult end of life decisions about two year olds sometimes, as well!)

[DaveM]

I agree, on this matter, there is safety only in consistency. Personally, I am utterly opposed to treating human beings like property, regardless of their age or condition. I would argue that you can't crack open the door and allow a little bit of evil. Even a little bit creates momentum.

[Bob from Ohio]

"There is no rational for a 6, 12 or 15 week abortion ban."

FFS, you just don't agree with the "rational" that these are human lives being destroyed by abortion.

[Malika]

And by IVF, right?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did you really not understand his point?

The same rational conclusion should follow from an abortion performed at 6, 12 or 15 weeks.

[Nelson]

"FFS, you just don’t agree with the “rational” that these are human lives being destroyed by abortion."

Very few people agree with that premise. Somewhere between 10 and 15 percent, nationwide.

[JD85]

Birth Control does not affect anything after conception. Birth control (the pill, the shot, the ring) prevents conception in its entirety, that's the point.

No one who wants to prevent abortion should object to birth control, as birth control prevents conception, and therefor unwanted pregnancy and the associated abortion. Nothing has prevented more abortions than Birth Control in the history of the world.

[Bob from Ohio]

There are multiple studies questioning decades long use

Here is one:

"Study shows how birth control pills affect women’s psychological and biological responses to stress
UCLA-led study found hormonal contraceptive users processed stress differently at the molecular and psychological level" UCLA Health

Article discusses prior studies.

But GOPer hates woman explains it.

[Malika]

This study is about inflammation, not fertility, which is what Rosendale is going on about.

[Nelson]

Anti-abortionists will lie about anything they need to in order to force everyone else to live by their fringe beliefs.

[bernard11]

"Study shows how birth control pills affect women’s psychological and biological responses to stress
UCLA-led study found hormonal contraceptive users processed stress differently at the molecular and psychological level”

What does the study say about how women with children process stress? Or why that is better?

And WTF is it Rosendale's business, or Bob's, if women want to take the pill and live with these processes?

[JD85]

Is there any evidence, at all, that BC affects a woman's future ability to conceive or give birth? I am not aware of any, particularly anything "major".

[Michael P]

This week in Veep Thoughts:

And that’s what our election is about. Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy. As a democracy, we know there's a duality to the nature of democracy. On the one hand, incredible strength when it is intact. What it does for its people to protect and defend their rights. Incredibly strong. And incredibly fragile.

I suppose empty platitudes are slightly better than clear endorsements of price controls, or being surprised when subsidizing demand while restricting supply leads to higher prices.

[Malika]

Yet again, one must pity the person who attacks Harris on coherency grounds knowing their guy is *Trump!* Next up, attacking on marital fidelity grounds!

[Sarcastr0]

Michel fell out of the coconut tree just yesterday and is shocked at politics.

[DaveM]

The Democrat "faithful" can go from believing that there's absolutely nothing wrong with President Biden and everything's the best ever to Biden is a senile wreck and everything's a mess that only Harris can fix in the space of a single week.

Say what you will, but that kind of mental flexibility is impressive. I guess all those courses in relativistic moral philosophy paid off, after all.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of middle excluding to get to your take here.

[DaveM]

No doubt. I personally watched the shift happen in real time with some of my own relatives, people whose opinions I respect. I don't normally consider them to be inconsistent, but here we are.

[Sarcastr0]

I can’t speak to what you personally saw and interpreted from your family but taking that and generalizing nationwide is just a convenient story you want to tell.

The right are the ones diagnosing Biden with advanced pudding brain and Parkinson’s.
Thinking he’s too old and has lost a step is part of that cast excluded middle. Can do the job, but too risky in a crisis.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That was actually an improvement over their initial diagnosis of death...

[Malika]

You might want to consider that you are not being charitable enough when it seems like so many people you otherwise respect are suddenly wacky.

[Commenter_XY]

Kamala was clearly unburdened by any previous Veep Thoughts (btw, are you trademarking that, heh) when she offered up her latest ort and dropping. The more her mouth opens, the worse it will get.

The MSM is doing magnificently in their role as advocacy journolists.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump and Vance still seem to be setting the rhythm.

Blaming the media for your poor instrument.

[Michael P]

Others have previously used the "Veep Thoughts" name, for example https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YbrDUwOWQgQ and BlazeTV's Stu Burguiere. I can't claim any credit for the name.

[Moderation4ever]

I caught this article in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a19/page_fdcda27a-370d-5080-9d90-d4fef5e466d5.html

A federal judge in Western District of Missouri has blocked regulation by Missouri SOS John Ashcroft that attempts to prevent financial advisors from utilizing ESG Environmental Social Governance) factors in making investment decisions for their clients. Mr. Ashcroft was attempting to make political point by preventing "woke" investing. The plaintiff in the case were not a bunch of radical leftist but rather the SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND
FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION (SIFMA) which objected to the government insertion into the relationship with their clients. SIFMA noted in its complaint that the regulation failed to consider that federal law already requires the FA act in the best interest of their clients. SIFMA also noted that overly broad nature of the rule requiring a focus solely on financial return and not on a client's particular situation and investment goals.

This is a libertarian site, and it should be noted by this example that MAGA Republican are no strangers to pushing unnecessary regulations. It also speaks to the ignorant nature of the people to whom John Ashcroft was trying to appeal. As an investor and an investor who has Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) in my portfolio, I understand that investment goals are personal and complicated. That financial returns are not measured in a point in time but over years. That return is not defined by whether your investment is "woke" or "not woke", but rather by the quality of the advisor and the quality of the fund managers.

[bernard11]

So Ashcroft thinks that client preferences should not be allowed to influence investment advisors' decisions?

Jackass.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Only if they're "wrong".

[Brett Bellmore]

McConnell says Congress has the power to vote by proxy

"McConnell’s position puts him at odds with the vast majority of House Republicans, who spent years fighting a losing battle in court to overturn the practice, which was initiated in 2020 by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The House GOP leader at the time, Kevin McCarthy, sued to block the practice but was dealt defeats by two federal courts before the Supreme Court declined to take up the issue.

However, in February, a federal district court judge in Texas ruled that the House’s use of proxy voting violated the Constitution, contending that it requires a majority of members to be physically present to conduct business. The ruling, if upheld by appellate courts, threatens to unravel large and complicated legislative packages adopted with decisive votes cast by absent members."

Well, being in opposition to the vast majority of his caucus isn't exactly new to McConnell. But I'm just enjoying the rare case where a judge actually tries to enforce the Constitution's quorum clause, instead of just automatically invoking the enrolled bill doctrine. I doubt it's going anywhere, but it's refreshing to see this clause grow some teeth, even if they'll shortly be knocked out again.

[Armchair]

Voting by proxy was never a good idea.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or legal.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can see a valid use for it under highly restricted circumstances, but this wasn’t even voting by proxy, it was quorum by proxy; There literally were not enough members present to make a quorum, it wasn’t even close, and they were doing business anyway on the basis that the few members present held proxies for the absent members.

It wasn’t even something you could make an argument for, like some of the members attending by something like Zoom. They just flat out weren’t participating.

[Armchair]

"I can see a valid use for it under highly restricted circumstances,"

I can't. This is literally their job. THEIR job. What they were elected into office to do by tens of thousands of voters.

For them to say...eh, can't be bothered to be there. Someone else can vote for me. It's just completely disrespectful of the position.

[Sarcastr0]

They are often back in their districts meeting with their constituents.

That, not voting, is the primary thing that keeps them in office.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, I could see an argument for them remaining in their local offices, and 'attending' by teleconference. It would even have some potential advantages, like allowing their 'presence' and communications to be archived, and getting rid of 'voice votes'.

But in this case they weren't even participating, they'd just handed out proxies to people the leadership trusted, to vote as the leadership dictated. McConnell loved that, of course, he hates the fact that individual members of his caucus actually have a choice about whether to vote the way he tells them.

[Sarcastr0]

You can see lots of things, but you are once again reading BrettLaw takes into the Constitution.

I myself have no idea what the right answer is, but I do know McConnel isn’t clearly wrong. House gets to set its rules.

[Mr. Bumble]

...within the limits imposed by the Constitution.

[Sarcastr0]

Could you lay out why you think the Constitution speaks clearly in this case?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. The answer is far from clear and that would suggest deference should be given to each house’s right to set rules of proceedings:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10447

BTW, McConnell is a senator so being in disagreement with House Republicans isn't quite clashing with his "caucus," which I would label as Senate Republicans.

[Mr. Bumble]

Deference should always favor the Constitution.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, what insight.

Do you take issue with "the answer is far from clear" via the Constitution? If so, share with the class. If not, you're just wanking.

[Moderation4ever]

I can't help but wonder if it is necessary in this day and age to have people physically present for voting on legislation. It is not the situation that members are even sitting together for a vote. Members come in the Chamber to vote and then leave as quickly. I think a virtual Congress could be just as effective as one sitting together in a room. The only thing really lost by not having members physically present is the power of leadership to control their parties' members.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The collective power of the assembly to respond to unexpected developments with diverse experience and opinions is also diminished. That is not a good thing in itself. It gets worse when it gets gamed by leaders skilled at delivering unexpected developments.

[Krayt]

I'm fine with proxy voting, as long as if there's a discrepancy between the proxy vote and the actual congressman's wishes, the proxy voter suffers a long jail sentence.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You probably don't want to know what they do in the UK's Parliament with regard to "pairing" of votes...

[Armchair]

Bringing this forward, since it's rare that Harris has a good idea.

But her $25,000 subsidy for first time homebuyers I believe is an excellent idea. One that can help our housing supply immensely. As well as help young people get a leg up, and even help with "racial injustice". Many think that it will just inflate home prices by $25,000 across the board, and nothing new will get built. I disagree. Unlike the college education market, the home market is far more transparent, with a concrete good. To give an example of how it may help, I provide the following example.

