Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“You can’t let this Presidential candidate on the ballot! He lied about his residence, and our election laws only allow voters to vote for honest candidates.”

https://ballot-access.org/2024/08/20/pennsylvania-commonwealth-court-hears-robert-f-kennedy-jr-s-ballot-access-case/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

(Though arguably this is a legitimate restriction, i. e., you must give a correct address so that if you get sued, they’ll know where to send the process server. I would like to know, however, how often major-party candidates get disqualified for reporting an incorrect address. It would open quite a can of worms.)

[AmosArch]

The Dem establishment doesn't like him. Thats enough to make it or whatever else they would have inevitably found through limitless digging and contorting of the codes,, a legitimate disqualification.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Watch him endorse Trump on Friday....

[Martinned2]

Exactly. That explains why Amos's comment is nonsense. RFK jr. takes votes away from Trump, which is fine with "the Dem establishment".

[Don Nico]

It wasn't when the Dems filed suit. RFK was taking votes equally from Biden and Trump.

[Riva]

[Riva]

But they love lawfare. Hillary grinning from ear to ear when the DNC rabble cheer “lock him up” after she makes an exploitive reference to the democrat’s repulsive prosecutorial abuses. Yeah, nothing political here.

[Bob from Ohio]

" Hillary grinning from ear to ear"

Amuses me that she was not exiled after 2016. She lost to Donald Trump! Worst candidate since Dukakis at least but they still lionize her. Weird but funny.

[Sarcastr0]

She's not my jam at all, but having affection for someone beyond their value as a candidate seems a pretty ordinary thing humans do.

[Martinned2]

Presumably it's also a legitimate restriction because the state of residence of the candidate is relevant for the election process as set out in the Constitution? So saying you're a New York resident when in fact you're resident in California (as opposed to lying about where you live in New York) matters for very obvious constitutional reasons.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You can't have a VP candidate from the same state as yourself. There was a kerfuffle about this with Bush and Cheney IIRC, but nothing came of it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Correction, you can have a VP candidate from your state, but your home state won't be able to vote for both of you.

[not guilty]

When Dick Cheney was nominated for Vice-president in 2004, he moved his residence from Texas to Wyoming, IIRC.

[Armchair]

Pretty sure you meant in 2000, champ. Not 2004.

[not guilty]

You are indeed correct. Mea culpa.

[Frank Drackman]

"Champ"? are you Michael Bolton from Office Space??

[EllaWilson]

You are incorrect.

[ducksalad]

it’s also a legitimate restriction

No it isn't.

1. How does the requirement for presidential electors in California to vote for a different VP candidate from Shanahan mean that regular voters in Pennsylvania can't vote for RFK?

2. There is no suggestion by anyone that he really lives in Pennsylvania, so there is zero constitutional relevancy in Pennsylvania.

[Ilya Snowman]

There are no more 'legitimate' restrictions in American election law.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/08/20/biden-doj-asks-scotus-to-squash-arizonas-proof-of-citizenship-voter-requirements-for-2024-election/

[Frank Drackman]

We had a President born in Kenya (and did I tell you, he was married to a man?) who was a practicing Moose-lum and nobody seemed to mind

Frank

[Krayt]

Three inanities, but technically 2 of them should not matter.

[not guilty]

Some Republicans on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war are reportedly upset with Donald Trump for saying that he will not enforce the Comstock Act to prohibit mailing of abortion medications. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/20/trump-comstock-enforcement-00175068 Trump's comments to a CBS News reporter are available here, with his response regarding the Comstock Act beginning at 5:51. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmfGRdlBq38

Will this dampen turnout in November among the blastocystophiles?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It seems that the candidates on Kermit Gosnell's side of the culture war aren't interested in enforcing the law. Neither Biden nor Trump takes seriously the constitutional requirement that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

[not guilty]

Kermit Gosnell is serving a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. He was prosecuted by Philadelphia District Attorney R. Seth Willims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Seth_Williams and by Obama Justice Department U. S. Attorney Zane David Memeger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zane_David_Memeger

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Eric Rudolph is serving four consecutive life sentences. He was convicted (federal and state charges) under the George W. Bush administration. So your point is…

[Mr. Bumble]

Gosnell was eventually prosecuted when what he was doing could no longer be ignored.

[Brett Bellmore]

When a pro-life Governor was elected who ended the state's policy of not inspecting abortion clinics or acting on complaints. It's not that what he was doing couldn't be ignored any longer, but instead that there was finally somebody at the top who didn't WANT to ignore it.

[Michael P]

I think his point is that Kermit Gosnell's spiritual successors are set up in the DNC parking lot. Eric Rudolph's spiritual successors are federally prosecuted for praying in front of abortion clinics.

[Mr. Bumble]

Coming soon to a DNC convention: free euthanasia trailers.

[Martinned2]

Fascinating insight into the American mind: part of the worry in relation to euthanasia is whether it's free or not. Mr. Bumble imagines a world where someone might want euthanasia but can't afford it. #OnlyInAmerica

[Michael P]

Americans understand how demand curves work and how increasing the availability of a thing while reducing its cost tends to increase consumption of that thing. Do your fellow subjects not understand that?

[Martinned2]

Other countries understand that too, but we also understand things like (medical) ethics.

(Or, if you prefer it if I make the point in economics terms: We understand the concept of income elasticity of demand, which seems to trip up Americans.)

[Michael P]

Where you come from, what do medical ethics say about providing life-changing medical or surgical interventions to new patients in the parking lot of a convention center?

[M L]

Medical ethics. But not the ones that include ideas like first, do no harm. More of a Mengelian ethics.

[jimc5499]

I whole heartedly support a Democrat's right to euthanasia.

[not guilty]

My point is that Kermit Gosnell's crimes (for which he quite appropriately was prosecuted) had nothing to do with victims he personally hated based on their demographic characteristics, while Eric Rudolph's crimes most assuredly did. Rudolph was associated with the Christian Identity movement and the Army of God. He targeted gays, lesbians and abortion providers. According to Wikipedia:

Rudolph released a statement explaining his actions; he rationalized the bombings as serving the cause of anti-abortion and anti-gay terrorism. In his statement, he claimed that he had "deprived the government of its goal of sentencing me to death," and that "the fact that I have entered an agreement with the government is purely a tactical choice on my part and in no way legitimates the moral authority of the government to judge this matter or impute my guilt."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph#cite_ref-26

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, we have testimony from an employee that Gosnell WAS a racist.

Liberal Racism: The Case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell

"Another provocative detail: A former employee testified “that white patients often did not have to wait in the same dirty rooms as black and Asian clients. Instead, Gosnell would escort them up the back steps to the only clean office — O’Neill’s — and he would turn on the TV for them. Mrs. Mongar, she said, would have been treated ‘no different from the rest of the Africans and Asians.'”"

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, after all efforts to avoid officially noticing what he was doing failed... He could have been stopped more than a decade earlier if authorities hadn't been turning a blind eye to what he was doing.

Of course, it wasn't just Gosnell they were turning a blind eye to. Inspections of abortion clinics had been terminated in 1995 by a pro-'choice' Governor, and the next two had maintained the policy. It was official policy in Pennsylvania for a good 15 years that, if you were performing abortions, the state would not be checking on you, or, apparently, listening to complaints.

[Sarcastr0]

Lack of evidence once again Brett’s favorite kind of evidence.

[Michael P]

Why do you always engage in simple denialism and ad hominems when people point out how wrong Dems are?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett is alleging a coverup with the only proof being an inspection policy being ended. No actual evidence of anything being covered up.

Pointing out Brett’s wrong a lot because he counts lack of evidence as proof is not exactly denialism.

It’s almost as though you’re an unserious poster who is not engaging with my comment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not only was the inspection policy ended in '95, (And how exactly is that remotely defensible?) but we have this:

"Around 1997 – Pediatrician Dr. Donald Schwarz (the former head of adolescent services at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and, as of 2010, Philadelphia's health commissioner) testified in the 2010 hearing that around 1996–1997, he had hand-delivered a letter of complaint about Gosnell's practice to the Secretary of Health's office and stopped referring patients to the clinic, but received no response."

"December 2001 – Ex-employee Marcella Choung gave what a grand jury would later call "a detailed written complaint" to the Pennsylvania Department of State, one which she followed up with an interview in March 2002."

"In total, 46 known lawsuits were filed against Gosnell over some 32 years of his career.[41] Observers claimed that there was a complete failure by Pennsylvania regulators who had overlooked other repeated concerns brought to their attention, including lack of trained staff, "barbaric" conditions, and a high level of illegal late-term abortions."

They weren't just refraining from inspecting, they were actively ignoring things that were being brought to their attention.

[Sarcastr0]

Your OG thesis: "Of course, it wasn’t just Gosnell they were turning a blind eye to."

Now you're just repeating Gosnell stuff over and over.

One does not prove the other.

[Michael P]

Your desire to be spoon-fed facts in the comments here, rather than follow the links, shows you are acting in very bad faith. The very first graf of his second link:

Health regulators have ordered 14 of Pennsylvania’s 22 abortion clinics to correct problems found when inspections resumed last year after more than 15 years.

Read the quotes from the grand jury report at https://www.propublica.org/article/gruesome-pennsylvania-abortion-clinic-had-not-been-inspected-for-17-years if you think Brett mischaracterized the decision to stop inspections.

[Sarcastr0]

Your have elided Brett's usual unsupported assumption of evil intent and bad faith.

[Michael P]

Go back and read what Brett actually wrote, and compare that to what the links we’ve given say. There’s no actual daylight between the two. You haven't pointed to any "unsupported assumption of evil intent and bad faith" because you cannot.

[Sarcastr0]

I quoted him, Michael: "Of course, it wasn’t just Gosnell they were turning a blind eye to."

That is not established.

What you have is inspection regime ended, and when it started back up compliance wasn't 100%. That is miles less than the willful blindness narrative Brett's going with.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, it is absolutely established. I linked to multiple sources establishing it.

It wasn't just Gosnell's clinic they stopped inspecting in '95, it was ALL of them.

[Sarcastr0]

Turns out the issue is you were not using the idiom 'turn a blind eye to' correctly.

[Michael P]

Stop lying, Gaslight0. State officials stopped periodic inspections of all abortion clinics, supposedly because they would only investigate in response to complaints. Then for 15 years they never investigated in response to complaints, either. Calling that "turn[ing] a blind eye" is absolutely fair.

[Riva]

Not sure why they’re so dishonest on their record. They’re quite literally celebrating abortion at their convention. Even offering free abortions. And a taco with every abortion.

[Brett Bellmore]

I link to evidence, and you complain of a lack of evidence... you're really phoning it in these days.

[Mr. Bumble]

Still in mourning for his late buddy Nigebot.

[Sarcastr0]

"Of course, it wasn’t just Gosnell they were turning a blind eye to" is a level of intentionality, that stands purely on your usual telepathy.

You think a lot of things are proof when they're really just you writing a story and then confidently believing everyone thinks it's true.

[Brett Bellmore]

You think a lot of things are just me writing a story, even though I provide links to evidence that you apparently can't be bothered to look at.

For 17 years it was the official policy of Pennsylvania to not inspect abortion clinics. Not just Gosnell's clinic, all of them. That's why I say it wasn't just Gosnell they turned a blind eye to.

Here's more evidence for you to deny that I'm supplying: The grand jury report.

"Moreover, even if Staloski was instructed not to conduct regular, annual inspections, that does not explain why she failed to order inspections when complaints were received. It is clear to us that she was made aware, numerous times, that serious incidents had occurred at Gosnell’s clinic. These incidents, which evidenced alarming as well as illegal long-standing patterns of behavior, warranted investigation. Yet, in all the years she worked at the department, Staloski never ordered even one inspection."

[Sarcastr0]

If you want to claim there's other Gosnel-style stuff that PA is turning a blind eye to, you need to establish that's going on not just that there's no inspections.

When they restarted inspections, there did they find anything like that? Otherwise, you are taking an oversight policy you think is too lax and jumping it way way way up.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If you want to claim there’s other Gosnel-style stuff that PA is turning a blind eye to,"

THAT'S. NOT. WHAT. I. CLAIMED. Do you have a 4th grade reading comprehension level?

I said that they turned a blind eye to all the clinics, NOT that all the clinics were doing the same as Gosnell. I know it's difficult, but could you try to respond to what I actually write, not what you feel like reading into it?

[Brett Bellmore]

So, let's look again (OK, the first time for you...) at one of my links:

<a href="https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/01/abortion_clinic_inspections_in.htmlThe Associated Press: Abortion clinic inspections in Pennsylvania turn up some problems I'll quote extensively, on the assumption you don't follow links:

"Health regulators have ordered 14 of Pennsylvania’s 22 abortion clinics to correct problems found when inspections resumed last year after more than 15 years.

None of the problems found approached the alleged filthy and illegal conditions described at a now-shuttered Philadelphia clinic where Dr. Kermit Gosnell was charged last week with killing one woman and seven viable babies.

The grand jury that indicted Gosnell and nine co-workers last week blamed a “complete regulatory collapse” for letting his and other [My emphasis.] abortion clinics operate unchecked since 1995.

The state health department has ordered corrections at clinics in Harrisburg, York, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Allentown, East Liberty, Upland, West Chester, Reading, Norristown and Warminster.

Issues cited included not performing or documenting monitoring of blood pressure, pulse and oxygen levels; too much ice crusted inside a freezer for medication and not examining tissue from all first-trimester abortions, as required, to see if the women were pregnant.

In a September visit to the Hillcrest Women’s Medical Center in Harrisburg, equipment was found that was well past expiration date, the report said. Also found was an unlabeled bag of blue pills and practices that raised patient confidentiality concerns.

“It was noted that names of patients that were having procedures that day were displayed on the wall in the hallway where they could be observed by other patients,” the agency wrote."

So, sure, none of the rest were as bad as Gosnell's clinic, but that was just dumb luck, they had ALL been spared monitoring for 17 long years, the state affirmatively went out of it's way to avoid knowing what was going on at these clinics. There could have been multiple Kermit Gosnells out there, and they'd never have known it.

[Sarcastr0]

Turning a blind eye means ignoring something known and bad, not just failing to examine in general.

If you meant the second, you need to rephrase.

Because “In a September visit to the Hillcrest Women’s Medical Center in Harrisburg, equipment was found that was well past expiration date” is not going to support how hot you are coming in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Turning a blind eye means not looking at something. They didn't look at the clinics. Stop insisting on reading into what I write more than I actually wrote, OK?

As I said, because they spent 17 long years deliberately not inspecting the clinics, it's only dumb luck they didn't find multiple Gosnells when inspections resumed. There could have been a half dozen clinics as bad as his, and they'd never have known it, because their policy was to not find out.

[Sarcastr0]

"Turning a blind eye means not looking at something"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/turn-a-blind-eye
Turn a blind eye: "to ignore something that you know is wrong."

[Brett Bellmore]

A few lines further down: " to intentionally not give someone or something any attention "

[Sarcastr0]

That's the thesaurus part, not the dictionary part, Brett.

Look at the usage examples.

You're using the idiom wrong. It happens!

[Josh R]

Friend, either you’re closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by not knowing the meaning of “turning a blind’s eye.” Either way, Ya Got Trouble.

[Brett Bellmore]

I know you're going to resist this, but try actually reasoning.

For 17 years their official policy was to not inspect abortion clinics. The articulated reason for this policy was that inspecting abortion clinics would interfere with access to abortion. How routine inspections were supposed to do this if the clinics weren't in violation of the regulations goes unexplained. Rationally, they knew or at least expected that the clinics were violating the regulations, and were determined not to end up having to take official notice of it.

During that time their unofficial, but strictly followed, policy was to not follow up on reports that something was wrong. Seriously, read the grand jury report, that's what was going on! They got repeated complaints about Gosnell, and ignored them all. The grand jury report is specific to Gosnell, but unless you're going to claim that he got special treatment, (And I doubt you want to go there.) they were ignoring complaints about ALL clinics.

You want to pretend that this was innocent, that they had no idea that clinics were breaking the law, and that the policy of not inspecting clinics wasn't a case of averting their gaze from suspected wrongdoing.

I say that's crazy: They had some idea that the law was being violated, and were being very careful to avoid finding it out. The very meaning of the idiom.

Now, maybe they didn't think they were averting their gaze from Gosnell level criminality. Maybe. (Though there are all those complaints that got filed, so even if they never got followed up on, at some level they were aware of Gosnell.)

But they damned well knew they were averting their gaze from SOMETHING.

[Sarcastr0]

No evidence Brett doing the telepathy again.

Getting less wrong on the idiom meaning at least.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice new goalposts. At least these align with the actual meaning of 'willful blindness.'

But now you set yourself a higher bar. Hence your very sweaty post.
To get there you need to rely on your usual fallacies of speculative telepathy, and assume that if there are expired equipment, no need to look for actual evidence of worse stuff.

Evidence needs to take you to your conclusions, supporting you the whole way; you treat it like fuel to start your speculation engines to get you to the conclusion you wat.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, I knew you weren't going to be willing to reason about this.

They terminated inspections of abortion clinics, while continuing to inspect stuff where regulation was important, like, oh, nail salons, for perfectly innocent reasons. And sent any reports they got of problems straight to the circular file. This is all detailed in that grand jury report you want to ignore.

Not because they suspected the clinics were violating the regulations, and they wanted to avoid having to take official notice of it. Oh, no. It was all perfectly innocent.

That's your clinically insane position, and you're sticking with it.

[Sarcastr0]

What you do is not reason. Have you noticed how it aligns with your priors every time?

There are plenty of reasons other than a coverup, of course. Perhaps they thought the inspections could be subborned by bad faith Republicans. Or some General Counsel made the cold determination that the risks were not worth the cost. Or they switched to a facility-based audit system.
Maybe some other thing.

I have no idea! And neither do you.

Every time. You start with a conclusion, take insufficient evidence, add 'reasoning' and get to your conclusion.

Evidence based decision making requires humility about your own intuition. You will never be able to provide that.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Lack of evidence once again Brett’s favorite kind of evidence"

With Dems & Lefties, of course. In the case of Trump, Brett wouldn't notice evidence if it was a cast iron safe dropped on his head from three floors above.

[jimc5499]

They were too busy checking that barbers and beauticians were properly licensed.

[Randal]

Brett and P making the case for fulsome government regulation! Socialized abortion for everyone, comrades!

[not guilty]

"It seems that the candidates on Kermit Gosnell’s side of the culture war aren’t interested in enforcing the law. Neither Biden nor Trump takes seriously the constitutional requirement that the President 'shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'"

Whenever one of my comments generates a tu quoque reply. I know that I have struck an exposed nerve.

Does anyone have any thoughts on Donald Trump's statement that he will not enforce the Comstock Act regarding the mailing of abortion medications?

[OtisAH]

Convicted Felon Donald Trump is, of course, lying. He either has no idea what the Comstock Act is and thought he was aligning with his supporters, or he knows enough about it to recognize it’s part of the anti-abortion efforts that are a clear loser in electoral politics so he demurred. But Convicted Felon Donald Trump will sign anything put in front of him as long as he can make a big show of him signing it. And then, if asked, he’ll just say that everybody wanted him to sign it.

[SimonP]

It's a lie? Or, at least, a half-hearted obfuscation designed to win a news cycle, with ultimately no bearing on what he'd do, once in office?

This is how he won in 2016 - say enough conflicting stuff about his policy preferences to create a permission structure for people to rationalize supporting him, no matter their actual policy preferences. He lies about his plans re: Project 2025 and the Comstock Act so that people like Brett can tell us that he's not interested in any of that stuff, and low-information voters can choose to believe whatever they want. Once in office, he'll leave the decisions to others.

Paradoxically, the biggest threat to the country from a second Trump term is not what he would do, but rather what he would not do. I don't see an elderly Trump, having secured his freedom from criminal convictions and penalties by winning office and with no political incentive to achieve anything else, doing any more than the bare minimum while in office. He's going to spend absolutely as much time as possible golfing, and he will take the "easy way out" on any matter that actually requires his engagement. Ukraine? Let Russia take a slice. Taiwan? Meh.

That means leaving most of the important decision-making and legislation-crafting to his subordinates - who, as we know, will be selected from a list of his closest, most corrupt friends, and a list drawn up by conservative think tanks to radically reshape the administrative state and judiciary.

[Bob from Ohio]

"half-hearted obfuscation designed to win a news cycle, with ultimately no bearing on what he’d do, once in office?"

Of course. Like most politicians, pre-election and post-election views differ.

FDR ran on balancing the budget.

[Frank Drackman]

Eric Rudolph was just a 20th Century John Brown. Unlike both, I'm fine with letting the "Several States" decide if they want to murder (Disproportionately Minority) Babies or let them live

Frank

[hobie]

This week Montana joined nine other states with abortion on the ballot:

Montana
Florida
Maryland
Colorado
Arizona
South Dakota
Arkansas
New York
Missouri
Nebraska

So in the Republican fantasy world of single, childless cat ladies, and nasty women. Where women are incompetent, have affairs, oral sex, shouldn't be in the military, shouldn't have careers, where Michelle Obama is a man and looks like an ape, and E Jean Carroll is a whore. Basically most women in America. They're a comin'. And I'll bet you that while they're in them booths in those states, they might tick a couple more boxes of candidates as payback. The blue wave is coming hayseeds

[Frank Drackman]

So who fucked up your mom's abortion?

[Riva]

You're taking the position that mailing the abortion pill unequivocally violates federal law? Is this your position? Does President Trump have to defer to the legal interpretations of reporters or hack DNC commenters? And WTF?, are you saying that President Trump will not attack your precious right to exterminate the unborn? You repulsive democrats should make up your minds, such as you have them.

[not guilty]

No, I don't take the position that mailing the abortion pill unequivocally violates federal law. (Neither does the Biden administration take that position. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1560596/dl )

I am suggesting that Donald Trump has no scruples regarding his pandering on abortion rights.

[Riva]

Well I have to defer somewhat to your view of pandering on abortion rights. If there’s one thing Democrats are expert on, it would be pandering on abortion rights. They even have a Planned Parenthood abortion van offering free tacos with every abortion at their convention. They’ve got abortion locked down, that and open borders, inflation, and just taxing the shit out of unrealized capital gains, and anything else for that matter. Your commerce secretary might need a little primer on the Bureau of Labor Statistics though.

[David Nieporent]

Bots can be primed to repeat phrases by feeding in sufficient input, but not to understand that input. So it sees the word "Taco" in the input data near to the word "abortion," and starts spewing that they're "offering free tacos with every abortion," even though they are not offering any tacos, free or otherwise.

What confused the bot was that there was a taco truck parked near the Planned Parenthood vehicle.

[Riva]

Yeah nothing wrong with the sickening celebration of abortion in the Planned Parenthood death van if we leave out the free taco. And of course, a lot of expectant mothers have attended these events just to terminate their unborn child so nothing to see here. And it may be true that the free tacos were reserved for those getting their complementary vasectomy. I can only hope Nieoporon took advanage of this opportunity while it lasted.

[David Nieporent]

A detail that is important enough to mention is important enough to get right.

And, of course, "a lot" of pregnant woman have not attended these events "just to" have an abortion. According to the NY Post, they did about 25 abortions total in the first two days of the convention, and of course nothing says that any of those people went "just to" have an abortion.

[Riva]

No, the whole stunt is obscene. And the rest of my comment was a joke mocking this obscenity. But since you’re determined to consistently beclown yourself like this, I won’t try to stop you. Just like I wouldn’t interfere with your free vasectomy and taco. Not sure if they’ll give you neat little “abortion girlie” pin for the vasectomy, but no harm in asking. Wear it proudly.

[not guilty]

Professor Mary Ziegler elaborates on my point about Trump's Comstockery dilemma. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/08/project-2025-comstock-act-trump-abortion-ban.html?cx_testId=2&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=3&cx_experienceId=EXTN1AT3F4AZ&cx_experienceActionId=showRecommendationsWC2KWF03C4Z93#cxrecs_s

It's no wonder that Trump supporters want to change the subject.

[Riva]

Given the disastrous condition the country is in under Biden/Harris, it’s no wonder Kamala wants to hide from her record by manufacturing the non-issue of abortion. Maybe, when she finds the courage, she could have a press conference to explain why the country needs her economy destroying price controls and taxes when Bidenonmics has been such a success?

[David Nieporent]

it’s no wonder Kamala wants to hide from her record by manufacturing the non-issue of abortion.

Bot not programmed for consistency; it can both complain about manufacturing a non-issue and whine about abortion+tacos.

[Riva]

Not even your weird Cable Guy like obsession with me and bots can distract from the embarrassment of this DNC abortion festival. Just about every speaker has salivated over the practice, when they weren't engaging in yet another stale tirade against President Trump. Understandable. Difficult to rehash the hope and changey crap when your candidate is an incumbent and helped create the disaster she now says she'll fix. With communist style economy destroying price controls. And taxing the living shit out of anything that breathes. And, of course, abortion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hey FBI, I think we all know who did this, and it isn't MAGA...
https://nypost.com/2024/08/21/us-news/fbi-investigates-how-maggots-got-into-dnc-breakfast/

Nuke Gaza!

[santamonica811]

What were your thoughts about the speeches at the Dem Convention? My quick takes:
Walz: B or B+. Folksy charm seems authentic, but was less impressed than I’ve been at speeches he’s done at recent political rallies.
Bill Clinton: B- I just didn’t like the speech as much as did the commentators on Fox did (which did shock me). His best days are behind him.
Hillary Clinton B or B+. Best days are also in her rear view mirror, but she was thoughtful and articulate.
Barack Obama. B+. Good use of humor. Speech went on for 15 minutes longer than it should have.
Michelle Obama. A+. One of the more extraordinary speeches I’ve seen at a convention. Funny, pointed, memorable, thoughtful. I can see why Dems have wanted her to run for 12 years, and it’s crystal-clear that she has zero interest in doing so.
Buttigieg. A-. I confess to being a big fan of his. He is excellent at breaking down complicated issue in a clear way. I don’t think he has been a fantastic Secretary (other than the spectacular job he and the Biden White House did, after the Philly bridge accident). But he did give an excellent speech. Marked down a bit, only in comparison to Mrs. Obama’s speech.)

Were there speeches at the Republican convention that you thought were especially good? I thought Vance did okay, but was weirded out by his creepy laugh in a few places. I thought Trump gave a dreadful speech. Boring, angry, resentful, whiny, and WAYYYYY too long. Can’t think of another R speech off the top of my head, to be honest…they all went into the memory hole, filed away under, “Easily forgettable and dull.”

Trump got absolutely no bounce in the polls from his convention. Maybe due to a bunch of poor speeches? Maybe because he got his bounce right beforehand, in the aftermath of the assassination attempt and after Biden’s horrific debate performance? Maybe weighed down by the poor JD Vance selection?

It will be interesting to see if Harris gets any bounce. Maybe, in 2024, there won’t be one for either side. Maybe her bounce happened before the convention started (like with Trump) due to the stellar performances by Gov. Walz in his recent public appearances? I doubt we’ll know for at least another week…I’d wanna see polls that don’t go into the field until after the D convention completely finishes, so the results of those should be at least 7-10 days away.

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of our election terminology like "convention bounce" or "October surprise" dates back to a media environment that hasn't existed for decades now. How is somebody supposed to get a "convention bounce" when the only people who see any of the convention are the people who go out of their way to see it, who probably already were going to vote one way or the other? If an October surprise happens in the woods, and the media avoid covering it, did it really happen?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, that and the fact that there was a time when the outcome of a convention hadn't been pre-determined and multiple votes and horse trading were part of selecting a candidate.

[not guilty]

Yes, there was such a time, but the last time that the outcome of a political party's national convention was not known at the beginning thereof was the Republican convention of 1976. The last time prior to that was the Democratic convention of 1960.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Political conventions have a great deal going on having to do with substance. It’s not just the proceedings in the main hall. There are panel discussions, exhibits, working groups, mostly open the public. But covering substance is beyond the capabilities of the media. They report only on the horse race, and if the winner is already known, they lose interest.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. One Washington Post article noted:

"Ahead of the convention, campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez and senior staffers of the Democratic National Committee met with members of the Uncommitted National Movement. The campaign gave uncommitted delegates extra passes for staff and friends to attend the convention and provided space to hold a news conference.

They provided Palestinians with space to hold a panel Monday, something that had not occurred in previous conventions. At the panel, Tanya Haj-Hassan, a pediatric surgeon who has worked in Gaza during the war, spoke of treating children who lost their families. Hala Hijazi, a Democratic Party organizer, said she has lost dozens of family members in Gaza, including two killed last week."

A lot of stuff happens behind the scenes. Even the speeches televised often get little play, only available on C-SPAN.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/21/palestinians-gaza-speaker-dnc/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes and it’s not really “behind the scenes”. It’s open to reporters and the public. Thanks

[Martinned2]

How about the 1968 Democratic convention? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

[not guilty]

From the beginning of the 1968 convention, it was a foregone conclusion that Vice-president Hubert Humphrey would be nominated. Robert Kennedy was dead, Eugene McCarthy had been just a flash in the pan in some primaries, and George McGovern made a belated effort, but Humphrey's nomination was never in doubt.

[Brett Bellmore]

My point is that these days you don't have massive coverage on a small number of near monopoly outlets. Back when convention bounces were a real thing, it was hard to avoid seeing a good deal of the conventions if you had a TV. These days the conventions are hardly televised at all, they're streamed, and only to people who go out of their way to see them, the last people whose minds the convention is going to change.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think your confident pronouncements of the media landscape, as though the effect of a convention is passed only by direct viewing, is at all established.

[bernard11]

Not established, maybe, but what Brett says about "convention bounce" seems plausible to me.

I gues if someone wanted to they could back and look at pre- and post-convention polling. I have other things to do, like drink coffee.

[Sarcastr0]

We shall see, but I think second order effects are not to be ignored.

Excitement among the base is contagious.

[Josh R]

Nate Silver's model assumes there will be a bounce (I suspect he has recent data supporting this factor), that then recedes in about 2 weeks. If no bounce happens, his model will downgrade Harris' odds. But, they will go back up if her poll numbers stay the same 2 weeks later.

[ducksalad]

“but the last time that the outcome of a political party’s national convention was not known at the beginning thereof was the Republican convention of 1976. ”

A lot of people thought the 2024 DNC result was “known” since early 2021. They were wrong.

There is always a chance of death, resignation, delegate rebellion, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

Speaking of death, the Dems are down another seat in the House with the passing on NJ Congressman Bill Pascarell who was running for re-election at age 87.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Walz will be a millstone around Heels Up's neck when his Guard stuff comes out.

[hobie]

I forgot you guys were also using 'Heels Up' as a pejorative. I approve. Keep saying that and all the other things

[Zarniwoop]

Grampa Ed is literally the only person I’ve seen/heard use the “Heels Up” perjorative. I assume he got it from some failed loser attempt at a meme that circulates on the whack-ass fringes of the intarwebz, but I don’t care enough to look.

But yes, he should keep using it. And Trump should work it into his stand-up routine, cut some ads, buy major media time. I’m sure it will shift the election!

… in a good way.

[Brett Bellmore]

You still haven't internalized the fact that the Democrats control most media outlets in this country, meaning that things they don't want to have "come out" generally don't, at least so far as a functioning majority of the voters are concerned.

And with early voting, she may have banked a victory already before most of her voters have a chance to learn, even if their blockade of the story does fail.

[Sarcastr0]

"Dr. Ed, you're just not paranoid enough!" says Brett.

[SimonP]

Quite to the contrary - the WaPo has been running with a number of Republican attack points, including this stuff about Walz's service. The media would love a Swift Boat redux. Right now they're focusing on Kamala's "vibe"-centered campaign, apparently in a huff over her decision not to do sit-down interviews with them yet. But there is a steady drumbeat of negative commentary on Kamala in the "left-leaning" newspapers I read.

Never mind that your boring sneer about Democratic control of "media outlets" is increasingly out of date. FoxNews remains dominant in cable news. CNN has taken a hard shift to the center-right with its new ownership. Musk controls Twitter and is going forward with his plan to make it misinformation central for the Republicans (in his characteristically transparent and clumsy way). Facebook has unwound its practices designed to clamp down on misinformation on its own platform. Local television news and newspapers have similarly been subsumed within right-leaning conglomerates.

Honestly, this complaint over "media outlets" is so asinine because one understands that it's less driven by any real analysis than it is continuing resentment over "woke" media. ABC's political coverage is assumed to be controlled by Democrats because Disney has gone "woke," etc.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “Walz will be a millstone around Heels Up’s neck when his Guard stuff comes out”

His Guard stuff is already “out” but no one takes it seriously except MAGA dupes. (Of course they’re trained to believe lies).

[Dr. Ed 2]

He retired as an E-8 and not an E-9.

People who know what that means -- know what that means...

[Randal]

... and don't care.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "People who know what that means — know what that means…"

God above, but you're so full of shit :

1. I know what it means because I was in the military (though I retired a lowly E-5)

2. Walz was given a promotion to E-9. That promotion required a string of training benchmarks to be final. He retired before they were concluded. That the sum of your jokey "scandal" and no one except MAGA weirdos will be impressed.

3. In contrast, after the the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General opened an investigation into Ronny Jackson, he was demoted from Rear Admiral (lower half) to Captain for actions "not in keeping with the standards the Navy requires of its leaders". Yet Jackson still listed his retired rank as Rear Admiral as late as last week. That's the kind of "scandal" you don't have on Walz.

4. Why are you always so gullible and misinformed?

[Magister]

"4. Why ... ?"

Dr. Ed 2 appears to be a "sad, lonely old man, defeated by life" although Bumble has already usurped that description.

Dr. Ed 2 has failed in life and blames others for that:

This was the story of my Master’s program — all the cute girls got assistantships with tuition waivers and the ability to present at conferences and the other stuff that helps one build a CV — I got none of that

He addresses his loneliness by joining in with MAGA, but his particular hatred is for women and the bureaucrats of academia. He addresses his sadness with self-aggrandizing anecdotes, predictions of violent civil war, and other fantasies of murder (demonstrators killed with snowplows, immigrants strafed with A10s, Gaza destroyed with nuclear weapons, liberals hanged from lampposts, and probably others I don't recall).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stating that one was treated unfairly by one graduate program is a far cry from "being defeated."

Good Lord....

[David Nieporent]

Bill Clinton: B- I just didn’t like the speech as much as did the commentators on Fox did (which did shock me). His best days are behind him.

Well, sure; he's (almost!) as old as Joe Biden.

Trump got absolutely no bounce in the polls from his convention.

How could he? Trump has a fanatic base, but that's it. He has a very low ceiling, and no way to attract more voters. Doesn't mean that he can't win in November; he can, thanks to the Electoral College. But he can't get more support, both because of what of done and because of who he is. He isn't even making an effort to do so; his campaign is all about past grievances and personal slights.

[hobie]

Buttigieg is an inevitable force. I think once the existential threat of Trump is in the dustbin, and the Republican's get back to their pedestrian, angry, lunatic candidates, it will be time to trot out Mayor Pete. There is just no one else in American politics who is smarter or more decent than Mayor Pete. And the more his mere existence sends the rubes into paroxysms of rage, the more powerful he will become. Like Darth Vader, no?

[Martinned2]

I like your optimism. After Trump we'll get Trumpists who are just as evil but less incompetent, like DeSantis.

[Ilya Snowman]

DeSantis isn't a Trumpist.

[Randal]

Thus proving hobie's point.

