Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Insomnia sucks!

[Vryedni]

That's why God created Ambien.

[John F. Carr]

Around 15-20 years ago there was a plague of news stories about people driving on Ambien. One guy beat a DUI homicide charge after he killed somebody while sleep driving on one of the main highways northwest of Boston. Voluntary intoxication is not usually a defense, but the judge let him off. As I recall he chose a bench trial. (Dramatic pause.) You have chosen... wisely.

[Dr. Ed 2]

About that time I remember a death-on-OUI DA who that happened to -- don't remember how it came out.

[Frank Drackman]

and Old Fashioneds (was drinking them before Don Draper)

[not guilty]

Reading the tea leaves is necessarily speculative at this point, but the New York Times reports that in the District of Columbia prosecution of Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith is leaning against requesting a hearing in the next few months in which he could set out in expansive form the evidence behind his indictment of Trump, a so-called “mini-trial” to determine whether Trump engaged in official acts for which he is immune from prosecution. The article attributes this information to two unidentified people familiar with the matter. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/us/politics/trump-jan-6-mini-trial.html

There is some authority for deciding the matter solely on the allegations of the indictment, which at this stage of the litigation must be taken as true. The operative motion for decision is Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment. When considering a motion to dismiss an indictment, a court assumes the truth of those factual allegations. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952); United States v. Ballestas, 795 F.3d 138, 149 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

As the proponent of the motion to dismiss, Trump bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to official-act immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 (1982) (“The burden of justifying absolute immunity rests on the official asserting the claim.”); Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2023). I should think that Trump would want to develop a factual record providing context for his assertion that his conduct as averred in the indictment constituted official acts. That would be a sound legal strategy, but it would carry the political downside of ventilating Trump’s perfidy in a public courtroom.

[Mr. Bumble]

Insomnia sucks but your TDS sucks even more.

[Michael Ejercito]

Harlow sets out the standard that the alleged conduct must violate "clearly established" law.

No creative interpretation by prosecutors; just the plain meaning of the law.

[not guilty]

The portion of the opinion that I quoted dealt with the Harlow defendants' unsuccessful claim of absolute immunity from suit for damages. The burden of proof there rests squarely on the defendant:

In order to establish entitlement to absolute immunity a Presidential aide first must show that the responsibilities of his office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield from liability. He then must demonstrate that he was discharging the protected function when performing the act for which liability is asserted.

457 U.S. 800, 813 (1982) [footnoted omitted].

The "clearly established law" garbage set forth elsewhere in the opinion applies to qualified immunity claims.

[Riva]

The democrats’ fascistic instinct to double down on lawfare is understandable. Reprehensible, but understandable when the party installed candidate is about as popular as venereal disease with her support of open borders, gun confiscation, insurance for illegals, banning private insurance, and banning gas powered vehicles. And of course, soviet style command and control caps on prices, which historical always work, if starving the population is a goal of the policy. And this is not even the end of the insanity Kamala has advocated. Not surprising she never won a single presidential primary. Good thing someone thought of a coup.

[WestIsDeceased]

That's why the media is working overtime to hide her repulsive personality.

[Kazinski]

"There is some authority for deciding the matter solely on the allegations of the indictment, which at this stage of the litigation must be taken as true."

Except the SC in remanding the case ordered the district court to conduct an inquiry to determine which on whether each of the allegations WERE official acts entitled to presumtive immunity, and I assume also supported by enough evidence that was also not barred at trial by the ruling to meet probable cause.

Plus Jack Smith asked for the delay to review the indictment in light of the ruling, so at this point the actual allegations that will survive review are not known.

[Randal]

Except the SC in remanding the case ordered the district court to conduct an inquiry to determine which on whether each of the allegations WERE official acts entitled to presumtive immunity, and I assume also supported by enough evidence that was also not barred at trial by the ruling to meet probable cause.

That inquiry could be done based on the facts as alleged in the indictment, rather than via a mini-trial, I think is the point.

It's an interesting question.

[Commenter_XY]

Why is that? = That inquiry could be done based on the facts as alleged in the indictment, rather than via a mini-trial, I think is the point.

I was under the impression there had to be some adversarial process where the determination is made, as opposed by an arbitrary decision by Judge Red Diaper baby.

[not guilty]

"I was under the impression there had to be some adversarial process where the determination is made, as opposed by an arbitrary decision by Judge Red Diaper baby."