Imagine for a second it costs $360,000 to build a house. You have 10 people who want to buy a house. 1 is willing to pay $500,000, 2 are willing to pay $450,000, 3 are willing to pay $400,000, 3 are willing to pay $350,000, 1 $300,000.

Technically speaking, 10 people “need” the house. But demand is such that only 6 houses get built. Contractors aren’t going to build a house for $360,000 and sell it for $350,000.

On the other hand, remember that the person who is willing to pay $500,000, doesn’t actually pay $500,000. Multiple builders compete for her business, and in doing so drop the price the person would pay, so it ends up being between $360,000 and $400,000.

Now, take the situation, but give the first time homebuyers (~30% of the homebuyers) a $25,000 subsidy. These individuals (since they aren’t selling a home) will, on average, have less money to afford a house. Now, you have the same people as before, but two of the people were willing to pay $350,000, can now pay $375,000, while the one at $300,000 can afford $325,000.

That doesn’t help the poorest homebuyer…even with the subsidy, they can’t afford a home. But for the other two, they can afford a home. Which means, an additional two houses get built.

That’s how it works.

[Aoidized]

Yes, in your hypothetical. But you're assuming that the subsidy goes for new construction. In many parts of the country with the worst housing problems, there is no buildable land or zoning restrictions prevent anything from being built. So this subsidy doesn't add to the nation's housing stock. It just enriches boomers who already own their homes.

[Armchair]

In that hypothetical example, the boomers need to sell their houses to realize those gains. When they sell, they need to buy a new place. Indirectly, those gains help them buy a new place. Which again, helps construction.

[JD85]

Isn't the subsidy only for new construction?

I don't think the subsidy is a good idea, but I think it does contain what you are requesting.

[Kazinski]

i oppose subsidies for anything.

Its federal regulations that require down payments in the first place.

They can be as low as 3.5% on an Federal Housing Administration loan (so 14,000 on a 400k house), but then that requires mortgage insurance premium that will cost .0055% mortgage insurance premium annually for the life of the 30 year mortgage,which on a 386k loan is 2,123.00 a year just for the mortgage insurance.

Its federal regulations (conforming mortgage guidelines for Fannie Mae securitized mortgage backed securities) that impose the minimum 10% down payment for private loans anyway (40,000 on a 400k house or 26,000 more than the FHA loan). Which also requires private mortgage insurance which is a lot cheaper than the government imposed FHA mortgage insurance.

And of course the standard 20% down payment would be 80,000 on a 400k home with no mortgage insurance requirements.

And really the Ability to Repay guidelines on conforming loans that is also imposed by federal regulations which limits total debt to income ratio to 43% of documented income. Thats the biggest bar to home ownership because it would require 65k minimum income to qualify for this 400k home with a 20% down payment.

[jb]

Banks could (and have) offer loans with no down payment required. There's no federal regulation preventing them from doing so.

[Kazinski]

Federal regulations on securitizing mortgages require at least a 20% down payment.

Plus the safe harbor provisions in Dodd-Frank open up lenders to predatory lending lawsuits for giving no money down loans.

Plus they would almost certainly be at much higher interest rates because the conforming loan interest rate caps wouldn’t apply, and they would be much higher risk to boot.

Dodd-Frank and the CFPB did everything they could to discourage no down payment loans, short of making them illegal, it would be pretty rich to blame the banks for not offering them.

[jb]

Securitization is purely a nice to have (or possibly a negative) in the financial system: back in the day banks made money by actually lending money out and collecting interest. Some of them even do it now!

[Martinned2]

And then people started complaining that banks held too much risk on their balance sheets, so banks started looking for ways to sell their exposures to others. And then those others started looking for ways to buy that exposure with leverage, so they went to the bank and borrowed money so that they could buy the bank's exposure to risky assets. Fun huh?

[bernard11]

Securitization is just fine - a good thing, in fact - if it allows the risks of mortgages to be spread around. It's really no different than diversifying a stock portfolio.

It really is not a great idea for a bank to make and hold a lot mortgages all in the same city or region. It introduces an unnecessary element of risk into their portfolios. Think about having most of your mortgages on New Orleans properties, and Katrina hits.

The problems arise when the people who buy the pieces with borrowed money overleverage - as, of course, they did.

A lot of people are going to hate to hear this, but what is needed is regulation of these firms practices. Like banks, a failure can have serious ripple effects on people not remotely involved in creating the problems.

[Kazinski]

Their practices are already one of the most heavily regulated parts of the economy.

You can't even discuss loan terms and interest rates with a consumer without being federally registered and State licensed to do so.

"NMLS is also the system of record for the registration of depositories, subsidiaries of depositories, and MLOs under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Regulation G (S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act – Federal Registration of Residential Mortgage Loan Originators), published December 19, 2011."

They regulate compensation, outlaw shared commissions and referral fees, restrict advertising and specify required elements.

With penalties ranging from draconian fines to prison terms for violating by both the CFPB and state regulatons.

[Kazinski]

That's a typo, above, its 10% not 20% threshold for securitization.

[Joe_dallas]

Kazinski 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"i oppose subsidies for anything."

Good point - Subsidies and tax credits are crafted to support the seller, not the buyer.
In the case of the EV credits, most of the credit benefits the seller in the form of a higher sales price. ( a shift of the demand curve)
In the case of the proposed $22k homebuyer credit, somewhere between 1/2 to 2/3 will result in a higher sales price. The shift on the demand curve wont be the full credit since there will still be a lot of buyers in the price market who wont qualify for the credit, thus not a full shift in the demand curve.

[Armchair]

"i oppose subsidies for anything."

There are lots of different subsidies, or items that effectively exist as subsidies. For example, the FHA loans. Or a Fannie Mac loan.

In an idealized world...perhaps. But we don't live in that.

[DaveM]

That’s not how markets work, at all. The moment the builders know that $25,000 is being added, they will increase the price by $25,000. But wait, wouldn’t that price out all those non-first-time-buyers who can barely afford the house, since they don’t qualify for the subsidy? Why yes, yes it would.

And all of those people would now be replaced by first-time buyers with a shiny new $25,000 check from the taxpayers in their pockets.

The builder doesn’t care who the buyer is, they only care that the buyer is buying.

[jb]

So your theory is that there is some infinite supply of first time homebuyers who can exactly afford the current new house prices but no more, so builders can confidently raise prices by exactly $25K with no expected hit to demand?

I always find it hilarious when people arguing in favor of free markets have no clue how markets actually work.

The subsidy would obviously put some upward pressure on prices. In some (unusual) situations it might even increase prices more than $25K since downpayments are leveraged, but since (a) lots of buyers aren't first time homebuyers and they generally have more downpayment to start with, and (b) lots of people already don't buy the most expensive house they can possibly afford, and (c) a lot of housing stock is out of the reach of first time homebuyers regardless of whether or not they have an extra $25K, it's a pretty stupid analysis that gets you to an exact $25K increase on all prices as a result of the policy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

DaveM — Consider a property for sale for $400,000. For that, a 20% down payment is $80,000. A guy with only $70,000 to put down can't come up with that down payment.

Now add $25,000 to that guy's pocket. He then has $95,000 to put down—enough to make a 20% down payment on a $475,000 property. But under your assumption the developer raised the price to $425,000; the guy still gets in the door with room to spare, because of the subsidy.

[Armchair]

"The moment the builders know that $25,000 is being added, they will increase the price by $25,000."

No. Let's look at the hypothetical above. Let's say the builders plan for the 6 houses they have built, and sell at $400,000 per house Normally, they'll make $40,000 profit per house (or $240,000 total).

But under your scenario, suddenly they're charging $425,000 per house. Now, they've priced out the people willing to pay $400,000. They make $65,000 in profit per house from the first buyers ($195,000). But now they're holding onto 3 houses they couldn't sell, at a cost of 1.08 Million. They end up losing near $800,000 if they "just raise prices by $25,000". Even if they "just" build 3 houses instead, they don't make in profit what they did before.

[Michael P]

I don't understand why you pretend away the potential buyers by referring to other houses, but not to other bidders for those houses.

If you're looking at one house in isolation, the price should get bid to just above the second highest valuation, something like $450,001 in your hypo. If you want to consider other houses, then you have to explain why other buyers don't compete for those other houses.

[Armchair]

"I don’t understand why..."

It depends on how you look at the market (and it is a market) for housing. If you view the market as an isolated item that can't have additional items produced (like a rare painting), that's one thing. If you view the market as an item that can have more items produced (like, say, ball bearings), that's something else entirely. I view the housing market as more like ball bearings than like rare paintings. An item that can be produced.

Let's give an example. Let's take a "rare" Ty Cobb baseball card (or Black Lotus Magic the Gathering card). Let's say a seller offers the #1 on the print run up for bid. That is a rare item, and will fall under your "$450,001" scenario. But what happens if the seller offers the same Ty Cobb card, but #2 on the print run as well? Almost exactly the same, except for that little number. For many people that's a minor detail, and they'll happily buy it. And then what happens if the seller offers cards #3 through #3,001. He's got a printer in the back pushing them out. Same exact item, but for that little number. The price crashes. Until you hit the price of production for the card, whatever the cardboard price is. (Or no one wants to buy it).

Now take that same scenario, but the printer has a lead time of 6 months to produce another batch of cards. Suddenly people who want one NOW bid up the price. But others are happy to wait for the next batch. And yet others just hit up the used card market, but bid up the market on those used cards in between print runs.

Question is, what is housing? Is it a rare good, one of a kind? Or is it an item that can be produced and readily exchanged, just with a long lead time. And the bidding you're talking about is people who just don't want to wait that long lead time. I view it as the second. It's a market.

[David Nieporent]

If you don't understand that the issue is that they aren't allowed to build the housing, then maybe you need to do a bit of reading.

[Armchair]

"the issue is that they aren’t allowed to build the housing,"

They literally build hundreds of thousands of new homes in the US per year, with over 1.3 million issued permits. To say "they aren't allowed to build the housing" is simply inaccurate.