[Ilya Snowman]

Not at all. And the butt mayor would be offed by a religious Muslim anyway. (Do you think they can really be ruled by a gay?)

[Commenter_XY]

Define 'smarter' = There is just no one else in American politics who is smarter or more decent than Mayor Pete.

[Ilya Snowman]

What do you mean by the ‘existential threat of Trump’? Once the blue teamers completely breed themselves out of existence in the United States? Once you lose this new cold war?

Further, Buttigieg is not just an evolutionary dud homosexual, he is also a vocal champion of the totalitarian, imperialist cultural-legal project to impose American sex and gender ideologies upon the brown, black, and yellow peoples of the world. He is, and would continue to be, rightfully reviled by most of the Global South. He would also not be considered a real ‘leader’ by most of the more civilised West.

Get your head out your own/another man’s ass.

[Zarniwoop]

Further, Buttigieg is not just an evolutionary dud homosexual, [blah blah blah]

Why do you assume that having some homosexuals in the population is evolutionary disadvantageous for some genes? Hint: not at the “direct descendant” level, but at the larger family/community level.

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

A simple hypothetical example that might work for even you: having a gay uncle who is likely childless improves the odds of niece/nephew survival … enough that it is positively selected for by evolution.

And if gay uncle improves his niece/nephew survival rate, that’s not a “dud” effect for 50% of his genes … and hence positive selection in the long term/larger population. Can you can get your head out of your ass long enough to consider that evolutionary biology is more complex than direct descendants?

You may now proceed with a “stupid lib/homo/Democrat” insult, per standard practice for weird & creepy gay-obsessed internet trolls.

[Ilya Snowman]

'A simple hypothetical example that might work for even you: having a gay uncle who is likely childless improves the odds of niece/nephew survival … enough that it is positively selected for by evolution'.

This story is basically kaput in the more recent scientific literature. Catch up.

Then, couple that with the death of your NORMS of equality, let alone your entire political ideology.

How weird of you, though, to use the word 'weird' in characterising my posts!

Carry on, totalitarian.

[Frank Drackman]

JD Vance is both smarter and more decent than that Turd-Burglaring Booty-Judge, only thing that's yielded to any of Boot-Edge-Edge's force is Jizz Booty-Judges Anus, He was barely the mayor of a suburb of Chicago, but I'll give you this much, he's fucked up the Nation's Transportation system so bad, even Jimmuh Cartuh, if he wasn't terminally ill, would say "Man, you fucked shit up"

Frank

[not guilty]

"He was barely the mayor of a suburb of Chicago[.]"

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Frank?

Pete Buttigieg served two terms as mayor of South Bend, Indiana. According to Google maps, South Bend is 96 miles from Chicago.

[hobie]

If the burn-it-all-down rubes think the fat orange one is a protest vote, then imagine the appeal of a gay guy. Since up is now down in MAGA-verse, Pete should play well. They'll just be holding their noses while they pull the lever

[hobie]

Both Walz, Oprah and Bill urged the convention to treat the rubes with kindness and respect. So today let's try and be tolerant of the goofy bastards here.

[SimonP]

The vast majority of Trump supporters are Americans who have been left behind by our economy, manipulated by Republican misinformation, frustrated by the ways in which they see their communities hollowing out, etc. They deserve our compassion and respect, and real solutions from the Democratic side, not the flimflammery of the Republicans, and not the half-baked plans that the Democrats ultimately go through with.

The ones here, though? No. The vast majority of MAGA commenters here are engaged in what they view as a “civil war” – first, in rhetoric, and eventually, in violence, if needed to achieve their aims. They are also victims of a monstrous Republican apparatus that has warped their understanding of reality, but that does not change the fact that they are dangerous or, likely, beyond the reach of compassion.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘manipulated by Republican misinformation’.

Nope. Both your blue and red teams have clearly engaged in racial-class warfare against them for several decades now, and not just by flooding your country with scores of millions of unskilled poor. Your blue team also openly champions the imposition of social democratic institutions that we, in more civilised countries, already cannot afford and have scant hope of perpetuating. You make asinine claims about voting ‘against’ their ‘economic interests’ despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that you’re wrong.

You are frauds. MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, you are now widely seen to be frauds—including by us, your allies in the more civilised West.

You’re completely finished. (Indeed, you’re in mortal danger. Isn’t it wonderful? Let justice be done…)

By the way, Mr evolutionary dud expert in all left literature, what do you think about the application of Foucault’s notions of the panopticon and dynamic normalisation to (1) political correctness in the United States and (2) to DEI institutionalisation?

🙂

Your lies cannot protect you anymore, unequal dud. They see you clearly for the totalitarian scum you truly are. The violence is going to be delicious. We, in the rest of the West, are going to watch it all on television.

[SimonP]

I am getting out of the habit of responding to your more sociopathic comments, Comrade, but I couldn't resist responding to this bit:

By the way, Mr evolutionary dud expert in all left literature, what do you think about the application of Foucault’s notions of the panopticon and dynamic normalisation to (1) political correctness in the United States and (2) to DEI institutionalisation?

Funny you should ask! Because in fact I've long been fascinated by how "wokeism" has become a kind of power-knowledge within American institutions. Understanding this, I fully understand why white straight men are threatened by it - because it moves from the institutionalization of a power-knowledge that historically has benefited them, to another one that benefits primarily white straight women, but also to a lesser extent gay white men and women, and lesser still, POCs. They are responding to something real that has been happening.

And I am not at all happy about it - I recognize that the new power-knowledge is just as oppressive and harmful as the old one, even if I personally have more to gain from it. It is why I tend to resist efforts to "normalize" gay life by promoting same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, and the like. I find that all very alien and distasteful (despite being in a long-term monogamous relationship myself, with several gay friends raising children (excluding the ones with French bulldogs)).

In a similar vein, I'm not comfortable with or a proponent of the kind of "dynamic normalization" you're referring to, when it comes to "woke" discourse. I feel the same way with the imposition of official orthodoxy when it comes to discussing Israel/Gaza - the range of "dissent" permitted is exceedingly narrow.

I often warn the MAGA commenters of this, but - you shouldn't assume from the political lean of my comments that I fit the stereotype you'd prefer to attack. I hate this "woke" nonsense. Though, on the whole, I'd personally prefer this dynamic normalization, focused as it is on performative virtue in choice of language, to the one we would have had fifty years ago, where I'd have to pretend to believe in God, attend (the right) church regularly, and marry a woman.

[Commenter_XY]

What 'real solutions', SimonP? = They deserve our compassion and respect, and real solutions from the Democratic side, not the flimflammery of the Republicans, and not the half-baked plans that the Democrats ultimately go through with.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘Though, on the whole, I’d personally prefer this dynamic normalization, focused as it is on performative virtue in choice of language…’.

At least you come out of the closet, partially at least, as a supporter of totalitarian tactics. Unsurprisingly, you omit discussion of how they’re used as tools to silence and control in radically undemocratic ways (let alone ways that undermine core academic norms).

And no, I’m not assuming anything from the political lean of your comments that you CONSIDER yourself to be a regular American ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ (or that you don’t believe yourself to be a liberal, libertarian, etc). That’s immaterial, so you needn’t ‘warn’ me of anything: you’re both an equal cheerleader for these forms of dynamic normalisation when it comes to the gays and other groups, and you regularly LIE when it comes to both immigration and what the American MAGA actually stand for and why the believe what they believe.

Agreed about the Israel/Gaza thing, though. No one is permitted to talk about international law itself being an entirely illegitimate (‘white’) Western imperialist system system. No one is permitted to even discuss the changes/likelihood that that system will no longer have the power to try to regulate international actors’ actions as this new cold war progresses (genocide, legal borders, apartheid, ‘human rights’, etc)—especially as the rising powers the global south reject them and see them, correctly, as forms of domination and control. No one is permitted to talk about this REALLY being a global intifada against America’s ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ legal and political ideologies, in legal, cultural, and political forms, having been foisted upon a world that rejects it—a world which finally has the power to do something about it.

Nor is anyone is permitted in Western liberal or progressive media to talk about where the Gazans, or the rest of the Palestinians, actually come from, despite the abundant evidence. No one is permitted to talk about an entire group’s core identity simply being the product of cultural appropriation and attempted cultural erasure. No one is permitted to talk about WHY there are efforts to normalise another imperialist apartheid cult in the West, and why mass immigration of its believers is actually happening. (Again: panopticon, dynamic normalisation, etc.) For the same reason, one never sees real news about the Gulf in mainstream American press.

You needn’t worry about having to pretend to believe in god, attend CHURCH, and marrying a women. Even if you somehow survive the coming global political realignment (let alone America’s culture war turning hot!), once the western legal narrative crumbles—and the gay rights as ‘fundamental human rights’ BS is dismantled across the world—and once people with your inferior values are outbred and replaced, you’ll probably have to attend a mosque.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, people are permitted to talk about all of those things; it's just that the people who do get laughed at because they're cuckoo. There is no "global south," there's no Muslim hegemony coming, liberalism (in the classical sense, not the American leftist sense) may have suffered some minor local setbacks but is not dying or suffering rejection, and human progress continues.

By the way, you don't seem to have a grasp on what the word "totalitarian" means, and are just using it in an Orwell-fascist sense of "something not desirable."

[Ilya Snowman]

‘Actually, people are permitted to talk about all of those thing…’

Re-read my comment: where aren’t they permitted to do so? (Your bald denials don’t make things so, either.)

David, perhaps you should learn about the relevant Foucauldian concepts and how they concern tactics meant to police behaviour, thought, and speech. THEN you could come back and re-assess whether the label is fitting. (And also whether F himself thought it apt.)

Keep wrapping yourself in your ideology like a blanket if that’s what comforts you; but your comments just repeatedly show others that you’re uninformed and parochial.

It’s always like shooting fish in a barrel responding to you. Can’t you at least try to be more informed? More interesting?

[Ilya Snowman]

No, let me go further than that. David, you are what’s called a ‘useful idiot’. You have no idea or understanding what these people actually do under the guise of liberalism, in the USA and elsewhere. So, you’re indirectly defending practices that are squarely totalitarian because you don’t even know what those practices and tactics are, let alone how they operate.

[David Nieporent]

Whereas nobody ever called you useful.

[SimonP]

No, Frosty here certainly doesn't seem to be of much use to anyone. I mock him for being a Russian troll, but his rhetoric is too over-torqued to be effective in that capacity, and the education behind it is too advanced to be wasted on such an effort.

This person is not stupid, not like the Eds, the Franks, the Bobs, the Bretts, or the other MAGA clowns. But he's not psychologically well. He's delusional and fixated on Western decadence and its imminent collapse, to an unhealthy degree. I haven't come across this kind of troll very often, in my decades of online trolling experience.

I would be careful with this one, Chip. Your willingness to post under your real name is commendable, but Frosty may be the type of internet troll who comes for you IRL.

[Ilya Snowman]

The evolutionary dud totalitarian is mistaken if he thinks I genuinely trust or respect his judgment. (Though its doubtful he really believes that either; he’s himself too duplicitous and conniving to believe that, really.)

He asserts, even if he does not himself really believe, that the effort here is to provide effective rhetoric in order to effectuate change in his own beliefs; this, rather than to show others WHAT he and his lot really does and HOW he (and they) lies. To show how and why he is a totalitarian.

The same is true when the evolutionary dud engages in—the well-established— leftist tactic of undertaking pseudo-psychologising to mask what is really a normative disagreement. This, qua delegimisation tactic. For he deludes itself into thinking the tactic won’t and can’t be recognised for what it is.

The mask is nevertheless off now, and his totalitarianism is now better understood. It’s simply a matter of continued demystification of HOW his lot operates.

To that end, I needn’t undertake any other action personally. It suffices merely to show others what you REALLY are, totalitarian liar. You are ruined. Once the average American comprehends HOW your lot really operates, they will not take it lightly. 🙂

Perhaps the unequal evolutionary dud totalitarian can infer that I know a great deal more about the international developments transpiring, and international viewpoints about them than he. Of course, he would never admit to that, because then he would have to come clean about (1) what his lot’s really all about and so (2) the contradictions in his claims about shifting power within the United States (race, gender, etc) relative to what’s happening internationally.

Deep down, the unequal evolutionary dud totalitarian has NO real chance of gaslighting me about whether my information about international events, practices, and beliefs are the product of mere delusion. You, however, David, are sufficiently ignorant and parochial to believe it. You are easy prey for him.

Your domestic propaganda efforts are slowly ramping up, though. It may take a couple of years for it to go full steam. Are you ready?

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4753494-world-war-iii-is-already-here-so-lets-start-winning-it/

[SimonP]

Frosty - I have never once believed that you were trying to convince me of anything. I have only noted that I fail to find your comments very compelling, insofar as this rhetoric about being slaughtered by fat MAGA cucks or Muslims (whichever it is supposed to be) seems intended to hurt my feelings somehow.

The whole schtick is just too put-on. If you truly believed any of this stuff, you wouldn't feel the need to wishcast it so forcefully. You wouldn't need to call me a "liar" when I agree with you.

As for others - again, you don't seem to understand your audience. Scarcely anyone perusing these comments, at this point, will have read Foucault, much less have understood him. And those who have will not find your comments anything other than bizarrely unhinged. Do you grasp that, genius?

So if you aspire to be demonstrating my "totalitarianism" to anyone, for anyone at all, you again are just overshooting your mark. The argument you are fitting in between your bouts of mouth-frothing is too lightly sketched and over their heads to register as anything other than a word cloud. It all gets to be a bit boring.

[Ilya Snowman]

I call you ‘a liar’ because you repeatedly misrepresent yours and others’ motivations, claims and actions. (You lie even about THAT, unsurprisingly–including just about the application of Foucault and whether they’ll find it cogent or ‘unhinged’.)

Furthermore anyone can find evidence of your support for totalitarianism via your comments, such as your all-but-admissions about the panopticon and political correctness (which long predates ‘woke’)—including the people to whom I SEND LINKS of this thread.

If you yourself were such a genius, you’d recognize how your most recent comment also constitutes an admission….

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is beginning to undo your imperialist, totalitarian efforts. You have zenithed in power and will lack the ability to stop them. Both a domestic and international reckoning is on the horizon. To that end, although they may be obese, the MAGA, and the entire American working class, other Americans, and the world’s Muslims all have good reason to hold you accountable.

You (mis-)frame yourself as the normal and sane as a tactic. Fifty years ago, the super-majority of people would not have thought that of you, and in thirty to fifty years hence the super-majority won't either.

[SimonP]

Frosty, I wonder whether these other people to whom you "SEND LINKS" for this chain of comments are as puzzled as I am by your unhinged rhetoric.

You say that I am "lying" about typical VC commenters' ability to comprehend a reference to Foucault. But you concede this very observation, when you feel the need to cover for the apparent absurdity of believing otherwise by insisting that you invite others to come view your theatrics. (Sure.)

You say that I "all but admit" I am totalitarian, when I concede your point about "dynamic normalization" and say that I hate this very thing you accuse me of endorsing. You wave that off by again accusing me of "lying."

I wonder if those other people who receive your LINKS to this conversation notice, as I do, that you are constantly lying and mischaracterizing throughout your comments. I wonder, too, why they never seem to be interested in jumping in.

Perhaps they tire, as I do, of your repetition.

[David Nieporent]

I mock him for being a Russian troll,

Yeah; I was doing that for a while, but took it back because he's just batshit crazy. Did you see his long exchange with JesusWasWhite where he elaborated on the detailed racial hierarchy in his mind in which Irish people and Slavs weren't white? (The Slav part obviously was stolen directly from Nazi race science, but Hitler never had a problem with the Irish.) It was far too detailed and considered for him to be trolling. He's just mentally ill.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘You say that I am “lying” about typical VC commenters’ ability to comprehend a reference to Foucault’.

‘You say that I “all but admit” I am totalitarian, when I concede your point about “dynamic normalization” and say that I hate this very thing you accuse me of endorsing

Anyone can read the comments above and discern that you’ve lied even about these two points, simply by reading what’s written above—including the people with whom I share this content. (More on the first quote below—which responds to my own claim, the latter of which obviously only concerned people who have read and understood Foucault.)

I’ve told you before, unequal evolutionary dud who is destined to be forced back into the closet: I talk AT you, not with you. This is done to show others that, and how, you lie.

I’ll give you this, though: you do have David Nieporent et al pegged (no pun intended). You know that he can be COMPLETELY relied on to NEVER have the slightest inclination to begin to learn about the concepts we mentioned, to assess for himself whether they’ve been applied correctly or not (or dishonestly, etc), and then to discern whether their true import has been correctly assessed as well—let alone to adjudge for himself whether those concepts are salient for understanding the real world. He’s blissfully unaware of how he’s easily manipulated. (He’s obviously also too dumb to understand a deconstruction of an idea like ‘whiteness’ to show both its evolution, its non-uniformity across different groups, and how it’s ironically inclusive…)

Carry on, totalitarian. The ruse is over. Once the average American fully comes to appreciate what your lot has really been up to, you’re going to watch everything you’ve fought for come crashing down.

[Ilya Snowman]

Obviously, you’re otherwise useless, under-educated, and uninformed, David. I’m nonetheless curious if you were able to discern that the following is a lie (particularly in terms of the order of benefits):

‘Understanding this, I fully understand why white straight men are threatened by it – because it moves from the institutionalization of a power-knowledge that historically has benefited them, to another one that benefits primarily white straight women, but also to a lesser extent gay white men and women, and lesser still, POCs.’

Consider this to be an experiment.

(Can you sniff the gay ressentiment underlying the claim?)

[SimonP]

Okay. Are you finished?

[Randal]

I recognize that the new power-knowledge is just as oppressive and harmful as the old one, even if I personally have more to gain from it. It is why I tend to resist efforts to “normalize” gay life by promoting same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, and the like.

Oh, I can't stand this attitude. It's either an admission that Frosty is right about you and you're undeserving of the society that the rest of us enjoy, or it's a claim that any social constructs aka power-knowledge are inherently inequitable and hence illegitimate, in which case Frosty is right again that deconstructing society isn't an outcome many people will tolerate.

[SimonP]

Randal – it is difficult to translate continental thinking into the analytical framework that most Americans employ (including especially those who find their way to the law). The process is unavoidably flattening and tends to trigger odd emotional reactions like yours.

Suffice it to say that understanding the nature of our society while at the same time living within it, at a kind of intellectual distance, involves an ambivalent sangfroid that I do not find uncomfortable or threatening. I feel sorry for people who can’t see the world with a comparable richness.

[Randal]

Pretention as a coping mechanism? How droll. You said before you felt alienated by society. Recasting your alienation as cool detachment is a flagrant case of sour grapes. You sound like the sad loser who comes to Prom stag and lurks on the periphery, justifying it to himself as being aloof to the pedestrian rituals of mere humans while remaining in a position to observe their “richness.” At least the goth kids had a little counter-culture going on. You’ve got nothing, and you’re telling yourself it’s better that way. You truly deserve the title of cocksucker.

Take this clue. Examining all the cupcakes in the shop and then leaving with none does not result in a richer experience than actually tasting only one. You can still keep your perspective and examine the others too, although you might just succumb to the new joy of personal fulfillment and lose interest. Is that scary to you, Mr. Sangfroid?

[SimonP]

I don't understand why you are so hostile. Have I threatened you?

[Randal]

I don't think it's enough for people to see the errors of their ways, I prefer they feel them. But it's more rhetorical style than animus, so you have the option to take it personally or not.

[SimonP]

It's as clear an admission as any I could have hoped for that you have nothing to contribute apart from pointless vitriol and ignorance.

[Randal]

Really? What do you have to contribute? You never answered my original critique other than to be dismissive.

1. Do you find power-knowledge useful but distasteful, such that people have a choice whether to avail themselves of it and you’ve chosen disavowal?

OR

2. Do you find power-knowledge to be intrinsically inequitable and therefore something to be actively undermined?

OR something else?

[Ilya Snowman]

Randal: SimonP basically always lies.

There's no need for some 'translation'. He is obfuscating by talking about forms of understanding rather than endorsing or condemning kinds of action/inaction (behaviour). (Actions that people who at least believe themselves to be liberal/libertarian should deem to be Orwellian, abhorrent, and unacceptable in a Western society.) To that end, you assume that normalisation/acceptance of equality MUST take the form of inclusion within the existing institutions (marriage, adoption, etc). However, some in SimonP's comrades want THOSE things dismantled for being tools of domination. So, they wish instead to achieve equality within a new, alternative set of institutions and practices---one that they, given their expertise, will be liberatory and not forms of domination. (Can I get an 'amen'?)

Do you think I'm merely trying to get under his, and others' skin, by calling SimonP a totalitarian?

[SimonP]

You never answered my original critique other than to be dismissive.

Randal, I am dismissive because your "critique" was sophomoric. I would have to educate you about the underlying concepts, in order to illustrate to you why your "critique" was off-base in the first place.

The "power-knowledges" I'm talking about can't really be "disavowed" or "undermined." I'm just describing the systems in which I live and the way in which they seem to be changing. I recognize in the new "wokeism" a basic power structure that previously existed but centered the lives and moralities of white, Christian men. I can see that, critique it, seek not to perpetuate it. But asking whether I might choose whether to "avail" myself of it, or "undermine" it through active efforts, is properly senseless. To ask the question is to show that you don't understand what's being discussed.

So, yes - I'm dismissive. Sorry.

[Ilya Snowman]

SimonP is lying again, as is his wont.

Let me give you an example, which ties in to his more recent exchange with you about power-knowledge. Consider this quote from him from his comment above:

‘Understanding this, I fully understand why white straight men are threatened by it – because it moves from the institutionalization of a power-knowledge that historically has benefited them, to another one that benefits primarily white straight women, but also to a lesser extent gay white men and women, and lesser still, POCs.’

The simplest point is that he lying about the order of who has benefited from woke (NOT from political correctness, not from affirmative action, but from wokedness.) Over and above the empirical evidence about jobs, wealth creation, etc, think also about ‘intersectionality’ and its cache as a concept, about who is given special epistemic standing. Think about WHO are chosen to be DEI officers. Etc.

The FAR MORE important point is that he frames the ‘institutionalization’ of the power-knowledge as something that has historically ‘benefited’ group X. But that’s nonsense: group X CREATED the power-knowledge and the very institutions. It wasn’t something given or found, but rather created in and through X’s culture.

THAT’S WHY millions of third-worlders want to move to America, to the West, etc. They want the benefits of these constructed systems, of these institutions, of this power-knowledge. Institutions that have fairly clear genealogies. Ones that, against SimonP, were produced by particular cultures. Ones, furthermore, that can be claimed as CULTURAL PROPERTY. (And if a critical mass of people start to think that way, then American civil society is in BIG trouble.)

So, read his comments above: despite his prevarications, he is not actually a quietist. He supports the rearrangements, despite having half-assed quibbles about the means. Accordingly, he MISFRAMES the institutions of the power-knowledge as something merely given/found. Why? SO THEY can be treated as common goods that can then be REDISTRIBUTED (per some conception of distributive justice, or corrective justice, or equity, or fairness, or whatever). Better this distribution than the status quo ante. Better this rather open form of totalitarianism than him having to live a closeted life.

Why does he do this? Why think the different groups warrant or deserve this? Why not deconstruct the ideas of multiculturalism, of equality, of equity, of justice, of ‘racial justice’, of ‘gender justice’, etc, which drive his own views and values? Why not do the same to THEM? Simple: his gay ressentiment. Cowardice, essentially, in the face of questions about himself, his own worth, etc.

At any rate, you, Randy, seem to want (or at least want to be seen to want) for the gays, what older generations of feminists wanted for females: inclusion (and so power) within the existing institutions and order. Liberal equality. That’s not what SimonP’s lot wants, that’s not what the most recent wave of feminists want, etc. And they won’t give a shit that you’re upset with them for not fighting for your form of inclusion.

The pretend to be quiestist, too, and claim to live under identities and forms of relationships that don’t require society’s labels. Why? Because it’s dangerous to come clean about wanting radically different conceptual schemes, institutions, etc WHILST having to come clean about not actually having the knowledge or skills to produce them. (Just think of all the American commies and socialists who called themselves ‘liberals’ from the 1950s-2000s. Look at how the term ‘progressive’ is used/manipulated in American English.)

[Ilya Snowman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl_9ayxs69A

[Randal]

I think you’re right about Simon. He knows he’s boxed in, and he’s trying to squirm out of it by putting on airs. Let’s take this asshattery for example:

I can see that, critique it, seek not to perpetuate it. But asking whether I might choose whether to “avail” myself of it, or “undermine” it through active efforts, is properly senseless.

To “seek not to perpetuate” something is one way to “undermine” it, don’t you think?

Anyway, Frosty, your psychotic paranoia is misplaced. Simon and the queers won’t win. They won’t win the battle for the liberal left. They won’t win the battle for the progressive left. They might win the battle for the truly socialist left, by which I mean the actual anti-capitalists, but they’re not a threat.

Simon’s is a zero-sum theory, according to which, inequitable power-knowledge must be undermined not perpetuated. As its influence wanes, in theory, its benefits will flow freely to all instead of only those upon which the power-knowledge is “centered.” But that’s not how it works. Once the power-knowledge is gone and the institutions are gone, the benefits are also gone. It’s cultural nihilism.

The liberal left knows that instinctively. It’s all about power-knowledge and institutions. Simon is anathema to liberals.

The progressive left is practical above all else. (That’s why it’s even more strongly capitalist than the liberals are.) It wants results. It was willing to give DEI a try. It failed. Not completely, but in important ways. So progressives are going back to the drawing board. They’re not bound to some ideology, least of all a strawman ideology externally imposed by their enemies. So you might see progressives dabbling in Simon’s ideas from time to time, but they’ll back away once the failures are evident.

The proof came just last week, at least as far as the US goes. Kamala Harris. Tim Walz. Pete Buttigieg. Their message couldn’t be further from Simon’s if they tried. And I think they did try. Pro-institutions. Pro-power-knowledge. Pro-American-cultural-heritage. They distanced themselves as much as they could from the cultural nihilists on the far left. And don’t say it’s all a ruse, that’s just stupid. It’s where the vast majority of Democrats are. Simon is a fringe. (We let the fringe come in and play a bit back in 2016 when we underestimated Trump, but that mistake has been rectified.)

Speaking of Trump… part of the reason the Democrats were able to pick up the mantle of American culture warriors is that MAGA has abandoned it. MAGA is with Simon. They’re also calling for the dismantling of the institutions and the undermining of the power-knowledge that they perceive the “elites” are using against them. I suspect you think that they think they’re attempting to “return” it to some sort of “proper” power structure, but that’s obviously retarded. As you said yourself, Frosty, “they want those things dismantled for being tools of domination.”

Which brings us to you. You believe that the power-knowledge is “cultural property.” That asinine concept seems borrowed directly from the Simons and the intersectionalists, only they call it “cultural appropriation.” There is no cultural property, there’s only culture, and culture isn’t zero-sum. You and Simon both have the same faulty premise, that the world is zero-sum, and so you’re having this nonsensical debate about how best to allocate the limited resource of power-knowledge. That’s obviously insane. All you have to do is turn back the clock to see that there’s more power-knowledge, more culture, more civilization, in the world now than there was 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10k years ago… so no. Share the power-knowledge. Create new and better power-knowledge. It’s not a limited resource. There’s no reason to hoard it.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘To “seek not to perpetuate” something is one way to “undermine” it, don’t you think?’

Yes, that was MY point…

Add to that SimonP’s claims about ‘re-centring’. Those are inherently normative. They’re also the product of concerted, coordinated action, not things that just happen organically of their own accord. He’s lying about that too and knows it.

On cultural property. The cultural property claim can and likely will be weaponized against SimonP and his lot. It will be ironic and very amusing. Even so, it doesn't change the fact that he's lying about whether the power-knowledge and institutions aren't found/given things, but rather the products of particular cultures. That he misframes it in order to try to say that nothing's really being done to re-arrange things, let alone that the re-arrangement is being done with a clear, conscious political goal in mind and in anti-democratic (totalitarian, really) ways.

On the other hand, you don’t get to police what counts as property. The left and others will not believe you if claim that the notion of cultural property is ‘conceptually incoherent’. They’ll correctly diagnosis that as simply being a function of your political ideology. This is part of your delusion: you mistake your ideology with truth.

Speaking about psychotic delusions, the entire world saw the DNC as theatre and the political party’s elite control over the direction o things. It’s one thing to believe what the politicians say as being sincere, which anyone with a critical faculty would not do now, or even to think that the tone and themes are important. It’s quite another to believe that they are genuinely representative of the masses. The politicians SPEAK in the language of being pro-institution, but their own voter base can see clear as day what they want and what they ACTUALLY DO: support a comprehensive re-compositioning of your main institutions, mass illegal immigration, foreign wars, foreign cultural imperialism, etc.

You confuse your normative preferences with both truth and a sort of baseline that will, by necessity, invariably restore itself. THAT’s a (pathetic, in the original sense) delusion. Younger people don’t and won’t believe this stuff. It just shows that you’re old and out of touch. ‘The proof came just last week, at least as far as the US goes…And don’t say it’s all a ruse, that’s just stupid.’. The idea that you take this (or want to at least present it as being) proof, let alone that it’s not a ruse, is quite sad. The American people already saw that when they were duped with the image of a moderate Biden for the 2020 election and got very different policies instead.

If the left were practical, it would breed. It wouldn’t be fundamentally reliant on mass immigration, ie people who might share their economic beliefs but their social values. If it was practical, it would have a credible, workable model for planning the entire economy already in place. If it was practical, it would NOT regularly engage in public contradictions about economic inequality and inequities whilst simultaneously promoting the importation of mass cheap labour in a capitalist economy (which it itself claims is what drives wages down and makes the poor poorer, etc).

‘They’re not bound to some ideology, least of all a strawman ideology externally imposed by their enemies’. Yes, the Western Left demonstrably are. They’re deeply embedded in international law schemes and NGOs. It’s one thing for them to join in order to merely subvert and destroy them. But that isn’t what they do. They’re full cheerleaders and weaponisers of the system to advance particular goals globally. So, they’re wedded to the international legal order’s ideology for at least the medium term. (And they can and should be held to account for this by the Global South.)

You’re also lying about MAGA. It’s obviously a counter-revolutionary force. It’s a response to the obvious harms suffered due to the free trade agreements, mass illegal immigration, etc. MAGA are the ones who wish to preserve American culture. You ‘liberals’ and the left are the ones who wants to make a new America—and you cannot even see how that ties into power-knowledge and institutions. Like a good liberal ideologue, you see it merely as a good to be shared, rather than as being a complex web of norms and practices that can worsened or destroyed. You miss the sociology and anthropology, and really have no idea what you’re doing in terms of social re-engineering. If only you weren’t an ideologue and can see the damage that you’re yourself inflicting upon all your institutions, including the basic ones that make daily life run smoothly.

[Ilya Snowman]

Learn what the hell we're actually talking about.

Distinguish between tactics and outcomes. Modes of domination and control, particularly, and whether they have a totalitarian tinge (or core). It's one thing to legitimately fight for your claims of equality; it's quite another to use certain tools IN THE WAYS they've been actually been implemented (to ensure politically correct speech norms, say).

Then distinguish between deconstruction (of a concept, a practice, etc) and social re-engineering (let alone whether a priori normative commitments are sufficient grounds to undertake the latter).

Once you do, you're going to have to re-assess the extent to which your liberalism/libertarianism is compromised by participation in/support for/acquiescence in particular social schemes that---seemingly---run completely afoul of those ideologies, at least when transposed to the social and the moral (and THEN to your legal and political rights).

[Randal]

Thanks for thinking I'm stupid. Complicated problems are more likely to have solutions than simple problems.

[Ilya Snowman]

You're welcome.

You, your friends, your intellectual allies, etc, are trebly flanked, intellectually. You don't even begin to know how to respond to a left that knows how to delegitimize you, such that they can convince people to ignore the merits of your beliefs/ideology and dismiss them out of hand for being harmful/racist/mere expressions of dominant interests, etc.

You and your merry gang have never even bothered to learn how to defend yourselves, let alone how to respond effectively.

Even though the very idea of a 'marketplace of ideas' is under existential threat, your lot fiddles.

[Randal]

You wish. The left has a tiny problem with socialists and queers. And I don’t mean that pejoratively. I mean the people who identify as the Q in LGBTQ+ and are proponents of Queer Theory. (You might note that we’re starting to prune them. If you see LGBT getting used more and more, it’s no accident.)

But it’s no different really than the right’s problem with Nazis and white supremacists. We can’t just outright disavow them because we need their support. But don’t worry, they’re not at risk of taking the wheel. Everyone’s got their fringes to bear.

Anyway, as I mention more thoroughly above, you should watch the DNC speeches and judge for yourself if you think they “respond effectively.”

[Ilya Snowman]

To watch the manicured theatre for the masses, and to take it at face value...?

Jesus Christ. You need to get in touch with the real world. Spend some time in Europe, not just the US. Younger people don't believe what you believe. They've been conditioned to condemn it.

Your pruning of 'Queers' isn't going to help anything, even if successful. It CERTAINLY won't help for your international efforts.

[Randal]

To watch the manicured theatre for the masses, and to take it at face value…?

Who said anything about taking it at face value? You sure spend a lot of time talking about the masses for someone who shows no interest in understanding the masses. They certainly aren’t going to be moved by lectures on Focault.

Europe’s got its own problems. You, like many a European before you, make the mistake of projecting Europe’s problems onto the US. That has never worked, precisely because we don’t have the same long, compartmentalized national histories to contend with. It’s entirely possible that Europe can’t do multiculturalism beyond its ongoing attempt at multinationalism... if that!

But the US can.

[Ilya Snowman]

'You sure spend a lot of time talking about the masses for someone who shows no interest in understanding the masses. They certainly aren’t going to be moved by lectures on Fo[u[cault'.

Better than you, obviously. That why I understand better than you why younger blue teamers are moving left (and shall continue to do so), and why the right has moved MAGA.

[Randal]

Everybody knows why MAGA.

And you're wrong about why younger leftists seem leftier.

[grb]

santamonica811 : "What were your thoughts about the speeches"

My first thought is Oprah deserves some serious props.

[Ilya Snowman]

Because of her weight?

[OtisAH]

The last time Oprah gave a speech people liked we endured weeks of “Oprah for president!” A lot of people in this world are pathetically cheap dates (see also: MAGA).

[Ilya Snowman]

Oprah has long served as a form of propaganda for and to middle class, relatively uneducated American women.

She's a pseudo-epistemic authority. Your American cult of celebrity treats her as something, and someone, that more civilised countries wouldn't. The idea that this person is treated as someone with political, moral and social gravitas, such that she should speak at a political convention shows how pathetic you all are.

[grb]

Huh.

Pseudo-epistemic authority? Whoda thunk't?

Here I am thinking she gave a damn good speech.....

[SimonP]

No one tell him about Hulk Hogan at the GOP convention.

[Ilya Snowman]

Do you think I really care about your colour teams?

[SimonP]

Do you think I'm too stupid to discern patterns in your abuse?

[Ilya Snowman]

Projecting again, I see.

[M L]

My thoughts on the DNC (and the RNC) are that I don't really understand people that actually take the time to watch them. Aren't they super long?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump's "bulletproof" glass. Does such a thing really exist?

[Martinned2]

It might be technically plastic, but otherwise: why do you ask?

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically it's only bullet "resistant", but unless your assassin is packing a Barrett, or something similar, it normally will get the job done.