There will be an adversarial process in the District Court whereby the initial determination of immunity issues will take place. A status conference is set for next week to determine how to proceed in light of the July 1 SCOTUS decision.

The general instruction from the Chief Justice at Part III-C of the opinion reads:

Presidents . . . cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. As we have explained, the indictment here alleges at least some such conduct. See Part III–B–1, supra. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment's remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment's charges without such conduct.

The Supreme Court did not issue specific instructions as to how to undertake such determinations on remand, although it did identify some issues to be specifically considered. For example, regarding then-President Trump's discussions with then-Vice-President Pance regarding Congressional certification of the electoral count at Part III-B-2:

It is ultimately the Government's burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump's alleged attempts to influence the Vice President's oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

With regard to Trump's role in persuading pretenders in various states to create and transmit slates of bogus electors falsely claiming to have been legitimately elected, the Chief Justice directed at Part III-B-3:

Unlike Trump's alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. And the parties’ brief comments at oral argument indicate that they starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations. The concerns we noted at the outset—the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties—thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump's conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.

Regarding Trump's conduct in connection with the events of January 6 itself, the Chief Justice wrote at Part III-B-4:

Whether the Tweets, that speech, and Trump's other communications on January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. Knowing, for instance, what else was said contemporaneous to the excerpted communications, or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications and in organizing the rally, could be relevant to the classification of each communication. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. We therefore remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial.

I surmise that Judge Chutkan will give the parties guidance next week as to how to proceed. That could involve analysis of the facts averred in the indictment, taken as being true, with argument of counsel as to: (1) what acts are not only official but within the core constitutional powers of the presidency, (2) what official acts are outside the scope of core powers but within the outer perimeter and, if so, whether the prosecution can rebut the presumption of immunity, and (3) what acts averred in the indictment are unofficial or private conduct.

In the alternative, the District Court could allow the parties to supplement the factual averments of the indictment with additional proof, testimonial and/or documentary. To the extent that this extrinsic proof raises factual issues, the court must state its essential findings on the record under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(d).

[Commenter_XY]

What you laid out could take years to argue out in court. Years.

SCOTUS seems to be saying, develop a record so when it comes back to us (it will) we'll have something to consider.

[Bwaaah]

They can just look up the things he did in The Book of Official Presidential Acts. No need for fact-finding or that adversarial stuff you talk about. No "mini-trial" (which I think refers to any part of a trial that is less than the whole).

It's just a motionless, unappealable finding of facts without the need for any exercise of discretion on the part of the judge. I think such situations are usually referred to as "confabulated fantasies."

[Randal]

I was under the impression there had to be some adversarial process where the determination is made, as opposed by an arbitrary decision by Judge Red Diaper baby.

1. Those things aren’t contradictory. No matter what, there will be some sort of adversarial process, following which the judge will make a decision, certainly to be characterized as arbitrary (or worse) by some.

2. Said adversarial process doesn’t have to be a mini-trial, according to ng. It could just be a series of briefings based on the indictment. (A mini-trial involves the introduction of evidence. The question is whether that’s necessary.)

[David Nieporent]

Except the SC in remanding the case ordered the district court to conduct an inquiry to determine which on whether each of the allegations WERE official acts entitled to presumtive immunity,

An "inquiry" and a factual hearing are not the same thing.

[tylertusta]

...but it would carry the political downside of ventilating Trump’s perfidy in a public courtroom.

It won't matter either way.

[not guilty]

In the final analysis, Donald Trump's fate will turn on whether he wins or loses the presidential election. If he wins, he will have gotten away with his perfidy. If he loses, he will die in custody.

[tylertusta]

There's nothing that "ventilating Trump's perfidy in a public [DC] courtroom" during the next few months can do to change the outcome of the election.

We're far, far past that now. Everyone has made up their minds on Trump already.

[not guilty]

Marcy Wheeler has some worthwhile commentary, including discussion of whether a superseding indictment after the election may be in the offing. https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/08/25/be-careful-what-trumps-lawyers-wish-for-superseding-indictment-edition/

[tylertusta]

I surprisingly find myself in agreement with Marcy for a change.

I think that a superseding indictment is in the offing, and soon. The DOJ's 60-day rule is coming quick, too (September 6). I suppose we'll see if Smith continues his trend of blowing up norms in the pursuit of trying to make Trump unelectable.