[Sarcastr0]

An absolute number with no baseline is useless.
Universalizing across the US is also wrong.

Both of those are great failures of understanding if you want to ignore DMN’s point, though!

Do you think there’s a magic number of new houses after which where everything will be fine? Even Michael P is ahead of you there.

[Armchair]

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

[Michael P]

In a lot of cities, housing is a rare good. In small towns, it might be more like a commodity where builders can just build more, but telework seems to be decreasing slightly so there’s not a lot of demand for new homes there.

Builders are not going to build 1.3 million new homes per year to satisfy your imaginary ten people. That’s not how supply or demand curves work. You need to consider all the other potential buyers in the market, not just assume there’s an oversupply of new houses that drives prices to just above the cost of production — especially when, as with housing, there is a lot of customization and differentiation in the end product (and so the cost of production is highly variable and influenced by the buyer). Buying a house shares little in common with buying ball bearings.

[Armchair]

"In a lot of cities, housing is a rare good."
No, it's not. In fact, most cities have millions of units of housing. It's why it's a city

" In small towns, it might be more like a commodity where builders can just build more,"
-It's like that in cities too. Take a look at how many new housing permits are done in cities annually.

"Builders are not going to build 1.3 million new homes per year to satisfy your imaginary ten people."
-It's a simplified example.

Builders really do build hundreds of thousands of new homes every year to satisfy hundreds of thousands of people. What they build, and how much they build, depends on the expected demand.

[ThePublius]

"Many think that it will just inflate home prices by $25,000 across the board, and nothing new will get built. I disagree."

I disagree with you. Injecting money into the housing market, in terms of subsidies for buyers, will certainly increase prices. Have you ever purchased a house? It's competitive. He who has more money to spend wins.

Further, I think it's unfair to subsidize a particular class of buyers with government, i.e., the people's money. One might make the case that it violates equal protection. Here's a senior citizen looking to downsize, a citizen who's paid taxes his entire life, and you're giving an advantage to someone competing against him for a house. How is that right?

[jb]

You know the government already subsidizes (and explicitly favors in some cases, through grandfathering policies) existing homeowners, right? Are you outraged by this favoritism as well?

[Don Nico]

Yup, more whataboutism on display

[jb]

Well yes, when you're selectively opposed to only the government subsidies that benefit other people and not the ones you like, it makes you think maybe your objections about subsides aren't in good faith.

[Armchair]

"in terms of subsidies for buyers, will certainly increase prices."
-Probably. Almost certainly for starter homes. Other homes...potentially. But as prices go up, that encourages builders to build more homes. Which is the entire point.

"Further, I think it’s unfair to subsidize a particular class of buyers with government,"

We do this all the time. Subsidize (or choose not to subsidize) certain classes of buyers or individuals. We do this now. Capital gains on house sales aren't taxed up to a certain level. That gives house owners a major advantage when buying a home over first time homeowners.

[Bob from Ohio]

"One that can help our housing supply immensely. "

Its not a supply incentive at all, its strictly a demand incentive. It will make it harder to buy, not easier.

We have enough demand incentives.

[Armchair]

It's not a supply incentive. It's a demand incentive. If you increase demand (with higher prices), supply (as in numbers produced) will increase to accommodate it.

[Armchair]

In other news, the House Committee concludes that Joe Biden committed impeachable offenses through defrauding the United States of America.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/emb-5am-819-house-committees-conclude-joe-biden-engaged-impeachable

“President Joe Biden conspired to commit influence peddling and grift,” the committees wrote. “In doing so, he abused his office and, by repeatedly lying about his abuse of office, has defrauded the United States to enrich his family.”

[Z Crazy]

Wow.

Didn't Trump simp[l;y asks Zelansky to take a 2nd look into the firing of that prosecutor Tolkan?

[Malika]

He asked him to look into his then current political rival and that wacky server conspiracy thing they had going on.

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder if they would have actually found something at the time if they looked.

I am guessing they would have concluded that there was niothing to see here, move along now.

I wonder how the Dems had such a big hissy fit, as if it was wrong to investigate a political rival.

[Z Crazy]

Yeah, I'm thinking the Ukrainians would've concluded that there wasn't anything wrong with firing that Tolkan guy, and the whole thing would have been forgotten.

Impeaching Trump merely for asking a third party to take a second look actually got people to wonder if there really was something there, and they found out there was something there.

[Malika]

As I said, more than that was asked for. Interesting you elided that. Also, what did they find out was "there?"

[Michael Ejercito]

What more did they ask for?

[Malika]

"I wonder how the Dems had such a big hissy fit, as if it was wrong to investigate a political rival."

So a sheriff using the powers of his office to investigate the guy running against him implicates no concerns for you?

[Michael Ejercito]

So you oppose prosecuting Trump.

That is good to know.

[Malika]

If it were shown that Trump were being prosecuted because Biden pushed for it, yes, that would be wrong. If Trump were to have called for an independent special counsel to investigate the Bidens that would have been fine. It's interesting that the idea of abuse of power seems to not occur to you as a concern.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Ukrainians were as independent a counsel as anyone on Earth!

[Kazinski]

The wacky conspiracy that Joe Biden made the decision to withhold the money if the prosecutor investigating the chairman of his sons company who was actually a fugitive on the run at the time Shokin was fired.

Joe had this to when he started the conspiracy:
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired you're not getting the money."

Pretty wacky someone would say Joe threatened to withhold public funds if Ukraine didn't fire the Prosecutor trying to put his son's fugitive boss in jail, even though Joe said exactly that.

[Sarcastr0]

The prosecutor wasn't trying to put Hunter in jail. He was universally seen as corrupt and slow rolling his investigation.

You've had this pointed out to you many, many, times throughout the years. With sources, with detailed timelines that don't add up to your theory, with your own assertions continually ending up with egg on your face.

Still here. Spouting the exact same disproven story, utterly unchanged.

You have some fundamental inability to take in anything that contradicts Comer and Jordan's fabrications.

[Kazinski]

i didn’t say he was trying to put Hunter in jail did i? What’s the point of making up points to refute?

And you can’t refute that he was trying to put Hunter’s boss in jail, because he was a fugitive from Ukraine at the time Shokin was fired, thats well documented, but you know that because Ive posted the link several times.

Here is the footnote link from the Wikipedia entry which says:
"At the end of 2014, Zlochevsky fled Ukraine amid allegations of unlawful self enrichment and legalization of funds (Article 368–2, Criminal Code of Ukraine) during his tenure in public office.[25] In January 2015, Prosecutor General Vitaly Yarema announced that Zlochevsky had been put on the wanted list for alleged financial corruption."

http://www.dw.com/uk/лайфхак-від-злочевського-як-повернутись-в-україну/a-37434241

Go ahead and refute that.

[Sarcastr0]

Announced and yet not followed up on. Due to corruption. Come on, man, you've been lead through this many many times. It just doesn't stick with you, does it? Maybe I should put it on some Comey stationary.

First, Shokin was fired for NOT pursuing corruption cases. So no, he wasn't trying to put *anyone* in jail, Hunter or his boss, or anyone else.

Second, It was the consensus of Obama, and Europe; Biden passed the message along but wasn't acting on on his lonesome.

Third, why would Hunters absentee's boss' fate matter to Joe Biden?

You have been told all this over and over again. So you're flat wrong on the facts. Still.

[Michael Ejercito]

So what6 was wrong with Trump asking for a second look?

[David Nieporent]

1) Trump wasn’t asking; he was extorting, by refusing to turn over congressionally mandated military aid.
2) He certainly wasn’t’ asking for a “second look.” He was demanding that they announce an investigation.
3) He was doing it for his own political benefit, not for the country.

But you know all this, because it was discussed years ago; you're just sealioning.

[Kazinski]

You are probably starting to fantasize about chickens again, because your bullshit just won't wash.

Zlochevsky fled the country at the end of 2014, his whereabouts were unknown the entirety of Shokin's term, of course the prosecutor couldn't follow up. Bu Devon Arrcher testified they were having Burisma board meetings in the Arabian peninsula.

Where is Zlochevsky right now one might ask?

He is a fugitive again whereabouts unknown.

[David Nieporent]

They didn't need to know where Zlochevsky was in order to investigate his business dealings. Indeed, the UK had frozen assets that he had in the country, and then was begging the Ukrainian prosecutors to send them documentation so they could get a court order to keep those assets frozen. But the Ukrainians refused to supply the documents, so the UK government had no choice but to unfreeze the assets.

[Kazinski]

Sure and later reports were that Zlochevsky paid a huge bribe, reportedly 7m, to make that happen to unfreeze the assets.

And I’m not saying Shokin might not have been corrupt, in fact the reason for paying Hunter 1m a year to be on the board may have been because it was much cheaper to pay for the Biden influence and protection than pay the prosecutor directly.

There was an assassination attempt on Shokin foiled by bullet proof glass just a few months before Joe engineered his firing.

Ukraine is a corrupt cesspool and the VP of the United States was poolside, taking calls and having meetings.

[Kazinski]

Im not wrong on any of the facts.

Thats what Joe said. Fact. He said he made the ask to fire Shokin.

Hunter was paid 1m a year to be on the board whos chairman was a corrupt fugitive. Fact.

And don't be ridiculous:
"Third, why would Hunters absentee’s boss’ fate matter to Joe Biden?"

Because Joe's crackhead son was getting paid 1m a year by his fugitive boss from 2014 to 2019, about 5m in total.

[bernard11]

He didn't just ask.

He said he would withhold military assistance, which he had no authority to do, unless Zelensky investigated.

[David Nieporent]

Didn’t Trump simp[l;y asks Zelansky to take a 2nd look into the firing of that prosecutor Tolkan?

Aside from making up names (“Zelensky,” not “Zelansky”; “Shokin,” not “Tolkan,” who’s almost the guy who wrote Lord of the Rings), Trump did not in fact ask Zelensky to take any look at anything. He "asked" Zelensky to announce an investigation of Biden. And he did this "asking" by extorting him by withholding aid which Congress had already mandated.