[Mr. Bumble]

Technically there is transparent material (glass, “plastic” or a combination of both) that will stop the penetration of rounds up to and including a .50 BMG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_glass

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Technically it’s only bullet “resistant”..."

Yep. There's always a weapons limit that the barrier will/won't provide protection against.

[Frank Drackman]

More like "Bullet Resistant" some substances are harder than others and offer more resistance to Bull-Wets, like your Skull.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's more a matter of toughness; Ordinary soda glass is hard enough, but it's brittle. Anything that's going to stop a bullet needs to be both hard AND tough, absorb a LOT of energy while deforming.

That's why the best conventional "bullet proof" glass is laminated Lexan and glass: The glass provides the hard, and the Lexan the energy absorption. The combination is better than an equal thickness of one or the other.

[Frank Drackman]

Saw a Gang Banger in the ER once, “Some Dude”(if they ever catch “Some Dude” Inner City Murders will vanish) shot him “Upside da Haid’” with a 25 Automatic (actually less energy than a 22 LR) Thanks to his Nappy’ Fro’ and thick Skull Bullet didn’t penetrate his Skull, all he did was say “Ow!” stick “Some Dude” with his knife (“Some Dudes” jacket, shirt, and skin offered no resistance to the blade, neither did his Spleen, Liver, Colon, and Small Bowel) and come to the ER when he noticed he was bleeding. I still carried a Raven 25 Auto (Birmingham Pistol Parlor would give you one for any gun purchase over $300(Real money in the 80’s) but only when I couldn’t carry anything larger, "Some Dude" would have been better off using it as an improvised set of Brass Knuckles

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, guy: Dial back the patois. You've gone from pseudo-folksy to incoherent.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s called “Local Color” we professional writers use it to show our Boner Fides, it’s how a guy raised in Suburban Chicago became an expert in Bullfighting, and let me tell you, Alabama has plenty of Local Coloreds

Frank

[MoreCurious]

You're deluding yourself again, Drackman. Everything you write is simply more evidence that you're an inarticulate, illiterate moron. Thanks for the laugh.

[Bob from Ohio]

Frank's funny. You should try that.

[MoreCurious]

Except when he's a vulgar, crude racist. Other than that, lots of laughs.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You should try using Frank's "humor" around your colleagues and see what happens to your career.

[Frank Drackman]

You're deluding yourself, I'm articulate, (in multiple languages (OK, 2, my Hebrew and S-panol are at Caveman stage) are you in any? I'm quite literate, I'll stack my resume of great books I've actually read (most of them admittedly during my 7 months in Desert Shield/Storm, No Internets, TV, Movies, Radio (unless you like listening to Arabic religious programs) to yours any day, anyone who's worked in ER's has seen the same.
And, you talkin' bout the back rent, you ain't getting the front rent, you ain't gettin none of it!

Frank

[MoreCurious]

It's obvious that none of those descriptions of yourself are true, Drackman. At best, you have access to Google and Wikipedia so you can try to tone down your idiocy when you're challenged. But no one here -- well, maybe Bob from Ohio -- will ever believe you are anything other than a vulgar, hateful racist with a middle-school education.

[Voize]

Bulletproof glass is bulletproof like stainless steel is stainless.

[Stephen Lathrop]

santamonica811 —

1. I expect this to be an election where polling is less predictive of outcome than get-out-the-vote organizing power will be. But of course the latter is not measured in convenient mathematical increments.

Still, on the basis of news reports which try to delve into the question of commitment by groups with active followings (unions, political sub-groups, ethnic organizations, single-issue organizations, even turncoat opponents' groups) the so-called voter enthusiasm metric looks to favor the Ds, and maybe strongly so.

2. Organization and voter enthusiasm will not matter much if Trump gets a hand over the finish line from a corrupt SCOTUS. In Georgia, for instance, political efforts to empower partisan vote-thwarting by MAGA election deniers are openly being rushed to completion.

What this Court would do if confronted with a case on that conduct may be unknowable, but if so, that is only because of the Court's already-dismaying pro-MAGA partisanship. An honest Court would of course slap down any effort to empower partisan official functionaries to determine an election outcome. The nation does not currently have an honest Court. With this Court sitting, constitutional crisis looks like an imposing rival for political activity with regard to which will determine the nation's fate.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Not a single Justice accepted Trump's claims about the 2020 election.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Because the merits went unaddressed, that is not a rebuttal to anything. But if it were true, that would make the immunity decision more corrupt, not more legitimate.

[Kazinski]

Georgia’s election commission just passed a regulation allowing a reconciliation between the number of voters that voted, and the number of ballots counted.

Is that what you are talking about?
Politics

“GOP-controlled election board in Georgia passes rule that could further delay certification

CNN
—
The Georgia State Election Board passed a rule Monday giving local election officials additional power to investigate ballot counts before certifying the results, a move critics say could inject chaos into the 2024 election and delay the state’s official vote count.

The “Rule for Reconciliation Prior to Certification” will allow for a hand recount of votes to ensure “the total number of ballots cast” does not exceed “the total number of persons who voted,” according to the language of the rule.

County election officials will now be allowed to investigate any possible discrepancies.”

Which means of course if there were 10,000 more ballots counted in previous elections than voters that voted nobody knew about it, because nobody was allowed to check.

[David Nieporent]

Which means of course if there were 10,000 more ballots counted in previous elections than voters that voted nobody knew about it, because nobody was allowed to check.

It does not in fact mean that, of course, people were allowed to check, and did so, and the counts matched.

[Life of Brian]

Each individual county/district would report matching numbers (or, more correctly, the absence of "discrepancy and/or palpable error").

Now the Board gets to check their work.

Shouldn't be a problem for those in favor of transparency and accuracy.

[Commenter_XY]

That was my thought = Shouldn’t be a problem for those in favor of transparency and accuracy.

Whatever a local board does, it must be transparent (and accurate). There were issues with transparency the last time around.

[Josh R]

Only to Guiliani and gang.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Whatever a local board does, it must be transparent (and accurate).

XY — If a local board acts transparently and accurately to thwart delivery of a vote tally until it is too late to be reckoned by Congress, does that satisfy your standard for legitimate election administration?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think a local board can actually have that effect that far up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

My concern would be that any local board administering enough votes to swing the state could have that effect. So how many local boards could do it would depend on how close the election was.

[Kazinski]

Then why were there votes against it on the election board, and CNN is claiming it "could inject chaos" into the process?

There would have been nothing for me to comment on if everyone agreed that its a common sense audit trail.

[David Nieporent]

Well, as described it sounds more like a way to inject delay into the process and perhaps allow the state to pull a Trump and claim that the election was in doubt and therefore the legislature can just pick its own electors.

[Josh R]

The nightmare scenario is when a rogue county board drags their heels beyond the required date for certification. Perhaps Georgia courts steps in and the problem is sovled. But, perhaps they don't or even support the county. Then, Georgia's electoral votes won't be counted on Jan 6, and the election is thrown to Congress if Georgia is the tippin point state (or if other states do likewise).

What would SCOTUS do, if anything? In this case, the challenge would come from the Harris camp trying to undo naked corruption from state officials presumably blessed by state courts.

[Life of Brian]

The new rule (proposed version here, which AFAIK is what they passed) sets a hard certification deadline of 5pm on the Monday following the election (so 6 days for a Tuesday election), where the prior rule appears to have allowed 14 days from election day.

Given that, I'm not quite seeing how your nightmare scenario becomes more likely with the new rule.

[Josh R]

Perhaps that will stop delays or at least convince state courts to not permit delays.

[Randal]

It's pretty weird... it requires investigating any discrepancy, even just a single vote presumably, but only provides one business day to do so. I can see how chaos could ensue. Figuring out how it might unfold would require a deep knowledge of Georgia election law. Which is exactly what makes it stink of gamesmanship by rule-mongering.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Life of Brian — The nightmare scenario is founded on the insight that it is an overtly partisan local board—the members of which Trump publicly praised by name, for their presumptive contributions to his presumptive upcoming, “victory.”

If a board like that chooses to defy the rule, and take the legal consequences, what is the remedy if that overturns an election result by throwing the decision into the House?

American constitutionalism has no room for partisan management of elections, conducted with an eye to determine the outcome, instead of determining the vote count.

[DaveM]

I am a veteran volunteer poll worker in Virginia. We audit the count of voters checked in and ballots cast once an hour while the polls are open. Any discrepancy is cause for an immediate investigation by the poll workers, a call to the Registrar, and an explanation in writing. The Board of Elections in the locality review the investigation before they certify the results, and if they are unsatisfied, the poll workers are called in for further questions.

In the several decades I've been volunteering, the most we have ever been off in a precinct reconciliation is by 2. We have been off by 1 a handful of times, usually by a voter who is issued a ballot, but then decides to walk off with it, instead of casting it.

[SimonP]

I think the only ones we need to worry about are Alito and Thomas, and then the Fifth Circuit.

I do not think that either Barrett or Roberts will want their legacy to be tainted by voting in favor of a spurious election challenge that throws the election to Trump. It's harder to say with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. And then most of the conservative Circuits seem to have a genuine commitment to the rule of law, unlike the Fifth.

[darkknight9]

Anyone out there have an apnea machine or know someone who does?

Do you/they dream more than normal because of it?

[Brett Bellmore]

I have sleep apnea, (Mild) treated with taping my mouth shut to make sure I nose breath. I'd say I probably remember fewer dreams due to it, because I don't wake up so often during the night, and you only remember dreams if you wake during or immediately after them.

[not guilty]

I was diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea many years ago. The BiPAP machine seriously irritated my sinuses, and I was never able to use it comfortably.

I lost about 65 pounds, and I have not had a sleep problem since.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, that is impressive = 65lb loss. For how long have you kept it off?

Relatedly, if you could tell me what are three things that sustained you through that experience (losing weight like that)? What made you persevere?

Elimination of obesity resolves many issues, not just sleep apnea. So when I hear about successful people who did that, I always ask -- how did you do it, how do you sustain it?

I know, not a legal question.

[not guilty]

I kept to a low carb diet for about 18 months. I went from 306 to 240. I have regained a bit of that, but kept most of it off. I was not hungry. I modified some of my recipes. For example, I enjoy a baked ziti cooked in layers with meat sauce and a ricotta/mozzarella/parmesan cheese blend. I substituted zucchini slices for the ziti noodles, and that worked well.

My second wife had numerous health problems until she died in 2006. The immediate cause of death was sleep apnea. It was disturbing to me to be later diagnosed with the same condition.

[Commenter_XY]

I have a lower carb lifestyle as well. It is effective. So, I will make it a point to continue to post keto recipes from my kitchen. As it happens, I ran across an amazing keto bread flour recipe. Has been ‘human tested’* and does not raise blood sugar.

*Now, when I say human tested, I mean my wife uses a continuous glucose monitor and when she ate a few slices, there was no impact to blood sugar for 120 minutes. No spike at all. Not merely you spiked a little and stayed in green zone; I mean no spike. Any CGM user will understand that terminology. She uses Freestyle Libre 2 as the measurement tool. My job was to find the food, and learn how to make it (I did…and do).

Last, I am very sorry about your second wife. I cannot imagine the anguish of losing a life partner. But it happens.

[hobie]

About twelve years ago I made an effort to get a six pack. No matter how much running, exercise and stationary bike I did, I couldn't lose the last of the belly fat. Then I went full keto - zero carbs - and it melted away like magic. But going zero carbs throws you into some kind of fugue state for weeks. The cravings surprised me

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the mitochondria; Except for the ones in the nervous system, they're capable of running off either glucose or ketones, depending on what's available, (The nervous system is glucose only!) but if they've been running primarily on glucose, it takes a while for them to adapt to ketone burning, and during that period you get low blood sugar, which is hard on the brain.

Your liver is capable of manufacturing enough glucose to keep the brain running, even if there are no carbohydrates in your diet, but it can't really produce enough to avoid that low blood sugar if it doesn't have carbohydrates to work with.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, visit 'Victoria's Keto Kitchen' and look for New standard flour 2.0, and do the replacement with oat fiber. Then follow her recipe for bread. It is excellent. Use allulose, it bakes better than anything I have seen, including cyclamates.

The young lady who made the recipe has a bunch of others. All Keto.

[not guilty]

I have a meatloaf in the oven in which I substituted spicy crushed pork rinds for the bread crumbs, a trick I learned while I was on my diet. Low carb and adds flavor, too.

[hobie]

good idea. I saw a chef the other day making chicken parmesan. But she took the skin from the chicken and crisped it in the oven, then blitzed it into crumbs which she mixed with bread crumbs and the usuals to make the coating.

[Commenter_XY]

Atkins diet had a recipe for meatloaf using pork rinds and shredded cheese for the binding agent. I am familiar with that. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

You lost 65 lbs of Ugly Fat? Didn't realize they did such extensive Lipo-suction, Human fat does make the best soap. There are plenty of Skinny Peoples with Sleep Apnea, Allergic Rhinitis, Deviated Septum, Tonsillar Hypertrophy, PTSD, and some Peoples just have lazy soft palates that won't get out of the way. In Desert Shield/Storm we'd sleep 15-20 in a Medium GP Tent, always 2-3 with OSA (in 1991 we didn't call it OSA, we called Them, #$%^&@*! Snorers, I was really surprised none of them got "Blanket Parties" like Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket), it'd get so bad I'd go sleep in the BAS on a friggin litter.

Frank

[Don Nico]

I assume that you mean a CPAP.
I can't say that you dream any more or less using one.

[darkknight9]

Cpap, Bipap, any of them really. 🙂

[Michael P]

We were told that nobody except the MAGA right cared that Dems forced Sleepy Joe to become Ice Floe Joe, and yet... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/17/opinion/election-dnc-convention.html

[Sarcastr0]

Maureen Dowd opinion piece.
You are a silly man.

[Michael P]

Why do you always engage in simple denialism and ad hominems when people point out how wrong you are?

[Sarcastr0]

You appeal to the authority of a Maureen Dowd opinion piece. There is no ad hominem since opinion is not fact.

Dowd has done a 180 on this btw.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/29/opinion/biden-debate-president-exit.html.

[Michael P]

She wrote that piece and the NYT published it. Do you claim they are the MAGA right, or were you wrong that nobody of import cares about Joe Biden being put on an ice floe?

I'm not appealing to her authority to claim she is right -- I'm only pointing to it being published as evidence that some on the left do have the integrity to care about what you claimed they don't care about.

Where do you see any kind of "a 180 on this" between those two pieces? It's consistent to believe both that Joe Biden was sticking out the campaign for stupidly selfish reasons and that getting him to stop by threatening him with the 25th Amendment was effectively a coup.

[Sarcastr0]

You think Maureen Dowd is on the left.

You lose.

[Martinned2]

It's all relative...

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't everything?

[Martinned2]

No. The speed of light is absolute.

[Brett Bellmore]

The speed of light in a vacuum.

And cosmologists are open to the idea that the speed of light has very gradually shifted over cosmic time.

[Martinned2]

Are they? That's interesting? I hadn't heard that. Then again, I'm literally three years behind on the Daniel & Jorge Explain The Universe podcast.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm also behind on my cosmology, but I think this is one possibility among many to address the Type 1a supernova observations that appear to indicate the universe's expansion is accelerating.

A change in c would mess with these observations of old and distant light, which is an alternative to dark energy which goes straight to a mechanism for acceleration.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You think Maureen Dowd is on the left."

LINO!

No True Scotsman, right? Name a political position she has that is not mainstream liberal?

[Sarcastr0]

Other than flipping a 180 on Biden so she can keep complaining about Dems?

"Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating"
"Can Hillary Clinton Cry Herself Back to the White House?
"[In April 2013, President Obama] still has not learned how to govern"
"The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth"

For good fun look up Dowd's column on when she had an edible.

[Bob from Ohio]

Are those "political positions" or just catty comments about political personalities?

You had to go back to April 2013 for one and Gore must be older still.

[Sarcastr0]

I went back to all the Dem candidates during her tenure. She seems to hate them all.

Demanding she have ‘political positions’ given her job is stupid.

Goalpost shift all you want, she’s not of the left. Michael using her as such just shows how little Michael knows about media that’s not as excerpted by righwingnutsos.com

[Bob from Ohio]

"she’s not of the left"

I'm not demanding anything, you made an assertion and just can't defend it

So you accuse me of shifting goal posts. I asked about "positions" and you give me personal animosities. Take the goalpost out of your a**.

[Sarcastr0]

So you would like to that *Michael's* goalpost and replace it with yours, which is not really an applicable one to Dowd's column style.

[Commenter_XY]

This is just as good as the 'actual Democrat' downthread. Quite the definition of Dowd. I take it that Rev Al Sharpton is right of the Carlist party, in Sarcastr0-world.

[Sarcastr0]

I can also tell that something is not a food without having to specifically define the contours of what counts as a food.

Negative definition being easier than positive is a pretty common concept.

[Bob from Ohio]

" I take it that Rev Al Sharpton is right of the Carlist party, in Sarcastr0-world."

Yeah, he defines "left" to make it meaningless, no Dem member of Congress qualifies. They are center-ists! Harris might want wealth confiscation and price controls but she ain't left.

[Sarcastr0]

All I said is Maureen Dowd is not a leftist.

[Randal]

And that was after P said she was a leftist. Why aren't you all piling on P for his unsupported assertion? He's the one who brought it up, it's not on Sarcastr0 to research P's claims.

[hobie]

Ol' Michael sure clutched his pearls quickly, didn't he? Ad hominems....lolololol!

[Martinned2]

I heard that there was a "violent overthrow". I can see why that would worry you. We wouldn't want people to use violence to interfere with US democracy, would we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyRfDuAJ9S4

[jb]

Sure, Biden and his inner circle probably care, which is as far as I can tell what that piece says.

[Michael P]

What is wrong with Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY)? Why does he want women to be raped?

[Frank Drackman]

He's pissed Cums-a-Lot picked Sergeant-Major-Dick-Pepper-Waltz instead of him

[not guilty]

"What is wrong with Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY)? Why does he want women to be raped?"

What on earth are you talking about, Michael P?

[Michael P]

https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1825891912999420296 (video of Beshear expressing his desire on this)

[Sarcastr0]

He doesn't want women to be raped. He wants JDVance to get raped and MPreg.

We've already been over this.

[Mr. Bumble]

So he thinks men can get pregnant?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you ever get jokes?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you ever get jokes?"

The cat lady comment was a joke too then. But that is (D)ifferent.

[Randal]

Oh Bob, it's cute that you try, but try harder please.

[Michael P]

Then I repeat my original question: What is wrong with Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY)?

[Sarcastr0]

What's wrong with him?

Insufficient decorum for a Dem.

Luckily for him, it looks like no one cares anymore about that; the GOP's managed to peg the saying outrageous shit needle hard enough even Dems don't need to pretend to be cool as cucumbers.

You're reading from an old playbook.

[not guilty]

Governor Beshear did not there call for women to be raped. He was lampooning Senator James David Hamel Bowman Vance's characterization of pregnancy resulting from rape as "inconvenient." He said, "Make him go through this."

It is arguable that during his hyperbole he called for Vance to be raped. As in, that would be poetic justice. I doubt that that would result in pregnancy, however.

[Michael P]

Saying "he ACKCHYUALLY meant this physiologically impossible thing" does not even start to answer the question of what is wrong with him.

[Sarcastr0]

"Michael P can go fuck himself."

"ACKCHYUALLY this is physiologically impossible, sir!"

[not guilty]

I am not the one who posited that the governor wants women to be raped, doofus. I don't accept the premise of your rhetorical question.

[Michael P]

Your alternate explanation of Beshear’s comment is that Beshear wants J. D. Vance to go through a (male) post-rape pregnancy. No matter which variety of rape Beshear was wishing for, the original question stands.

[Armchair]

A reasonable interpretation would be that Beshear wanted a female member of Vance's family to be raped.

[Sarcastr0]

A reasonable interpretation is he's pissed off at the lack of empathy Vance is showing and for other people.

[Michael P]

Being pissed off excuses calls for illegal violence against opposing politicians and their families, according to today's Democrats.

July 13 was only 40 days ago.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha sure, dude he was inviting people to rape JD Vance and his family.

You really are a ridiculous person.

[Michael P]

I am not the one who emphasized that Beshear was very specifically targeting Vance by saying “make him go through this”, dude.

Stop beclowning yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, I was very serious when I was talking about MPreg. Good catch.

You very serious human patriotic American.

[not guilty]

“I am not the one who emphasized that Beshear was very specifically targeting Vance by saying “make him go through this”, dude.”

No, you are the one who posited upthread that Governor Beshear “want[s] women to be raped.” Whatever he does or does not want to see happen to J. D. Vance, he did not say that he wants women to be raped.

Don’t run away like a scalded dog from your foolishness. Own it! (Or perhaps you just don't understand what a woman is.)

[Michael P]

Got it. You guys really like putting on the clown makeup. Rather than admit what Beshear meant or try to defend it, you go full DARVO.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

They're both repeatedly informed you that your interpretation of his remarks is asinine; you're just too fucking stupid to realize it and keep insisting that you're right.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay. But Vance literally cannot "go through" the experience of the State forcing him to birth the child of his rapist. Even if that happened to a family member or loved one...he still can't go through it. Its impossible. Which is the point. It's easy for him to make sanctimonious pronouncements on this topic because it is actually impossible for him to be in a similar position. The most that can happen is that he can be close to someone this happened to. Which is not and never will be the same thing. It's like how having cancer or being shot are actually not the same thing as knowing someone with cancer or being shot, no matter what the emotional toll is!

[Randal]

Can we talk about P's newfound love of "beclowning?" It's been a few weeks now since it came up on his word-of-the-day calendar and he's still at it.

Let's hope he never encounters "befouling" or "bedeviling" or we'll never hear the end of it.

[Armchair]

And expressed that "pissed off" attitude by declaring a want for a member of Vance's family to be raped.

[Sarcastr0]

Still fucking this chicken, Armchair?

[Armchair]

So now you support raping of a political opponent's family?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not denying the chicken-thing...

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of people telling Armchair his supposed outrage here is ridiculous.

But you can’t shame a man like Armchair into acting normal.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Right-wingers getting all huffy about this is interesting considering how many of them openly hope liberals are victims of violent attacks by immigrants/black people and the cops don't show up.

Also how much they enjoy prison rape.

Also how much they don't care about using rape as an authoritarian tactic or weapon of war.

[Armchair]

Sounds like you've got some projection there.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You know projection isn't just some kind of argument winning magic word, right? It only applies if you're clearly taking something from your personality and applying it to someone else. But that's not the case here because my perception of right-wing views on rape are generated by the things they say themselves. I see them saying shit like this all the time. I see people celebrate or make excuses for Pinochet and other authoritarian movements. I see them make prison rape jokes all the time. I mean right-wing extremists in Israel recently rioted in support of soldiers who raped prisoners and didn't even deny it.

There can't be projection from me onto the right when the right-wing approach to this topic is completely out in the open.

[Armchair]

And I'm sure you have "some" links on this supposed things they say

[Michael P]

UK judge refuses bail for a "curious bystander" (with a clean record) at a riot who left the area because he thought the rioting went too far: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/09/judge-refuses-bail-riot-bystanders-belfast/

One would be right if one thought this might lead to overcrowding jails, but the UK is releasing existing prisoners early -- by the thousands -- to make room for curious bystanders and those who post offensive comments online.

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if the press doesn't always report criminal cases accurately!

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2024/08/14/two-tier-justice-cutting-through-the-online-myths/

[Michael P]

The judge quoted in the article I cited says that your prolix source is wrong:

Judge Rafferty said: “He doesn’t have to throw a petrol bomb or brick to be involved in disorder, if he’s present at disorder.”

The piece you cite sounds a lot like Snopes, in that it picks different examples and different quotes than most people would expect in order to build a straw man.

[Martinned2]

Have you read the judge's full judgment, or just the one sentence that the right-wing British press pulled out of context, which suits your priors about right wing thugs being the victims here?

[Michael P]

First figure out whether having kids is murder, and maybe then you will be able to make an actual argument instead of relying on me to make your argument for you.

[Martinned2]

Changing the topic much?

Read the judgment. This is meant to be a legal blog. The people here shouldn't need the Secret Barrister to know how terrible journalists are at reporting legal stories, particularly when they have an ideological axe to grind.

[Michael P]

We also don't need to read the Secret Barrister to know that one of the core jobs of lawyers is to be zealous advocates, often to the point of focusing on misleading details and distorted arguments. Or to know that you were the one trying to change the topic rather than support your actual assertion.

In the US, a court wouldn't normally make that kind of assertion unless it was relevant to the decision. If your argument is that it is dicta, then showing that is your burden. It doesn't become my job just because you have a link that asserts the court's statement is wrong.

[Randal]

Wait ok. Your question is, might a US court make an assertion like

He doesn’t have to throw a petrol bomb or brick to be involved in disorder, if he’s present at disorder.

in any possible context?

I mean, the only really problematic part of that is the word “petrol.” Otherwise it seems pretty self-evident. Lots of cases in the US go down that way. Gang of white supremacists leave Trump rally and beat up a Black kid. One claims he didn’t actally do any of the beating up. “He doesn’t have to throw a punch to be involved in disorder, if he’s present at disorder.”

[John F. Carr]

The one sentence that sticks with me:

There is an incentive to plead guilty – a defendant will usually receive a third off any sentence by pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The two to three year wait for trial on serious charges is also noteworthy.

[Martinned2]

Yes, I'm not a fan of significant discounts for guilty pleas either. In my field, antitrust, settling with the competition authority gets you 20% off your fine if you do it before the SO, and 10% if you do it after, exactly because a higher discount than that risks incentivising people to settle who aren't actually guilty.

[Brett Bellmore]

Most people don't have any comprehension how stacked against the defendant the legal system is. For defendants of ordinary means, even an acquittal is going to leave them ruined; "The process IS the punishment." So that almost everybody plea bargains, and prosecutors very seldom have to actually prove their charges in court.

[Martinned2]

In the UK the resource constraints that John F. Carr mentioned weigh the other way. If you refuse the plea bargain you know you're not going to trial for years, and who knows what might happen in the meantime.

[Martinned2]

P.S. You're not going to trial for years unless the offence you're accused of is so serious that you have to be detained pending trial. There are hard legal limits on how long an accused can be held in pre-trial detention.

[John F. Carr]

The post you linked said it was not a hard deadline.

In the USA the Speedy Trial Act says a defendant is supposed to be brought to trial within 70 days of being charged. A wait of a year would be more usual.

[Randal]

Most people on the right don’t have any comprehension how stacked against the defendant the legal system is.

FIFY

Though this is starting to improve now that the cops have shown more of a willingness to arrest violent white people.

[Brett Bellmore]

Recall that most people aren’t really on the right OR left, at least half the population is generally apolitical. So I stand by my original formulation, even if we were to credit the idea that most people on the left really comprehend how stacked the system is. Which I doubt, unless you're engaged in a somewhat circular definition of the "left".

[Randal]

You switched from "have any comprehension" to "really comprehend." Most people on the left have some comprehension of how stacked against the defendant the legal system is. Have you noticed how we're consistently working to de-stack the system? Or do you have some fantasy bad-faith conspiracy theory in mind for why we pursue those policies?

[John F. Carr]

In ultra-liberal suburbia where I live the left is of the "let them eat cake" variety. They don't get hit with anything they can't write a small check to handle. The choice between paying a fine and paying the rent never comes up.

By numbers the urban poor dominate, and a lot of them know somebody who lost a fight with the system. By influence the suburban rich dominate.

[Kazinski]

I'd be willing to bet that the UK has moved into the top 10 worldwide in political prisoners ("defined as jailed for peaceably expressing or supporting views the government opposes"). Right up there with China, the Saudis, and Iran.

[Martinned2]

Given how many people the US locks up for just about anything, statistically it has to top the list.

[Sarcastr0]

I’d be willing to bet that the UK has moved into the top 10 worldwide in political prisoners

You should
1) read up on the rest of the word.
2) go on more than vibes.

Start by looking at Saudi Arabia. Bangladesh. Thailand.

Too much DailyMail will poison your brain.

[Kazinski]

Read up on the rest of the world?

I just got back from Cambodia Saturday, where they at least threw 5 people in jail for Facebook posts while i was there.

I saw hundreds of military police mobilizing to attack planned demonstrations (which didn't materialize) over a planned free trade agreement for 13 remote provinces in Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, close to where the Mekong crosses the Lao border.

But yet I can confidently say that right now the UK has at least 5 times as many political prisoners as does Cambodia.
My Wife’s in Thailand now, I was supposed to go with her, but had to come back to the states a little early.

I spent 6 weeks in Turkey in 2022, which does not have a pristine record tolerating political dissent. Erdogan may be worse than Starmer right now, but Starmer is just getting started.

Pull your blinders off, and quit trying to say its not really a problem unless they are in the top 5, or have fewer than 10k in prison for non-violent speech.

Ever since James 2, they’ve led the world in tolerance for political expression, now they are at least in the bottom half or even bottom quintile.

They should be better than this, and its painful to watch because they taught the rest of the world what they themselves have now forgotten.

[Sarcastr0]

You can confidently say. '

Well then!

Visiting a country is not really a great way to gather data on the number of political prisoners they have.

I'm not saying I love the UK policies on speech, I'm saying you are making some very broad claims and your source is...you visited some countries?

Come on, man. Check yourself. Do some research. Because you're heavy on rhetoric and vibes and light on facts.

https://www.state.gov/over-1500-political-prisoners-in-belarus/

[Kazinski]

Don’t make this too easy.

Belarus has 1500 political prisoners in custody, And is shamefully one of the worst in the world.

Since Starmer came in there have been 400 arrested for demonstrations and rioting. But from what I can see 90% of those charged or at least convicted are not charged with actual violence. You can tell they haven’t been violent because there is zero deaths and almost no injuries.

Yet 400 people have been arrested and charged.(https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/why-are-there-riots-uk-who-is-behind-them-2024-08-07/).

In 6 weeks the UK hasn’t been able to imprison even a third of what the total is from decades of repression in Belarus. At this rate it would take almost a year for the UK to surpass Belarus total of 1500.

I congratulate Starmer on his restraint, but I am not confident i won’t be congratulating him in a year for passing Belarus.

[Randal]

Have you never watched the coverage of a "mostly peaceful" protest in this country? 400 people arrested is peanuts. Close to 10,000 were arrested in the George Floyd protests. And your side to this day claims that was too little!

[Brett Bellmore]

That's because "mostly peaceful" is a lie. Left-wing standards of "mostly peaceful" somehow involve cars catching fire and stores being looted, I've noticed.

I suppose even a boxing match is "mostly peaceful", if you only count the instants when the punches land as "violent".

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-george-floyd-protests-in-los-angeles-differ-from-1992-riots-11591263005

It's been years. And yet at this late date you are still utterly impervious to facts about the 2020 protests being different than the riots.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, that's paywalled, but I can't imagine how you think it supports your case.

"Protesters are targeting wealthier neighborhoods, a marked change from the unrest that followed the acquittal of officers who beat Rodney King"

"Protesters marched through Venice Beach, chanted George Floyd’s name downtown and knelt in the middle of Sunset Boulevard. Graffiti and broken glass covered a trendy shopping district. National guard troops with assault rifles blocked access to businesses that had been looted."

Man, nothing says "peaceful" like broken glass and looted stores. You can literally smell the peace on the air, watch out, some of that smoke might be carcinogenic.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn’t hear it from me, Brett, but use https://archive.is/.

4th paragraph down. I guess just more proof WSJ is another leftist org:

“compared with 1992, the new unrest in Los Angeles has been more organized, more peaceful, and largely centered in the city’s wealthier areas, as well as downtown, where the government of America’s second most-populous city is based.”

Plenty of other examples as well.
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/
"While the US has long been home to a vibrant protest environment, demonstrations surged to new levels in 2020. Between 24 May and 22 August, ACLED records more than 10,600 demonstration events across the country. Over 10,100 of these — or nearly 95% — involve peaceful protesters. Fewer than 570 — or approximately 5% — involve demonstrators engaging in violence"

[Brett Bellmore]

"More" peaceful doesn't mean actually peaceful, Sarcastr0. Not when you've got broken glass and looted stores. Reading your link, they don't seem to consider property damage and looting to be "violent".

It's just an anodyne way of saying "a bit less violent". But you could be a lot less violent than the Rodney King riots, and still not be "peaceful" for any normal standard of what constitutes peace.

I've been to actual peaceful protests, where you had women pushing strollers around with babies, and people detailed to clean the place up afterwards. I know what an actual peaceful protest looks like, and it doesn't involve broken glass, it doesn't even involve graffiti.

I'll be blunt: I don't think the left actually understands what it means to protest peacefully. You think that as long as you're not assaulting people at a given instant, you're protesting peacefully.

[Sarcastr0]

Semantics.
Nearly 95%.

You are, as I said, immune to facts.

Which tells us a lot about what you want to believe, and it's not pretty.

[bernard11]

I’ll be blunt: I don’t think the left actually understands what it means to protest peacefully. You think that as long as you’re not assaulting people at a given instant, you’re protesting peacefully.

Standard Bellmore. Some relatively small number of the protestors engage in vandalism and suddenly "the left" doesn't understand peaceful protest.

Yeah. Let's lump everyone in with the few assholes, - who may (or may not) in fact have been opportunists and not protestors - so you can condemn "the left" en masse.

Do right-wing protests ever get violent?

[Brett Bellmore]

See, you actually think violence is a normal part of political protest. Smash a few windows, grab a bit of jewelry, maybe set a car on fire. Why is everybody freaking out?

You've normalized political violence, in your own minds anyway, so that you won't call a protest "violent" unless it's especially violent.

Are right-wing protests occasionally violent? Yeah, these days they sometimes are, shamefully. And when they are?

They're violent protests, not "peaceful" ones.

[Sarcastr0]

See, you actually think violence is a normal part of political protest

No one said anything like this.

You’ve normalized political violence
No one said anything like this!!

you won’t call a protest “violent” unless it’s especially violent.
NO ONE IS SAYING THIS

For fuck's sake Brett putting words in our mouths and calling us terrorists!!

[bernard11]

you actually think violence is a normal part of political protest. Smash a few windows, grab a bit of jewelry, maybe set a car on fire. Why is everybody freaking out?

You’ve normalized political violence, in your own minds anyway, so that you won’t call a protest “violent” unless it’s especially violent.

Not what I said, Brett. What I said is, essentially, that sometimes assholes show up, that sometimes there are criminals who don't give a crap about the protest but see an opportunity for some looting or whatnot.

You know, it's a mystery to me but there are people who enjoy violence and take every opportunity to engage in it. If they do that in the vicinity of a protest it is unreasonable to blame the protestors. Arrest the criminals, and drop the whole collective guilt theme.

[Randal]

Are you suggesting that the UK protests are entirely peaceful? What are you talking about?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not sure where you got that number but how many were prosecuted?

[Sarcastr0]

A moment's Google.
https://apnews.com/article/american-protests-us-news-arrests-minnesota-burglary-bb2404f9b13c8b53b94c73f818f6a0b7

Not that your goal is to learn anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

How many were prosecuted?

[Sarcastr0]

https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8

For more examples that wreck your sealioning and narrative, do your own research.

[Mr. Bumble]

Il douche strikes again linking to a 3 year old article.

[Randal]

Yeah... and the protests we're talking about happened four years ago. Seems timely to me! There can only have been more prosecutions since then, not less.

Are you seriously retarded, Mr. Bumble?

[Sarcastr0]

So you made statement about how high the number of political prisoners is. But you did no work on the numbers for other countries, and for the UK itself you're defending the *rioters*.