I've also been saying that a superseding indictment is required for a while now. Smith can't even present the current indictment to a trial jury as it includes allegations of facts that are absolutely immune.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>There is some authority for deciding the matter solely on the allegations of the indictment, which at this stage of the litigation must be taken as true.

Guilty until proven innocent!

Trump Law!!

[not guilty]

JHBHBE, do you have any authority contravening the proposition that a federal district court considering a motion to dismiss an indictment must, for purposes of that motion, assume the truth of the factual allegations of the indictment? See Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952) United States v. Ballestas, 795 F.3d 138, 149 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

What is your contrary authority, if any?

[Michael Ejercito]

I made a comment on a prior post about a lawsuit for a sexual assault that allegedly happened thirty-five years before it was first filed.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/24/no-pseudonym-for-ex-pro-basketball-player-sexual-assault-defendant/

I must wonder if there is a due process right to have certain lawsuits or prosecutions time-barred even in the absence of statutes of limitation, or in the presence of statures expressly authorizing such prosecutions and lawsuits.

What would be reasonable arguments for and against that due process forbids certain prosecutions and lawsuits on the basis that the alleged conduct happened too far in the past?

[not guilty]

It's been many years since I looked into it, but there is some authority that if the government deliberately delays institution of a criminal prosecution in order to gain a tactical advantage, and if the accused can show prejudice from the delay, the prosecution could be barred despite being instituted within the limitations period. This can happen, for example, if running of the statute of limitations has been tolled for some reason.

[Vryedni]

Laches? Or does that not apply to criminal prosecutions?

[not guilty]

Laches -- a doctrine of equity -- does not apply to criminal prosecutions. But under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules on Criminal Procedure, the court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint if unnecessary delay occurs in: (1) presenting a charge to a grand jury; (2) filing an information against a defendant; or (3) bringing a defendant to trial.

Many states have a similar rule. At some point due process concerns may come into play as well.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, can you explain 'tolling' to this layman? I see the term used a lot, it seems very familiar to criminal defense attys.

What is it? Why is it important? How often does it get used?

[Brett Bellmore]

It means that some circumstance stops the timer on a deadline. For instance, if a minor has a negligence claim against you, which must be acted on within two years, the two years don't start until they reach the age of majority. Or the statute of limitations not running out while you're on the run from the law.

[not guilty]

Tolling suspends the operation of a period of limitations that would otherwise continue to run. The circumstances where that is the case are often, but not necessarily, prescribed by statute. For example, several states provide that when a civil or criminal defendant is not habitually resident within the state, the period of his absence will not be counted for purposes of the limitation period. Another example would be where a party is operating under a disability, such as age or mental incapacity. Sometimes where a crime or tort is committed against a minor victim, the period of limitation will not begin to run until the victim reaches the age of majority.

The days as to which a tolling condition exists are subtracted from the otherwise applicable period of limitation for filing suit or initiating prosecution.

[Michael Ejercito]

These are all very good answers.

My thoughts on a purpoted right to have a prosecution or lawsuit time-barred if initiated too long after the alleged act:

- with the possible exception of " deliberately delay[ing] institution of a criminal prosecution", a prosecution for first-degree murder would not violate this right regardless of how long ago the murder allegedly took place. This is because premeditated murder is sui generis
- likewise, with respect to crimes against minors, the amount of time after the crime before a prosecution violates this right is greater than for similar crimes committed against adults.
- likewise, if the defendant had been a fugitive, the amount of time after the crime before prosecution violates this right would be calculated from the moment the defendant is taken into custody or surrenders.
- however, "freezing" the clock on the basis on merely not residing in the jurisdiction would violate this right. Persons living out-of-state are presumed to be living openly and notoriously, and such can presumably be served with a summons, or taken into custody, without trouble.
- on the other hand, if an out-of-jurisdiction resident challenges extradition, "freezing" the clock until the conclusion of extradition proceedings would not violate this right.

In my opinion, with respect to the case I mentioned, the lawsuit would violate this right, as it was initiated thirty-two years after the victim reached the age of majority.

[Commenter_XY]

So basically, tolling stops the clock for a period of time. Then, you have to calculate that 'stopped clock' time period, and add it to the back end to allow for a suit to go forward. Nice. Thx for the explainer.