[Michael Ejercito]

So what?

There was nothing wrong with that.

[David Nieporent]

There was nothing wrong with that.

Aside from being corrupt and illegal, you are correct.

[Sarcastr0]

The House Committee.

Don’t launder the extreme partisanship at work here like that.

Comer and Jordan have given up all their credibility with the public at this point. This isn’t going anywhere but right wing received wisdom.
You will believe it, but uncritical acceptance of this kind of nonsense has long been your thing.

[Commenter_XY]

I know, nothing to see here. Sounds familiar.

[Z Crazy]

If the Ukrainainas actually conducted that investigation back in 2019, they would have concluded that.

It was impeaching Trump for merely asking for an investigation that got people to wonder if Brandon was really extorting bribes from Brusima.

[Malika]

It's gone from "perfect" to "merely!"

[bernard11]

It is familiar, because Jordan and Comer have a habit of making shit up, so it's been true in the past, and it's reasonable to assume they are doing it again.

[Sarcastr0]

I know, you want to believe and so are ignoring a past history of lies and a lack of actual cited, much less corroborated, evidence.

Not even one of those ephemeral whistleblowers that never seem to deliver as promised.

It's like you don't remember your drip drip drip which never amounted to anything, as I said it wouldn't.

[Moderation4ever]

So, have Speaker Johnson bring this up for a vote. I love to see how Republican House members in swing districts vote. A vote might be all that is needed to insure Democratic House control in 2025.

[OtisAH]

Hey, if they hurry up with it they might be able to get Schumer to convict so Harris can be president sooner.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In other news, John Solomon is a disgraced "journalist" who's been fired from numerous publications for his repeated lies.

https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-08-19.DEM%20Memo%20re%20Impeachment%20Inquiry%20Exonerates%20President%20Biden.pdf

"The voluminous evidence amassed by the Committee firmly establishes that Joe Biden—whether as President, Vice President, or private citizen—did not take part in his family members’ business enterprises, did not profit from them, and took no official actions to benefit them. Stunningly, Republicans’ claim that Joe Biden was somehow involved in his son’s business ventures appears to rest on the fact that Joe Biden called Hunter Biden nearly every day and sought every opportunity to see him, including, on occasion, when Hunter was with other people. To be clear, there is no evidence that Joe Biden ever discussed his son’s business ventures during any of these calls or visits. This investigation has sought to weaponize the bond between President Biden and Hunter at a time when Joe Biden feared losing Hunter to drug addiction—after having already lost his son, Beau, to brain cancer in 2015 and his wife, Neilia Hunter Biden, and young daughter, Amy, to a car crash in 1972."

[Armchair]

"took no official actions to benefit them"

Besides all those nice plane rides on government aircraft.

[Moderation4ever]

Right? Trumps family member never traveled on AF1. Can not wait until Democrats regain the House and start looking into the Trump kids. House Republicans weaponized the committee but forgot their own liabilities would be exposed in the future.

[Armchair]

whataboutism

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

blood libel

[Moderation4ever]

It is whataboutism and that is the point. What these few Republicans have done is very likely to start a cycle. Hunter Biden has legal problems, and they should be addressed by prosecutors. Not by a Congressional committee. MAGA Republicans have more and more relied on trying cases in public that they could never try in a court. Trump was tried in courts because prosecutors had evidence. Lacking evidence Republican have thrown accusation out in public that cannot stand up.

[David Nieporent]

No, you don't understand. The GOP is very concerned about the value of free flights, which is why they're calling for the immediate impeachment of Clarence Thomas.

[Z Crazy]

Has anyone noticed that politicians only want to pretend to do something about gun violence in America?

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/

“What was said to us by the White House was, there’s really no support nationally to address the issue of urban violence,” said the Rev. Charles Harrison, a pastor from Indianapolis. “The support was to address the issue of gun violence that affected suburban areas — schools where white kids were killed.”

In other words, Obama only wanted to deal with a PRETEND problem (modern white suburban American kids are the demographic least likely to be murdered in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY), while ignoring the real problem of gun violence in the ghetto.

[Brett Bellmore]

Urban gangs are not a threat to the people running the gun control movement, or to the government. Law abiding people in the political opposition are the threat they're worried about: As long as the American people are armed, there are extremely annoying limits on what the government can safely do.

In fact, they might even view the urban gangs as potential manpower if they ever need some domestic jobs done the US military would refuse to do...

[Michael Ejercito]

There is a clear difference between rank-and-file and the people who run the gun control movement.

The rank-and-file fear street crime. Sadly and tragically, too many people have compelling reasons to fear street crime.

For the leadership, it is not about street crime.

It is about punishing their political enemies.

Their enemy is the White male conservative, and they associate private gun ownership with the White male conservative.

There are certain tells, most notably political cartoons that feature "gun nuts".

[Malika]

WTF are you talking about? Who is the "rank and file?" Of what? And political cartoonist are "the leadership?"

[Stephen Lathrop]

What are they talking about? Armed political vigilantism. They think it sounds like a good idea, or at least intimidating.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's talking about the fact that the gun control movement relies heavily on useful idiots to provide them with a show of public support. Doesn't rely on them for funding, or permit them any say in policy, of course. It's all top down astroturf.

[Kazinski]

Well a platform to arrest more Black people to save Black lives is hardly resonates with the Black community as a campaign slofan, but probably has widespread support in the "community". 90% of Black murders are committed by other Blacks (83% of white morders are whites).

Black Guns Matter would probably be more effective and resonate more. but is hardly a Democratic talking point.

[Malika]

"white morders"

Is that like White Mordors?

Haven't read that part of the Silmarillion yet.

[Martinned2]

Well yes. Thoughts & prayers, etc.

[Z Crazy]

It takes more than prayer to put away the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member doing these shootings!

[Malika]

HARRISON: Oh, certainly I think the number of guns are contributing to the rise in violence. The easy access of these guns certainly has been a major factor.

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/16/988200809/indianapolis-pastor-angry-and-bewildered-by-citys-gun-violence

[Michael Ejercito]

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14

All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.

For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I'd catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I'd find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child's bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I'd find out for sure whether a lab was there.

How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we've got some evidence, but it isn't enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.

Give up your rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, and I'll make the world safer for you. No question about it.

The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I'm allowed to do to you, what's going to keep you safe from me?

Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.

That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me - that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven't really thought through the consequences. I won't argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.

Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.

Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier.

[John F. Carr]

The saga of Judge Kindred, formerly of the District of Alaska, keeps on giving. Kindred had a sexual relationship with a law clerk and a sexualized relationship with an Assistant US Attorney. According to Bloomberg Law, he had a reputation leniency in criminal cases. When the US Attorney's office wanted a tougher judge, his flirtatious friend on the staff would be assigned to the prosecution team to force him to recuse.

There are opposing complaints. He was recused too often, causing cases to be assigned to tougher judges, and he was not recused often enough. The defense bar collectively does not have a duty of consistency.

To clean up the mess the Justice Department is bringing in experienced attorney Steven Clymer, whose resume includes helping prosecute the officers who beat Rodney King and "serving as a liaison between the Kansas US attorney’s office and a court-appointed special master investigating secret recordings of defense attorneys and their clients at Leavenworth Detention Center."

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/alaska-prosecutor-accused-of-exploiting-judge-ties-for-recusal

[John F. Carr]

A judge has allowed a lawsuit against PepsiCo for selling "protein bars" that contain so much added sugar that they are not healthy. The plaintiffs claim to be smart enough to read the text saying that the protein bars are good for muscles but too dumb to understand the federally-manded nutrition label where the sugar content was disclosed.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67756597/mccausland-v-pepsico-inc/

The named plaintiffs are three "self-proclaimed fitness enthusiasts". The real party in interest is Kuzyk Law, which wants to make this a class action.

[Kazinski]

Did Harris lose the election by proposing price controls?

I actually think she did, its going to kill her in swing states.

As an illustration of how effective price controls are, when Milei ended rent control in Argentina the supply of rental housing juemped 195%.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/javier-milei-got-rid-of-rent-control-in-argentina-housing-supply-skyrocketed/ar-AA1oFNuq

[John F. Carr]

Do you have an original source for the information in the Newsweek article? I could not find the quote said to have been published in La Nacion and I don't know what the statistical organization would be called in Spanish.

[ThePublius]

They have time to walk back that kookiness. I think they already are. They will continue to change their position and message based on the reaction to it.

[OtisAH]

No, but you do have a new chicken to fuck. So get fucking I guess.

[Kazinski]

You have to admit that particular chicken is wearing a pretty short skirt.

[Commenter_XY]

I told you....When Kamala opens her mouth, her support will go down. She cannot help herself.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Projection?

[Longtobefree]

I thought when she opened her mouth, something went up?

[Malika]

Did Trump lose the election by proposing restrictions on the abortion pill?

I actually think he did, its going to kill him the swing states.

[Josh R]

Harris pandered in the same way that Trump panders on tariffs. Economists shit on both proposals but many people find the policies good. Whether either helps or hurts politically is hard to say, but losing the election because of one proposal? No effin way.

[OtisAH]

Just a quick note to Convicted Felon Donald Trump, his advisers both formal and informal, his “election integrity” volunteers, and his supporters more broadly:

There are no claims to executive privilege this time around and no presidential immunity available. His communications have no legal protections beyond what is afforded all of us. The crime exception still exists when speaking of conspiracies hatched with lawyers. And over two thirds of the country have had just about enough of all of this nonsense. Proceed as you choose but try to keep the above in mind.

[Bob from Ohio]

"over two thirds of the country have had just about enough"

Hm, then why are 45%+ voting for Trump?

I think your math is as bad as your opinions.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to adjust for dead and multiple voters.

[OtisAH]

Because, you twit, the “45%” is of registered or likely voters, depending, and not the population of the United States of America.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, you are counting children. I doubt they have a full formed opinion but whatever.