What the fuck, Kaz? When did you start defending violent skinheads?

400 arrested for demonstrations and rioting

So not political prisoners. A bunch of them did crimes.

You link to a story about riots as well.

BTW many of these riots are actually targeting minorities for violence; more of a pogrum than a riot.

In 6 weeks the UK hasn’t been able to imprison even a third of what the total is from decades of repression in Belarus.
So YOU WERE WRONG.

Don't go all in on this if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[David Nieporent]

Belarus has 1500 political prisoners in custody, And is shamefully one of the worst in the world.

Since Starmer came in there have been 400 arrested

Um, notice how you switched from "in custody" to "arrested" in mid post?

[David Nieporent]

But yet I can confidently say that right now the UK has at least 5 times as many political prisoners as does Cambodia.

As Brett proves here every day, confidence is not actually a substitute for knowledge.

[Commenter_XY]

If America is not careful, America will fall into that same trap = defined as jailed for peaceably expressing or supporting views the government opposes

[Martinned2]

Exactly. Before you know it you can't even peacably burn a cross in front of someone's house anymore! https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/22/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-22-1998-5/

[Michael P]

The nursery school rhyme I learned didn't go "sticks and stones will break my bones but words are literally murder".

[Martinned2]

Maybe if it had been you wouldn't be spending so much time writing hateful things on the internet.

[Michael P]

Great comment. You're vigorously exercising your First Amendment rights to say hatefully stupid things.

Oh, wait, the First Amendment doesn't protect you. Good luck!

[Martinned2]

It doesn't? What makes you think that? You think that the US government can constitutionally punish me for writing mean things about you on the internet?

[OtisAH]

Michael P writes *painfully* stupid things, not “hatefully” stupid things. Any hate in his posts is incidental to his stupidity.

[Armchair]

Looks like the Democratic in Chicago finally found a group that they didn't want to see a protest for, so they denied their permits.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/20/opinion/chicago-dems-let-anti-israel-protesters-march-but-block-pro-israel-jews/

Can't be letting them "protest" now.

[Sarcastr0]

Among actual Democrats it’s the refusal to treat with Uncommitted’s Abbas Alawieh that’s causing the minor drama.

And Netanyahu meeting with Trump is kinda fucked up. Shades of Reagan and the hostages and Nixon and Vietnam peace talks.

Meanwhile Trump is attacking Jewish governor Shapiro. American Jewish outreach doesn’t seem on the agenda.

[Armchair]

Have you learned how to apologize for your lies and blood libel yet? Once you do, you can come back.

[Commenter_XY]

My questions:
What (or who) is an 'actual' Democrat and who decides that status?
What (or who) is 'not' an actual Democrat, and who decides that status?

[Sarcastr0]

Feel free to go deep into who counts as an actual Democrat.

Point is, Armchair and NY Post aren't it.

[Commenter_XY]

I believe I quoted you, Sarcastr0, your term. Not mine.

[Sarcastr0]

1. There was a time not long ago you'd call someone out for false accusations of blood libel.

2. I don't need to completely define the term to push back on Armchair's outsider's take as being ignorant.

[Armchair]

Actually I believe it was Commenter who pointed out your blood libel originally.,

[Sarcastr0]

Then one of you should be able to provide a link.

[not guilty]

Armchair, what do you think that "blood libel" actually means? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

[Armchair]

Hi NG,

First, thanks for the mea culpa above. It's appreciated.

Second, that's a good question.
Historically, a blood libel has been the lie that a Jew had killed an innocent Christian in order to use their blood for some religious ceremony (like baking into Matzo bread for passover), and used to incite hatred against the Jews.

Now, if you replace "Christian" with "Muslim"....is it still a blood libel? In my opinion, yes. What if it's not a religious ceremony, but just imagery of a Jew feasting upon a Palestinian baby. Still blood libel? Again, in my opinion yes. The Anti-defamation league likewise uses a wider definition that is not strictly limited to an act against a Christian.

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/blood-libel-accusations-resurface-wake-oct-7

So what is blood libel? In my opinion, is has 4 elements.
1. A lie.
2. Of Jews murdering some innocent person(s) of another religion
3. For some morally wrong or deviant reason
4. Designed to incite hatred against the Jews.

And that's what Sarcastr0 is accused of. Now...he may have made an honest mistake. But he doubled down on his statement and refused to apologize.

And I'm sure Sarcastr0 disagrees with the wider definition used by the antidefamation league. He'd prefer to defame the Jews as much as possible without being called out on it.

Does that help?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Thanks. Now we know that what you mean when you say "blood libel" is simply what you wish it meant.

[Commenter_XY]

It would be wonderful to get an actual answer to the questions. In particular, who is 'not' an actual Democrat. I have close family who identify as Democrat.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not going to gatekeep who is a Dem no matter how many times you invite me to.

I am comfortable saying Armchair and NY Post are not Dems, and speak for them only in as much as they want to create a strawDem to attack.

[Sarcastr0]

Source your accusations, Armchair.

[Armchair]

You've repeatedly lied on this forum, and refused to apologize for it.
Anyone can search the forum and find them.

Learn to apologize.

[Sarcastr0]

Suddenly no blood libel? And of course you’ve got no sources.

Maybe stop making ridiculous accusations if you can’t back them up.

[Armchair]

If it was "ridiculous"...why did you bring up your blood libel so angrily?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't like being falsely accused of blood libel. You fucking asshole.

[Armchair]

Did you, or did you not accuse Jews of willingly and deliberately killing innocent Palestinian Children?

[Sarcastr0]

Nope. Haven’t done that. You fucking asshole.

[Armchair]

Yes. You have,

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/16/thursday-open-thread-164/?comments=true#comments

Blood Libel.

Which you have failed to apologize for. Because, let's face it...you're antisemitic.

Don't miss how the OP was Jews being refused a permit to protest in Chicago, and you just completely disregarded that.

[not guilty]

Armchair, since you linked that November 16, 2023 comment thread, I looked up Sarcastr0's comments there. He indeed did not accuse Jews of willingly and deliberately killing innocent Palestinian Children. Did you think no one would click the link?

He did comment, "I’m sorry but I don’t see the military necessity of this kind of action. And the indiscriminate bombing continues, by and large." No reference to Jews, to killing, to innocence, nor to Palestinian children.

And nothing remotely approaching "blood libel."

[David Nieporent]

Rather than linking to a place where Sarcastr0 actually said that, Armchair links to a thread with over 900 comments in it, none of which say what he claims. The closest thing to it is Sarcastr0 accusing Israel of bombing "indiscriminately," which — true or not — is literally the opposite of "willingly and deliberately killing" anyone, including "innocent Palestinian Children."

[Armchair]

Commenter's comments afterwards make it clear, the context, the replication of Hamas's lines.

I recommend others fully read it.

Perhaps Sarcastr0 was accidentally repeating the lines that Hamas used. But...he did not apologize for it. He insisted on the lie.

[Armchair]

But don't believe me. Believe Israel's antisemitism envoy.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-senator-accused-of-invoking-blood-libel-in-easter-post-about-idf-in-gaza/

[David Nieporent]

But don’t believe me. Believe Israel’s antisemitism envoy.

Weirdly, that link doesn't mention any comment of Sarcastr0 at all.

[Sarcastr0]

So now that it’s clear you have been irresponsible and wrong accusing me of blood libel, will you quit making the accusation over and order, or will I need to link to this exchange each time so everyone can see your shamefulness?

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastro, since you asked. This was you 9 months ago.

Sarcastr0 9 months ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I’m sorry but I don’t see the military necessity of this kind of action. And the indiscriminate bombing continues, by and large.

What’s the necessity of a controlled demolition of the parliamentary building.

Retribution against Hamas has drifted to license to do some anti-Palestinian stuff, as I was concerned about.

I fear this is going to be a bloody transition to a status quo that is worse for everyone.

That was a blood libel….indiscriminate bombing, my ass. You demand Israel adhere to some impossible standard you do not hold others to. You are a liar.

[Sarcastr0]

Well you can fuck yourself, Commenter.

That is not blood libel, and going to that trigger so easily only makes devalues the accusation.

And makes you a fucking asshole to boot.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I choose to believe that you spoke out of ignorance at that time. My inclination (based on your comment history of a decade+) is to think better, not the worse, of you. That is a practical application of the law of lenity, I believe. And it is consistent with my faith.

Sarcastr0, I don't think you understood that falsely accusing Israel of indiscriminately bombing civilians is a blood libel, as it implies the intentional murder of innocent civilians, and an indifference to the value and worth of human life. That is simply is not the case in gaza. Israel did, and continues to this very day, make extraordinary efforts that no other armed forces make to preserve human life. We are commanded to choose life, and Israel does. The IDF holds itself to the highest standards, and when malfeasance happens (and lets be honest, it does), it is exposed, and adjudicated in a transparent, defined legal process in accountable courts of law.

Think about what has happened to the Jews when false accusations (whether inadvertent or not) were made in the past.

[Randal]

Sorry XY, Sarcastr0's right, you're an asshole devaluing "blood libel" and antisemitism in general.

Indiscriminate bombing is a very common critique of overzealous militaries. It's been made against Russia. Russia has made it against Ukraine. Israel's made it against Hezbollah.

So... what the fuck?

[Josh R]

Perhaps XY, you are reaching conclusions on Israel’s conduct that none of us in this forum have the information required to reach. The same applies to those who accuse Israel of war crimes.

Also, falsely accusing Israel of war crimes is not automatically a blood libel against Jews.

[grb]

Armchair : (“ridiculous”)

Reading Armchair’s toxic flailing bullshit reminds me of a story I just read: The Pillow guy shaves off his mustache to “sneak” into the DNC. There he gets into a screaming debate over his election lies with (no joke) a twelve year old boy.

And Lindell loses. That’s the state of today’s Right. Maybe Armchair would have better luck if he found a little kid to rail against. But twelve is definitely aiming too high. Maybe nine or ten…..

[not guilty]

I wonder how much stock anyone should put in an opinion column by Jonathan Turley (a notorious Trump mouthpiece) which fails to link original source materials from municipal decision makers.

[Armchair]

All you got is an ad hominem?

[Sarcastr0]

Does this count as ad hominem: "Have you learned how to apologize for your lies and blood libel yet? Once you do, you can come back."

Source your accusation.

[Kazinski]

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Jews have to meet in secret at Democratic convention.

"Holocaust survivor and former ADL director Abraham Foxman expressed concern that the situation for Jews in the US has deteriorated to a point where Jews had to meet in secret at events like the Democratic Party National Convention."
https://x.com/Jerusalem_Post/status/1826366426950648180?t=g8aIGaBRr7GSiiGgg_IC0w&s=19

That's not weird, but maybe it should be.

[Kazinski]

The Jerusalem Post comments do point out the ADL itself is partly to blame:
"ADL’s Greenblatt took the lead in attacking then-President Trump… he took it upon the ADL and himself to align with America’s most Leftist and Progressive groups to attack the greatest friend that Israel ever had. As such, the ADL is partially responsible for October 7th. Gteenblatt’s heroes Harris & Biden gave Iran billions to use to finance Hamas & Hezbollah. The ADL is shortsighted and dangerous… that they now have to hide in Chicago is a result of Greenblatt’s mistakes."

[Commenter_XY]

When the ADL took an overtly political turn, under Greenblatt, it went downhill. The ADL lost their sense of altruistic mission, of working for a higher purpose. Now they are merely one voice in a common cacophony, and it shows.

I see the ACLU similarly = lost their mission

[Bob from Ohio]

Greenblatt has been solid over Gaza and the Jew hating frenzy that inspired on the left.

[Commenter_XY]

I suppose being late to a party is better than not bothering to attend = Greenblatt

[Brett Bellmore]

The ACLU's mission all along was to protect the left from the right. As they needed at least the support of the middle to have any hope of succeeding, they adopted a policy of defending everybody's civil rights. This gave them a patina of impartiality that made their defense of the left look principled. But it was never principled, you could see that in their recruiting literature, for instance, where they always highlighted defending the left against the right, but never the cases where they successfully defended the right. And in the way they adopted a totally tendentious 'interpretation' of the 2nd amendment in order to avoid defending a right the left didn't like, but which was popular on the right.

They were willing to have enough right-wing members to create an illusion of being non-partisan, but didn't want to risk attracting enough right-wing civil libertarians that the illusion might end up being real.

The problem is that eventually the left gained enough power that they no longer needed defending from the right. The primary threat to civil liberties was now from the left, and thus no threat to the left, only to the left's enemies. So the ACLU finds itself in a position where, if they impartially defend civil liberties, almost all their work will be opposing their own side. A bit of a conflict of interest.

[Commenter_XY]

There was a time, Brett, when the ACLU was deeply unpopular, but also principled. I am thinking of Skokie, IL specifically. And numerous successful lawsuits protecting the civil liberties of blacks circa late 1950's thru mid-70's.

[bernard11]

More Brett fantasies.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Unfalsifiable fantasies.

[Michael P]

I admit I can't carry a tune, but I can usually keep at least a little bit close to the target tempo. That was apparently too hard for these women: https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1825982990947590297

[Mr. Bumble]

Not much new in Trump Law going on for NG to pontificate on. Seems like the most burning issue is what will Judge Juan Javert do when it comes to sentencing on September 18.
Trump's lawyers have motioned to delay this until after the election and it is unopposed by DA Bragg's office.

[Kazinski]

I can't see them sentencing Trump until they at least address the effect of the immunity ruling on the trial, which isn't a final verdict until sentencing.

SCOTUS pretty clearly said that the testimony of Hope Hicks, which was quite important, was not allowed. The conversation with Hicks that she testified about was an official act. And the content of the conversation went to motive.

I wonder if Roberts was thinking about anything specific when he wrote that.

[Armchair]

And in other news, the Biden DoJ continues to use lawfare to punish whistleblowers.

This time it's the tax agents that exposed Hunter's corruption. Hunter decided to sue the IRS (and them). Normally, this would simply prompt a request to dismiss the lawsuit by the IRS. But the IRS's position here is...funny

"The IRS opposes dismissal and purportedly wants ‘to wait for a fully developed factual record to present its defenses.’ In other words, the IRS wants the parties to engage in written discovery and depositions, even if unnecessary to resolve this case in its favor … oddly inviting needless discovery that defendants would normally seek to avoid."

Ah, lawfare. This is one of those "The government and private party conspire together in a lawsuit to get around the law" deals.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.259799/gov.uscourts.dcd.259799.32.0.pdf

[Michael P]

Does a delay in this case collaterally delay a case where Biden is the defendant? I can't figure out why the government would care about dragging out this suit.

[Armchair]

Because it helps punish the IRS whistleblowers, subjecting them to discovery and other legal nonsense.

[not guilty]

I have read the document that Armchair links to only in part, but for those who want to read it in context (I haven't yet), here is the complete docket. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67803785/biden-v-united-states-internal-revenue-service/

[Kenneth Almquist]

Thanks.

It looks like the motion to dismiss that Shapley and Ziegler want to file is a loser. They mention 26 U.S. Code § 6103 (f)(5), but that covers disclosures to Congress, not to the public. They also mention a “public domain exception” to the tax secrecy laws. I haven’t looked that up, but I would hazard a guess that this is inaplicable at the present time because there is no evidence in the record that the information disclosed by the agents had previously been made public.

Shapley and Ziegler don’t propose to file a motion to dismiss and then go away. Instead, they note that, “As intervenor parties, they would have the opportunity to raise legal and factual issues, objections, and defenses that would impact the scope of discovery.”

One possible reason for the IRS to oppose the motion to intervene would be if they plan to introduce evidence showing that much of the information disclosed by the agents was already in the public domain, and then ask the court to apply the “public domain exception.” If so, they would rather this be the first time the Court considered that issue, rather than being forced to go to the Court and say, “I know you’ve already ruled that the exception doesn’t apply, but we’d like you to reconsider your ruling in light of new evidence.”

[David Nieporent]

And in other news, the Biden DoJ continues to use lawfare to punish whistleblowers.

Setting aside everything else wrong with what you're said, nothing in here involves "punishing" anyone.

[Armchair]

Ever hear the phrase "the process is the punishment"?

[David Nieporent]

Ever hear the phrase “the process is the punishment”?

Um, the so-called whistleblowers are injecting themselves into the process. The DOJ didn't bring them into it; indeed, it's trying to keep them out of it.

[Armchair]

By inviting full discovery? Rather than a quick dismissal?

[David Nieporent]

The government moved for a quick dismissal on the claims for which quick dismissal was available. The rest of the so-called whistleblowers' motion requires discovery, because it relies on facts outside the pleadings.

[Michael P]

Setting aside the pathos of Candace Owens turning herself into a train wreck, this is funny: https://babylonbee.com/news/it-was-the-jews-screams-candace-owens-on-first-round-of-clue/

[Commenter_XY]

I know, Abe Foxman is crazy when he says, 'Jews have to meet in secret at DNC'

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-815794

"After 50 years fighting antisemitism in America, I could not have imagined a time Jews would have to meet in secret locations in Chicago at DNC"

[Sarcastr0]

Josh Shapiro was a speaker at the DNC last night.

The Dem candidate is married to a Jewish man.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well then nothing to see here, folks!

[Sarcastr0]

Come on Noscitur.

"Foxman’s concern came after a Tuesday Agudath Israel of America DNC event on rising antisemitism against Orthodox Jews was disrupted by anti-Israel activists." That's all this is about.

This DNC is the party of antisemitism rot is just partisan nonsense. As can be seen by their continued support of and by Jews.

Doesn't mean there are not clear issues that remain, but the push being made here is way more than that.

Tis 'Dems are where the antisemitism is' and 'Dems are the party of Hamas' is and remains a lie that does more harm than good.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Josh Shapiro was a speaker at the DNC last night.
The Dem candidate is married to a Jewish man."

Some of our best friends are Jews!

[Commenter_XY]

They are truly blind, and do not see it. It is incredible.

[Sarcastr0]

You turn a blind eye to those who call me antisemetic and accuse me of blood libel.

Dunno if you're the one to be judging who is blind here. Your definition of antisemitism seems to be tied to what party you support more than facts on the ground.

[bernard11]

Are you looking in a mirror?

I doubt Harris is going to be having dinner with Nick Fuentes any time soon.

I don't see a lot of Democrats shouting "the Jews will not replace us," or being motivated by that bit of hatred to shoot up a synagogue.

[Bob from Ohio]

"dinner with Nick Fuentes"

Don't know if she ate with this dude.

"During a campaign trip to Michigan earlier this month, Harris met with Abdullah Hammoud, the 34-year-old mayor of Dearborn, a Detroit suburb that has the largest number of Arab Americans of any city in the United States." BridgeMichigan

[LawTalkingGuy]

And that’s the same thing because…

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe consider the company Abdullah keeps, LTG?

[LawTalkingGuy]

What company? Lebanese people? Palestinians? Arabs? Muslims? These are rhetorical questions. We both know that's what you mean. But unfortunately for you, I'm not a bigot so "considering" the "company" you think he shouldn't keep tells me nothing about the man. It does tell me a lot about you and Bob, however. Specifically that you think the Vice President meeting with the Muslim mayor of an American city with a large Arab/Muslim population is the moral equivalent of Trump himself having dinner with a Holocaust-denying open Neo-Nazi. If you actually had something equivalent, you both would have posted it. But since you don't, all you have is rank bigotry and insinuation.

[Sarcastr0]

They call this guilt by association, and it is not a great way to prove things.

In this case, double association.

Shamefully weak attempt to tar Harris with antisemitism. As I've said, using this stuff as a partisan tool is a horrible idea.

[hobie]

Heh, remember when Doug Emhoff got on stage and gave a his full-throated speech about how great being a Jew is. And then the whole convention crowd cheered. Good times

[Armchair]

An in other weird news, apparently Tim Walz has been lying about how his kids were born through IVF.

Odd thing to lie about. Maybe he just pathologically lies?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2024/08/21/the-pathological-shamelessness-of-tim-walz-n2643611

[Michael P]

I saw a note on Substack pretending to "fact check" that. It came to the conclusion that saying IVF somehow wasn't really a lie because maybe Walz didn't understand what they did, or maybe he thought the audience was too dumb to understand the difference. It was a fact check that inadvertently made both its author and Walz look worse.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe?
Apparently his kids were conceived using a turkey baster and not IVF.

[Martinned2]

Presumably it's murder either way?

[Armchair]

It's actually not.

[Martinned2]

If you think so, you may want to take that into account in the polling station: https://www.npr.org/2024/05/21/1252320298/abortion-republicans-abolitionist-ivf

[Armchair]

OK, it seems you need a little scientific primer here, since you left intrauterine insemination (IUI) out completely.

Now, on one end here is in vitro fertilization (or IVF). This takes eggs out of the woman, adds sperm to them, allows them to fertilize and grow for a few divisions, then adds them back to the woman's uterus. This is what some people claim is murder (I don't agree with that, but I understand the argument). The reason they claim it's murder is that multiple embryos are created, but only a couple are used, and the rest are destroyed.

On the other end here is intrauterine insemination. Here, the man's sperm is taken, washed, and then inserted into the woman's uterus via artificial means. No embryos are created externally, so nothing can be destroyed. There's no claim of murder here (unless you go all monty python "every sperm is sacred.")

Now Walz actually used IUI with his wife, which is fine. But he's claiming to have used IVF to "tell a better story". Which is a problem, because he's lying. And if someone lies about something like this, it's very easy for them to lie about anything.

[bernard11]

Nice cut and paste.

[Kazinski]

Turkey baster?

Is that like chicken fucking?

Asking for a friend.

[Mr. Bumble]

You'll have to ask Il Douche (SarcastrO) since he is the resident expert on poultry fucking.

[Sarcastr0]

This is some prime pedantry. Like saying you had the calamari when technically you had the fried octopus.

[David Nieporent]

Nah; it's a meaningful difference because Walz's talking point is, "If the GOP had their way we wouldn't have been able to have kids." He was trying to make it personal. But in fact even the maximalist GOP position on abortion would in no way have affected his family; IUI would not be banned even if embryos were protected from the moment they were zygotes.

[Moderation4ever]

I again think that you are offering a pretty pathetic attacks on Waltz. The fact is that Tim and Gwen Waltz have experienced the difficulty of getting and keeping pregnant. They emphasize with those that have this experience. JD Vance comes from humble beginnings and looks back on the people he left with contempt. Tim Waltz comes from humble beginnings and care about people like himself.

The fact is that you can sell this story to the Trump's marks doesn't mean you can sell it to the majority of people.

[Martinned2]

Given that women who can't procreate are apparently a waste of space, you'd think that Trumpists would applaud someone who tries whatever they can to get pregnant.

[Armchair]

It's not that they had difficulty getting pregnant which is the problem. It's not even the fact they used intrauterine insemination that's the problem. And if they had indeed used IVF, that would be fine as well.

The problem is, Walz is lying. And it's a little thing...using IUI instead of IVF. But "saying" he used IVF in order to tell a better story.

It's a weird thing to lie about. But if you're going to lie about something so minor, to tell a better story...something so easy to disprove...it makes you worry about the big issues.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep saying he's lying, but you don't know why and its a minor difference.

Maybe, just maybe, he's not lying and you're being pedantic because the Trump folks you are a stenographer for are desperate for a line of attack and don't have much.

[Armchair]

No, the lie is clear. They did not use IVF. They used IUI.

It's a clear lie. Suggesting it's not is incorrect. And another form of dishonesty. Like your previous lies, inability to apologize and blood libel.

[SimonP]

Armchair, it's been pointed out already that you've been misusing the term "blood libel."

When you've been called out but insist on repeating the term... it makes one wonder about your ability to engage in any kind of rational discussion.

[Armchair]

Where was this pointed out exactly? Be specific. Use clear quotes.

[SimonP]

Do you deny that people have criticized you for misusing the term "blood libel," because you have consistently used it to refer to statements that have nothing to do with using the blood of Christian children for ritualistic purposes?

[Armchair]

Really.... This will be good.

So, you don't consider it blood libel, if a Muslim accuses a Jew of killing a Muslim child for the specific purpose of obtaining their blood for ritualistic purposes? It must SPECIFICALLY be a Christian?

Just curious.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That is the term's normal definition, yes.

[Sarcastr0]

Look it up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

[SimonP]

Do you deny that people have criticized you for misusing the term “blood libel,” because you have consistently used it to refer to statements that have nothing to do with using the blood of children for ritualistic purposes?

[Michael P]

Calling IUI vs IVF a "minor difference" shows you have a deep misunderstanding of at least one part of this debate. Which one involves storing, or choosing to destroy, a number of fertilized embryos?

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair calls it minor.
And so do most who have looked at this story.

See also the 'stolen valor' shit. It's not playing very well because it's trying to turn a very in the weeds molehill into a mountain.

[Armchair]

"Armchair calls it minor."

No..... The difference between IUI and IVF is fairly large and significant.

In the grand scheme of things, a lie about what is used is fairly minor. Like whether you got to work at 9 AM or 12 PM on a given day.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a significant difference

[Sarcastr0]

You, above: “But if you’re going to lie about something so minor…”

So the difference is major, but the lie itself is minor.

I don't see how you can thread this needle. You're inconsistent.

[Armchair]

It's not a needle. I know, reading comprehension is hard for you.

[Commenter_XY]

It is the lying, in so many different contexts that is hurting Walz.

Whether it is the DUI, or falsely claiming a military rank, or falsely claiming parts of his military record, or falsely claiming use of IVF, Walz is a walking, avuncular gaffe machine. I do not think his work in China has received sufficient attention; it should.

And it is not like the empty vessel Harris is much better; she is not. And when she opens her mouth, Americans will see why 99% of Democrat primary voters took a hard pass.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh no, looks like Walz and Harris have lost your vote.

[Frank Drackman]

it's "Waltz" and he only has to lose about 50,000 votes spread over AZ, MI, WI and PA, I don't think that Light in the Loafers Poof ("Tampons in Boy's Restrooms will be 2024's "Willie Horton"(First used against Do-Cock-Us by AlGore BTW) and abandoning your troops (it's one thing for a Private or Corporal to try to get out of a Deployment, but the Command Sergeant Major? Oh wait, I might as well be doing Chinese Algebra, for what you'd understand about the Military, but plenty of guys/girls in AZ, MI, WI, and PA do

Frank

[bernard11]

Candidates lying really upsets you, does it, XY?

What complete bullshit. It doesn't bother you in the least. You're just using prepackaged talking points to attack Harris and Walz.

You're actually lying much more than the two of them put together.

[bernard11]

You want lies?

Here are a few, from just one press conference.

And then there's the claim that Harris met with Putin three days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and his fake image of Taylor Swift endorsing him, not to mention the 30,000 or so he told while President.

You support the most prolific liar in the history of American politics, yet profess to offended by Walz' misstatements.

It's disgusting.

[not guilty]

George Washington could not tell a lie.
Bill Clinton (sometimes) could not tell the truth.
Donald Trump cannot tell the difference.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Democrats do lie; they lie to us (usually for a reason).

Republicans also lie, but usually to themselves.

[bernard11]

What a fool you are, Armchair.

You complain about a politician saying something that might be untrue, and then go and cheer for Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

I think some of that LSD Abbie Hoffman dumped in Lake Michigan in August 1968 is still working.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I know it makes a great James Bond plot, but unless you dumped it right on top of the water inlets, the amount of anything that you'd have to dump into Lake Michigan to have *any* effect on humans would be immense. And then the Great Lakes drain to the ocean with fresh water entering them daily.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Dr Ass-Burger, put on your "Sarcasm Glasses" I was being Sarcastic, I do that sometimes.
and Sacha Baron Cohen was a great Abbie Hoffman, and Israeli Spy Eli Cohen (any relation?)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

The only good social worker is a dead social worker.

[Martinned2]

Everything OK hun? Forgot to take your medication?

[Estragon]

Have you ever stopped and taken to a moment to reflect on how/why you got like this? What is it that’s gone so wrong in your life that you come onto this space and advocate such things, day after day, week after week for years on end?

[David Nieporent]

If it weren't for the fact that his entire persona screams incel, I'd think he had his kids taken away from him.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Appears that the DNC is poised to wrap up without any arsons, deaths, riots, or brutal police beat downs.
Dr. Ed heartbroken.

[Estragon]

Snowplow all gassed up but nowhere to go. Sad!

[SimonP]

The disappointment in the media has been palpable.

[Moderation4ever]

I found this opinion piece in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a11/page_ea156ef2-2605-5fba-957f-067227cb6c42.html
Sally Pipes: Free tuition won’t fix America’s shortage of doctors

Ms. Pipes points out that as of late, there have been a number of philanthropists donating to medical school to offer free tuition to students. While well intended these high-profile donations miss the fact there what is not funded is additional residency programs for the medical student who graduate. The government caps its funding for residency program and that this cap also needs to be addressed to better fill the need for doctors, particularly in rural parts of the country.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OTOH, there have been small towns in rural Maine who have funded a local student to go to medical school on the condition that the student come back and practice medicine in the area.

Remember the TV series Northern Exposure?
That was based on a real Federal program that existed in the 1970s where med students got scholarships in return for agreeing to be assigned to remote rural areas for a set number of years. Vinalhaven Island got one of those doctors, great guy, great doctor, everyone liked him until he had an affair with (memory is) one of the nurses and things got ugly. Reagan ended the program and he shouldn't have.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Ed, do you intentionally try to get stuff as wrong as possible? The US Pubic Health Service still has the same program, they get the Med Students too smart to take one of the identical Navy/Army/Air Farce scholarships, only downside you get stuck on Indian Reservations or Inner City Shitholes, I was happy to only get stuck in Saudi Arabia and Guantanamo (OK, Camp Lejeune isn't actually a resort area either)

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"high-profile donations "

Rich people generally donate for status, clout and PR, not necessarily for what does the most good. Its why many still donate hundreds of millions of dollars to Harvard and Yale with multi billion endowments rather than lower status small public universities or struggling colleges that actually need the money.

Free tuition! gets high-profile publicity, funding residencies does not.

[Michael P]

I am glad that Kamala Harris has promised to address the US's border security issues, just as soon as we elect her and put her in charge of the border. I only wish we could have had some kind of "Border Czar" in the current administration who could have done that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will that be before or after she goes after price gougers?

[Michael P]

Just after she orders prosecution of all price gauging.

[Martinned2]

Take it up with the People's Republic of Alabama: https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2006/4653/146537.html

[Mr. Bumble]

"It is unlawful and a violation of Section 8-19-5, for any person to impose unconscionable prices for the sale or rental of any commodity or rental facility during the period of a declared state of emergency."
Not quite the same thing.

[Martinned2]

It isn't, it's even worse. The whole point of surge pricing is that it involves very high prices during low-probability events, so that the seller has an incentive to build up sufficient capacity. Making that illegal denies the very basic principles of economics, and is tantamount to communism.

[Mr. Bumble]

So Kamala is promoting communism?

[Martinned2]

She is if you don't understand sarcasm.

[Michael P]

As usual, you're missing the point.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In fairness, I must admit that I am concerned about supposedly competing supermarket chains being owned by the same foreign company -- and all but one of them being owned by foreign companies.

[Martinned2]

What do you think might happen if a supermarket chain is owned by a foreign company?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They'll take all the food, obviously.

Like when foreigners buy all the real estate. If we don't stop it soon, we won't have any left!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Republicans agreed to a deal to fix the border problem but Trump ordered them to back out of it because he wants the problem to get worse. Don't you remember?

[Michael P]

Which Congressional act caused the problem that required a Congressional fix?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not relevant.

[Michael P]

Congress has no obligation to fix problems caused by a Democrat President who refuses to do anything about the problems with his existing authority.

[Martinned2]

Congress has no obligation to fix problems

That's one way to justify voting for Republicans, I guess. But it is slightly at odds with the preamble of the constitution, I'd argue.

[Kazinski]

Well it does seem that the laws we had in 2017-2020 were adequate to control the border, at least according to this BBC graph.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/240/cpsprodpb/164A4/production/_125700319_optimised-us_migrants-nc.png

But thats just the southwest boarder, doesn't include all the people they are chartering flights for and bringing in at midnight.

So what do you think the problem is then?

Incompetence? Lack of will? Its not that the current law isn't adequate.

[Sarcastr0]

Any particular changes in the laws post-2020 you would like to highlight? Or just going to assume (instant) causality because why not.

Also by your metric the problem's already solved:
https://jabberwocking.com/illegal-border-crossings-plummet-in-july/

[Michael P]

captcrisis’s original complaint was that Republicans in Congress wouldn’t agree to a big bill that changed a lot of things about immigration law, and therefore they were responsible for the Harris-Biden administration’s lax enforcement of existing laws.

Thanks for agreeing both that there were no relevant statutory changes post-2020, and that no statutory changes were needed to improve border security.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, there's a ton of discretion left to the executive when it comes to border security.

Trump did promise to fix it, and then did nothing but put kids in cages.

And the statutory system is also broken and bad for everyone involved.

[Kazinski]

He did nothing but enforce the law. And the best thing Trump did for those kids is test their DNA and make sure they were with their parents, not trafickers.

Biden and Harris ended the DNA testing and abandoned 320,000 children to god knows what:

“Biden-Harris admin loses track of 320,000 migrant children — with untold numbers at risk of sex trafficking and forced labor”
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/biden-harris-admin-loses-track-of-320-000-migrant-children-with-untold-numbers-at-risk-of-sex-trafficking-and-forced-labor/ar-AA1pcO8c

Now that’s some real moral highground.

Kind of makes you wonder where the 2 men who raped and murdered the 12 year old in Texas developed the taste for it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/it-doesn-t-get-any-worse-2-men-accused-of-raping-strangling-12-year-old-girl-leaving-body-in-shallow-creek/ar-BB1oEnOd

[Sarcastr0]

He did nothing but enforce the law.
By that definition, this is also true for Biden.

Biden and Harris ended the DNA testing and abandoned 320,000 children to god knows what
Yeah, the cages part. And the crying as they're separated part. You ignore that in favor of reifying an issue of unclear magnitude.

You want to ignore the monstrousness of the party you support. You do this by attacking other people's morals more an more.

And you link makes no claims about the suspects' immigration status. But you will assume! And generalize!
Like bigots do.

You didn't used to have to attack attack attack to justify your own moral place. You do now.

[Brett Bellmore]

"By that definition, this is also true for Biden."

To the extent that deciding not to enforce the law is "enforcing the law", sure.

[Sarcastr0]

What law, specifically is not being enforced, Brett?

Have you read a word of INA?

You have no idea what you're talking about; you've been corrected over and over, and you refuse to change your opinion to align with the actual law.

BrettLaw always aligns with your priors, Great Replacement and racial IQ and illegal alien higher criminality theory and all.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I love how these clowns unskeptically believe this nonsense. As of the bill had no valid criticisms, or discoveries of it doing the exact opposite of the publicized intent.

Morons. You have to be an absolute moron to be a Democrat cult follower these days.

[Dr. Ed 2]

RINOS wanted to sell out and Trump stopped them.

[Moderation4ever]

I believe that Homeland Security Secretary is the person responsible for the border and he not a czar. He was impeached because Republicans had a difference of opinion with him. It is also worth noting that we had, yet another, bipartisan bill to address border issues that was spiked by candidate Trump. So Democrats are working to address border issue and Republican are working to keep border issues a wedge issue.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/05/border-bill-trump-00139584

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Interestingly, the Biden administration is currently (and obviously desperately) trying to stop the Gaza war and bring Hamas' hostages home before the election.