[Stephen Lathrop]

With MIT's announcement of class statistics for its incoming freshman class, anti-black racists on the Supreme Court won confirmation of their intended victory. Black student admissions have been cut by more than half—a result in which the Roberts Court can take pride.

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't "anti-black racists" redundant in your world?

[Joe_dallas]

Only racists qualify as anti-racist. The party of the anti-racists - anti-semites, Anti-white, etc. The fixation of racism dominates the anti-racist party

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So...MIT is racist?

[Commenter_XY]

No, we are seeing 'Peak lathrop'. 😉

[Randal]

Sad. Congratulations David Bernstein, your lies helped keep higher education white.

[Ilya Snowman]

How? Didn't he help to make American education more Asian?

Good for you, though, for cheering on the dumbing down of your unis and their matriculation requirements.

Do you still go around telling people that you're a 'libertarian'?

After our last exchange, where you expressed your preference for increased multiculting, and so (implicitly) the recalibration of American social institutions and norms (absent any real credible skills or knowledge of how to actually do so, of course), do you think anyone can really believe that you're a libertarian?

[Randal]

Although my policy preferences are more libertarian in practice than the vast majority of “libertarians” who hang around here, including David Bernstein, I don’t identify as libertarian.

This is a case of, colleges should have the ability to admit who they want.

[Ilya Snowman]

And private colleges shouldn’t get money from the government, right?

And Chomksy’s right that the US government has spent decades feeding millions upon millions into Harvard, MIT, and certain other select schools to achieve specific government-corporate ends (to research into tech, things that service the military-industrial complexes, things that service the manufacturing of consent, etc). And so they’re not really independent, private enterprises.

Don't worry, as my comments to you have repeatedly insinuated, I don't consider you to be a liberal or libertarian---save insofar as those labels are beards/useful covers for you and others' ulterior, totalitarian social re-engineering and imperialism projects. (And so the extent to which, sociologically, one must understand people who 'self-identify' using those labels.)

[Randal]

You think government grants are totalitarian? They seem perfectly liberal and progressive to me, and not even that offensive to libertarianism to the extent that they aren't coercive.

[Ilya Snowman]

You're not even trying anymore.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How so?

"White students made up 37 percent of the new class, compared with 38 percent last year.

On the other hand, the percentage of Asian American students in the class jumped to 47 percent from 40 percent."

Maybe you meant white-adjacent?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Twelve-inch — I see affirmative action issues differently. I have contended repeatedly for decades that only two classes of ethnic or racial groups—blacks and American Indians—suffered policy-based and/or legally-based injuries severe enough to justify such ongoing interventions on their behalf. The panoply of other aggrieved parties I find variously noteworthy (or not) historically, but certainly not justifiably entitled to socially-disruptive remedies as potent as affirmative action.

On that basis I find especially pernicious a Court-created doctrine to order private universities to award preferences to Asian Americans at the foreseeable expense of blacks. The more so because no law exists to justify doing it, nor any policy or law which could conceivably be enacted ever.

Fans of the decision like it because they think it protects meritocracy. Meritocracy is not the law in the United States, nor could it ever become the law without violating American Constitutional guarantees. The Court has no business enforcing against private parties a requirement the Court could never justify on the basis of law if the Court so much as mentioned it explicitly in a decision.

The fact is evident that the actual basis of this case was an organized attempt to provide the Court with a pretext to strike down private affirmative action policies which benefited blacks. That was a malicious reassertion of the worst tendencies cherished by anti-black racists for centuries.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I have contended repeatedly for decades that only two classes of ethnic or racial groups—blacks and American Indians—suffered policy-based and/or legally-based injuries severe enough to justify such ongoing interventions on their behalf."

Wow. So you're completely ignorant of how the Chinese were treated prior to the 20th century? To say nothing of the Japanese internment?

I'm not saying anybody is actually entitled to ongoing interventions at this late date, but Asians had it pretty rough.

[Ilya Snowman]

'I’m not saying anybody is actually entitled to ongoing interventions at this late date, but Asians had it pretty rough'.

They moved to a Western European settler colony on stolen Indian land. No European forced them to move to there.

Why does it matter if they had it rough? It's like Gandhi bitching about the treatment of Indians in South Africa.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, Bellmore. I am saying I know in passing detail the history of both groups. I know enough to say with confidence that although both groups were targeted, and suffered grievous wrongs, neither instance came close to matching the crimes committed administratively and judicially against blacks and Indians. At least equally important in context of the decision, no other groups today come close to suffering the same degree of inherited cultural and economic disadvantage.