[OtisAH]

No, Bob, I didn’t consider you at all.

[hobie]

I wonder what scheme they can pull this time when they lose again? The best they could come up with last time was the convoluted fake electors. Lawsuits got them nothing. SCOTUS has standing issues with clowns like Ken Paxton. And the Electoral Count Reform Act closed a shenanigan loophole.

I see rumblings such as in Georgia where they are stacking the election board with Q-Trumplings with the unsaid reason being to just flat out declare a different winner by committee.

So I don't know. I'm sure the insurrectionist hayseeds in this group know what sort of overthrow scheme they can tolerate. What say you, hayseeds? What are you prepared to do to get your Orange Caligula back in office?

[Josh R]

If Trump can get enough county canvassing boards to not certify votes, those states might not have their votes counted on Jan 6, thus throwing the election to the House (and Senate for VP).

[David Nieporent]

States, not county canvassing boards, certify elections. I'm pretty sure that enough states for Harris to win the EC are under Democratic control that this can't happen. If some red county somewhere refuses to report its results, the state can go to court and force it to.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I haven't done the maths, but at this point my money would be on Team Trump going whole hog towards flooding the EC results "zone with shit", thus sending the decision to the State legislatures, where the votes will not be weighted by population.

They wouldn't even have to wait for or legally challenge the results of the election. We live in interesting times, indeed.

[Josh R]

I hope so. But, a friendly state courts could wreck havoc if counties withhold votes.

[Commenter_XY]

Orange Caligula....LMAO. Ok, that was a good one.

[MoreCurious]

Apparently Trump has posted a series of AI-generated images on his Truth Social account falsely claiming that Taylor Swift has endorsed him for president. Will there be -- should there be -- any legal consequences relating to this misappropriation of her name, image, and likeness?

[Malika]

Wasn't he whining about Harris' crowds being AI generated recently?

[hobie]

Crowd sizes seem to be a particular sore spot with Trump. There has to be a political way Democrats can irritate him regarding his size preoccupation.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The 109 (including staff and media) who attended her NC rally didn't hit a sore spot but did hit the funny bone.

No one shows up when she's not offering free concerts. lol

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And hand sizes...

[Malika]

Why does JD Vance think that Irish-Americans living around other Irish-Americans causes crime?

[ThePublius]

Where did you hear that?

[Michael P]

Probably the same place he heard that Donald Trump invited the Russians to hack emails that didn't get hacked and that Trump didn't invite anyone to compromise.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Stop being disingenuous. You know JD Vance isn't constrained by the logical implications of his statements.

[Frank Drackman]

It's mostly the Black Irish

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I read Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice by David Tatel. He was a long-time civil litigator (focus on civil rights) who Clinton chose to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the D.C. Circuit.

Michael McConnell, a retired Republican nominated judge, provides a blurb. Judge Tatel has received many kudos from across the ideological spectrum, including his conservative colleagues on the D.C. Circuit. Steve Vladeck in one article:

“For a judge who can’t see, he sees everything. Not just what is going on in the case before him, but how it matters in the future,” said Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas and close observer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. “It’s hard to think of a judge who is more highly respected on the federal appellate bench even by those who disagree with him.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/dc-judge-david-tatel-career/2021/07/07/bf48778e-c486-11eb-8c18-fd53a628b992_story.html

The book was a good read, providing a look at an impressive life. The cover has a picture of the judge (now retired — he went on senior status a couple of years ago) with his guide dog, Vixen.

Tatel wrote many important opinions including Shelby v. Holder (overturned) & and a dissent in Massachusetts v. EPA (a major influence on the SCOTUS ruling).

[hobie]

I heard a recent interview of him on NPR. He seemed to be a very sweet, intellectual man. And boy does he love his dog

[hobie]

Made spaghetti and meatballs yesterday. When I make a marinara from scratch I use Mario Batali's which is canned tomatoes, shredded carrot, garlic and basil. But yesterday I used jarred, with Rao's being the best of the bunch in my opinion. But to make that sauce restaurant-level, I dump in a shit-ton of grated romano. For pedestrian things like meatballs, I often default to Chef John. His sensibilities are always spot on.

[Malika]

Ugh, carrots.

You lost me there. Almost made up for it with the shit-ton of grated romano though.

[hobie]

It is a curious addition for sure. But that is his house sauce at Babbo. And Mario - character flaws and all - is another person I implicitly trust.

[Brett Bellmore]

I generally trust Alton Brown recipes. Made his lentil soup yesterday, the one that has "Grains of Paradise" in it. Pretty good, actually. Though I did add some sausage and Swiss chard, to make it more of a complete meal.

I've decided to try pepper alternatives, and I was making some Philippine Longganisa sausage for our breakfasts, so I made half of it using grains of paradise, and the other half using "long pepper", in place of the black pepper the recipe calls for. (Had to triple the black pepper and add some chili pepper flakes to this recipe earlier, to meet my wife's tastes.)

The grains of paradise have a bit less sting than black pepper, so I had to double the amount of chili pepper flakes in the recipe to get to the right spiciness. I'd say the long pepper had about the same level of sting, but a more complex flavor.

Probably not getting the grains of paradise again, not only is it not superior in taste to black pepper, but it takes a LOT more force to grind it; Normally I use a mortar and pestle to grind black pepper, but for the grains I had to break out the coffee grinder. I was really leaning into the pestle, and having trouble. Well, Alton seems to like it, so I'll be able to use up my supply using his recipes.

The long pepper, OTOH, I think I'll keep using that. I still have to do an A-B comparison between it and the black pepper, but the result with the sausage was promising.

[Malika]

Big fan of Alton's recipes and shows.

Have you tried his ants in trees? Yum!

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, that does sound pretty good, I'll give that a try.

[hobie]

Ancient Rome used both grains of paradise and long pepper. I've been hearing good things about long pepper lately. I believe I'll look into it

[ThePublius]

I used to like Alton Brown. I make my own beer, and I'm pretty good at it, and have a deep knowledge of the technology. I watched a video of Alton making beer and frankly, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Lost me on that one.

[Brett Bellmore]

Somewhat out of his depth when it comes to brewing, sure. But if I want a recipe for cooking dinner, he's usually pretty reliable.

[Ska]

You never heard of mirepoix? OK, in Italian cooking it's called soffritto.

I'm breaking chops; my mom and my grandma didn't use carrots and celery either. My fiance does (she's Latina, not Italian), and she makes a pretty mean sauce. She also lived in Italy for a few months and that's where she learned it.

No fucking sugar though. That's too far.

[ThePublius]

What? It's a key ingredient in soffritto, the Italian equivalent of mirepoix.

"Italian mirepoix, also known as soffritto, is a mixture of diced onions, carrots, and celery that's a key ingredient in many Italian dishes. It's often used as a base for sauces, soups, stews, and braises, and can add a nuanced flavor to recipes. "

You can't make an Italian sauce without soffritto. It's the first thing you do when you get to the kitchen.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I use that stuff all the time.

[ThePublius]

The process of prepping the ingredients and sautéing them in olive oil sets the mood in the kitchen. I love that smell.

[Malika]

I get that, but I don't want it in my pasta sauce.

I'm not against carrots. They should be cooked with a meat like pot roast for a while in the juices. Then they're great. Otherwise, yuk.

[hobie]

The carrots melt away leaving only their sweetness. The reason why they are shredded to begin with

[Don Nico]

exactly

[Sarcastr0]

Can confirm.

Don't much like y'all sharing my pasta sauce secret.

[Ska]

Christ, I should have scrolled one click further. My bad.

[Don Nico]

In Italy, carrots are a standard ingredient in Bolognese sauce, but not marinara of which there are many variants

[Martinned2]

Does anybody know how Willie Brown might sue Trump about that helicopter story? Because while it's certainly weird that Trump keeps telling it even though it's been pointed out to him that (generously) he's confused between two black men, I'm not sure how any of that can result in a (non-frivolous) lawsuit.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/willie-brown-donald-trump-helicopter-kamala-harris/

[hobie]

Well, Trump appears to be well into late-stage dementia: He cannot accurately gauge crowd sizes; He's confused about who he took helicopter rides with and what was said; He cannot properly pronounce people's names; And he still lives in a make-believe world where his election was stolen.

Now then, hayseeds, shall we resurrect all the Joe Biden arguments? I didn't think so.

[Malika]

Those arguments were almost never in good faith.

[Josh R]

Trump isn't demented. He is lying, something he has done all his life.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I doubt it. He's been mentally ill for much longer than he's been senile.

[Frank Drackman]

Does calling better Ed-Jew-ma-Cated peoples “Hayseeds” make you feel better about yourself? I could call you a Wigger but it’s be like pointing out JD Pritzker’s fat(as are you I’m certain, I can sense BMI from non-visual cues(that Anesthesia background, you see Catsup stains on the patient questionnaire you don’t even have to check the weight.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Strong resemblance to Jabba the Hut.

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman. Been 165lbs my entire adult life. Looks like you need to stick to biometric data acquired by your betters and leave intuition (ie your mind) out of it

[Frank Drackman]

Typical Fatty, multiply by 1.5 and you might be close, and you left out you're 5'2".

[grb]

Frank Drackman : ” (coarse illiterate buffoonery) ”

Setting aside anything from Frank (who everyone agrees is a childish whiny troll given to endlessly lying about himself), there’s a simple reason to grant JD Pritzker serious cred:

His family sponsors the world’s most famous architecture prize. I may not agree with each year’s winner (and frequently don’t), but what could be more noble (not nobel) than an award given out to architects?

[Mr. Bumble]

The fat fuck had nothing to do with it as it was founded by his uncle Jay and wife Cindy in 1979 when Jabba was 15.

[grb]

And don’t you wish your uncle shinined reflected glory over your drab personage! As for the 2024 Pritzker Prize Winner Riken Yamamoto, his firm certainly has done some good work, but he wouldn’t be in my top-ten for worthy recipients.