I wonder if it's crossed the MAGARINOs' minds that helping to prolong that crisis, too, would help Trump? Nah...

[OtisAH]

More interestingly, the Biden administration has been trying to bring the hostages back and end the war in Gaza since the hostages were taken and the war in Gaza began.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I wrote the above before hearing that someone on NPR had repeated stories in Axios and Reuters which alleged that Trump had indeed tried to prevent a "Biden deal" before the election.

Trump has form with "hostages": He infamously declined to preemptively pardon any of the J6 "hostages" during the three weeks he had left, before slinking off to Florida at the end of January 2021. Leaving them to rot in jail is exactly what he wanted. And he's used their plight every chance he got.

So it's hardly a stretch to think that he's up to his old tricks again.

But I will wait for better evidence to emerge. It always does.

[bernard11]

Harris was never "border czar."

Just another RW lie you eagerly swallow and propagate.

[Brett Bellmore]

And Oceana was never at war with Eastasia, either. Remember that, until it changes.

Biden tasks Harris with 'stemming the migration' on southern border

I suppose you're going to get all anal about "czar" not being an official title in the US, and ignore that Biden put her in charge of border problems.

[bernard11]

From the article you linked:

Biden said during an immigration meeting at the White House that he had asked Harris to lead the administration's efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle — El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, countries that will "need help stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border."

Biden did not "put her in charge of border problems."

You really need to learn to read beyond the headline. She was sent on a diplomatic mission to talk to those countries and try to coordinate. She wasn't made general of the border patrol or boss of ICE.

It is hardly pedantic to point out that the term "czar," whether used formally or informally, implies holding nearly absolute power over a situation. Harris did not enjoy such power, not close.

I know it's a piece of crap you guys like to throw around - just another lie - but it's not true.

[David Nieporent]

Biden put her in charge of border problems.

He did not. You should look at what the actual task he gave her was. It was working with foreign countries — not dealing with border security.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

For you Southern Strategy Truthers:

1.) A black Republican and a White Democrat sponsored the CRA of 1968
2.) 73% of Republicans in the House voted for it, compared to 78% of Democrats
3.) 90% of Republicans in the Senate compared to 71% of Democrats
4.) The 1972 election was a landslide carrying 49 states, not just the South.
5.) In 1976, the South generally voted for the Democrat Jimmy Carter.
6.) Democrats continued to hold a majority of Southern Senate seats until the 2002.
7.) Democrats held a majority of Southerb House seats until 1994.
8.) Democrats held a majority of Governorships until the early 90s.

Given these 8, obvious, facts why do you continue to believe the racist Southern Democrats switched parties in 1968?

[Joe_dallas]

5.) In 1976, the South generally voted for the Democrat Jimmy Carter.

fwiw - I spent the summer of 1976 in rural south carolina. There was a strong dislike of Ford due to the unforgivable sin of pardoning Nixon. While there were several factors that led to Carter's win, the dislike of Ford due to the pardoning of Nixon played a very large role.

[Commenter_XY]

Ford's answer about Poland during the 1976 presidential debate was the coup de grace.

[John F. Carr]

"Ford to City: Drop Dead" is also said to have tipped the election. Anything could have done it.

[Commenter_XY]

It was Poland, IMO. That is where he lost some Team R and Conservocrat votes. He 'lost' because his answer on Poland made zero sense with the ground reality at the time. Ford never had a chance in NY.

Pres Carter also used the misery index to great effect. Only to have the tables turned 4 years later.

[Joe_dallas]

Fords gaffe on Poland has been over credited with causing the lose. However, it was only a gaffe. Pardoning Nixon was a very dominant theme against ford through SC during the summer of 76.

[not guilty]

The Nixon pardon was very much in the public consciousness during the 1976 presidential election campaign. Jimmy Carter, however, never mentioned it. (He didn't have to.)

[Commenter_XY]

I watched the debate, and vividly remember the Poland answer by President Ford (a decent man). I was a child and knew it was the wrong answer.

[Kazinski]

Kamala Harris is backing her current Administration's proposal for a 25% tax on unrealized capital gains, supposedly on billionaires, but actually at a net worth of 100 million.

"Biden’s Treasury Department said it’s proposing “a minimum tax of 25 percent on total income, generally inclusive of unrealized capital gains, for all taxpayers with wealth (that is, the difference obtained by subtracting liabilities from assets) greater than $100 million.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kamala-harris-backs-bidens-tax-proposals-including-a-tax-on-unrealized-capital-gains-66c55df2

This is probably the worst idea I've ever heard from a presidential candidate. At the very least it will tank the stock market for a few years, I'd estimate at least a 25% decline as the Bezo's and Musk's exercise options then liquidate stock to pay their tax bills.

It certainly explains why there has been a notable change in temperature from Silicon Valley towards Trump, at least in fundraising.

Of course it is dead on arrival, even in a Democratic Congress, and the Supreme Court might have something to say to, as Kavanaugh already warned, but it really demonstates Kamala's, and the majority of the Democratic party's, radical idiotcy.

[Sarcastr0]

Won't someone PLEASE thing of the multimillionaires?

[Mr. Bumble]

The Obamas, Clintons, Pelosis, Sanders et al thank you for your concern.

[Martinned2]

I'm reasonably confident they all support this proposal.

[tylertusta]

Like all multi-millionaires, they have the resources to avoid being taxed at high rates, such as moving money into trusts and corporations.

[Martinned2]

In that case, why do you oppose higher taxes for millionaires?

[tylertusta]

A snuck premise is when someone includes an unsupported proposition in an argument. In this case, the snuck premise is this statement: “why do you oppose higher taxes for millionaires?”

This is the rhetorical equivalent of “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Please tell me, Martinned2, do you use this kind of fallacy when talking about the opposing side during your legal work?

[OtisAH]

So you support higher taxes on the wealthy?

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "wealthy".

[Zarniwoop]

Sealioning sealion sealions!

[tylertusta]

When did you stop beating your wife?

[OtisAH]

Three weeks ago. Now answer the question.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment, because fomenting class envy is very important to our Sacred Democracy.

It's critically important for the State to punish people for having more than their fair share!

[Kazinski]

Actually i don't much care about them, its how it will affect the rest of us.

That's the why its idiocy but of course you don't see that. Its going to take hundreds of billions of capital out of the market, capital used to build factories hire workers, build distribution centers etc.

You'd probably be perfectly happy to tax Elon's unrealized capital gains to have prevented him from buying Twitter, but it also would have prevented him from building SpaceX from scratch too. Thats more serious. He probably wouldn't have been able to take over Tesla in the first place after PayPal, and it would have failed a decade ago.

You think Elon was the only beneficiary of the use of all that capital for reinvestment and creating more wealth rather than destroying it through government confiscation?

[Sarcastr0]

Multimillionaires are holding our markets hostage? That seems a pretty bad market failure, eh?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great retort!

What makes it so great was that you obviously didn’t read it, but got all snarky anyways!

Brilliant!

[Kazinski]

I'm really beginning to question your comprehension.

They aren't the ones holding our market hostage, its the government threatening to confiscate a decent chunk of the money in the market.

The people with hundreds of millions of capital gains aren't threatening to take their money out of the market out of spite, they have to take the money out of the market because the government wants to tax 25% of their capital gains. then when they sell stock it will trigger the 46% realized capital tax on what they sell.

The market failure isnt billionaires with guns to their heads, its the rapacious government woth their finger on the trigger.

Its Venezuela-lite, its Argentina 40-50 years ago when the slide started. Its Britain, the sick man of Europe before Thatcher cut out the rot, which was extremely painful, but completely necessary.

Don't pretend we don't know where these policies lead to.

[Sarcastr0]

Your argument is if we tax those making 100M+ too much, they will not use their money anymore to make capital expenditures.

Unless you are confusing individual with corporate taxes, this seems to be how events must play out for your cause-effect to work.

I think the benefits of taxing the rich are lower than many on the left think. But the costs are much lower than folks around here think.

The reflexive attack on taxing the rich tends to boil down to just blind ideology. Starve the beast, or the rich are just better, or other such broad ideological pushes with little connection to reality or practical fundamentals.

[OtisAH]

We do have historical data from when the wealthy in the US were taxed heavily. Turns out, they were still wealthy but their wealth grew more slowly than it does today. And I’m willing to bet if we taxed all wealth over $1 billion, total, at 99 cents on the dollar, there would still be really wealthy and stupendously wealthy Americans. The only other downside to people not being able to buy professional sports franchises every year for Christmas is that Fortune Magazine might have to adjust some of its list qualifications. A hassle, sure, but surmountable imho.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why should anybody be taxed at 99%?
Your love of other people's money is astounding.

[OtisAH]

That’s for total wealth over a billion dollars, dummy. Assets of $10,000 or less are entirely unaffected so you have nothing to worry about.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why should ANYBODY be taxed at 99%?

[Martinned2]

@Bumble: I thought you were here to advocate for the common people, who are so evilly oppressed by The Elite?

[Mr. Bumble]

WTF are you on about?
Why should anyone be taxed at 99%, Mr. Economist?

[Sarcastr0]

Switching back and forth between economic and moral arguments as each gets shot out from under you in turn.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, dipshit, his argument is that if you demand $25M from everybody who has $100M in unrealized capital gains, stat, they have to dump a large fraction of their stock holdings to pay you.

And because all potential buyers know they have no choice but to sell, they'll get a really lousy price, which means it's an even bigger fraction of their holdings.

And since all the potential buyers know that they're next in your sights, the stock isn't even that great a deal for them, they can plan on kissing any gains they get from it rebounding goodbye on the same terms, so they're hardly going to be willing to pay anything for it.

So you pass the damned law, Musk sells 3/4 of his stock at fire sale prices, you get a good chuckle over... Not reducing his personal standard of living at all, just putting an end to all the good he's doing. And the stock market crashes like it's October 1929 on steroids.

[Mr. Bumble]

You must have a masochistic streak to continually try to have a reasoned engagement with Il Douche.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You do understand that tax liabilities are not cash on the barrel right now kinda thing, right? The sudden rush to liquidity does not seem inevitable to me.

2. And if these few individuals are load-bearing to our stock market, that is a problem!

3. And then “they’re next in your sights” is you just writing future policies out of nothing.
You don’t get to criticize the costs of a proposed policy by making up future policies. Not if you want to talk to normal people.

4. You should read my whole comment. I'm not really jockeying for this policy. I do think that those laying out the costs are basing on ideology not reality. You're not disabusing me of that notion.

[bernard11]

Musk sells 3/4 of his stock at fire sale prices,

Why would he have to sell 75%?

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually explained that above, I'm not going to repeat myself.

[bernard11]

No. You didn't explain it. You made up some shit.

You can't explain it, because it's nonsense.

[Kazinski]

Well it would be 25% of his Tesla stock right? Probably closer to 35 to 40%, since there is the 46% tax on what he actually sells. He owns 20% of Tesla so thats 7- 10% at least of Tesla's stock forced to be put on the market within a year. That's a lot, and certainly enough to absorb a lot of the natural demand, force the price down, and trigger other sellers to dump their shares too, and others to wait to buy

Then that leaves SpaceX out of the equation. His stake in Spacex is worth about 100b, and its not publicly traded so its difficult to sell stock to get the at least 20billion in cash he would need for that.

[Brett Bellmore]

And my point is, it might be 25% of his stock if the price stayed constant, but the price won't stay constant when you dump a bunch of the stock on the market and everybody knows you don't have any choice about selling.

[bernard11]

And my points are:

1. The stock would have to drop by 2/3 for your 75% number to be accurate. You have $120, and have to come up with $30 in tax. For $30 to be 75% of your new value, the stock would have to drop to $40. Not likely.

2. The tax is unlikely to be due the day the law passes. Most likely it will be calculated at year-end. The drop in value will occur when it passes, or somewhat earlier, when it seems likely to pass. Part will even happen when the bill becomes serious, as different people will have differing estimates as to the likelihood of passage. So the drop will have already happened by the time the tax is calculated. So even with your (silly) 67% drop by the time the tax is due, in my example above you will only owe $10, not $30.

3. The drop will be nothing like what you suggest. The sale does not affect the value of the company's operations. The only thing that changes is ownership. No factories are destroyed, no workers laid off, no products made obsolete, etc. The underlying cash flow from operations remains the same. And that is what determines stock value. There are plenty of potential buyers, with a lot of money. The price will be bid up. Also, some of those who owe the tax will have other resources - cash, borrowing - to use. They won't be relying strictly on stock sales. Also, to the extent you do take capital losses on your sales, you can sell off some stocks that have gains and use the losses to offset those gains.

I'm not saying there won't be an effect, but blithe predictions of catastrophe are, IMO, unwarranted.

Oh. What is this 46% business you mention? Where is that coming from?

[bernard11]

Where is this 46% tax on what he sells coming from? Normal capital gains taxes, for Musk, would be about half of that. And of course not all the proceeds are going to be realized gains, since he's probably clever enough to sell stuff where he doesn't have big gains.

That’s a lot, and certainly enough to absorb a lot of the natural demand, force the price down, and trigger other sellers to dump their shares too, and others to wait to buy

I don't know how deep the market for Tesla shares is, or would be, so it's hard to know how much drop there will be. It does seem clear to me that there will be buyers lined up to buy some of the liquidated stock (Maybe not Tesla, because it's wildly overpriced).

And I don't see why other shareholders will be dumping stock. They might dump some before the law takes effect (see above) but why afterwards. The company will be as sound as ever. Why sell at the bottom?

[jb]

To add some facts to this discussion: eBay bought PayPal, including the portion of PayPal that Elon owned. In the process, he got a lot of cash and realized a capital gain that presumably was taxed at the time.

Once Elon had a bunch of cash he used it to found SpaceX and buy Tesla. No unrealized gains were involved in his involvement in either company.

[Martinned2]

Well, for a while he turned $2bn of stock options into $56bn of stock options.

[bernard11]

eBay bought PayPal, including the portion of PayPal that Elon owned. In the process, he got a lot of cash and realized a capital gain that presumably was taxed at the time.

Actually, eBay bought PayPal with $1.5B in Ebay stock

So no, the capital gain was not in fact taxed.

[jb]

Good correction. Musk must have sold the stock prior to founding SpaceX then, since all the accounts are he invested cash into both SpaceX and Tesla. Point being that the PayPal gains were realized prior to the investments in the new companies.

[Kazinski]

Not necessarily, he could have borrowed the money using the eBay stock as collateral.

[bernard11]

Or had other sources of cash.

[jb]

He could have, but he didn't. From https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/25/business/elon-musks-companies-spacex-telsa-solarcity.html

He took the company public and sold it to eBay for $1.5 billion in 2002. Mr. Musk was left with about $170 million after selling his stock. (my emphasis)

Instead of starting another internet company, he invested almost all of his PayPal fortune into more complex projects: $100 million into SpaceX, which he founded in 2002, $50 million into Tesla and $10 million into SolarCity.

[Krayt]

If it balanced the budget, maybe. It won't. No matter how much it brings in, they will continue to borrow similar amounts.

It is a scam.

[Sarcastr0]

No new taxes if they do not bring in trillions of revenue!

Tax cuts are cool tho.

No, I will not consider the sustainability of these two when taken together.

[Krayt]

Congress saw the budget magically balanced from the Internet boom. They did not take this lying down, and worked hard to get things unbalanced and back in the red. Note the increase in revenue never disappeared.

They will spend every penny they can get away with, which includes chronic additional borrowing.

Cutting taxes is starving the beast. Whether you like that as a policy is no matter. What matters is these are liars who have no intention of reducing borrowing (much less paying down debt). Any increase in revenue is just spent, and the same borrowing remains, atop that.

[Martinned2]

You forgot to mention who ran the country (White House and/or Congress) during the parts of the 1990s and 2000s you describe.

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

[Kazinski]

If there is one area Congress is bipartisan in its spending money.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't you support Trump?

This spending hawk thing sure seems to lay lightly on you.

[Sarcastr0]

Demanding a balanced budget and then saying tax cuts are always good?

You are not being internally consistent, or an honest broker on fiscal policy.

I don't care how much you accuse others of bad faith, you are demonstrating that your complaint is not practical, but rather ideology dressed up as debt hawkishness.

[Tempe Jeff]

I remember when $5 billion dollars was outrageous for a border wall according to Nancy Pelosi. She was a debt hawk in 2018.

[Magister]

Outrageous for a useless border wall. There were plenty of things Pelosi would have wanted to spend $5 billion on; health care was the top issue Democrats campaigned on to win the House in the 2018 election.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure you recall that the income tax itself was originally supposed to only fall on the wealthy. And look what happened.

You really think the government, once it starts taxing unrealized capital gains, is going to ignore billions in retirement savings?

[Sarcastr0]

I think slippery slope arguments are not good policy analysis.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think slippery slope arguments routinely turn out to be valid, which is why people making bad proposals dislike slippery slope arguments so much.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, loosey goosey vibes take like this.
It's a bad way to make policy.
Partially because it's way to smuggle in your priors without actually testing them.

[Jmaie]

As someone pointed out below, the income tax was originally 1% or 2% and only levied on the very wealthy. Washington state has a capital gains tax that is being challenged by referendum. "Keep the tax" talking points mirror your own, conveniently forgetting tax creep.

On a separate note, this seems an administrative nightmare. Easy enough to accurately value stocks and bonds, real estate a little more difficult and many investments hard-to-impossible. Can credits be claimed when investments drop in value?

At least this will be a boon for tax lawyers and provide increased employment opportunities for those wishing to work for the IRS...

[Don Nico]

Won't you actually think about the matter rather than snark?

[Michael P]

She also reportedly wants a top tax rate of 44.6% on capital gains. Is that before or after the 25% tax on unrealized gains? Does the 25% on unrealized gains reduce the cost basis of the assets? Does anyone at the Harris campaign even know?

[tylertusta]

Harris is endorsing Biden's proposal from earlier this year, which can be found at this link:

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf

According to the proposal, the 25% tax would count towards paying the 44.6% tax upon sale.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Probably" endorsing, you mean.

Do you even see how you're being manipulated?

[tylertusta]

Do you even see how you are obviously just spam?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, why?

[John F. Carr]

Sometimes you wonder if politicians believe what they are saying. I get that feeling a lot with Elizabeth Warren, who could be expected to know more about business and economics than Kamala Harris. How could she believe the words that come out of her mouth? Maybe she doesn't. Or maybe she does. She could be a progressive mirror image of Giuliani whose descent into insanity was witnessed by the nation.

[Martinned2]

Can you give an example of something Warren said that made you wonder?

[John F. Carr]

She was on board with the idea of funding the government by confiscating the assets of billionaires. If you watched Yes, Minister you may recall a scene where an earnest lady wanted to help the Poor by selling off the office decorations from government buildings. Musk or Bezos could run the government for a few hours, and the next generation of billionaires won't bother starting successful businesses.

[Commenter_XY]

It is Mad Magazine level economics, Kaz. Between this and her price controls, and there being 'no daylight' between Biden policy and VP Harris, her campaign message is for more of the same, good and hard. I prefer not having a repeat of 2022 with this empty vessel in the Oval office.

Is this published on her campaign website as a policy? Has anyone actually asked her yet? We've yet to see her open her mouth about it, and have to defend it on the abbreviated campaign trail.

I would not want to defend a legacy of declining earned real incomes for middle and lower class Americans, but that is the Biden/Harris record. Retirees, pre-retirees and pensioners, in particular, took a massive hit to real income (and portfolios) in 2022. That too, is the Biden/Harris economic record.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : “It is Mad Magazine level economics….”

Whose? Harris or Trump? You see, Harris may propose some things that aren’t fully-formed or outright pandering, but compared to her opponent, she’s a piker at ranting lunatic pledges. Trump’s tax proposals would add over a trillion dollars of debt yearly. His vision of mass expulsions run by the millitary would throw the country into chaos. He’s promised to end all federal support for any school with a vaccine mandate – which is all schools. And Trump has pledged to terminate the Constitution if he determines fraud occurred during an election. He promised to have the Justice Department investigate and prosecute General Milley for treason. He has committed to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours (by redoing his Neville Chamberlain performance with the Taliban, of course). He will require schools hold elections each year where principals will be elected by parents. He says his administration will end birthright citizenship by executive order. He will fire 40,000 career civil servants on day one and replace them with ‘patriots’ loyal to him. He promised to set up commissions to study whether genetically engineered marijuana is the cause of mass shootings or vaccines cause autism.

And – returning back to economics – he pledged to impose a new 10% tariff (tax) on all goods imported into the U.S – easily a dozen-times more economically illiterate and insane than any promise by Harris.

Of course even MAGA cultists know 80% of all words excreted from Trump’s mouth are lies & gibberish. In a way it’s touching they expect the Democrats to always be the rational and responsible ones. It’s not a standard they apply to their side. Today’s Right wants pro-wrestling-style entertainment & basic common sense just gets in the way.

[Commenter_XY]

grb, we need only look at the actual results; meaning real, earned wages (i.e. income after inflation) under Pres Trump and under POTUS Biden for the middle and lower class, and for pensioners and retirees on fixed incomes.

It is not even close.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, just ignore Covid and worldwide supply chain issues, and current economic numbers to make your case.

This isn't economics, it's cheerleading.

Also cheerleading: “Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, America has created about 51 million new jobs. I swear I checked those numbers three times, and even I couldn’t believe what's the score: Democrats 50 and Republicans 1.”

Any thoughts on that? I have at least one big fallacy I see, but I'm interested in your take.

[bernard11]

And this is because of Trump's brilliant economic policies, do you think?

Which ones? The tax cuts that did nothing except increase the deficit? The tariffs that increased prices?

[Kazinski]

The corporate tax cuts freed up a massive amount of cash for reinvestment, that was the biggest most beneficial change.

There are 3 major sources of capital to corporations, IPO’s, debt, and retained earnings.

Retained earnings is the most important of the 3 and with the Trump tax cut the earnings available to be retained went from 65% of earnings to 79% of earnings when the corporate tax rate went to 21% from 35%.

Surely you can see how that significant increase in funds available for capital investment can make a big difference, but probably not.

Plus the lower corporate profits tax gave them more incentives to make more of their investments from all funding sources here rather than in previously lower tax countries.

[Commenter_XY]

Just think about tax policy, for a moment. With one simple move (not simple to get it passed, but concept is simple), just by increasing the standard deduction and limiting SALT, Pres Trump and team pretty much wiped out itemizing for all but the top 10% to 15% of income earners (thus, concentrating the number of people who really ought to be audited by the IRS). Think of the millions of productive hours saved just by going the standard deduction route on income taxes. It is common sense stuff like that where Pres Trump runs circles around the empty vessel and her entire team.

[Sarcastr0]

The corporate tax cuts freed up a massive amount of cash for reinvestment, that was the biggest most beneficial change.

Did our GDP go up? Did our debt go down from the GDP going up?

Are you taking this from some GOP Committee Report?

[OtisAH]

Yes, it freed up a bunch of money for reinvestment through stock buybacks. But this is information that’s only been available for five years.

2019
https://apnews.com/article/438fae12f9204b1fbd8e8b1985ae554f

2024
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/record-stock-buybacks-bolster-case-for-raising-corporate-tax-rate

[bernard11]

The corporate tax cuts freed up a massive amount of cash for reinvestment, that was the biggest most beneficial change.

Except it mostly wasn't used for reinvestment, but for stock buybacks, which is to say, roughly, dividends.

There was no upsurge in capital investment after the cuts.

[bernard11]

One more time, Kazinski. Whatever was available, the money went to buybacks, not to capital investments.

[David Nieporent]

It is not even close.

Correct, but not in the direction you think.

[Kazinski]

You got some data on that?

You are a nice guy Dave, I don’t like doing this, but…

Real household income went from 70840 end of 2016 to 76660 end of 2020. An increase of 8.2% over years during the Trump administration.

Unfortunately we only have 2 years of data for Biden, it dropped to 74580 in 2 years, a decrease of 2.7% in 2 years.

That isn’t very close. But i suppose you could argue its made an incredible rebound in 2023 and the first half of 2024 and its the best economy ever.

Source: St Louis Federal Reserve, Real Median Income in the United States.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/

[Mr. Bumble]

Dave is not a nice guy.
Beside the decrease you forgot to factor in "transitory" (trans, trans, trans) inflation which further reduced real income.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You are a nice guy Dave"

Which Dave are you speaking to? Not David Nieporent, pedantic when he is not just plain insulting.

[David Nieporent]

Unfortunately we only have 2 years of data for Biden, it dropped to 74580 in 2 years, a decrease of 2.7% in 2 years.

Yes, but you are admittedly not considering the last two years, which is precisely when real income did increase faster than inflation. And especially for lower and middle class wage earners, which was the claim by C_XY I was responding to.

[Kazinski]

Well i can't comsider 2023 and 2024 because 2023 median real household income data isn't available yet.

We do have GDP growth numbers however, and 2023 GDP growth was a pedestrian 2.5%. 2024 1st quarter GDP growth was only 1.9%, and the 2nd Quarter estimate was back to 2.5%, positive numbers but not robust growth.

Just take the L and move on, don't embarrass yourself by trying to claim the rather modest growth we've seen in the last year and a half has even erased the -2.7 decline in real median Household Income we saw in the first two years when we had higher growth (well at least in 2021 5.9%, but 2022 was 1.9%), let alone overtaken the 8.2% increase over the Trump years.

[jb]

What do you suppose the policy choices that Biden made vs. Trump that led to the inflation at the start of Biden's term? It's interesting to look at results, but Presidents don't exactly control the whole economy (fortunately!) so it's useful to think about what they did and whether there's any causal link to the economic results.

FWIW, I do give Trump credit for real wage gains in his administration, but most of the difference between Biden and Trump in the dimensions you're looking at have nothing to do with policy differences between Trump and Biden.

[Commenter_XY]

That is all I am talking about = real wage gains (esp for middle and lower class)

It is not even close. The result is the result. Note, I disagree with you about the effect of policy, though. There were many good policies that Pres Trump and team put together, that got their superior result.

[jb]

Okay, I am asking you to articulate the policy differences that you think led to the difference in outcome.

Also, it seems pretty silly to try and measure the success of a President's economic legacy by just one metric. As grb points out, Trump's term result in a huge net loss of jobs. I'm sure most people would rather be employed than have low real wage growth. Even more importantly, part of the reason that Trump's real wage numbers look so good is that most of the people who lost their jobs in 2020 were low-wage workers. This made average wages "go up" not because anyone was getting raises, but just because the composition of the job pool changed (in a bad way).

[Commenter_XY]

jb, I picked 'a' metric of comparison, not 'the' metric to measure ultimate success. I pointed out, correctly, the result.

[Kazinski]

No there was a clear policy difference that caused most of the inflation, The Biden Stimulus which passed without a single Republican vote, and the laughable Inflation Reduction Act that passed with Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaking vote in the Senate.

But don't take my word for it, Larry Summers, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury:
Larry Summers sends stark inflation warning to Joe Biden

May 2021:

Larry Summers is urging Washington to tap the brakes on stimulus — or risk unleashing a serious burst of inflation.

“I think policy is rather overdoing it,” Summers said in recorded comments at a CoinDesk conference that were released Wednesday. “The sense of serenity and complacency being projected by the economic policymakers, that this is all something that can easily be managed, is misplaced.”

The former Clinton and Obama official took issue with how the Federal Reserve and fiscal powers continue to turbo-charge the economy even though the once-real risk of a catastrophic deflationary spiral has since faded.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/26/economy/inflation-larry-summers-biden-fed/index.html

He was warned by members of his own party, and Biden knew the risks and was already planning an enormous spending bill:

"Milton Friedman isn’t running the show anymore.”
- Joe Biden April 2020

'It just happened, its nobody's fault' just isnt a serious position.

"What 'd you do?"
- Chris Farley

[jb]

First, Trump also passed large stimulus bills. There's zero difference in policy between Trump and Biden on this point. In fact, the reason I give Trump credit for improvements in real wage growth is that he browbeat the Fed into caring more about employment than inflation so the fact that the Fed was also willing to overdo it on stimulus is likely a direct reflection of Trump's view of monetary policy (implemented by the Fed chair that Trump put into place).

Second, if you think that inflation was caused by Biden's policies, how do you reconcile this with the fact that inflation spiked across the world? As opposed to Larry Summers predicting what might happen, it's become clear in retrospect that most of the inflation we saw post-Covid was the result of supply chain disruptions. See, e.g.:

https://www.nber.org/digest/202404/supply-chain-disruptions-and-pandemic-era-inflation

[bernard11]

Did the Trump stimulus cause any inflation, or was it immaculate? No.

Did the Biden stimulus provide any benefits? Yes.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : “It is not even close”

The one thing you said that’s true. In fact, the economy lost 2.7 million jobs under Trump. Of course you’ll claim that “doesn’t count” because of the pandemic. Being more informed/honest than you, I agree. But all your economic complaints against Biden were also driven by the pandemic. Try being a little more informed/honest and you’ll concede that point (but I won’t hold my breath).

Besides, your problems don’t end there. Because Trump’s economy during the first three years of his presidency was still inferior to Obama’s three years that preceded it. During Trump’s first 36 months in office, the US economy has gained 6.6 million jobs. But during a comparable 36-month period at the end of Obama’s tenure, employers added 8.1 million jobs, or 23% more than what has been added since Trump took office. And remember – Trump ran plus-trillion dollar deficits during an economic expansion (which should have been impossible) because his budget-busting tax cuts were supposed to supercharge the economy. Needless to say, they didn’t work (surprising nobody). We’ve seen the supply-side fairy tale repeatedly exposed over the decades, from Reagan to Brownback.

And that’s not all your problems: Despite your attempt at deflection, my point still stands. Trump is out there making imbecilic promises that go way beyond your petty sniping at Harris. But since you don’t hold your side to any standard of reason, honesty, decency or common sense, you refuse to face that fact.

Of course anyone who’d vote for Trump can’t have standards of reason, honesty, decency or common sense, so I understand your predicament…

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/economy/trump-obama-jobs-comparison/index.html

[Kazinski]

"Because Trump’s economy during the first three years of his presidency was still inferior to Obama’s three years that preceded it."

No, absolutely not, using the St Louis Fed data again on median real household income which is the the best measure of consumer well-being.

Obama's last 4 years was 7.7% increase which was good. Trumps for 4 years was 8.2% which was marginally better.

But looking at the first 3 years of Trumps presidency and excluding the covid year, it was 10.46% which blows the doors off Obama's number.

And concentrating on jobs is just cherry picking because the unemployment rate at the beginning of Obama's 2nd term was 8%, and he deserves credit for getting it down to 4.7% in his second 4 years.

But surely you can see the fallacy of comparing absolute job numbers in a economy with a clear unemployment problem at 8%, and an economy with 4.7% and getting it to 3.5% when covid hit. They are completely different animals, and actually both were substantially improved from where they started.

Joes economy is a different story.

[grb]

Here's a fresh example : Donald Trump has taken to promising that he will lower gasoline and energy prices by more than half in his first year back in office ― a pledge that, if carried out, would result in the destruction of the U.S. oil industry followed by a deep recession, experts said.

“Energy costs, all of it, air conditioning, heating, all of it, including gasoline, will drop by more than 50% within the first 12 months,” Trump promised again on Monday in Pennsylvania in what his campaign billed as an economic policy speech. “Your bill will be less than half.”

The problem? Energy is bought and sold in a global market, and the only way that gasoline could go from $3.40 a gallon now down to $1.70 a gallon is for crude oil prices to fall from $75 a barrel to between $20 and $30 a barrel. And at those lower prices, U.S. oil producers would not be able to break even.

Just imagine if Harris was equally given to lies and empty pandering as Trump! Just imagine if she was anywhere remotely close. His snowflake pearl-clutching cultists in this forum would drown-out every other sound with their whining. Of course lies from Trump don't bother his supporters. They expect them. They need them. They can't get by without a steady stream of Trump lies.

[Kazinski]

Well i happen to remember clearly being shocked at 1.70 gas in late 2020 in Tucson when I was there in the last few months of Trump's presidency. So he does have a track record.

However you are right energy is a global market, but it doesn't mean we are completely helpless.

Things like approving the Keystone pipeline and opening up access to a new currently transportation constrained source of crude oil would certainly help. Ending the Ukraine war could certainly help and getting Russia back in the world market would certainly help, taking out the Mullahs and putting Iran on the world market would help, allowing unlimited exports of American natural gas to compete with oil would certainly help.

I agree 1.70 gas again is unlikely, but don't call Trump's sincere aspirations lies, they aren't, even if overly optimistic. And I'm certainly not saying Trump never lies.

Kamala's sudden embrace of fracking is a lie however, as is her pledge to "secure the border". She isn't sincerely overly optimistic about either one, she has no intention of even trying on the border, and she will end fracking if she can however she can.

That's the difference between overly optimistic campaign promises and lies: whether you have a sincere intent to try.

[Magister]

You are still unaware that gas prices dropped because of the pandemic?

[grb]

Two Points :

1. Kazinski seems awfully unaware about a great many topics….

2. His distinction between “optimistic campaign promises and lies” is a real cult-grade bootlicking special. If Ms Harris starts to promise half-price gasoline or flying rainbow-colored unicorns, I'll have no issue calling those claims lies. They won’t be her first, to be sure. She is, after all, a politican. But she can speak two consecutive sentences without telling one lie, an achievement Trump is incapable of.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

She may very well endorse it, but as I type (before the last evening of DNC convention speeches...), she has not said anything specifically about this aspect of Biden's March budget proposal.

Even if she did endorse it, however, I don't give it much chance of ever becoming law in the US.

[tylertusta]

I think it's wishful thinking for this to be DOA in a Democratic-run Congress.

I consider this the future of the Democratic Party's tax policy. It's a proposal backed by both the current Dem President and the current Dem nominee. That's as serious as it gets.

And don't count on the courts stopping them either, because a Democratic Congress with the desire to pass a tax on unrealized capital gains is also a Democratic Congress capable of packing the judiciary and stripping jurisdiction to protect their policies in the courts.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There's more historical basis for believing that Trump will try to steal the 2024 election. Do you think that belief is justified?

[Armchair]

"This is probably the worst idea I’ve ever heard from a presidential candidate."

No, that would be Harris's proposal to put price controls on food items.

[Sarcastr0]

Policy is supposed to be about price gouging. The details are not at all clear.

But you will make the worst assumption you can, and go off that, because you never wait for the facts to come in to hit left.

[Kazinski]

They are both bad, but the economy would rebound quickly after the price controls were lifted after a few months of abject failure.

The total tax hike, over the current baseline, of Biden's proposed 2025 tax increase is 5.4 Trillion. Most of that will be diverted from capital investments to social spending which will give us 2 or 3 more 2 Trilion stimulus packages, the last of which in 2021 gave us 9% inflation.

We won't ever get that capital investment back, and that inflation will never be rolled back.

[Commenter_XY]

Like I said, Mad Magazine level economic policy.

[Kazinski]

I will say one more thing about this debate about the best way to allocate the nations wealth.

Its the wrong debate. And anyone who has any knowledge of human history should be able to see that.

The real question should be: what is the best way to create more wealth?

Thats the only way ordinary people’s lives have improved over the entire course of human history.

Nobody in this country is poor, they all have enough to eat, cell phones, wide screen TVs, etc, other than the homeless, but thats not because of the lack of opportunities (Anyone who says that should be fighting illegal immigration tooth and nail).