The prize started in 1979 and its initial years rewarded stolid big names, the majority of which had their best years well behind them. Some were second-tier in everything but longevity and success. The very first – Philip Johnson – was downright bad (an aesthetic judgment alone, not tied to his weaselly life or Nazi past).

Since then, they’ve given the prize to many worthy architects but have also grown a bit quirky over the years. A better award is the EU Prize for Contemporary Architecture / Mies van der Rohe Awards, but it’s given to buildings, not architects. The Aga Khan Award for Architecture likewise picks individual projects, often highlighting third-world buildings and broader social aims (without losing focus on core architectural values).

If these prizes let me pick they’d be perfect! Robbed of that resource, their record is uneven.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well to be fair they all look alike.

[hobie]

Former Colorado clerk Tina Peters has been found guilty by a jury on most charges in a breach of her county’s election computer system. She downloaded all the ballot information and then straight-up sent the data to Q-Anon.

However, there is still an ongoing federal investigation of the computer expert that was sent to do the hacking. Apparently Mike Lindell paid the hacker to do this.

Get your patriot pillows while you can.

Stop the Steal! Amirite?

[Brett Bellmore]

“She downloaded all the ballot information and then straight-up sent the data to Q-Anon.”

No, she downloaded the code, before and after a software upgrade. (Note: Note claiming she didn’t commit illegal acts to do this.) You make it sound like she was compromising ballot secrecy. From a news report:

“In closing trial arguments, prosecutor Janet Drake argued that the former clerk allowed a man posing as a county employee to take images of the election system’s hard drive before and after a software upgrade in May 2021.”

OK, and the downside of this being public is, what?

The downside is that Dominion relies on ‘security through obscurity’, their software is radically insecure if you know the code. This has been conclusively demonstrated, and the usual reaction is “We’ll get around to doing something about it AFTER the next election.”

Except they won’t, because they don’t actually care.

Yeah, she broke the law, but the reason they’re outraged is because the voting machine security is crappy, and they REALLY hate that being exposed.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “…the voting machine security is crappy, and they REALLY hate that being exposed….”

Uh huh. Leave it to our Brett to ignore what’s blazingly obvious in favor of more fever-dream conspiracy gibberish. Back on the Planet Earth, Peter’s criminal breach resulted in confidential voting machine logins and forensic images of their hard drives being published in a QAnon-affiliated Telegram channel in early August 2021. That's a problem to most normal people.

But not to Brett. To the surprise of none, he doesn’t see any “downside of this being public”. He’s too busy dancing around the edge of Trump’s election fraud lies. On the one hand, Brett wants to service Trump’s meme like a good submissive cultist. On the other hand, he wants to avoid being splattered by Trump’s rank bullshit.

It would be a sign of personal integrity to decide one way or the other: Either peddle Trump’s lies or don’t. But some people try to have it both ways.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/19/politics/tina-peters-colorado-election-denier-supreme-court/index.html

[hobie]

So many lunatics rotting in jail for Trump. Unable to vote or hold their guns. Why does this all smack of the hallmarks of a criminal organization?

[Frank Drackman]

They'll get out eventually

[Absaroka]

Not commenting on this particular instance, but I think 'normal people' in the computer security field are perfectly OK with disclosing various kinds of security holes, including embedded confidential logins.

The accepted practice is to give notice, then allow a reasonable mitigation period, then publish. This has evolved because of a long history of people telling AcmeCorp that it left a root login (or whatever uber-stupid security hole) in their code, and Acme does nothing about it for years after being notified.

If you find a security flaw, notify the company, and then wait indefinitely to disclose, the company likes that, but all the company's innocent customers are left in the dark as they get hacked by all the black hats who have discovered the same flaw you did.

This is the same argument as whether the LockpickingLawyer (youtube channel) should post his vids of how to open padlocks and gun safes with a paperclip. I absolutely think he should, so customers will have accurate knowledge of how much or little security they are actually buying.

Again, not talking about this specific incident, but my general reaction to execrable security being outed is 'Good! Maybe the vendor won't be as sloppy next time'. And if not, pour encourager les autres...

[grb]

Absaroka : “…OK with disclosing various kinds of security holes, including embedded confidential logins….”

Sure; I could see that raised as an objection with security holes to be exposed. But remember, neither Trump or Peters or Pillow Guy or Fox News had the tiniest hint of any evidence suggesting any “security holes”. This was one more example of Trump and Cult randomly throwing feces against the wall. Maybe it’ll stick; maybe it’ll slide off.

For Trump, the stategy was simple. It was the same as the 03Jan2021 meeting where he pressured acting Justice head Rosen to tell states they should delay vote certification because of voting fraud evidence uncovered in a DOJ investigation. Rosen told Trump there was no investigation and no evidence, but Trump didn’t care. Before a roomful of witnesses, he said:

“Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.”

Trump has always known his election fraud B.S. is a con. I assume Peters is just brain-dead stupid. And the cost of her play-acting out? The compromised machines needed to be junked, with a cost to Mesa Country running to hundreds of thousands of dollars. All to give a QAnon hack some empty PR and service her orange-tinted master.

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/decertified-election-equipment-could-prove-costly-to-county/article_f76b609e-fc72-11eb-920b-0f423bc7e084.html

[Absaroka]

That article doesn't make sense to me.

You don't/shouldn't decertify hardware because your password is breached; you change your password. Good crypto and security systems happily publish every detail of how they work, except the actual password/key/whatever. And you don't depend on passwords never being breached.

With the details filtered through a newspaper article it's hard to say, but it sure smells like a badly designed system.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But remember, neither Trump or Peters or Pillow Guy or Fox News had the tiniest hint of any evidence suggesting any “security holes”."

We're not suffering from false memory syndrome. Go up and follow my links: Dominion uses extremely insecure software, then relies on people not knowing enough about the details of their software to hack it. "Security through obscurity." Their systems have been PROVEN to be insecure. It's not a fantasy, it's an established fact.

Everybody on the technical side has known for decades that using general purpose computers to record (As opposed to just adding up..) votes is insane. It apparently doesn't matter because there's a lot of money in it.

[ducksalad]

I see your point. On the lock-picking videos no laws are being broken, and it’s a commercial product sold to the general public.

It is also fine to take publicly available executable code, and try to find weaknesses it. As you say, if you find a new exploit the responsible route is to first notify. It would probably even be legal, if asinine, to go public immediately, unless it’s clear that would lead to innocent people being harmed.

Here’s some stuff that’s neither legal nor acceptable,

1. Illegally gaining (or facilitating) entry into a facility to steal proprietary non-public code, then analyzing that code to find defects.

2. Illegally gaining (or facilitating) attendance to a meeting where one legit system administrator is going to show other legit system administrators how to do some kind of override or special login.

Here’s something that’s also shitty behavior even if legal:

3. Finding a flaw in the system and then giving the information only to partisans for your own side, and in particular partisans with a proven willingness to lie and cheat, and generally exploit any advantage with no ethical limits whatsoever.

Giving the info only to your own side in an election-related issue severely undermines any claim that you were just trying to inform the public.

Of course Brett is right that security shouldn’t depend on keeping the code secret. Voting machine code should depend on algorithms that can’t be defeated even if every line of the source code is public.

However, it’s like using a cheap combination lock, or even no lock at all, to protect your belongings. That in no way authorizes someone to steal your stuff. Nor does it mitigate the crime, if anything, there should be penalty stacking for taking advantage of others’ trust.

One of Tina Peters’ subordinates already did a couple months in jail, presumably just for following her orders, even though the subordinate cooperated with prosecutors. It would be unjust for Peters to get off without time in the penitentiary.

[Don Nico]

"even if every line of the source code is public."
if fact the code should be open source.

[Brett Bellmore]

I absolutely agree that she committed criminal acts, and should pay. What I'm saying is that the total freakout isn't due to the criminal acts, which were actually relatively minor.

It's due to the criminal acts shining light on how insecure the voting machines are.

They're not determined to make them secure, they're determined to make the public THINK they're secure.

That's why, for instance, they junk the compromised machines, to replace them with equally insecure machines, rather than just wiping and reinstalling the software. It was security theater designed to address the perception of insecurity, ("See! We fixed the damage she did, things are safe again!") rather than address the actual insecurity.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "It’s due to the criminal acts shining light on how insecure the voting machines are"

How did the criminal act shine light on how insecure the voting machines are? Take your time, do some research, give it much thought, and then admit that's a totally meaningless statement. Peter's criminality exposed nothing, found nothing, and was based on no "security concerns" more sophisticated than "my orange-tinted god told me the machines are corrupt and I'm brain-dead enough to believe all his lies".

(Of course you could say the same as well)

[Martinned2]

The judge just granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit George Santos brought against Jimmy Kimmel, ABC, etc. over a bit Kimmel did buying and then showing Santos's Cameo videos.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68261115/29/santos-v-kimmel/

I don't have time to think about it more, but it strikes me as an interesting one, because fair use cases don't usually concern works that were specifically created/commissioned in order to be "fair used".

[Frank Drackman]

Never thought I’d say this, but I miss the Revolting Reverend Kirkland, I’m guessing one of Jay-Hays Lightning bolts, JH is a jealous God

Frank

[Estragon]

First there were the Purple Heart band-aids. Then, more recently, there were the diapers. Then, the comically oversized ear bandages.

And now, we have been treated to the JD Vance semen specimen cups. This is definitely not weird. I guess I’m not online enough but can one of the huckleberries explain this one to me? Is it a dig at IVF? I’m genuinely puzzled here.

[grb]

Estragon : “…JD Vance semen specimen cups”

The Right’s freak show just keeps getting weirder, doesn’t it? I was puzzled as well until reading the cups are meant to highlight Vance’s fecundity. Walz and his wife Gwen (you see) needed IVF to conceive their two children. In MAGA-world, that is seen as being deficient in manliness.

Thus the JDV Jizz Cups. They are really such wack-job loons….

[hobie]

Like Josh 'run away!' [<- a Python reference] Hawley probably said somewhere, 'Men need to grab their lost manliness by the pussy and reclaim it.'

[Michael P]

How many times does the official Democrat platform this year talk about Joe Biden’s second term? Five, or more than five? Have they memory-holed the original release yet?

[ThePublius]

19 times.

[Sarcastr0]

Keep trying to make fetch happen. No one, including you, actually cares.

[Michael P]

Big words from the loser trying to make "vibes" happen.

[Sarcastr0]

You're trying to sell this 'Biden wuz robbed' thing.

I really don't care if other people adopt my phrases or not.

[Michael P]

No, I'm pointing out that the Democrat Party is earning an epitaph for their presidential campaign this year: "Harris-Walz 2024: We Didn't Even Try".

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, this is your fetch. You want it to happen. It's not going to happen.

No one cares. Not even you care. You just want Dems to care. They're not gonna.

[Michael P]

It’s telling that your response to the Democrats not even trying to update their platform to reflect their actual nominee is that Dems will never care about such things. It shows how thoroughly vapid both their leaders and followers are.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other Trump court news:
Trump's lawyers ask Judge Juan Javert to postpone sentencing until after the election. Unopposed by Bragg.

[David Nieporent]

It's still early, but according to news reports the pro-Hamas demonstrations against the DNC seem to be fizzling.

See, e.g., https://twitter.com/cam_joseph/status/1825593806856638890?s=12

The pile of unclaimed signs at the pro Palestine protest/march on the DNC an hour after it began. Organizers were hoping for 30-40k. The crowd is maybe 1/10th of that size? Crowd covering less than half this 3 softball field sized park.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1825589782526788050?s=12

Rally kicking off. In Milwaukee, organizers said they were expecting 5k and got around 1k. Here they were expecting 30-40k, rally (which will turn into a march at 2) clearly smaller than that.

[Commenter_XY]

They're just getting warmed up, David. 😉

[Michael P]

3k-4k protesters, huh? That's, what, ten times as many people as typically attend a Harris rally that doesn't start with a free promotional concert? Twenty? Thirty?

[Estragon]

What are you talking about? It’s all AI— no one is there!

[Estragon]

“America’s two political parties are the political guardians of American Democracy. Regrettably, in the presidential election of 2024 there is only one political party and one candidate for the presidency that can claim the mantle of defender and protector of America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. As a result, I will unhesitatingly vote for the Democratic Party’s candidate for the Presidency of the United States, Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris.

In voting for Vice President Harris, I assume that her public policy views are vastly different from my own, but I am indifferent in this election as to her policy views on any issues other than America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, as I believe all Americans should be.”

-J Michael Luttig

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25050952-luttig-endorsement

[Bob from Ohio]

Yawn. Luttig has been anti-trump for years.

Never got over being bypassed [thankfully!] for SCOTUS.

Your side is welcome to him.

[Estragon]

Santos pleading today. Thoughts and prayers for one of your favorite “lovable rogues”

[Commenter_XY]

His ass is going to the clink, deservedly so.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hopefully Trump will win and pardon him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Santos pleading today. "

Sad. I hope he got a good deal.

[Mr. Bumble]

He deserves one just for the entertainment value he provided.
Wonder what Gold Bar Bob will be getting?

[Estragon]

You get the heroes you deserve

[Roger S]

That's right. Just another mindless Trump-hater. No substance to anything he says.

[Don Nico]

He is sour grapes about being passed over for SCOTUS.
But as I said before, who cares?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Luttig's support of the Constitution (however "boring" it is to some) is appreciated. See his stance on 14A, sec. 3 & presidential immunity.

In Judge Tatel's book, he notes conservatives joined with him in many cases, including one joining with him in Shelby County v. Holder (they were overturned in a wrongminded 5-4 ruling).

[JD85]

I would think the number one initiative to increase home ownership would be the elimination of corporate ownership (or any one person) owning more than, say, five properties. It would likely decrease rents (corporate owners have often bought up large swaths of neighborhoods and held rents at high rates even for unoccupied homes, as they could democratize the temporary losses across all their entire portfolio of homes and other investments) and all the properties would have to be disgorged from their ownership (increasing supply).

This would also, likely, increase the building of high density housing as corporations would be encouraged to build apartments if they want to be in the rental market.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe if some of those empty homes were occupied by squatters they'd change their tune.

[ThePublius]

All of which would be:
1. unconstitutional;
2. pretty much socialist.

[Sarcastr0]

That's radical, and probably unconstitutional.

But there's nothing about the corporate form that's load-bearing for capitalism.

[Commenter_XY]

Conspirators, do you eat quinoa? If not, and you are looking for a lower carb, higher protein content replacement for rice, quinoa is worth a look. I typically get my quinoa(s) from two places: Costco (white), and Moms Organic Market (black). I do not typically make red quinoa.

I use an Instant Pot multiple times a week, and the following FOOLPROOF method to make perfect quinoa is below.

https://www.pressurecookrecipes.com/instant-pot-quinoa/

You can't mess this up if you follow the directions. I strongly recommend toasting the quinoa first. Also, add your spices to the chicken stock you use (I gravitate more toward ME spices), but cumin and tumeric are staples (I use anti-inflammatory spices wherever possible) for me.

This recipe was one of the best for simplicity in prep and consistent quality of result.

Enjoy!

[Michael P]

I like the theory of quinoa, but the texture of the tails puts me off it. My wife and kids quite like it.

[ThePublius]

What do you eat it with? Just by itself? Or with a protein and veg, as if it's a starch?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

More cleaning up of ballot clutter.

RFK, Jr., and the Party of Socialism and Liberation, are nominated for the chopping block to take them off the ballot just after they were put on.

https://ballot-access.org/2024/08/19/administrative-law-judge-hears-georgia-challenge-to-robert-f-kennedy-jr-petition/

[Krayt]

Sometimes I watch live streams on YouTube.

Oh my god! Democratic National Convention protests! In Chicago!

Wait. What's with the professional stage and big generator? This isn't exciting.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't understand the walls and fencing around the DNC. A wonderful juxtaposition of not having have effective walls or fencing at the border, where VP Harris was going to address the root causes and get illegal migration down (which predictably, did not happen).

[Sarcastr0]

President Biden has a new policy of immediately turning away asylum seekers who cross the border illegally.
Border crossings plummeted below 100,000 in July, the first time this has happened since 2020.
https://jabberwocking.com/illegal-border-crossings-plummet-in-july/

I think this sucks, but it sure does show how reflexive your narrative is.

And your analogy between fencing around a private venue and illegal immigration is also very bad.

[tylertusta]

Golly gee, if only Biden had used that completely unknown authority as President before July, 2024...

[Michael P]

When Trump was president, we were told that statute and treaty prohibited turning away asylum seekers, even if they enter illegally (e.g. https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/trump-administration-illegally-turning-away-asylum-seekers, https://www.kqed.org/news/11761508/can-trump-turn-away-most-asylum-seekers-to-the-u-s-courts-likely-to-weigh-in-on-new-policy). What changed?

[Martinned2]

This right here has been the law since 1951. No change: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-relating-status-refugees#:~:text=Article%2033%20%2D%20Prohibition%20of%20expulsion%20or%20return%20(%22refoulement%22)

[Michael P]

I am shocked to hear that the Harris-Biden administration is breaking the law. I look forward to the ACLU, UnidosUS and others vigorously defending the rights of coached economic migrants, I mean persecuted asylum seekers, in court and the public square.

(Disclaimer for memory-impaired DEI bureaucrats: the above is sarcasm.)

[Martinned2]

You mean like this?

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-groups-sue-biden-administration-over-new-anti-asylum-rule

[Armchair]

Ukraine war commentary, part 2.

So, Ukraine has invaded Russia. While some have praised the initial action, the long term strategic consequences have many panning the concept.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-kursk-incursion/

What's my view?

Parallels can be drawn between the Ukraine-Russia war, and the US Civil war between the CSA and USA. Russia presents as a numerically superior force, with greater industrial capacity, and the willpower to fight a grinding war of attrition, if that is what it takes, while Ukraine presents as a tactically superior, but numerically inferior fighting force. Not unlike the Union and CSA during the US Civil war. And like the CSA, Ukraine initially thought if they were "just" defensive, they may be able to win the war in the first 2 years. But if Russia has the willpower to simply fight a war of attrition...that is increasingly unlikely. So, like Lee, Ukraine decided to invade its foe.

But...what now? Moscow isn't Washington...it's hundreds of miles from the border, not just across it. How does one defeat a Russia that is committed to a war?

The only good historic example is WWI. That required over 6 million Russian Casualties, and repeated losses to break Russia and cause a revolution. The current conflict has just 10% of that, as a high estimate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Industrial capacity matters if you're producing your own arms and armaments. Since Ukraine isn't doing that to any great extent, their industrial capacity relative to Russia is pretty much irrelevant.

Russia does have greater numbers, but unlike Ukraine, Russia is engaged in an optional war. Their national survival didn't hinge on beating Ukraine, it was just an effort to expand their territory. That IS somewhat similar to the reality of the US Civil war, where the Union could have gone on perfectly well without the Confederacy, but it was, after all, the industrial capacity that won the US Civil war, and with Ukraine backed by the West's industry, they are not unreasonable to think that if they can bring the pain of war back to Russia, they can persuade Russians to abandon their invasion.

The big problem they face there is that Russia isn't a democracy...

[Armchair]

A couple points.

1) Ukraine is producing its own arms to an extent. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-growing-arms-sector-thwarted-by-cash-shortages-attacks-2024-04-19/

It's not irrelevant. Not quite what the west is producing either.

2) The West is, to be blunt, half-assing its arms shipments to Ukraine. Not just the US but much of Europe too. Ukraine isn't "backed" by the West's arms industry. It's getting a line item in the budget.