Those worried about income inequality should just get over it. Steve Jobs is the one who gave us all smart phones, Jeff Bezo’s is the one who just delivered me a Hoodie in 24 hours at my mom’s house because i forfot to pack one, for less than it would cost at Walmart, and without wasting an hour driving and shopping.

Wealth creation is the whole game, and its not “trickle down”. Those that make money are generally selling us more for less, making us all richer. Or even better giving us things to spend our disposable income on, which by all I can see there is a lot of, everywhere. Jeez, even poor people splurge on Hennessy, or fashion brands making purchases for status not need.

They don’t need it but if we think they need more, build more wealth, don’t try to distribute the plenty we already have because there will be less for everyone, from top to bottom.

And of course for many the major issue for many isn't that some people only have enough, rare as it is in human history, but a burning envy of those that have more, nothing I can say will convince them.

And then of course you are in the hair shirt brigade that wants everyone worldwide to regress their standard of living, sharply, and in that case Kamala and her policies are your best choice, since Pol Pot isn't on the ballot.

[Martinned2]

Interesting blog post on EJIL: Talk about mens rea in the ICJ's Apartheid advisory opinion. (And about mens rea and international crimes more generally.)

https://www.ejiltalk.org/whose-reasonable-inference-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-and-the-threshold-for-apartheids-mens-rea/

[Swede425]

Not a Star Wars fan, per se.
But I did see the first couple of movies when I was a kid and I remember enjoying them. Never really kept up with them after that other than to watch a couple more with my oldest son when he was young on DVD.
Last night my twitters was absolutely littered with The Acolyte being canceled. I never watched it (like all of the other spinoffs) and so I have no opinion on the quality of the show. But after reading the lamentations of the fans of the show last night, the common thread was that the show failed because the Star Wars main fan base (accordingly "white male cisgender blah blah blah") didn't watch it because they're scared of strong women or something. But then the replies started coming in and they were HILARIOUS. Apparently, the LGQTABCBBQLOL+ director and cast specifically pointed out to the normies that "hey, this ain't made for you, so why don't you cry about it?" and so the normies didn't watch it. And now said director, cast, and all 10 of their fans are blaming these same normies for the failure of The Acolyte. The Law of Unintended Consequences, amirite?

[John F. Carr]

I was so disappointed by The Phantom Menace that I haven't watched since.

[Krayt]

Nobody considered Trek woke. But that message was “Wouldn’t you join us in this fine vision of the future?” Women and minorities in positions of power and competency, if not outright genius. A Russian and a Japanese guy (remember WWII wasn’t that long before) and crypto-Americans all working happily together in peace.

Nowadays, it’s, “You, the historical prime viewer of this material, are defective and need some learnin’!”

And honestly, I think that last bit is exaggerated.

[Sarcastr0]

Nobody considered Trek woke

Utterly revisionist history.

A globally united Earth.
A Russian on the bridge.
Black woman on the bridge was as well.
Originally had a woman as first officer.
No money.
But more importantly, it had the first interracial kiss.

"Let This Be Your Last Battlefield" is so 1960s Civil Rights era woke it's almost silly. (also has Frank Gorshin)

And if you want to go TNG, I have some Picard speeches to show to you.

[Moderation4ever]

Great list. Star Trek Classic was woke before woke even existed.

[tylertusta]

A key distinction between the liberal Trek of the Roddenberry era and the modern “woke” is that Roddenberry didn’t chastise and belittle his audience by rubbing their faces in what Trek writers perceived to be the failings of that modern audience.

He had class, unlike today’s left.

[Moderation4ever]

A key distinction between Classic Star Trek and today is that Gene Roddenberry was crossing much bigger divides. His criticism of war, racism and sexism were bigger issue to cross than some of things done today that get so much blowback from cultural warriers.

[tylertusta]

Bigger issues maybe, but Roddenberry didn't tell his audience that they literally were the problem.

Like I said, Roddenberry had class.

[Sarcastr0]

NewTrek sucks in lots of ways, but it is not belittling it's audience any more than the OGs.

I think Strange New Worlds has been doing a great job of updating the TOS feel. And Lower Decks was a good time while it lasted. Affection, respect, and mockery.

[tylertusta]

but it is not belittling it’s audience any more than the OGs.

During Roddenberry's lifetime, Trek avoided commenting much on the world today. There are exceptions (like Q's intro in TNG), but they didn't overstay their welcome lest they upset the audience.

For the most part Trek stuck with the formula of using aliens as allegory and the audience liked it.

but it is not belittling it’s audience any more than the OGs

Season 2 of Picard, anyone?

[Sarcastr0]

So you appear to be taking Season 2 of Picard and generalizing that to say Trek today is too woke.

You are indeed a snowflake.

And have a pretty uniquely tailored version of woke, as is the snowflake style of the time.

[tylertusta]

Like always, you attribute things to me that I did not say.

I compared Roddenberry’s Trek to the modern day left, but I didn’t say that modern Trek was too woke.

Modern Trek is more adversarial with its audience than even TOS Trek was with its storylines on racism and the cold war.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, maybe I am not understanding your thesis.
I don't know what you mean by woke at this point.

Do you mean something about being adversarial with your audience?
Except NewTrek does that, and you say it's not too woke.

Beyond TOS being pretty woke by most operable definitions, modern Trek has a bunch of flavors, some more cringe than others. Generalizing is a mistake.

[SimonP]

SNW and Discovery conveniently illustrate the difference between writing good stories with a modern sensibility and the kind of obnoxious wokeism that triggers conservatives.

I'm queer as all get-out, but I couldn't stand the degree of woke representation they pack into Discovery, on top of already atrocious writing and plot arcs. So many of their character and casting choices seem designed to max out the DEI score, and not to tell any kind of interesting story. We have a gay couple who adopt another character who comes out as NB on the show, who is in some kind of romantic situation with a character who is obviously trans but whose trans-ness is not a part of their character. Most of the white male recurring characters we see in positions of authority are secretly evil - or at the very least, conniving. And how there are so many pale-skinned redheads in the far future is an utter mystery.

I have never felt as condescended to and insulted by SNW, as I have by Discovery.

[tylertusta]

I agree.

I grew up in an Evangelical church, so I know when someone is trying to be preachy to me. Discovery and especially S2 of Picard just make me cringe with how awful they treat their audience.

[Sarcastr0]

Discovery's problems go well beyond cringey forced representation.

Someone said lets a Federation that's pretty into doing some war crimes until it's soul is saved by the star of the show.

Right there, after S1, it was clear to me you had people writing who were fans of the setting, and like the 2009 movie but not the show.

Haven't gone back.

One day I may tell you my *thoughts* on DS9.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I’m not sure what the person intended to say.

Said something about people “considering” it woke. Then, cited things that might be considered “woke.”

I don’t think the person is right on how it was understood at the time. I doubt racists, e.g., were big fans of some components of the show. Though "woke" wouldn't exactly be the word they use.

As yes, contra to another comment, its message can be a tad heavy-handed.

[Frank Drackman]

Also first use of the word “Hell” as a profanity in “The City on the Edge of Forever” Kirks final line “Let’s get the Hell out of here”
One of the best TOS episodes, Spock and Kirk in 1930’s Chicago, Kirk explaining Spock is Chinese, his pointy ears the result of being caught in a “Mechanical Rice Picker” and a delectable Joan Collins and Uhura(THAT should have been the first Interracial TV Kiss)

Frank

[Krayt]

People bitched about Trek at the time?

[Sarcastr0]

1. Your definition of woke is if people complain about it?

2. At the time, there wasn't a place for randos to broadcast their hot takes. So you wouldn't see the people who would get mad so much as the censors. And yeah, TOS had lots of fun with their political content and the censors.

An interesting compare and contrast is The Animated Series. Less censor oversight and suddenly Uhura can do command things.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : “Less censor oversight and suddenly Uhura can do command things”

Uhura may have been a high officer on the Enterprise bridge but she was regularly obligated to say, “…. I’m scaried….” at the first sign of alien trouble. Of course that yeoman woman would sometimes slip into Kirk’s arms during tense moments. (he didn’t seem to mind).

I bought the DVD set a while back. Of course a large percent of the episodes are unwatchably bad. Has any other series had such a wide range of quality? Love those bright colors tho…

[Sarcastr0]

Yeoman Rand had a lot of potential, IMO. Really did a great job of selling overqualified for her job.

The actress was harassed off the show.

[Bob from Ohio]

"scaried"

Is that Klingon? Its not English.

[Martinned2]

Yes, people worried about the wokeness of Star Trek TOS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_and_Uhura%27s_kiss

[Kazinski]

They never made Kirk, the White Alpha Male, the bad guy, it was Ricardo Monteban, and not because he drove a gas guzzling Chrysler.

And George Takei isn’t credited with the first gay kiss on Network TV.

It was MLK era woke, which is balls out racism these days, its not woke at all. Content of their character is as racist as it gets, its only the color of their skin that matters in Woke.

All the main Characters were White Males, thats not woke. It wasn’t near as woke as earlier and contemporary movies like ‘The Defient Ones’, ‘Raisin in the Sun’, ‘Guess Who’s coming to Dinner’, ‘Lillies of the Field’, ‘To Sir with Love’. But they weren’t actually woke either because they all had the exact same same leading Black man with a britishish accent, who was their only Black box office draw.

That's content of character bullshit, not color of skin maximalism.

[Martinned2]

Useful blog post on the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation, which was adopted in 2023 to stop foreign (mostly Chinese) companies taking the subsidies their home governments give them to outcompete other companies in the EU market. Just like the rest of state aid law, it's the sort of thing the US would greatly benefit from adopting.

https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2024/08/21/eu-commission-expands-foreign-subsidies-guidance/

[John F. Carr]

George Santos ran into one of the many little oddities of federal criminal law. Two of the counts against him relate to an FEC report. This is, redundantly, both wire fraud and a false statement to a federal agency. So far typical for federal crimes. It's hard to commit just one. A high status defendant might get probation, although the guidelines to recommend prison. But the false report contained names. That makes the crime aggravated identity theft punished by a two year mandatory prison sentence.

I remember hearing about a guy who was convicted in traffic court and given an unconditional discharge... plus the $100 or so state surcharge on all traffic court convictions.

[hobie]

A German warship had to enter the Thames and go through downtown London to get resupplied. Owing to the historically awkward occasion, the German captain chose to blast the Imperial March from Star Wars on his boat's speakers. I think that is hilarious...and a bit touching.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/21/watch-german-navy-plays-darth-vader-theme-on-thames/

[tylertusta]

Getting towed ass end first up the Thames isn't how I'd want to do it.

But if I had to go like that, I'd be blasting the Imperial March too.

[santamonica811]

According to the linked article, the explanation was not as funny as I had hoped (ie, that the commander loves Williams as a composer, and picks a different score at each port). I'd have been much happier if it had been a clever intentional subtle dig at the British-German relationship. [♫ We taught them a lesson in 1918...and they've hardly bothered us since then.♪ ♫]

(Yes, I know the lyrics actually refer to Germany vis-a-vis America. But that ruins the joke.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So to no one's surprise, the Tyranny of the Federal Proletariat continues:

A bunch of S*rcast0s at the DOE are moving forward with the gas stove ban, even though:
- a bunch of S*rcastr0s at the EPA said it was unnecessary
- Congress signaled it is opposed
- the Trusted Science doesn't support it
- The People are against it

But do these midwit, unelected, unaccountable S*rcastr0s care about any of this? They have to serve their Church and meet their degrowth SDGs.

[hobie]

Sarcastr0, how much rent do you pay to live in this guy's head?

[Sarcastr0]

Hah.

I've had him blocked for a bit. There are a bunch of new and more innovative insane bigoted tools to marvel at.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If you had me blocked, how did you know who we has referring to?

[Brett Bellmore]

If you have somebody muted, you've got a button next to the muted post that lets you see who posted it, even though you can't see what they posted.

FYI: DOE finalizes contentious gas stove rule

Portrayed as a mere efficiency mandate, it's estimated that only about 4% of gas stoves could actually comply with it. The DOE claims that's an exaggeration, they'd only be banning half of them...

The half most people can afford!

By the way, has anybody noticed that the practice of showing the first bit of a paywalled article has prompted writers to flip over the pyramid?

"For decades, the “inverted pyramid” structure has been a mainstay of traditional mass media writing. Following this structure, the “base” of the pyramid—the most fundamental facts—appear at the top of the story, in the lead paragraph. Non-essential information appears in the following paragraphs, or “nut” graphs, in order of importance."

Except that they do it backwards now, so that you don't accidentally provide the people who won't ante up with any useful information...

[Kazinski]

Sarcastro has a few guys living in his head too.

And they aren't good tenants, one of them, allegedly, fucks chickens.

[santamonica811]

Well, one of them allegedly, fucks couches. Which is even funnier than poultry.

[Henry Wray]

It's surprising that the so-called "No Kings Act" (S. 4973), recently introduced by Majority Leader Schumer and over 30 other Democratic senators, hasn't received more attention. The bill purports to legislatively overrule the Supreme Court's decision on presidential criminal immunity. This blatantly unconstitutional bill shows how far even mainstream liberals will go in their efforts to undermine the Court. Can court-packing be far behind?

See https://www.musingsfromoceanview.com/2024/08/19/the-no-kings-act-an-unconstitutional-ploy-to-make-congress-sovereign-over-scotus.

[Martinned2]

I think you've answered your own question. Congresscritters introduce wildly unconstitutional bills all the time, purely for the campaign donations they'll be able to raise off the back of it. Isn't US democracy great?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-resolution/95/text?s=2&r=8

[M L]

Your claim (one of them) is that the bill you linked to is “wildly unconstitutional.”

Care to briefly explain why it’s unconstitutional?

[Kazinski]

Its a joint resolution, not even legislation.

Nothing more than a feelgood, that no court could possibly rule on because it has no force of law and just expresses an opinion.

Now I realize expessing the wrong opinion in the UK and parts of Europe is unconstitutional, illegal, bad manners, against the law, and sanctionable, all at once. But until someone posts it on twitter and someone in the EU reads it, we are good here.

[OtisAH]

It’s unconstitutional to pass a law stripping presidents of an immunity that is found nowhere in the constitution? Can they try to amend the constitution to negate the constitution’s presidential immunity clause that doesn’t exist in the constitution, or is that also unconstitutional?

[Henry Wray]

Agree that the Trump decision was wrong, but a constitutional amendment—as Biden proposed—is clearly the only legitimate way to redress it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The legislation was cited multiple times by contributors here and received a good deal of mainstream media attention, especially for something that is merely a message bill that has no real chance of passing. Even as a messaging bill, less than 40 Democrats co-sponsored the bill, underlining the limited chance of its passage.

(Biden supports a constitutional amendment)

[Henry Wray]

On the contrary, there is a very real chance the bill will move if Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress. Well over half the Senate democrats have already signed on, including the majority Leader as principal sponsor and many other prominent members. They won’t be able to walk away from it. In fact, they will be under great pressure to expand it to legislate away additional SCOTUS decisions opposed by the left starting with Dobbs.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

President Biden put forth three proposals that got the most attention. One of them involves an amendment to the Constitution to address the immunity issue.

This one piece of legislation is not even supported by 40 Democratic senators. There is no compelling reason to think it above and beyond other things will be passed. Unlike an ethics bill, which has much more complete support.

The bill also is unlikely immediately to do anything. It sets up a limited allowance to challenge it in the lower courts. There is no good reason to think lower court D.C. circuit judges will refuse to strike it down as unconstitutional given higher court precedent.

A bill regarding abortion will be much more likely to be brought to vote. That has broad support.

[not guilty]

Senator Mitch McConnell's playing Calvinball with the Scalia vacancy vis-a-vis the Ginsburg vacancy illustrates the need for systemic change in the haphazard way SCOTUS justices are nominated and confirmed (or not). If Kamala Harris is elected, Democrats retain control of the Senate and regain control of the House, that could come about. (It would likely require abolition of the 60 vote threshold in the Senate -- which is a good thing in any event.)

I like the proposal that Professor Jack Balkin made in October of 2020 (just after Justice Ginsburg died), which would not require a constitutional amendment. https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html As Prof. Balkin described the gist of it:

The President appoints a new Justice in every odd-numbered year. Congress creates two en banc courts: The first is an en banc court for deciding cases under the Court's original jurisdiction, consisting of all the active Justices. The second is an en banc court for deciding cases under the Court's appellate jurisdiction, consisting of the nine Justices most junior in service.

The more senior Justices retain life tenure and their salaries, and the Chief Justice remains the administrative head of the Judicial Branch of government. The more senior Justices remain on the Court to hear cases Justices involving the Court's original jurisdiction, to pinch-hit when a junior Justice is recused from the appellate en banc panel, to consider the mountain of petitions for certiorari the Court receives every year, and to hear cases on the federal courts of appeals. The precedent for requiring Justices to "ride circuit"-- to hear cases in the lower federal courts-- goes back to the country's founding. The number of Justices deciding Supreme Court appeals always remains nine, but the composition of the appellate en banc panel changes every two years like clockwork.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I think you'd need an amendment to do what Balkin proposes. I don't think that is something you can do merely by legislation. Is it?

[SimonP]

You are invited to make the argument that the proposal is unconstitutional.

[Josh R]

The obvious argument is it de facto sets a term limit which plainly is unconsitutional. Balkin counters that permitting senior justices to hear original-jurisdiction cases and vote on cert means they are still serving. But, that may prove to be too cute by half considering the prime importance of the vast majority of cases which are heard on appeal.

[SimonP]

This kind of reasoning might fly with the current Court, Josh, but it's a lazy hand-wave. All that the Constitution says about members of the Court is that they "hold their offices during good behavior." Nothing says that every member of the Supreme Court needs to opine on every case of "prime importance" that makes it before them. As Roberts' opinion on presidential immunity does, you make the mistake of reading into the Constitution norms that are treated as ordinary in modern times.

The distinction between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction is just respecting the constitutional text, which does not expressly provide Congress with the power to "regulate" the Court's original jurisdiction, but does so with respect to the Court's appellate jurisdiction. In other words, it respects the only thing the Constitution does seem to say about which justices are permitted to hear/vote on which cases.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Balkin proposal is just the thing to get the Court to rule that Congress' power to make exceptions to the Court's appellate jurisdiction is just the power to transfer additional topics to it's original jurisdiction, NOT the power to prohibit appeals to the Supreme court.

[SimonP]

Brett, the secret judicial supremacist!

[Brett Bellmore]

All the branches are supposed to be supreme in their own lane, Simon.

This is, no matter how you rationalize it, Court packing, and the purpose of Court packing is to eliminate any constitutional limits on what the legislature and/or executive can do. To turn the judiciary into a rubber stamp, because you can't tolerate the idea that there are things that the Constitution doesn't let you do.

Nobody pursues Court packing if they don't have unconstitutional ambitions. If they can tolerate having a Constitution that's actually enforced.

As I say, what are you going to do with your rubber stamp? Obviously you're not going to leave it on the shelf, unused. You're going to use it to rubber stamp a long list of things that would normally be DOA at the Court.

So, every Court packing proposal is really a proposal to do everything you've wanted to do, that the Court has told you that you can't do.

Confiscate guns. Censor political speech. All the controversial stuff that pisses huge numbers of people off.

So, like I keep telling people who dismiss Court packing as no big deal, there is one thing anybody who packs the Court is ALWAYS going to include in the agenda:

Making sure no future election is free. Because packing the Court and then going hog wild is a great way to lose the next election if you don't do some unconstitutional election 'fortification', too.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody pursues Court packing if they don’t have unconstitutional ambitions. If they can tolerate having a Constitution that’s actually enforced.

This from the person who routinely claims that the Supreme Court is wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I think the Court regularly gets stuff wrong. Now, remind me: When was the last time I advocated packing the Court as a way to remedy this?

[Sarcastr0]

The point, Brett, is that by the definition you yourself use, you yourself have lots of unconstitutional ambitions.

If that's bad, then you are bad.
If that's fine, then your attack against court packing evaporates.

Nice trap you have made for yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The point, Brett, is that by the definition you yourself use, you yourself have lots of unconstitutional ambitions."

Actually, no. Remember that what I want from the government is almost always that it leave people the hell alone. And it's not unconstitutional for the government to refrain from being intrusive, even under current jurisprudence.

So, what are my unconstitutional ambitions?

Repealing gun laws?
Repealing drug laws?
Repealing health insurance regulations, and modifying the tax code to break the link between employment and health insurance?
Rolling back the regulatory state?
Divesting the federal government of most of it's property in the Western states?
Getting the government out of the education business?
Enforcing the border?
Color blind government policy, and freedom of association in the private sector?
Strictly limiting abortion at the state level?
Computerized random redistricting without reference to racial data?
Easier ballot access, and universally permitting write in votes?

Come on, you must have some idea of which of my ambitions require violating current jurisprudence concerning the Constitution, rather than simply having the government refrain from things the Court wrongfully permits. So, let's hear it.

Because I have no idea which of my ambitions you think requires violating the Constitution.

[SimonP]

You can save it, Brett.

The point I was driving at is that the constitutional text is unclear on what happens if Congress purports to limit the Court's appellate jurisdiction. I happen to agree with your interpretation, that it's reasonable to construe the provision as saying that, on matters that are "excepted" from the Court's appellate jurisdiction, they instead fall under the Court's original jurisdiction. It would seem odd to create a "Supreme Court" that may not be able to declare "what the law is" on any particular matter falling under the Constitution or federal law.

It's just that the text doesn't really say that, does it? It's a little like how the Court found the dormant commerce clause, presidential immunity, and state sovereign immunity in the Constitution, or an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment. The Court takes an awkward and incomplete text and reads something into it. But there are some (namely you) who seem to believe that the text really, really matters.

But you toss out any notion of doctrinal coherence when needed to ensure your desired outcome, don't you?

Like all of this yammering about packing the Court! Imagine a world where Hillary won in 2016 and was able to restaff the Court so that we'd have a liberal supermajority now. Are you making any of these just-so arguments about court-packing, if Republicans were to manage to win the White House and the Senate in 2024? No, I believe you'd be making a very different argument - in favor of court-packing.

Deny it if you like, accuse me of "mind-reading." I'll admit I'm just extrapolating from a long record of positions you've taken. Your compass somehow always points in the direction of Republican demagoguery.

[Sarcastr0]

You want the Constitution to be interpreted in ways other than the Court does, Brett.

But by what you said above, that is the unconstitutional ambition that drives Court packers.

If you get to have your BrettLaw ambitions, so do folks who want to pack the Court.

They can be bad for other reasons, but not by the argument you've laid out!

[Brett Bellmore]

"It’s just that the text doesn’t really say that, does it?"

Yeah, I agree it doesn't really say that. I was making a prediction as to what the Court's response would be to a major jurisdiction stripping attempt today. Not advocating how the Court should respond.

Since I don't think the Court is reliably ruling on a strict textual basis, you can hardly fault me for expecting the Court to issue a ruling that's not on rock solid textual grounds.

To be clear, I think classic, "expand the Court to 13 members" Court packing, is perfectly constitutional. A horrible, horrible idea, like a lot of other things that are perfectly constitutional, but in the event the Democrats went down that route, the Court would have no constitutional basis at all for objecting.

The fancy-smacy "we're not really packing the Court" Court packing proposal we're actually discussing, though? THAT has lots of constitutional weak spots that the Court could attack, without being facially unreasonable.

[Brett Bellmore]

And let me say this again, because it bears repeating:

Abolishing the filibuster in order to pack the Supreme court is about as politically explosive as it gets. And it's just the fuse on the real explosion.

You don't pay the political price for turning the Court into a rubber stamp and then not use the rubber stamp. And the things you rubber stamp don't become any less controversial just because you packed the court to get them approved. They carry a political price, too.

Nobody is going to pack the Court, and then not rig the next election. You don't start a political global nuclear war, and then half-ass it.

The Democrats actually move to pack the Court, and it's the end of remotely normal politics in America, one way or the other.

[Sarcastr0]

Yet again, the things you posit as the motives of these hypothetical Court packers *are your self-same motives*

You want controversial changes to our Constitutional law. You want a Court to do them.

You are just so prideful and confident you can't see you're the villains your are describing, you just don't like the means!

Your ends are broadly the same, and just because you believe your ends are good and theirs are bad doesn't change that.

[Randal]

You don’t pay the political price for turning the Court into a rubber stamp and then not use the rubber stamp. And the things you rubber stamp don’t become any less controversial just because you packed the court to get them approved. They carry a political price, too.

You couldn't have described the current situation better. This is exactly how Democrats feel about Mitch McCourtpacker and abortion.

[not guilty]

Yes, it can be done by legislation. Article III, § 1 of the Constitution provides in relevant part:

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

As Prof. Balkin writes, the more senior Justices retain life tenure and their salaries, and the Chief Justice remains the administrative head of the Judicial Branch of government. The more senior Justices remain on the Court to hear cases Justices involving the Court’s original jurisdiction, to pinch-hit when a junior Justice is recused from the appellate en banc panel, to consider the mountain of petitions for certiorari the Court receives every year, and to hear cases on the federal courts of appeals.

Article III, § 2 states:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Designating the nine most junior members of the Court to decide appellate jurisdiction cases is a regulation within the power of Congress.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Judge Tatel in his recent autobiography in passing notes he thinks a term limit bill for judges could be done statutorily. He doesn't go into much detail but I reckon that you can find some retired federal judges to offer their support to a statute.

Your approach sounds like what Senator Whitehouse's bill uses.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Article III, section 1 also vests the judicial power in “one supreme Court”. I think it’s questionable whether that would permit the creation of what is effectively a separate court that senior justices aren’t allowed to sit on.

And to the extent that fundamentally transforming the Supreme Court in this way is a good idea, I think it’s a good idea to do it via amendment.

[Martinned2]

And to the extent that fundamentally transforming the Supreme Court in this way is a good idea, I think it’s a good idea to do it via amendment.

I agree. But, then again, if it was possible to do that, there would be no need to do it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The very point of doing it by constitutional amendment is that if it's not possible to do it that way, it shouldn't be done. The Constitution is the repository of structural and policy choices that have deliberately been put beyond small, transitory majorities. If you don't have the sort of majority needed to amend it, you should leave it alone!

I mean, you're going to completely overturn things on the basis of a narrow party line vote? That's the very reason our politics have become so toxic: Every election is potentially for all the marbles!

And then, what do you DO with your newly packed appellate Supremish Court? You're not going to pay that kind of political price to buy a brand spanking new rubber stamp, and not start stamping things, are you?

So, what's on the agenda after you've got your packed Court? Which decisions are Democrats still hair on fire mad about?

Citizens United, Heller, and Dobbs, basically.

So, the agenda is political censorship, gun confiscation, and imposing elective abortion for all 9 months nation-wide.

And that's really going to energize the opposition, so I guess you'll also rubber stamp some sort of electoral 'reforms' to 'fortify' elections against the opposition wiping you off the political map.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Martinned2 or SRG2,
Was the Jeremy Bamber trial televised?
I imagine not, but was curious. Is the CCRC hopelessly ineffective?
What an incredible tale!

[SRG2]

It would not have been televised.

[SimonP]

TIL that there are not 13 Courts of Appeals, but hundreds.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think it’s probably fine to allow (or require) the Supreme Court to initially hear certain cases in panels. The problem comes when some of the justices are categorically forbidden from participating in the panels, and the whole court is forbidden from having the final word (neither of which, of course, is true for any federal circuit court).

[SimonP]

You have no constitutional hook for this assertion, at all. It's just, "Well, we haven't done it before, so it must be unconstitutional!"

[not guilty]

"Article III, section 1 also vests the judicial power in “one supreme Court”. I think it’s questionable whether that would permit the creation of what is effectively a separate court that senior justices aren’t allowed to sit on."

No, it is not a separate court at all. District Court and Court of Appeals judges take senior status all the time. That does not mean they no longer sit on their respective benches.

Congress is expressly empowered to "regulat[e]" the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.

[Commenter_XY]

You and I come out the same way = And to the extent that fundamentally transforming the Supreme Court in this way is a good idea, I think it’s a good idea to do it via amendment [process?]

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think the easiest way to deal with the Court is to use powers Congress definitely has to make being a Supreme Court justice a miserable experience once they hit 18 years. Congress can't touch their salaries, but they can definitely decide not to pay for clerks, support staff, office supplies, office space, security, or anything else for any justice who serves more than 18 terms.

Or instead of stripping jurisdiction, add to their responsibilities after 18 years of service. They can't add to the original jurisdiction of the Court itself. But they can require that the office of justice "ride circuit." And by ride circuit, I mean put them in DC or other federal traffic court all summer and three days a week during the term. If they don't want that they can resign. If they try to declare that scheme unconstitutional? Ignore them and keep sending them filings, allow the DC Circuit to Mandamus them into taking judicial action, and strip SCOTUS jurisdiction to hear an appeal of that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, and while you're at it they can lose their parking places, and have the Secret Service key their cars.

Really, this sort of proposal is shameless. That's the only word for it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So is the entitlement of SCOTUS justices

[David Nieporent]

Designating the nine most junior members of the Court to decide appellate jurisdiction cases is a regulation within the power of Congress.

Hard pass. Congress is empowered to regulate the court's appellate jurisdiction, not to decide which justices on the court can exercise the court's power.

Saying that the justices "retain life tenure and their salaries" is cute, but they're entitled to retain their jobs, not just their salaries. Maybe one could enact this prospectively, but stripping existing justices of most of their job is not retaining their office.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Jeanne Crain films on TCM had some legal content.

Pinky ended with a fight over a will with the Southern judge ultimately neutrally interpreting the plain meaning.

People Will Talk involved a McCarthy-like investigation of a physician/professor (played by Cary Grant). Also, someone tells his story about being wrongly convicted (the person didn't actually die) & then being convicted again (for killing the person). His execution was botched. He might have been tried a third time but Cary Grant helped make sure he was still declared legally dead.

I also read a graphic novel version of the classic Medea story. It also had multiple legal details, including the duty of Greek sovereigns to correctly treat ambassadors and those under their protective care.

https://www.darkhorse.com/Books/3013-436/Medea-TPB

[Sarcastr0]

Fox News and the bed it's made:

Trump: “Biden sent Comrade Kamala to see Putin in Russia three days before the attack”

Kilmeade: “Just as a quick clarification, we don’t have confirmation that the vice president went to Russia to meet with Vladimir Putin.”

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Fox News and the bed it’s made"

Just as a quick clarification, she didn't. Harris met with U.S. allies before the attack. She had no meeting with Putin.

So when Kilmeade says, "we don’t have confirmation that the vice president went to Russia to meet with Vladimir Putin”, he's weaseling. He knows she didn't too. He's just obfuscating a long extra mile to avoid simply saying Trump lied.

To be fair, they're on a short lease at Fox. Trump has repeatedly railed against the network at the slightest sign they're not 100% servile.

[David Nieporent]

Trump had confused Putin and Zelensky. (Biden doing the same was taken as confirmation of the need for him to drop out.)

[Zarniwoop]

Trump had confused Putin and Zelensky. (Biden doing the same was taken as confirmation of the need for him to drop out.)

Yep. At what point does confusing Putin (DJT's best friend, he's always got the kneepads handy) and Zelensky start to look like the Trump family history of Alzheimer's?

[Voize]

Stephanie Grisham, former press secretary to President Trump, speaking in Chicago this week :

I saw him when the cameras were off. Behind closed doors, Trump mocked his supporters. He calls them basement dwellers. On a hospital visit one time, when people were dying in the ICU, he was mad that the cameras were not watching him. He has no empathy, no morals, and no fidelity to the truth. He used to tell me, "It doesn't matter what you say, Stephanie, say it enough and people will believe you."

Nothing we didn't already know, but it is still impactful to have first-hand corroboration from someone who was behind the scenes.

[not guilty]

"He used to tell me, 'It doesn’t matter what you say, Stephanie, say it enough and people will believe you.'”

I wonder where Donald Trump got that maxim. As is often the case, Wikipedia is helpful:

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany [footnote omitted]

As Mike Godwin wrote in 2018:

[Godwin's Law] is about remembering history well enough to draw parallels — sometimes with Hitler or with Nazis, sure — that are deeply considered. That matter. Sometimes those comparisons are going to be appropriate, and on those occasions GL should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-godwin-godwins-law-20180624-story.html This is one such appropriate occasion.

[Estragon]

“Trump is in the classic dictatorial position: He needs to die in bed holding all executive power to stay out of prison. This means that he will do whatever he can to gain power, and once in power will do all that he can to never let it go. This is a basic incentive structure which underlies everything else. It is entirely inconsistent with democracy.”

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the proof of that is that he is currently a former president?

[David Nieporent]

The proof is that he illegally tried to not be a former president, and only after it was clear that he didn't have enough support — in part because he's a lazy SOB who didn't do the work to shore it up — did he scurry out of town.

[Mr. Bumble]

Stipulating that everything you said is true he was never a "dictator" as Estrogen implied.

[Sarcastr0]

The quote doesn't say that. Not does it mean that.

[Chip Watkins]

An increasing number of state and local governents have enacted laws or ordinances requiring employers to post salary ranges when they advertise for applicants for job openings. These strike me as examples of forced speech that violate the employers' First Amendment rights. No live case, so not asking for free research, but, in light of a case like NIFLA v. Becerra, I am curious.

[Ed Grinberg]

These strike me as examples of forced speech that violate the employers’ First Amendment rights.

Yes, I agree -- these laws strike me as clearly unconstitutional. But then, so do the National Labor Relations Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately, the courts have consistently held to the contrary.

[M L]

I often wonder how someone can be dumb enough to support policies like medicare for all/socialized medicine, bans on free market health care and insurance, socialized/free day care, free college, price controls, open borders, abortion on demand up to and after birth, and more. Democrats, can you explain?

[OtisAH]

Looking for someone to explain all that to you, are you? Asking in good faith, yeah?

Because “fuck off,” that’s why.

[M L]

Yes, the question was how can someone be this dumb? It's not garden variety low IQ, it seems more like a form of profound mental illness. Anyway, thanks for your response.

[OtisAH]

I answered your dumbass question. Fuck off.

[Joe_dallas]

OtisAH 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I answered your dumbass question. Fuck off.

No you didnt answer his question with your immature response.

[Longtobefree]

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
They are going to test the second part of that quote.

[bernard11]

ML,

Beg the question much?

I'll answer as soon as you explain how anyone can be so stupid as to support Trump. Start with yourself and go from there.

[Ed Grinberg]

ML presented a substantive political / economic question. All you can respond with is a personal attack on the Republican candidate. Pathetic.

[M L]

Ok. Imagine you are hiring a dentist, or an accountant. I want the accountant to minimize my tax burden by any available legal and reasonably efficient means. I want the dentist to perform an exam and fill a cavity.

One accountant says they will perform the job description I supplied, the other has a different view and wants me to pay more taxes than needed (they won’t be in business long, presumably). Likewise, one dentist will do what I want, while the other just offers this: https://dentagama.com/news/teeth-sharpening

So I hire someone to do the job I want. With political candidates, that is the one with (at least, in my opinion) better policies – the one who does not favor the things I listed above.

[Longtobefree]

OK. Easy one.

I was much better off during the Trump presidency.
Inflation was extremely low, along with interest rates.
No one was telling me what kind of stoves I couldn't buy.
I had money left over at the end of the month.

Sort of the exact opposite of life under the democrats; because their entire reign has just been reversing the Trump policies.
I would say under Biden, but he had nothing to do with it. We have no idea who has actually been running the country.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I often wonder why Republicans are shit-eating retards with no morals or standards.

M L, you're one of them, can you please answer that question?