3) Bringing the pain to Russia? Sure. It's just...historically...it's required a LOT more pain

[Michael P]

Dem's elected and selected delegates must be as uncivilized as average Trump rally attendees are alleged to be -- those delegates chanted "lock him up!" during Hillary Clinton's convention speech last night.

[Martinned2]

I can see how a sense of humour might confuse you.

[Michael P]

Ha! Ha! Politically motivated selections enforcement and distortion of laws to imprison opposition politicians is funny!

(Disclaimer for nanny-state residents of a country that just sentence someone to three years in prison for online comments: the above is sarcasm.)

[Sarcastr0]

Really hard up for outrage today, eh?

I see above you claim Trump was just joking about inviting Russia to hack Hillary.

And here you claim all jokes must be take literally.

Almost as though you have no consistent positions or character, beyond being a MAGA tool.

[Michael P]

As usual when you can’t make an effective argument, you resort to a straw man. You really must be as dumb as you act.

I'll also note that coverage like https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4836033-dnc-lock-him-up-trump-clinton/ does not offer any indicia of the chant being a joke rather than a cheap endorphin hit by a wild mob. Apparently, the only jokes here are you and Martinned.

[Sarcastr0]

You need to get with the Michael above that thinks Trump is hilarious.

[Michael P]

You need to get a real argument instead of arm-waving at what you imagine to be inconsistencies.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"I’ll also note that coverage like [an article in The Hill] does not offer any indicia of the chant being a joke"

But the article:

Members of the crowd were spotted chanting along and smiling and laughing

Did Michael P read the article he linked? Was Michael P just lying? Does Michael P not understand what "indicia" means?

On this one, I'm going with low IQ, but maybe he'll clarify.

For the record, Michael P, laughing and smiling are pretty much the quintessential indicia of joking. Maybe stick to third grade words if you have no idea what post-third grade words mean.

Regardless of how many were joking, the chant is inappropriate and, notwithstanding the schadenfreude and of karmic resonance, such chants should never take place in a political setting.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Lock her up!" was funny.

"Lock him up!" is even funnier.

[John F. Carr]

They pointless spectacle of modern conventions should be rewarded by ignoring it. But the media just can't look away. Will the coronation be disrupted by a fringe minority protest over Gaza? Oh my god, who the hell cares?

[Sarcastr0]

Dem buzz from the DNC I'm hearing:
-Biden did great,
-somehow Hillary is not yet a pariah and can get the crowd going,
-AOC continues to rise, but seems in no hurry
-Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett seems a new star

[John F. Carr]

Russia has summoned a diplomat from the US embassy in Moscow to protest the presence of American reporters in the Kursk region. Quite likely some Russian laws were violated. Presumably the reporters did not have visas nor did they present themselves for inspection at the (abandoned and destroyed) border crossing. The U.S. government is not to blame. Russia should protest to Ukraine. Ukrainian soldiers allowed the reporters to cross illegally.

I don't know what international law has to say about this situation. There has to be a right for some civilians to enter occupied territory, if only to provide humanitarian assistance to residents of occupied territory. I never heard of war correspondents from Nazi Germany being charged with entering France, Poland, etc. without a visa.

[Absaroka]

"to protest the presence of American reporters in the Kursk region"

The diplomat should counterprotest about Russian reporters in the Donbas and Crimea. And offer a constructive solution: you get Russian nationals out of Ukraine and we'll get the US nationals out of Kursk. Heck, offer to lean on the Ukrainians to evacuate Kursk once Russia evacuates Crimea and the Donbas.

Practically speaking, it's moot unless Putin catches one. If he does, he will imprison them on spying charges as fodder to exchange for Russians spies.

[David Nieporent]

The diplomat should counterprotest about Russian reporters in the Donbas and Crimea. And offer a constructive solution: you get Russian nationals out of Ukraine and we’ll get the US nationals out of Kursk.

The logic is symmetric, but the situation is not. The U.S. reporters on the ground are vulnerable. The Russian nationals are not, not in the same way. And we know that the Russians will have no compunction about seizing those U.S. reporters and holding them hostage if they get the chance.

[Martinned2]

The Occupying Power is in charge of deciding who is and isn't allowed to enter occupied territory. (Subject to all the rest of the law on military occupation, etc.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't think Russia would agree that Russian law no longer applies in the occupied territory. Enforcement could be tricky, but such criminals can be arrested elsewhere, later.

[Martinned2]

Normal Russian law still applies there, i.e. the civil and criminal laws, but control over access to the territory has passed to the Occupying Power.

But of course you're right. The Russians will do what they will do regardless of what the law says.

[John F. Carr]

I wonder if it is conventional to address such issues in a peace treaty. I remember being surprised by the general amnesty granted in the Treaty of Kars (1921).

(French) Chacune des Parties Contractantes s'engage à promulguer immédiatement après la signature du présent traité une amnistie complète aux citoyens de l'autre partie pour les crimes et délits commis par suite de la guere sur le front du Caucase.
(Turkish) متعاقدیندن هربری اشبو معاهده نامه‌نك امضاسنی متعاقب درحال دیكری تبعه‌سی حقنده قافقاس جبهه سنده‌كی حرب مناسبتیله ارتكاب ایدلمش اولان جنایات و جنحه‌لر ایچون تام بر عفو عمومی اعلان ایتمكی تعهد ایدرلر.

Turkey on one one side and Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia on the other each agreed to an amnesty for all crimes committed by the other side during the war in the Caucasus. The treaty was in French and Turkish but not Russian. The signatories on the USSR side still had their own languages and culture. In later decades they and the entire Warsaw Pact had Russian imposed on them. In 1921 any civilized person knew French.

[David Nieporent]

I remember being surprised by the general amnesty granted in the Treaty of Kars (1921).

You're older than I thought!

[Martinned2]

Speaking of Russian faux outrage, I'm amused that the Russians are angry that the Ukranians helped the Tuareg rebels in Mali kill a bunch of Wagner mercenaries.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/7/russia-accuses-ukraine-of-opening-african-front-as-niger-cuts-kyiv-ties

(The government of Mali is angry too, but that's a lot less hypocritical.)

[loki13]

Very briefly- the people who are opining about any lack of process or "democracy" when it comes to Kamala Harris being the candidate for the Democratic party do not understand how political parties work.

Now, that might be a good reason to rid ourselves of the duopoly, but please educate yourself on the actual rules and issues involved.

Or, given my experience, don't and just mouth off whatever your feelz are telling you to.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yeah, I expect lots of the latter to continue. The usual apologists, being reflexively anti-anything Democratic, like the sound of it, so don't care that they are wallowing in ignorant falsehoods. It's one of those things, though, that I like people to say out loud, so it's clear the level of intellect and honesty with which I am dealing.

[Magister]

How would you get rid of the duopoly?

[loki13]

There was actually an update and rebroadcast of the issue on the Freakonomics podcast recently, treating the political parties as economic entities that was persuasive and advanced ideas for reform.

Unfortunately, I don't see the reform happening because the duopoly is so entrenched and also because people are so likely to identify with one or the other, they will see any attempt at reform as weakening Coke, um, Pepsi, um, their team.

[loki13]

But to provide an answer-

We can't get rid of it until people realize that the problem isn't the other party. The problem is that we have an entrenched duopoly.

Both parties thrive in the system BECAUSE of the other party, and their ability to use them as the convenient competitor. But there is no real competition. Both parties exist to perpetuate themselves.

(That doesn't mean that aren't differences. To use the old example, Coca Cola and Pepsi did taste different. But their success as the two colas, which they leveraged to buy many of the other competing drinks in other categories, was because they were the only two choices. Duopolies aren't real competition.)

[Magister]

There are substantial differences between the two major parties on specific issues, not just slight differences in cola taste; Coke and Pepsi are not denouncing each other as a threat to life as we know it, and that's a huge obstacle to change in the political system.

But there are structural issues with the United States government that do more to preserve the two party system, and many existed before the two party system stabilized. The power of being the majority party is too significant in the President, the House, the Senate and even the Supreme Court. When the margins are tight and a party is in disarray, the leadership of the House or Senate can be significantly weakened, but mostly one party drives in each; the leader determines the agenda, and the majority party controls all of the committees.

Given that winner take all setup, there are only two stable equilibria: the two party system or a single party which uses its monopoly to suppress all rivals.

No parties at all will quickly fall to the formation of parties, which can create brands and leverage individual fundraising into coordinated promotion, and as a result command more volunteers and more fundraising. In significant non-partisan elections like state Supreme Court justices, the candidates are usually supported by the party they align with.

Multiple parties will quickly dwindle in number as the marginal ones who are not needed for a legislative majority are seen to lack influence and consequently lose support.

A single party that does not crush its rivals will likely split over internal dissension.

Ultimately the two major parties don't have to do anything evil to perpetuate the system; both parties are happy to have spoilers siphoning a small number of votes from their opponents, and no third party has ever risen to be a significant threat to either, let alone both.

[loki13]

Again, I recommend searching out the podcast and listening to it.

I agree that the American political system, especially as it has evolved, drives the two-party duopoly.

But when you view the parties as economic entities (AND THEY ARE) it becomes a lot more clear what is actually going on. They differ on policies, yes. However, they both continue to resist any reform that would allow meaningful competition.

If you stop viewing it from just a political science lens (the system!) and begin to look at it as two market competitors (the parties and all of their affiliated organizations), things suddenly become more clear.

[Magister]

The most likely beneficial change would be ranked choice voting. Republican controlled states have banned it; Democrats have supported it (albeit not uniformly) at the federal level.

I will search for that podcast.

It appears to be https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-dont-we-have-better-candidates-for-president/

They make some of the same points I made above: ranked choice voting, addressing the greater power of the majority in Congress (and in SCOTUS, now that appointments are carefully vetted for partisanship). The model for competition in the politics industry is different, and consumers of soda or whatever "vote" with their money far more frequently than in politics. I'm not impressed with Freakonomics or Andrew Yang in general, though.