[M L]

Now there’s a question. My thought is I think you are projecting.

All tongue in cheekiness aside, I do wonder if someone on the left will ever bother to defend a policy position. Just one. Like decriminalizing illegal border crossing, for example.

[Sarcastr0]

Wrong question. You ask how someone could be dumb enough to disagree with your worldview.

The REAL question is how someone could be dumb enough to disagree with MY worldview.

It's a shame you're too dumb to ask the right question.

[Josh R]

Canada (socialized health insurance) and the UK (socialized health care) seem to like it overall. Other countries don’t. Seems like there must be reasonable arguments on all sides.

Free college or day care is just an expansion of the welfare state (not socialism). That too has reasonable arguments on all sides.

Open borders and abortion on demand after birth (WTF is that) are straw men (well perhaps not for Somin on the former, but SFW).

So yeah, you are asking in bad faith and the upshot of your post is "how can you be so dumb to disagree with me."

[grb]

M L : “I often wonder how someone can be dumb enough….”

Something ML probably says every day before the mirror. For the record:

1. No one has called for a ban on free market healthcare and insurance. ML just made that up.

2. Harris didn’t call for price controls either (if you followed her exact words). He has a lot of company here, but it’s another fabrication by ML.

3. No one has for open borders. ML just made that up.

4. No one has called abortion on demand up to and after birth. ML just made that up.

So in summary, not only is ML supporting a sleazy lifelong-criminal huckster buffoon who can’t string together two coherent sentences in a row, but he’s against the Democrats for “reasons” that exist only in his fever-dream mind.

ML, can you explain?

[Brett Bellmore]

1. Medicare for all would abolish private health insurance. "Unlike Obamacare, emerging plans would sweep away the private health insurance system."

[grb]

Excellent quote from your link, Brett. Here's another one:

"Most other countries with single-payer systems allow a more expansive, competing role for private coverage. In Britain, for example, everyone is covered by a public system, but people can pay extra for insurance that gives them access to private doctors. Most countries in Europe don’t have single-payer systems, but instead allow private insurance companies to compete under extremely tight regulations."

And another one:

There are few international analogues to the Medicare for all proposals, but Canada, which provides similar doctor and hospital benefits for its residents, probably comes closest. Even there, people buy private insurance for benefits that are not covered by the government program, like prescription drugs and dental care.

If you say expanding Medicare would disrupt the existing private heath insurance market and lead to a contraction in its size, I take no issue. If you say Harris is calling for a ban on free market healthcare and insurance, you're full of it. And that's before we dig into the history, where your case is eroded further still.

When she ran for president her answers were contradictory and (true be told) neither consistant or coherent. She said things that would support a single payer system. She said things opposing a single payer system. Waffling by a pol isn't a pretty sight, but there you have it. However now her position is unambiguous. Her campaign now DOES NOT support single payer.

Of course that invites a ready reply : Given she's been all over the map, why trust this stance? In turn, that invites a ready response : All this stuff is rhetoric & symbolism anyway. There's zero chance of Medicare for All passing Congress.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/us/politics/harris-medicare-for-all.html

[Brett Bellmore]

My point was to establish that, yes, somebody HAS called for a ban on free market health care and insurance.

In fact, it was Bernie Sanders, no surprise. I guess you can't blame that on Kamala. Oh, wait, she was a co-sponsor, so I guess you can.

Is she guaranteed to go after exactly this if elected? Nah, she's been all over the map. Well, not the whole map, of course, just the authoritarian socialist corner of it, the free market reform corner can't be seen from where she likes to hang out.

But just the fact that she was willing to put her name on something that extreme tells you where her head is at, and it's a very scary place indeed.

Now, do you want me to do price controls? Because, yeah, actually she did go there, too. Like I said, her head is in a really scary place to anybody who doesn't want to live in the USSR, or maybe North Korea.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “My point was to establish that, yes, somebody HAS called for a ban on free market health care and insurance”

Your point re Sanders is certainly true. Your point about price controls, not so much. Again, I think Harris put out some formless mush on the topic. Am I happy about that? No; I like my candidates to be precise and keep the pandering & obscuration to a minimum. You, needless to say, are completely different: You embrace lying & applaud hysterical gibberish (see the very incomplete list of Trump’s lunatic talk above). As for the price gouging stuff, you can read Kevin Drum attempt to knead Harris’ formless talk into something concrete via the link below. Of course the result is something well less than your lurid Stalinist fantasies.

https://jabberwocking.com/harriss-price-gouging-proposal-looks-pretty-modest/

[Brett Bellmore]

A ban on "price gouging", and 'excessive profits'.

You know, I'm not really seeing a difference between "price controls" and "banning price gouging". You're telling people what they can charge for their products, and enforcing that with the threat of legal penalties.

Yes, some states have experimented with banning price increases when there are shortages in emergencies. It's a bad idea for states to do this, it's a bad idea with enumerated powers problems for the federal government to do it.

The bottom line for me is that her economic instincts are REALLY bad. Every time the opportunity comes up, her instinct is to go centralized command and control. So, what's she going to do when that has bad effects?

Double down, that's what she'd do.

[Sarcastr0]

So you admit states have price gouging laws, but not price controls.

But you think they're both bad so you conflate them?

[Brett Bellmore]

Price "gouging" laws are just a subset of price "control" laws. They're controlling the price, aren't they?

[Martinned2]

Not necessarily. Quoting Martin Sandbu in the FT yesterday:

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [e-mail] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/41d31b4b-b0bd-4971-9f0f-543990a27103

Still, it is possible for a policy — like the mooted “ban on price gouging” — to be politically smart and economically asinine at the same time. But before signing up to the chorus of disapproval, consider two points.

First, nowhere has Harris or her team said they wanted price caps on food. A policy against price gouging can be a lot of things — punitive surtaxes on profits in circumscribed situations, for example, or measures against cartel-like behaviour (don’t forget Harris used to be a prosecutor). So let’s hear more about what they have in mind.

Second, there are several types of price controls, such as regulated medicine prices (which feature strongly in Harris’s broader pitch) or minimum wages, which work well in the vast majority of rich economies that have them. Indeed, many of the critics of Harris’s price-gouging line will wholeheartedly approve of these other price controls.

Those critics may retort that in those other cases, there are problems of market power and monopolistic behaviour that warrant price regulation. But that’s the point: simplistic Economics 101-style “price regulation=bad” reasoning is just that, including when applied to food prices. The question is whether there is reason to worry that markets are not working well in the food sector — in which case regulatory intervention may be not only politically highly popular but also good policy.

https://www.ft.com/content/41d31b4b-b0bd-4971-9f0f-543990a27103

[Mr. Bumble]

So, long story short they've got nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's very convenient for the Devil to hide in the details, when she's not going to give anybody the details until she's safely past the election.

So she hasn't said this, she hasn't said that... She hasn't said much of anything, actually; Maybe she should clarify what she means so the voters can decide if they actually like it?

In as much as she refuses to give details, I think it's actually fair in terms of politics for her opponents to fill the void. And if she doesn't like that?

She can explain what she actually means.

[Sarcastr0]

So she hasn’t said this, she hasn’t said that… She hasn’t said much of anything, actually; Maybe she should clarify what she means so the voters can decide if they actually like it?

Why should she bother? Seems you've already figured out everything she means to say already!

[Roger S]

No, Harris favors all that stuff. She does not say "open borders", but she is not willing to put reasonable limits on migrants coming in, and not willing to deport the illegals.

Maybe if she ever held a press conference, her views could be pinned down better.

[Martinned2]

I like your faith in press conferences.

There is basically no situation where a US president or presidential candidate can be forced to answer questions, and this is a major problem for US democracy.

[Randal]

she is not willing to put reasonable limits on migrants coming in, and not willing to deport the illegals.

Lie much? She's willing (and has promised) to do both.

[Magister]

I often wonder how someone can be dumb enough to support policies like medicare for all/socialized medicine, bans on free market health care and insurance, socialized/free day care, free college, price controls, open borders, abortion on demand up to and after birth, and more. Democrats, can you explain?

Of course this is politically motivated crap, and M L likely knows why the ones that are not made up crap would appeal to voters. But in case M L is as stupid as he pretends:
1. "medicare for all/socialized medicines" - it's easy to see support for this; other developed countries spend less on health care than the US precisely because they have some variation on these. Health care is a sufficient good that the government subsidizes it in all sorts of ways: Medicare, Medicaid, tax advantaged employer provided health insurance.
2. "bans on free market health care and insurance" - I've never seen anyone call for a ban on free market health care, although of course we already ban quacks and snake oil salesmen through regulation of medical practitioners. No ban on private insurers, although the free market would eliminate some private health insurers, since their need for profit and inefficiency might not be able to compete. When Obamacare went into effect, many health insurers dropped non-Obamacare policies because they wanted the subsidies and did not want to split their marketing efforts between two sets of plans.
3. "socialized/free day care" - child care is a huge expense that keeps people from working. Why would anyone short of Scrooge prefer that productive adults be a burden on someone else until their poverty kills them?
4. "free college" - college is generally seen as a good thing, in creating a more skilled workforce. There is widespread support for free public education through high school; student loans are already subsidized, and public universities are supported by government spending.
5. "price controls" - we could ask Richard Nixon except he's dead. Beyond government action against monopolies, price gouging and other unfair business practices, this is not something that Democrats support.
6. "open borders" - not something that anyone but Ilya Somin is advocating, so again not something for Democrats to explain.
7. "abortion on demand" - widespread support for Roe v Wade limits on abortion.
8. "up to and after birth" - killing someone after they're born is illegal everywhere; late abortions are rare and motivated by the life or health of the pregnant person and inevitable fetal death. Why would anyone wait for late in a pregnancy to get an abortion that would be more expensive, more risky and more unpleasant, except that they wanted to give birth but then discovered that it was not going to succeed? Well, I suppose "pregnancy crisis centers" might lie to them that the pregnancy is not ectopic or whatever, but that would be victimization by evil people rather than stupidity.
9. "and more" - like not wanting to be ruled by a dictator for even one day; not wanting to abandon countries we've made commitments to like Ukraine, Taiwan, South Korea, members of NATO; not wanting birth control bans; not wanting a host of other things laid out in Project 2025?

Mostly Democrats support reasonable iterations of these things; the list includes some dishonest lies about Democratic positions, and perhaps M L can explain why people like him are dumb enough to believe those.

[Randal]

I often wonder how someone can be so dumb to believe lies like "abortion on demand up to and after birth."

ML, can you explain?

[Estragon]

Jeff Duncan spoke last night of “the millions of Republicans and Independents that are at home that are sick and tired of making excuses for Donald Trump.”

How about it, huckleberries? Feeling any fatigue yet? It’s been a long 3.5 years

[hobie]

Trump's basement dwellers are gonna have a very long four more years to go as well. I see Trump told yet more truths and said Taylor Swift had endorsed him. You just keep on poking that bear, Trump. Swift and her 200M single cat lady fans.

Blue wave

[David Nieporent]

*Geoff.

[Estragon]

Ty

[Michael P]

A headline at one of my local news outlets said "Viral food critic [A] visits [local] restaurant". There are way too many plausible parses of that. I am pretty sure they mean that the critic's coverage is, or is hoped to go, viral on social media. But the possibilities of either the critic or the food having a contagious virus makes it rather unappetizing....

[dwb68]

This week is peak Kamala Harris.

The other guy is showing signs of being a serious candidate.

Less that 20 days to got before early voting, it'll be a childless cat lady catfight.

[M L]

It does seem interesting and notable that Harris is being coronated without a single vote cast for her or even a single press conference or interview. Here’s Breitbart’s framing:

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/08/22/kamala-harris-to-accept-nomination-without-giving-a-press-conference-or-providing-many-policy-details/

Tonight: The Coronation

Kamala Will Accept Nomination

Zero Primary Votes, 32 Days w/o Press Conference

Vice President Kamala Harris will accept the Democrats’ nomination on Thursday without sitting for one interview, giving one press conference, or providing many policy details since joining the race 32 days ago — July 21, 2024.

The strategy is notable for three reasons. First, it is a rinse and repeat of President Joe Biden’s 2020 “basement” strategy to avoid public scrutiny, which counters the multitude of exchanges the media typically conduct when presidential candidates enter races.

Second, the strategy underscores the Democrats’ perceived worry about their candidate’s likability and ability to speak off the cuff about policies without delivering a devastating gaffe. More is here on Harris’s word salads.
Third, it spotlights the Harris campaign’s “catch-22.” Speaking about policies to fix crime, inflation, and border security would undermine the Biden-Harris administration’s claim of having solved those key issues. However, Harris must tout the administration’s policy successes to validate her record and candidacy.

The media have not interviewed Harris on television since June 24, 2024, and the last time the press reportedly questioned her at a solo news conference was eight months ago — December 2, 2023. For 32 days since joining the race, Harris has not given an unscripted press conference or sit-down interview. “She has committed to one interview by Aug. 31,” Axios reported Tuesday.

Despite the media’s lack of access, their coverage of Harris has been more positive (84 percent) than their coverage of any other major party nominee, a Media Research Center study found. Coverage of former President Donald Trump has been almost entirely negative (89 percent). In turn, 70 percent of registered Democrats and independents who voted for Biden in 2020 are mostly in the dark about many of Harris’s controversial and radical positions, a recent poll shows.

[hobie]

You mad, Bro? You mad 'cause we ain't mad?

Do we keep doing things you don't like? Too unorthodox for ya?

[M L]

Not necessarily. I think it is interesting. Do you disagree that this is interesting and highly noteworthy and remarkable?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yes. You've never uttered an interesting or noteworthy comment in your entire history here.

As for "word salad:" have you bothered listening to anything Trump has said in the last...decade? Maybe read any of his tweets? Maybe you should brush up on the revolutionary war airports, or the wonderful F-32's we have in the military.

(I hear they're twice as good as the F-16's!)

[M L]

So the fact that the presidential candidate did not run in or get any votes in the primaries, and then has not had a single press conference or interview since entering the race – that is not interesting or noteworthy in your mind?

I wonder if this has happened yet in U.S. history, or if it is a first. Do you know?

[Josh R]

The not running or getting any votes part is not interesting. The same would have happened had Trump been assassinated.

The no interviews is interesting but only to note it's a smart tactic. If she can win on vibes, why not do it?

[M L]

I agree if "winning on vibes" works, then it is a smart tactic from a self-interested point of view of a politician. But if this is a newly viable tactic, what has changed between now and U.S. history up to this point, to make it so?

I see your point about likening Biden's ouster to an assassination. But I'm not sure that's really apt - or, if it is, in what way specifically? As there are several ways that could be interpreted.

[Josh R]

If Trump had been assassinated, we would have a GOP candidate who received zero primary votes. It’s no big deal.

Perhaps vibes is more likely to work (I don’t know if it will work) in our current state of polarization with people staying in their own cocoons.

[ducksalad]

Biden stepped down.

He might have been pushed, prodded, pestered but people are allowed to do that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Ain't no rule that says the public and party leaders cannot pressure an unpopular candidate to step down and be substituted for a popular one instead before the nomination.

The observation that for once its Republicans, and not Democrats, complaining that a dog can't play basketball is incredibly apt.

[Randal]

I doubt she got zero primary votes.

We’ve had lots of nominees who didn’t get the most votes in the primaries. That’s not unusual at all. The primaries are sort of advisory. The delegates always pick the candidate. That’s been true since before primaries were even a thing. To this day, lots of state parties explicitly ignore their state’s primary votes in allocating their convention delegates.

But most importantly, Harris got millions of general election votes and won. That’s why it had to be her. She’s already been elected by the country as Biden’s successor.

[Frank Drackman]

Breathing for one, stop doing that, you're exhaling CO2, and "Bro"??(I'm saying it Ironically, I get the feeling it's part of your everyday Vernacular, as is getting your teeth punched in when you reflexively use that term with one of your N-word neighbors)
So be honest, Man Bun? Tatoos? Never been in a fight (that slap fight with your sister when she caught you wearing her shoes doesn't count)
Community College Degree in something in demand, like "Queer Dynamics"??
Like Cums-a-lot did with Sleepy Joe, looks like the Revolting Reverend has ass-umed Room Temperature, time to Step up your game Hobie-Stank!!

Frank

[MoreCurious]

Her best asset is that she's not Donald Trump. She will continue to hold huge rallies and give speeches that electrify the audiences, while Trump will continue to make an ass of himself every time he opens his mouth. And is it really surprising that the coverage of an experienced, smart, accomplished, joyful woman is more positive than the coverage of a racist, misogynistic, mean, not-very-smart convicted felon who specializes in being a bully? If you don't know enough about Harris and Trump to make an informed decision, that's your fault.

[M L]

I disagree with some of your premises, but no, it is not surprising that the media is super biased and totally in the tank for the Democrat party and the broader D.C. establishment, such that it is nothing more than a mouthpiece and propaganda arm.

It's not surprising because it has been that way, more or less, for as long as I can remember (Clinton is the first presidency I remember), but incrementally increasingly so, so the increase is not surprising either.

[grb]

M L : ” … media …. super biased … (whining)”

So let’s get this straight : You support a slimy, racist, misogynistic, petty, deeply-stupid, convicted felon, lifelong-criminal, huckster conman buffoonish bully – and it’s the media’s fault there aren’t votes enough to elect your revolting candidate ?!?

Yep. It’s true. Today’s Right is just as addicted to whiny excuses as they are endless lies.

[David Nieporent]

It does seem interesting and notable that Harris is being coronated without a single vote cast for her or even a single press conference or interview. Here’s Breitbart’s framing:

No, she's being nominated after receiving 4,567 votes — 99% of the eligible voters.

[M L]

Good point. I meant zero primary votes, or zero votes cast by regular people in their role as citizens.

I do realize that she was selected by party leaders.

I think it should engender some interesting discussions. For example, maybe party leaders should always select presidential candidates, why or why not?

[Sarcastr0]

So it's formally by the rules.
And functionally her support is by survey and appearance quite strong among Dem 'regular people in their role as citizens'

So you just kinda want to pick a fight about legitimacy without any actual legitimacy issue.
Because it would be an interesting discussion.

Suure. Funny how all your interesting discussions look so much like partsian wedge issues.

[ducksalad]

Even if there was a legitimacy issue, it’s an issue between Democrats and their party leaders. People outside the party don’t get to decide.

[Sarcastr0]

I could see it being a general election issue if egregious enough.

[Roger S]

Vote for Trump if you support democracy. Vote for Harris if you want secret cabals and DoJ prosecutors deciding who can be President.

[Frank Drackman]

I've voted in quite a few Jaw-Jaw DemoKKKrat primaries, usually as a goof, or if the Repubiclown one isn't contested, I've voted for Al Sharpton in 04'(he actually was the best choice) Stacy Abraham (any non-blithering candidate would have beat Kemp in 18' and 22')

Frank

[ducksalad]

What other method would you suggest when the person who won the regular primary season withdraws, dies, or is assassinated?

Anyway, despite what they might believe, voters in a presidential primary aren’t directly voting on who will be the nominee. The nomination is not decided by national popular vote. They are voting on which delegates will go to the convention. The delegates may be pledged to a particular candidate but that pledge is conditional on the candidate still being alive and in the running, and even then only for the first ballot.

BTW, the same thing applies to presidential electors, or ought to. If Trump dies after winning on November 5th but before the electoral votes are cast, I assume you’d want the electors to communicate with each other and come up with Plan B.

[M L]

I truly don’t know, but for example it seems Obama initially had some kind of “open nominating process” in mind which didn’t happen.

The question I put forward was whether party leaders should always select candidates ,and do away with primary votes. If party leaders hold enough sway to force Biden to withdraw right after he swore that he would never withdraw unless God Almighty himself appeared and told him to do so, then maybe such a system wouldn’t be as different as people think.

Another idea I’ve long heard (not specific with a withdrawing or dying scenario) is to have 50 primaries in 50 states all on the same day.

[MoreCurious]

You seem convinced that it was party leaders who forced Biden to withdraw. But unless you were present at his beach house the weekend he made his announcement, you simply don't know, do you? It is entirely conceivable that he made the decision on his own after reflecting on the past three-and-a-half years plus recent events. It is also quite possible that his loving family convinced him that his fifty years of service were enough of a legacy and that it was time to pass the torch and spend time with them.

[Bob from Ohio]

LOL Good one!

[Roger S]

Pelosi told Biden he can drop out the easy way, or the hard way. He did not even write the drop-out letter.

[Sarcastr0]

Because it wasn’t on the right stationary, Internet detective man?

[David Nieporent]

Schlafly means that the Jews did it.

[Roger S]

According to press reports, the cabal leaders were Obama and Pelosi. Neither is Jewish.

[David Nieporent]

And yet, on your blog you blamed the Jews.

[ducksalad]

Nothing illegitimate about one politician telling another "We're not going to support you so you better drop out."

Thee's also nothing illegitimate about one politician telling another "We think you need to be subjected to the 25th Amendment, unless you've got a more dignified solution." The 25th is a legit part of the constitution, and commenters here were already blaming the Democrats for not using it.

Unless there was a threat to have him killed or break his legs or something, his stepping down counts as voluntary.

[grb]

All you say is true enough. However, I’d be astounded if the 25th Amendment was ever mentioned. Withdrawn support would be more than prod enough.

But – hey – our right-wingers want their lurid entertainment. It’s how they ended-up with a reality-TV star buffoonish man-child huckster as god in the first place. So let’s fantasize Pelosi told Biden she’d shoot a super-cute puppy if he didn’t drop-out. That would surely do it for Joe and most average folk (though Kristi Noem would probably get off on the threat)

[Roger S]

If Biden is really so incompetent as to justify his removal under the 25th, then he should be removed now. Not next year.

[David Nieporent]

But nobody believes that he is really so incompetent as to justify his removal under the 25th.

[Mr. Bumble]

There you go again speaking for everyone.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody sane believes that he is really so incompetent as to justify his removal under the 25th.

[Mr. Bumble]

When did you add a MD to your JD?

[ducksalad]

“open nominating process”

Theoretically it was. Three other minor candidates requested to have their names placed in consideration; however, it took support from 300 delegate to move on, and only Harris cleared that threshold.

Of course there was immense pressure on delegates to play along, and even more pressure on other potential prominent Democrats not to formally put their names into consideration. If someone like Michelle Obama or Gavin Newsome had put their names in they likely would have >300 sign on and then it would’ve been a real convention.

However, pressuring people to get with the program is a normal part of politics. Trump likes to brag that he won 50 out of 50 primaries in 2020. He doesn’t mention that only his opponents were William Weld and some no-names even weirder than Weld. That’s because every single major Republican was made to understand that challenging the accepted nominee was a non-starter.

[David Nieporent]

Moreover, state GOP affiliates cancelled primaries in roughly 10 states in 2020, so that Trump wouldn't have to face any challenge.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do realize that it's perfectly routine for BOTH parties to not bother with Presidential primaries in years where an incumbent President of their own party decides to run for reelection, right? If they're at all popular it's just a waste of time and money.

The problem with 2024 for the Democrats wasn't that it's unusual for an incumbent President to not be subject to a primary. It's that Democratic party officials already knew that Biden wouldn't be serving a second term for medical reasons, so he was just a straw candidate, essentially.

[Magister]

Trump in 2020 was wildly unpopular, though. (And in other years starting with 20.)

And there is no evidence that Democratic leaders thought Biden was anywhere near as bad as he appeared in the June 27th debate; the conspiracy theory that this was all manipulated because they knew Harris would surprisingly be wildly popular in late July on credits them with a level of foresight and unity that Democrats have not previously displayed.

The conspiracy theorizing (and mind reading that supports it) is just sour grapes from the opposition (albeit a little more believable than pretty much anything put forward about the 2020 election).

[David Nieporent]

It’s that Democratic party officials already knew that Biden wouldn’t be serving a second term for medical reasons,

Literally zero people thought that before the debate.

[M L]

Yes, but whatever it was, my point is that it seems Obama had something different in mind (I don’t know what exactly), and according to some reports would have preferred a different candidate.

Your broader point brings me back to my question, why not just have party leaders select to begin with?

[Voize]

In 1872 Horace Greeley, running against Ulysses S. Grant, died between the general election and the Electoral College vote.
66 electors had pledged to Greeley and 286 to Grant.

Of Greeley's electors 3 from Georgia voted Greeley anyway but their votes were rejected. The other 63 votes were distributed among Illinois governor-elect Thomas Hendricks, Greeley's running mate Benjamin G. Brown, Charles Jenkins, and Supreme Court justice David Davis.

[ducksalad]

There wasn’t much point to Greeley’s electors organizing around a new candidate since they’d lost (and lost hard) anyway.

If Grant had died there would have been strong incentive to agree on someone new.

[Randal]

For example, maybe party leaders should always select presidential candidates, why or why not?

They do. That's how it works.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

When a comment says "Got it," good chance they do not.

[Michael P]

You certainly do not.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

ON MY MIND: Some days ago I posted a remark about the Current Big Thing in chemistry, which is RNA chemistry. A reader asked if there were a summary I could recommend for non-chemists. Well, this very short editorial comment in the journal RNA (a journal devoted to the study of (yes, you guessed it): RNA) may be too technical or too name-droppy for a fully-fledged non-chemist, but it certainly interested me. Maybe you’ll like it too. The author is a very high-powered bio-organic chemist, a bona fide ball of fire at Yale, and a (relatively) new member of the National Academy of Sciences, and President of the RNA Society. I wouldn’t be surprised if you heard more about her in the not-too-distant future….

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4371347/

Here’s the web-site of the RNA society:

https://www.rnasociety.org/

[hobie]

I remember when Tom Cech came out with Ribozymes in the mid 90's. RNA had enzymatic activity?!!! Everyone was blown away. He was the biggest rock star in molecular biology and I attended a symposium he gave at my university. Heady times.

I also think we are getting close to determining that RNA may very well be the god particle. Like the prions of today, RNA may have been the first self-replicating biological particle in the primordial oceans

[Frank Drackman]

List the first 30 Elements of the Periodic Table in order from memory , Hey (man!) it's AlGores Interwebs, you can cheat, nobody will know how poorly Ed-jew-ma-cated you are, except for you.
Amazing how many peoples who consider themselves smart don't know them, and it's not a Science-Nerd fact, sort of like knowing all of the State Capitols or the POTUS's in order (Not VPOTUS's, I'm not that big a nerd)

Frank

[santamonica811]

It was me. I was continuing to follow the Mon and Thur Open Threads, down to the bowels of the comments, in hopes that one or more people might follow up. I'm looking forward to reading this, and to learning new stuff. Mucho appreciado. 🙂

[loki13]

Today's sunny thought!

You are not compelled to form any opinion about this matter before you, nor to disturb your peace of mind at all. Things in themselves have no power to extort a verdict from you.
Marcus Aurelius

Sunny thought, part two!

I don't know about you, but I take comfort knowing that he's out there. The Dude. Takin' er easy for all us sinners arguing about stupid things on this blog.

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, I thought of you (and your mango trees) when I went to the beach last week, and had dried (organic, of course) mango as a mid-morning snack. Hit the spot.

Then built a sand castle all day. It was wonderful to be a child again.

[loki13]

That sounds wonderful!

I was traveling abroad recently, and had the most amazing dried mangoes. In a Scandinavian country!

Despite the constant drumbeat of fear and anger, there is so much good out there to enjoy. We should enjoy it.

Building a sandcastle... that's awesome!

[Commenter_XY]

Figs are just now coming into season in my area. The harvest is 'so so' this year. Fig puree, when paired with spirits and selected spices, is an amazing Friday night late summer beverage. Keep it keto by using allulose instead of sugar.

[ducksalad]

Huge harvest down here. Fig Chicken:

2+ cups coarsely chopped figs, natural mix of firm and overripe is good. A whole stick of butter, half a cup of sherry or brandy. Cook in a big, shallow, pan until it’s getting a bit sticky, then throw in six or seven large chicken tenders, salt, pepper, and saute until there are some caramelized spots on the chicken.

Serve with something neutral like white rice or mashed potatoes so the fig flavor comes through.

[Commenter_XY]

That sounds divine. A cardiologist nightmare, and yummy!

I just might make that tonight (Fri) for Shabbes dinner.

[M L]

Really?

Obama Makes Penis Size Joke While Trashing Trump as ‘Childish’

Hah. Well, that's enough politics for me this week.

[Sarcastr0]

Who would have such an embarrassingly stick-in-the-mud take, I wonder?

Of course! This is yet another Breitbart take ML is trying to smuggle into VC:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/08/21/nolte-obama-makes-penis-size-joke-while-trashing-trump-as-childish/

The man just wants to share his love of Breitbart, but doesn’t want folks to know it came from Breitbart. What’s wrong with that?

[David Nieporent]

The man just wants to share his love of Breitbart, but doesn’t want folks to know it came from Breitbart. What’s wrong with that?

I'd be embarrassed too if I were quoting someone who didn't know the difference between implied and inferred.

[hobie]

Ouch, Sarcastr0. That is a savage burn finding that. ML, it seems you're a Breitbart man, time to leave

[Sarcastr0]

It’s not the first time with him.

[M L]

You should have scrolled a bit more before commenting . . . I just clearly linked Breitbart right above, and then posted this next headline here! Whoops!

Aside from that, are you actually saying this "take" is wrong and that Obama wasn't making a penis size joke? I hadn't even considered that.

By the way, I have noticed Breitbart's editing standards declining a bit recently. But the value in it and the reason I check it from time to time, is not so much their commentary, but has always been that they routinely report on certain newsworthy items that I never see reported anywhere else and wouldn't otherwise know about. But I also don't watch TV and might be unaware of other potential sources.

[Jacob Grimes]

Is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a priority for US foreign policy because it's seen as a destabilizing issue in the Middle East, or is it something else?

Haven't most Arab countries come to accept Israel's existence and even began to normalize relations? Sure, they still make statements in support of the Palestinians, but they aren't launching wars anymore.

If anything, the greatest source of instability is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its proxies, right? So is this focus on Israel and the Palestinians a bit outdated?

[Don Nico]

Jacob,
The present policy as seen from Israel (Channel 7 TV-Jerusalem ) is that above all, the Administration does not want a wider war to start before the election.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes = Arutz Sheva (channel 7)

[Jacob Grimes]

How much wider is the war going to get? Israel's already being attacked from Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, and Syria, and all of these countries/areas initiated the conflict, either directly or through proxies whose existence is at least tolerated.

If Biden put less pressure on Israel to stay its hand, he would be more popular, not less. Only the most extreme members of the left are seriously suggesting that it would be good for Hamas to remain in power or that Israel deserves to be attacked with rockets from all sides.

[Don Nico]

At this point, it is Biden and Harris who need the ceasefire not Israel.

BTW, where are the commenters who criticize civilian deaths in Gaza when it comes to Hezbollah deliberately targeting civilian centers in Israel and the Golan.

[grb]

Don Nico : “At this point, it is Biden and Harris who need the ceasefire not Israel”

1. Everytime I check-out Israeli newspapers they are full of stories about popular anger/pressure on Netanyahu to end the war with a ceasefire that brings the hostages home. Seems like there’s a lot of people on Israel’s home front with a different perspective than Don’s U.S. partisan hackery.

2. For the zillionth time, the criticism of Israel isn’t about civilian deaths in Gaza. That’s strawman bullshit of the highest order. It’s about civillian deaths at a rate that exceeds almost every conflict in decades of war around the world.

[Commenter_XY]

This is bullshit = It’s about civillian deaths at a rate that exceeds almost every conflict in decades of war around the world.

Thats the kind of comment that will make me wonder, grb. You should check that 'stat' of yours.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that bit does make me wonder whether grb has noticed the war in Sudan, or the war in Ethiopia.

[David Nieporent]

Or Syria.

[grb]

When I've noted Israel is wagging an extraordinarily bloody war against the civillian population of Gaza, the two comparative benchmarks I've used are Syria & Chechnya.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Thats the kind of comment that will make me wonder, grb. You should check that ‘stat’ of yours"

You want to argue Israel is killing civillians at a rate typically seen in conflicts around the world? Please do. Good luck & God bless. The facts won't support you, but at least you'll be making a legitimate argument about a real topic where they can be a serious debate.

It will be a welcome break from the tendency of many people (including you, XY, on countless occasions) to peddle the crude untruth that Israel is being criticized only because civillians die in war only because they're Jews.

[Josh R]

It's possible waging a war in a densly populated urban setting is bound to cause higher civilian causalities. But, it's also possible that the war cannot be won, so any further civilian suffering is not justified. Perhaps a new strategy is needed to bring the hostages home and safeguard Israel.

[Don Nico]

Josh,
You have probably heard the analysis of civilian to enemy combatant casualties many times. Israel has done astonishing well by that measure particularly similar Hamas wants civilian casualties as acts so as to maximize them.
Israel cannot afford to assume that the war cannot be won when Iran is feeding combatants on three fronts.
In addition, it does not know if any of the remaining hostages are alive. Of the six bodies recently recovered three had been shot in the head at least three months ago.

[Josh R]

Assuming something can happen that increasingly likely can't is a recipe for disaster.

[Don Nico]

I see that the putz grb putz thinks it clever to insult to me when he knows little more than what his political masters tell him to say.

[grb]

Don Nico : “I see that the putz grb putz thinks it clever to insult to me..”

Four Points :

1. It’s the opposite of clever to say you’re an uninformed partisan hack. That’s much too obvious for cleverness to have anything to do with it.

2. Let’s take your comment above that I responded to. Is anything in it right? No. You say Biden and Harris “need the ceasefire not Israel”. Apparently you’re too stupid or unknowing to realize it’s in America’s foreign policy interest to avoid a wider war and get a ceasefire. Likewise, you’re oblivious to something commonly discussed in Israel: The only person who absolutely needs endless & wider war is Netanyahu. The minute this conflict ends, the clock starts ticking on the end of his term. With war, he’s protected from the deep unpopularity of his government among Israelis. With war, he postpones the election that will oust him from power. And like Trump, he needs political power/immunity for protection against criminal corruption charges and jail. Everyone in Israel knows that. But you don’t. Because you’re Don Nico and consistantly don’t know shit.

3. In fact, it’s just as much in Israel’s interest to end the war in Gaza. Someone like XY (below) is happy to see endless butchery to bump the number of dead Hamas by 2-3 precentage points. That’s because he sees this as a sporting event with the added buzz of blood lust hate. But Israel is long past the point of diminishing returns. What’s in the country’s interest is to establish a long-term strategic objective for post-war Gaza. It’s been almost eleven months since 07Oct and Netanyahu still can’t do that – but he’s highly incentivized not to, isn’t he?

4. As for civilian casualties, Don’s “Israel has done astonishing well by that measure” is just hollow talk. Months ago, I heard the Second Battle of Fallujah was an apt analogy for the difficulty of fighting in an urban setting. Yet when I check the numbers, The U.S. and its allies killed civillans at a tiny fraction of the rate by the IDF. That’s because limiting civilian dead was an actual objective of the U.S. Army. Similarly, a columnist in the Jerusalem Post recently claimed critics of Israel were hypocrites because U.S. wars have killed 20,000 civilians. It was a powerful point – except he was counting over twenty years for the U.S, not ten months.

[Randal]

Israel's clearly doing ethnic cleansing in Gaza and -- more slowly but still surely -- in the West Bank. But I think it's their only option, and better than the status quo, including for the Palestinians, at least those who make it out.

[Commenter_XY]

Jacob, you asked: How much wider is the war going to get?

KSA, and most of the gulf states, are not interested in a wider conflict that shuts down the Straits of Hormuz. They are much more interested in tapping into Israeli economic dynamism. The Gulf state leadership is mostly Western educated, at this stage. Their mindset is very different than 1973 (also, an existential battle for Israel).

Hezbollah and Israel will fight a war, if Hezbollah does not move behind the Litani river (Lebanon). I expect that to start soon, probably near the High Holidays. Maybe sooner. Syria is a killing field for Iranian generals (does not bother me in the slightest). Syria doesn't have a military force capable of changing facts on the ground. Jordan is a wild card, Abdullah could fall. Egypt, having had their treachery at Philadelphi crossing, is coldly neutral, with no apparent plans to attack Israel. The Houthis have defeated the USN; however, the IAF took out some infrastructure and looks to do more of the same.

Iran will attack, aided by Hezbollah and the Houthis. They will not back off. Israel will retaliate; strongly.

A ceasefire is not in the cards, to me. Most of the hostages are likely dead, having been brutalized and tortured to death in captivity. Because Hamas is quite open about their stated belief that Jews being the descendant of apes and pigs, and are not human. Hamas mocks POTUS Biden publicly to the masses. They do not fear or respect him. Nor will they fear or respect VP Harris, who is an empty vessel.

Accordingly, Hamas must be utterly defeated, and seen as utterly defeated and crushed throughout the arab world. Yahya Sinwar must be hunted down and killed; there is no amnesty. There is only death in his future.

Aside from a direct attack from Iran, a war in Lebanon, and war in gaza (is that all?), I don't see a significant widening of the conflict before the election.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY, how do you propose to get Trump's attention off the golf states in America, and refocused on the gulf states in the Middle East?

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, stick to what you know.

[Mr. Bumble]

Short list.

[ducksalad]

It's a priority for the same reason as anything else: there are domestic constituencies that think it's important and are willing to organize and put some pressure on their representatives.

Armenians and Azerbaijanis can kill each other for years on end and very few Americans base their votes or donations on it.

[Joe_dallas]

Jacob Grimes 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
"If anything, the greatest source of instability is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its proxies, right?

Jacob - you highlight a very good point. Iran is funding Hezbolah, Houthi, Hamas and others. Its inane to believe that approachment, including releasing funds, pallets of cash and other gestures are going to placate the regimes goals. The approach advocated by the left is very similar to the steps taken with chamberlin at munich with peace in our time.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Oh hey, it's pathological liar Joe_dallas!

Welcome back, and thank you for sharing your expertise from your 33rd degree you pretend to have.

"The approach advocated by the left is very similar to the steps taken with chamberlin at munich with peace in our time."

Now do Trump suggesting he'd let Russia just have Ukraine, you dumb, partisan fuck.

[David Nieporent]

Don't forget his announcement that he wouldn't protect Taiwan.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Another excellent example from notorious "leftist" Donald Trump.

Thanks David.

[Joe_dallas]

Jason - Are you capable of acting like an adult.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What's wrong Joe: can't step up to the plate and explain your hypocrisy?

Must you run away like a cowardly bitch, pretending like there isn't a glaring problem with your partisan bullshit?

Many people around here deserve civility. You should go work on your flexibility, because I will never be civil with you.

You're a lying, cowardly, partisan shit-stain who can't handle being called out. Go fuck yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

What about your constant attacks on everyone as dishonest and addiction to appeals to 'everyone knows' do you think might inspire people to engage with you as an adult?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm game ("45" voice) "People are saying, let Roosh-a just take You-Crane, who gives a fuck?!"

[grb]

Jason Cavanaugh : “Now do Trump suggesting he’d let Russia just have Ukraine, you dumb, partisan fuck”

Of course that’s the one promise I’m sure Trump would keep. After all, he has the experience to do so. Who else had Neville Chamberlain spinning in his grave with envy? In his firesale to the Taliban, Trump gave away more and got less than Chamberlain ever hoped to achieve. Both got their piece of paper, but Trump wins the prize for servile pusillanimity on points.

[OtisAH]

“[Harris] understands that most of us will never be afforded the grace of failing forward. We will never benefit from the affirmative action of generational wealth. If we bankrupt a business—if we bankrupt a business or choke in a crisis, we don’t get a second, third, or fourth chance. If things don’t go our way, we don’t have the luxury of whining or cheating others to get further ahead. No. We don’t get to change the rules so we always win. If we see a mountain in front of us, we don’t expect there to be an escalator waiting to take us to the top. No. We put our heads down. We get to work. In America, we do something....

“....It couldn’t be more obvious. Of the two major candidates in this race, only Kamala Harris truly understands the unseen labor and unwavering commitment that has always made America great. Now, unfortunately, we know what comes next. We know folks are going to do everything they can to distort her truth. My husband and I sadly know a little something about this. For years, Donald Trump did everything in his power to try to make people fear us. See, his limited, narrow view of the world made him feel threatened by the existence of two hardworking, highly educated, successful people who happen to be Black. I want to know—I want to know—who’s going to tell him, who’s going to tell him, that the job he is currently seeking might just be one of those Black jobs?”

- excerpt from Michelle Obama’s speech to the DNC

[Bob from Ohio]

"We will never benefit from the affirmative action of generational wealth"

Is she giving away her millions? Or will her daughters get them?

[OtisAH]

I have no idea what the Obamas will do with their wealth. Presumably much to most of it will be left to their children. However, I somehow know you have no assets to leave anyone, and no one to leave them to. Weird, huh?

[Bob from Ohio]

How can she burden them with the shame of inherited wealth? They need to learn to fail without any second chances.

And the suspicion of their late grandparents in heaven that they have more than they need?

[jb]

LOL, the whole point of her speech is that generational wealth is a privilege (not a burden) that very few people have the advantage of. Her kids will have massive advantages that few in the world will be lucky enough to start with, but hopefully they won't pretend that this makes them better than other people.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob didn't listen to her speech, of course.

To be fair, I'm only just now getting to it.

[santamonica811]

Bob, I suspect, doesn't understand the English meaning of the expression, "Most of us . . ." If his language-translation programme was a bit more sophisticated; he'd understand that the speaker is making a general point. Hence, the *most of us* bit.

If Elon Musk or Donald Trump or Bill Gates were to say, "Most of us cannot afford to attend a 4 year university without taking on large--and sometimes crippling--student loan debt."; I think most of us would immediately recognize (a) The statement is 100% accurate, while also (b) the speaker himself is fortunate enough to be outside the circle of "most" in his observation."

I don't think it was a subtle linguistic point. But it apparently flew over the head(s) of at least one VC regular participant.

[Moderation4ever]

I suspect the Obama's will leave their children significant wealth. But it is important to remember that it is only recently that black families have been able to have this opportunity. For much of the country's history pathways of accumulating wealth were denied to people like Barrack and Michelle. They earned their wealth starting at the bottom. Trump inherited enough wealth to allow him to fail time after time before having some success.

[tylertusta]

The DOJ is now indicating how they will prosecute 1512(c)(2) charges in J6 cases:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/21/justice-department-jan-6-obstruction-00175412

“From this evidence, the jury certainly will be able to infer that Shawndale Chilcoat attempted to impair the availability of the electoral college votes which Congress was to consider,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Romano wrote.

This preview's the argument that Special Counsel Smith may get to make to Chutkan.

In my opinion, I think that the reformulated charges- that the pair entered the capital to prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes- is still too much of a stretch for this interpretation to survive on appeal. But I think that the DOJ is going this route on how it plans to apply 1512(c)(2) in J6 cases precisely because that Trump is charged under the statute and they want to salvage both 1512 counts. Evidently the true believers in the DOJ won't give up with a fight.

[not guilty]

The Special Counsel's filing (which does not at all reference Donald Trump) is here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25053981/chilcoat1512082124.pdf

Trump faces greater culpability than the Chilcoat defendants. SCOTUS opined in Fischer v. United States, 144 S.Ct. 2176 (2024), at Part A-1 of the opinion:

Tethering subsection (c)(2) to the context of (c)(1) recognizes the distinct purpose of each provision. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 208 (2012) ("evident purpose" helps define scope of catchall provision). As we have explained, subsection (c)(1) refers to a defined set of offense conduct--four types of actions that, by their nature, impair the integrity or availability of records, documents, or objects for use in an official proceeding. When the phrase "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding" is read as having been given more precise content by that narrower list of conduct, subsection (c)(2) makes it a crime to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an official proceeding in ways other than those specified in (c)(1). For example, it is possible to violate (c)(2) by creating false evidence--rather than altering incriminating evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Reich, 479 F. 3d 179, 185-187 (CA2 2007) (Sotomayor, J.) (prosecution under subsection (c)(2) for transmitting a forged court order). Subsection (c)(2) also ensures that liability is still imposed for impairing the availability or integrity of other things used in an official proceeding beyond the "record[s], document[s], or other object[s]" enumerated in (c)(1), such as witness testimony or intangible information. See, e.g., United States v. Mintmire, 507 F. 3d 1273, 1290 (CA11 2007) (prosecution under subsection (c)(2) based in part on the defendant's attempt to orchestrate a witness's grand jury testimony). [Italics in original; boldface added.]

Unlike the Chilcoat defendants, Trump is accused of attempting to obstruct the Electoral Count and conspiring to do so by means of the creation and transmission to Congress of bogus slates of electors from various states. That should be sufficient for Judge Chutkan to require Trump to stand trial irrespective of what Judge Kollar-Kotelly rules as to the Chilcoats.

[tylertusta]

The Special Counsel’s filing

The DOJ's filing, you mean. The Special Counsel's only J6 case is Trump. The rest of the J6 cases are being run out of Main Justice.

Trump is accused of attempting to obstruct the Electoral Count and conspiring to do so by means of the creation and transmission to Congress of bogus slates of electors from various states.

If Smith reworks the indictment to say that, I would agree with you that Trump is properly accused of this. Until Smith does, the August 2023 indictment is more accurately read to follow the erroneous pre-Fischer theory that the means was the riot, not the creation/transmission.

The DOJ's new position on 1512(c)(2) in those J6 cases doesn't align with Fischer and what you are saying here. Instead, it is possible that Smith may try to argue that the means is still the riot since Trump knew that there was evidence in Congress that day.

These might not be mutually exclusive, of course. Smith might come at Trump with both theories- and perhaps a couple extra 1512 counts!

[not guilty]

You are correct that the filing in Chilcoat is that of the U. S. Attorney and not the Special Counsel.

That having been said, have you actually read the Trump indictment? The fake elector scheme is the linchpin of the conspiracy, and it is central to the attempt to obstruct the electoral count by Congress. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

¶7: “The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.”

¶8e: “Co-Conspirator 5, an attorney . . . assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.”

¶8f: “Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant . . . helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.”

The manner and means of the conspiracy is described at ¶10:

10. The Defendant’s conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:

a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.

b. The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.

c. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant’s fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department’s authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted states’ legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.

d. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the Vice President to use the Defendant’s fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them. When that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.

e. After it became public on the afternoon of January 6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd— including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results— violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.

While the above-quoted language appears in Count One of the indictment (conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371), all but ¶7 are incorporated by reference in Count Two (conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding under § 1512(k) at ¶125 and in Count Three (obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding under §§ 1512(c)(2) and 2) at ¶127.

No reworking of the Trump indictment is necessary to comport with Fischer.

[hobie]

Seems smart. Since the Electoral College is the only means a Republican candidate can be president for the past quarter century, you'd think the rubes would cherish it's integrity. And [rubbing chin] who was responsible for fucking with it in 2020?

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank (“Did you see the “Wigger Rap-Off”?, they were all bad, but Hobie-Stank”)
Your Pubic Screw-el Ed-jew-ma-cation is showing
The Electrical College is the only means any candidate has been erected into the Oval Orfice, even if fraudulently a few times (You say 2000, I say 2020)
and since you’ve shown you're Constitutionally Ill-literate, I’ll give you a phonics lesson,
That whole 3/5 compromise Bullshit? it was the Non-Slave Owning States (at the time of the Constitution’s writing, every one of the 13 original states permitted Slavery at one time) who only wanted Slaves to count as 3/5, the Slave States wanted them counted the same as everyone else,

Frank

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman. The neediest veteran in our armed forces. If I see you in the airport I will fawn the praise you want and thank you for your service. I will encourage those around me to do the same. In aggregate, I hope it will meet your needs

[hobie]

Alright, does anyone here have actual contact with Artie? This is a bit concerning now.

[Frank Drackman]

He's dead, Jim

[Commenter_XY]

We don't know if Arthur wore a red shirt = He's dead, Jim

[Frank Drackman]

Most liker called the wrong "Klinger" "Klinger" and got "Stomped" by one of his "Bettors"

[Commenter_XY]

I hope he is Ok = Arthur

We don't agree on much. And his taste in music is....dated. But a splendid writing style and sharp sense of humor, when you sort through the Clinger bullshit.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe EV just banned him.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think so; It appears that, when somebody gets banned from this site, it results in their entire comment history vanishing. (Really bad design for comment software!) We've seen that with several people who actually did get banned.

But you can go back just a few weeks and find comments by him.

Not a lot, though, his commenting frequency had been dropping. Maybe he's going through something medical or personal.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or maybe he's on vacation.

[Magister]

That doesn't appear generally true; you can find old comments from Theendoftheleft who was banned (some particularly egregious comments disappeared from the post that apparently prompted that but not all, and he continued as Ilya Snowman).

[Ilya Snowman]

Yep. Victim of fascist censorship, I was.

It seems possible that the right reverend realized it was a bad idea to regularly and publicly call for millions of his fellow citizens’ replacement, especially given America’s current political climate.

Perhaps he also had an existential crisis after coming to finally realize that the core of his political ideology and identity is based on mere conceits, and because the global situation is far worse than he'd understood.

[Magister]

Victim of the mentally ill banned user's own threatening posts, actually.

It seems unlikely that anything persuaded Kirkland to change his beliefs. (Surprisingly the mentally ill poster formerly known as Theendoftheleft did not take credit that his persistent questions about where Kirkland's grandchildren go to school and other violent rambling intimidated Kirkland into leaving the forum. But Ilya Snowman has been quite docile since that banning, so that would be a reach even for that nutcase.)

It is unlikely that Kirkland was banned, as he would certainly try to return to point out that he was banned again to all the non-believers, and I can't see Eugene or anyone else working hard enough to block every possible Kirkland account.

[Ilya Snowman]

Well, that’s quite an Orwellian framing by you, innit? Blaming the victim of censorship for their being censored! Suggesting euthanasia for someone and their family somehow being out of bounds to write on a ‘libertarian’ blog, one that prioritises robust freedom of speech.

Quite a stretch—unless your ideology/ideologies aren’t exactly what you present them to be, yeah…?

‘It seems unlikely that anything persuaded Kirkland to change his beliefs’.

Perhaps. Although if re-read the Rev and mine’s most recent exchanges and you’ll see why he might have at least realized it is a very bad idea to regularly and publicly EXPRESS certain of those beliefs in the United States, ie replacement of people whom he hates. And as to the questions about Rev’s grandchildren—and perhaps relatedly—go read our most recent exchanges. Arthur really believed, till then, that I was merely a ‘sock puppet’ for one of you. Once he realized I wasn’t, well…

Incidentally, where DO his grandchildren go to school? Do you know?

‘It is unlikely that Kirkland was banned, as he would certainly try to return to point out that he was banned again to all the non-believers…’

Why was he banned the first time?

And who goes around calling the mentally ill ‘mentally ill’ or ‘nutcases’ if they really believe it about them. 🙂

[Magister]

We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic.

We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.

You are not a victim of censorship. Your claim that your threats of random violence against Kirkland might have caused him to stop posting anonymously here, let alone change his views, is delusional. Calling you mentally ill is for the benefit of anyone who might otherwise imagine that a productive conversation would be possible; people who care about you might become aware of the need for intervention.

[Ilya Snowman]

You ‘request’ that they be civil. A request is not a requirement. It is not a standard or a rule.

And your application of this immediately open up questions about how and why you go about banning people.

For example, the right reverend repeatedly called for population replacement and you didn’t (re?)ban him for this. He repeatedly shat on large portions of your own population.

Indeed, every single day multiple people post anti-MAGA comments on the VC, ones that denigrate entire communities and populations. As far as one can see, you never delete those or ban those people.

Why?

‘Calling you mentally ill is for the benefit of anyone who might otherwise imagine that a productive conversation would be possible.

Well, that’s obviously false. Why, only in the last couple of days my comments have helped to spark a genuine, productive conversation about gay rights. It not only helped your friend Randy to see how and why SimonP and his lot engage in manipulation, but also why Randy doesn’t have allies amongst people he assumed would be.

(Here's what Randy himself said about the former: 'I think you’re right about Simon. He knows he’s boxed in, and he’s trying to squirm out of it by putting on airs'. How could that even be possible, if what you've said is true? Would it have been a mere accident?)

It was one of the most fruitful and prolonged comment exchanges your blog has produced of late.

That’s not saying much of course. Most the VC’s commenters just write short childish insults to one another, or make claims without backing them up. Then there are the regime apologists…

And not once did I ever threaten violence, random or otherwise, against Arthur or anyone else here. You are LYING, which is easily provable. After all, the comments are all still there. I only ever pointed out what his fellow citizens may do him. Not once did I ever claim I was going to undertake any violent action or have such action brought about.

Do you also think you’re believed when you say that calling me mentally ill on the VC is so that ‘people who care about me might become aware of the need for an intervention’? Laughable. Try harder.

[Magister]

You mistake me for someone with the authority to ban you; I am confident nobody but us is reading these comments.

Your repeated calls for commenters to kill themselves and their families was apparently beyond the pale, and is obviously different from Kirkland’s celebration of culture war victories from the natural process of younger people with better ideas replacing the older voters who support reactionaries, even if some find that in poor taste.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘Dr. Ed 2 has failed in life and blames others for that: This was the story of my Master’s program — all the cute girls got assistantships with tuition waivers and the ability to present at conferences and the other stuff that helps one build a CV — I got none of that[.] He addresses his loneliness by joining in with MAGA, but his particular hatred is for women and the bureaucrats of academia. He addresses his sadness with self-aggrandizing anecdotes, predictions of violent civil war, and other fantasies of murder (demonstrators killed with snowplows, immigrants strafed with A10s, Gaza destroyed with nuclear weapons, liberals hanged from lampposts, and probably others I don’t recall)’.

VERY civil, Magister.

It’s almost as if you had completely double standards. 🙂

(Beyond what pale? Beyond what standard? 🙂 )

You’re lying again about both what I and Arthur wrote, let alone who you know here. (Arthur, for example, most certainly EXPRESSLY supported mass immigration as a form of replacement.)

Want to try to gaslight me some more?

Oh, and by the way: your values are dying, globally, whether you wish to admit this or not.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, and by the way: your values are dying, globally, whether you wish to admit this or not.

No, they're not, whether you masturbate to thoughts of that happening or not.

[Ilya Snowman]

David, I’m sorry, but you’re just not worth responding to anymore.

I’m not going to ‘mute’ you or anything, but I’ll never reply to you again. You never have anything of value or interest to say (beyond some fairy astute, albeit narrow, technical legal analyses), you don’t understand the higher-level conversations in which you try to interject, and you’re too cowardly to put your money where your mouth is.

Be your own person, David. You don’t need approval from others’ here. You don’t need to play guard dog for the VC, okay? You don’t need them and they don’t need you.

Try to learn about the rest of the world, particularly about ideas that fall outside of your narrow ideological range, and maybe critically examine your own beliefs once in a while.

Goodbye kiddo!

[Magister]

Critical of Dr. Ed 2, who regularly advocates violent overreactions; while you could find harsher words about Dr. Ed 2 from me, I've never called on anyone to die or kill themselves. And I notice that Ilya Snowman has dialed it back, so banning Theendoftheleft was apparently successful.

Supporting mass immigration is not replacement. I don't read a lot of Kirkland's posts, and many people seem to have muted him so they don't get amplified by responses, but nothing I recall suggested that he wanted anyone killed, something that nobody could say about Theendoftheleft's comments. Feel free to quote something of Kirkland's that supports your characterization, as I quoted Dr. Ed 2's comment.

It is disturbing that you continue to pretend that repeatedly asking where someone's family members go to school is benign, especially in the context of someone getting that person's family.

Carry on, AIDS, till those American deplorables get your family.

Where do your grandkids go to school again?

[Ilya Snowman]

‘Supporting mass immigration is not replacement’.

Yes, it is, in addition to counting as the promotion of a form of cultural genocide.

I find your lies and posturing (hiding behind norms of civility, ones you yourself regularly transgress here, to mask your partisan, childish politics and your own behaviour) disturbing. Even so, it does help to unmask your political labels and identity as being a mere mask.

You are a pretentious, totalitarian would-be social engineer. Soon, millions of your fellow Americans will finally come to understand that about you. Even now, they are beginning to realise that you don’t give a shit about a government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’, because you treat all the people as fungible commodities AND because you are willing to throw their kids under the bus in the name of your grandiose reordering scheme. Anyone who cares a whit for truth, justice, and freedom will do what they can now to show you for what you really are.

It doesn’t matter who wins your elections. You will run.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, it is, in addition to counting as the promotion of a form of cultural genocide.

Americans are not effete Europeans who think their culture is something handed down centuries ago that needs to be preserved in amber against the threat of outside influence. Immigration is our culture.

[Estragon]

How many of the usual suspects here are planning on attending the “J6 Awards Gala” at Bedminster on September 5?

[Josh R]

Two points on Harris’ acceptance speech:

1) It was great on style. I did not expect that. She was very comfortable, engaging and optimistic. Dare I say Reaganesque?

2) She is framing the election as a referendum on Trump and her as the challenger. I’m not sure how that will hold up during the campaign. Trump should emphaize Biden’s record on inflation and the border (and other stuff which he will lie about), most certainly during the debate where Harris’ response will be crucial. Or perhaps, Trump will focus too much on air personal grievances.

[Roger S]

I am not sure what the point is of making promises to go after price gougers. The Biden-Harris administration is in power now. Good policies can be pursued now, and do not need to wait for an election.

[Martinned2]

Realistically, there's not going to be any more lawmaking between now and the election. Now is the time to set out a manifesto for the next four years. (Which, frankly, Harris should do more of.)

This argument was made in the UK general election as well. "You've been in power for 14 years, why haven't you done this before?" I thought that was a silly argument too. Before every election, candidates should set out their plans for the next period. That's true even for politicians who are currently in power. Everyone should have ideas for the next period.

[ducksalad]

You might have a point if (a) the plan is some natural next step after some successful initiative of the current term is completed, or (b) it’s a response to some new issue that only recently come to light.

However, pointing out that they already had 14 years, or 4 years in our case, is very fair criticism if it’s (a) a response to a long festering problem, or claimed problem, they should’ve already been addressing, or (b) it’s a continuation of a policy that hasn’t worked so far, or (c) it’s a vague promise to do better, or (d) it’s a worn out idea that’s always been on the menu of possibilities.

The price gouging proposal fails on (a) and (d). In addition to being an inherently bad idea anyway.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The price gouging proposal fails on (a) and (d). In addition to being an inherently bad idea anyway."
Especially since high prices aren't the result of "gouging".

[Martinned2]

Food and drink producers’ profits are near historic highs

https://www.ft.com/content/41d31b4b-b0bd-4971-9f0f-543990a27103

[Mr. Bumble]

Paywalled.
Just who are these "food and drink" producers?

[Randal]

I am not sure what the point is of making promises to go after price gougers.

Really? The point is to say “I hear you on high prices” while avoiding the word “inflation” and subtly blame-shifting (onto Big Grocery...?!) all in the rhetorical form of a solution.

[Commenter_XY]

Dare I say Reaganesque?

lmao

[Josh R]

Just focus on this speech without any knowledge of her past. The optimism, the confident delivery, the belief in American exceptionalism and the role of America in a bulwark against evil in the world all reminded me of Reagan.

[Sarcastr0]

She even takes a libertarian stance on keeping the government out of your bedroom.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

She doesnt want to force people to pay for others birth control?

[Ilya Snowman]

She doesn’t want affirmative action, DEI, thought and speech control domestically, mass illegal immigration, and the continued imposition of American-created liberal-progressive norms on the rest of the world???

The delusions run deep with these ideologues.

[David Nieporent]

She is framing the election as a referendum on Trump and her as the challenger. I’m not sure how that will hold up during the campaign.

The campaign is almost over. Trump already used up a third of his very limited time to define her instead ranting about past grievances (and whining that it's unfair that the Democrats nominated her instead of Biden). Early voting starts in weeks.

[ducksalad]

But he also needs to hold onto and motivate his base, and the whining is the part they love the best and need the most.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What are the political Democrats gonna run on after the federal Democrats in the Deep State k*ll Trump? Why aren't they coordinating their messaging?

[grb]

Oh look: The Nazi Child’s mommy has let him use the computer in the basement. But if she sees his lurid cartoon fantasies, his computer privileges will probably be taken away again. And no dessert after supper too!

[grb]

Kevin Drum reminds us what we’re hearing from Trump:

“70% of our people are living in poverty.” (KD : According to the Census Bureau, the official poverty rate in 2022 was 11.5%.)

“They’ve allowed, I believe, 15 million people into the country from all of these different places like jails, mental institutions.” (KD: There are no figures for this because the real number is probably around zero.)

“More drugs are coming into our country right now than at any time in our history.” (KD: By weight, drug seizures were 33% lower in July than in Trump’s last month in office.)

“Real wages are down 6% for Black families.” (KD: Real income for Black families has increased 2.9% under Biden. This is through 2022. It’s probably more by now.)

“Border crossings were up 1,000% compared to the same month last year, 1,000% compared to last year. And by the way, last year, it was 1,000% compared to the year before.” (KD: Border crossings did increase under Biden, but obviously nowhere near 10,000%. As of July, border crossings are up 27% compared to Trump’s last month in office.)

“Virtually 100% of the new jobs under Biden have also gone to illegal aliens. Did you know that?” (KD: Since Biden entered office, employment has risen 8 million among native-born Americans vs. 3.5 million for non-natives. Of that, possibly half of the non-native jobs have gone to illegal immigrants, or about 15% of the total.)

“If Kamala gets in, we will have 50-60 million illegals from all over the world ferried right into our country.” (KD: This is nonsensical.)

“Real unemployment is much higher than reported under Biden.”
(KD: No it’s not.)

“Inflation is destroying our families.” (KD: The CPI inflation rate in July was 1.9%. Year-over-year it was 2.9%.)

“Gasoline prices are now $5, $6, $7 and even $8 a gallon.” (KD: The average price of gasoline is currently $3.38.)

There was a famous literary squabble where one of the combatants said this : “Every word she writes is a lie, including And and The.” That pretty much describes Trump, doesn’t it? Though with him you have to include writing, speaking and tweeting in one large package of pathological lying.

https://jabberwocking.com/america-is-not-in-decline-not-even-close/

[Martinned2]

Nobody expects Trump to speak the truth, so you can't really hold this stuff against him. The idea is that the people around him will implement all the racist and/or anti-growth policies his fans like, while he sits around eating burgers while screaming at people on social media. The idea of a president who has little to no involvement in running the country was bad when it was alleged Biden did it, but apparently great when Trump did it...

[grb]

Martinned2 : “Nobody expects Trump to speak the truth, so you can’t really hold this stuff against him”

Two Points:

1. Your statement is almost 100% true, though I note Brett Bellmore recently claimed Trump mainly lies for braggadocio reasons. He said Trump was more honest than the average pol on substantive matters. Evidence to the contrary was laid off on … wait for it … a liberal media conspiracy.

2. So 99.99 9/10 percent true. But damn if that isn’t a depressing fact. Whenever I hear right-wing snowflake victimhood whining how Trump is treated so “unfair” by the press, the obvious rejoinder is a normal political (or actual human being) would receive scathing criticism for the least of Trump’s brat-child antics, patological lies, or disgusting behavior. But with Trump, it’s just a day ending in “Y”.

If anything, he’s had it easy. The press has been too exhausted to give each hot mess coming from this mentally-ill, broken-mind, and empty-soul its full due.

[Martinned2]

That's basically one Trumpist line of defence: "Trump obviously doesn't tell the truth, no reasonable person would expect him to, but what he says *feels true*."

[Mr. Bumble]

"But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law?We both have truths. Are mine the same as your[s]?

Pilate to Jesus in JC Superstar.

[Both Sides]

So there he was on a water-bed
Drinking a cola of a mystery brand
Reading an airport novelette, listening to Andrew Lloyd-Webber's "Requiem"
He said, before it had really begun, "I prefer the one about my son"
"I've been wading through all this unbelievable
Junk and wondering if I should have given
The world to the monkeys"

Elvis Costello, "God's Comic"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Who does it "feel true" to that of all the illegals that stream across our border probably zero of them were criminals or mentally ill?

Retards? Morons? Idiots? Cult members?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Someone should tell grb and his lying braintender thay real wages and real income are not measuring the same thing and both those statements can be true without contradicting each other.

grb, please wait until John Oliver covers this and gives you your opinion.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

“More drugs are coming into our country right now than at any time in our history.” (KD: By weight, drug seizures were 33% lower in July than in Trump’s last month in office.)

Drugs coming in and drug seizures are too different measures. How dumb do you have to be to quote this stupid comment?

This is the same Nonsense for Morons (aka official government statistics) they do with other metrics like major city crime. One side stops reporting crime. The other side crows about crime rates declining.

[jb]

Oh good, by this logic illegal immigration isn't up under Biden because the statistic we track are the people that are stopped by Border Patrol, not the ones who successfully sneak through.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That is what some are claiming. They also exclude all the flights where Biden goes to their countries and flies them in directly.

[David Nieporent]

They also exclude all the flights where Biden goes to their countries and flies them in directly.

I do not believe that Joe Biden is an airplane pilot, so I strongly doubt that happened.

(And people who were flown here by other people rather than Biden are asylum seekers not illegal immigrants.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Wut?

Is there a difference? Nobody told me there was a difference!

[John F. Carr]

The Justice Department et al. sued RealPage, a company that helps landlords set rents, under antitrust law. I've mentioned these folks a few times in open threads. The landlord's agent tells prospective tenants the price dictated by the computer, and optionally explains that the price is right because it matches what other landlords charge for equivalent units. Participating landlords act as a single player in the rental market.

The case is 1:24-cv-00710 in the Middle District of North Carolina.

Antitrust law does not have to make sense to ordinary humans. I can't speak to the legal merits of the lawsuit.

[Martinned2]

It doesn't have to, but are you suggesting that this case doesn't make sense to "ordinary humans"? Because if the system in question covers enough of the (local) market, this seems like a pretty slam dunk price fixing case.

[John F. Carr]

The facts are easy to understand. The application of law to the facts is not. American antitrust law is two very vague statements (15 USC 1, 2) supplemented by a century of case law. Some acts are per se illegal, others are allowed with business justification.

The company may argue that its customers misused its software. Compare Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). In that case the Supreme Court refused to hold the maker of VCRs liable for illegal use of its product. Does the Betamax defense work in this case? I don't know.

Here is the main press release: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-realpage-algorithmic-pricing-scheme-harms-millions-american-renters

[Kenneth Almquist]

The RealPage web site gives a clue as to what the defense will be. It explains that the purpose of its software is “revenue optimization,” defined as:

RealPage Revenue Management software supports “revenue optimization” at a property rather than “rent maximization” of any individual apartment unit. The goal of “revenue optimization” is to set rents at the optimum balance to ensure units do not sit vacant due to being overpriced, but also are not underpriced given the applicable supply of and demand for those units at the particular property. If an apartment provider sets rent too high, then the available apartment units sit vacant. Vacant units generate zero revenue and that results in less overall income for the apartment provider.

The DOJ, on the other hand, will presumably argue that the purpose of the software is price fixing. It’s pretty clear that the current contents of their website was vetted by their lawyers before being posted. The DOJ has quotes from older versions of the web site, presumably from before RealPage knew it was under investigation, which seem pretty damning. However, looked at a 2017 version of the web site (on archive.org) and it seemed to be saying the same thing as the current web site (though in completely different words). So the quotes in the indictment may be less damning in context.

[John F. Carr]

I want to quote with approval somebody's recent comment about Boeing: Things won't change until people in Brooks Brothers suits do time. Antitrust violations are crimes too. All the government asks for in this case is an order to stop breaking the law.

[M L]

Since everyone enjoyed the Breitbart story so much, here’s another. (supporting hyperlinks at the link)

Donald Trump Faced Second Credible Assassination Threat After Three Days of DNC Incitement

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/08/23/nolte-donald-trump-faced-second-credible-assassination-threat-after-three-days-of-dnc-incitement/

After three days of high-profile Democrats — like Barry and Michelle Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and vice presidential nominee Tim Walz — smearing Donald Trump as a Nazi-loving racist, sexist, rapist, and con man who will destroy democracy, there was a statewide manhunt in Arizona launched by a credible assassination threat against the former president. . .

. . . This is what can happen when Democrats and the corporate media tell a country of some 330 million people that a man — in this case, Trump — not only needs to be killed but that assassinating him would be seen as a heroic act, like killing Adolf Hitler.

-Shouldn’t an “autocrat” be killed before he takes office?
-Shouldn’t someone who demeans dead combat veterans as “suckers” and “losers” be stopped before he becomes commander-in-chief?
-Shouldn’t a bloodthirsty private citizen, using his pull to prolong a war, be taken out?
-Shouldn’t everything be done to stop someone who invites white supremacists to dine with him?
-How can we allow someone who is “threatened” by successful black people to become president?
-A hero must take out the monster associated with the KKK.
-Where’s the hero we need to stop a man who praises Nazis?
-Where’s the great American who will put a bullet in the head of this “plague,” this “clear and present threat” to America?
-A president who tells American citizens to inject themselves with bleach…? He must be stopped.

It would be one thing if any of this were true, but these are all lies. Worse still, the Democrats and their corporate media palace guards know they are lies. They also know this kind of talk incites violence. They also know Trump was nearly assassinated six weeks ago. . .

[Sarcastr0]

Trump accused Harris of funding the October 07 attacks yesterday.

Breitbart's hypocricy is towering.

So is yours.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

But they did, you bootlicking dingdong. They even gave them a terrorist bonus of $100M days after Oct 7.

[Brett Bellmore]

As JHBHBE said, it's true. Money is fungible, and they gave the sponsors of Middle Eastern terror a lot of money. Only an idiot would have expected it to not be spent on terror.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It’s unfortunate that you’re dumb enough to actually believe that bullshit. It’s a disgrace to your family name that you’re also dumb enough to spread it.

[Randal]

It really sounds like Breitbart is hoping for a successful assassination, and egging it on. They're the ones with the long list of justifications after all. Democrats aren't saying anything remotely like that. Haven't you gotten the memo? We're into ridiculing Trump now (finally!) so that he gets furious and even more ridiculous.

[Sarcastr0]

The commenters here were very dispirited that the shooter had not enough whiff of liberalism for them to push that narrative.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"It would be one thing if any of this were true, but these are all lies."

Indeed, everything M L brings from Breitbart is a lie, and his cognitive bias is strong enough to where he doesn't bother to actually check any of the sources and find out that he's being lied to like a fucking child.

Compounding the issue is that M L has no ethics, no integrity, and absolutely no qualm about spreading his retarded lies far and wide, so it isn't just the morons who actually visit Brietbart for their daily lies-and-hate sandwich that get subject to their (and his) stupidity.

You're as anti-American as anyone can get, M L. Perhaps Joe_dallas can show you how to go fuck yourself.