That said, the case of Asian Americans in this context is particularly egregious. Few Asian Americans present in America today are in any way culturally or historically descendants of the Asians and Pacific Islanders persecuted in the 19th century. Those left few American descendants. In many cases they returned to Asia.

The American West is replete with former historical China Towns where most present-day white residents are utterly unaware that a brief historical interval of Chinese thriving remains part of their mostly-unrecorded history. I lived for a time in one such town in Idaho. I explored what I could find of that local history, and wrote on it.

Compared to American blacks, today's Asian Americans as a group are already culturally and economically advantaged. That makes a lawless Supreme Court decision to favor the Asian Americans over American blacks especially paradoxical.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘…culturally and economically advantaged…’.

So, you’re not weighing things to eliminate barriers, which is what the 14th Amendment was meant to do, but rather for redistribution of the goods and resources. More importantly, perhaps, you want to justify this not just on quantifiable metrics (economics) but also your normative-social sense (of cultural advantage).

You’re a fucking fascist. Why would anyone who wants to preserve a free society tolerate you?

[PaulS]

I know you say "prior to 20th century" - but surprisingly (to me) - open a yearbook from an ivy league school from the early 1900's - you will find quite a few Chinese students. I was looking at one from Univ of Penn (1904) recently

[Stephen Lathrop]

PaulS — I think it likely you could discover those were Christian divinity students, encouraged by white Christian missionaries to China.

[Ilya Snowman]

'The panoply of other aggrieved parties I find variously noteworthy (or not) historically, but certainly not justifiably entitled to socially-disruptive remedies as potent as affirmative action'.

So, not females either. Good. Certainly not the gays or the trans, either, you mean.

'Blacks' is also over-inclusive, as many immigrated to America after both slavery and Jim Crow and continue to do so. You going to continue to reward the rich kids of Western Africa whose ancestors sold their Eastern neighbours into the Islamic and Western slave trades via AA---when they themselves moved to a 'white' settler colony on stolen land?

'The Court has no business enforcing against private parties a requirement the Court could never justify on the basis of law if the Court so much as mentioned it explicitly in a decision'.

So GRIGGS should be tossed into the garbage.

'That was a malicious reassertion...'

This doesn't follow. It's also just a normative mischaracterisation. Far more plausible is that meritocracy-worshipers were motivated to act because they saw the policy as being harmful and they DON'T weigh things as you do (ie deem past harms as legitimating ongoing interventions for Indians and the descendants of slaves). Even if you dislike their normative commitments, it doesn't mean it COULDN'T BE what really/likely motivated them.

But good for you for being a COMPLETE SHITHEAD about that.

[David Nieporent]

On that basis I find especially pernicious a Court-created doctrine to order private universities to award preferences to Asian Americans at the foreseeable expense of blacks. The more so because no law exists to justify doing it, nor any policy or law which could conceivably be enacted ever.

Fans of the decision like it because they think it protects meritocracy. Meritocracy is not the law in the United States, nor could it ever become the law without violating American Constitutional guarantees. The Court has no business enforcing against private parties a requirement the Court could never justify on the basis of law if the Court so much as mentioned it explicitly in a decision.

Aside from your bizarre hatred of meritocracy, you have been told repeatedly¹ that you completely misunderstand the legal issues in these cases. The court is not telling a private institution what criteria it must use; it is telling a private institution what criteria it must not use. MIT is not required to be meritocratic. Under this decision it could use merit, or do first come first served, or draw lots, or prioritize ability to pay full tuition (or to donate money for a new building), or could make applicants compete in feats of strength,² or submit original pieces of art, or anything else, as long as it doesn't use race.

Meritocracy is not the law in the United States, nor could it ever become the law without violating American Constitutional guarantees.

Is that the 29th amendment? I'm afraid you'll need to show your work on that one.
​
​
¹But like literally dozens of other things you have been told repeatedly, you utterly ignore what people more knowledgeable than you say and just repeat it again a few days or weeks or months later.
²Though that would likely run afoul of the ADA.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, do you think meritocracy is the law in the United States, or should be, or even could be? If so, I suggest you count yourself among an unreflective group who suppose the term, "meritocracy," implies something like, "meritorious rule."

That is not what, "meritocracy" means. It means, "rule by the meritorious"—a definition so near to the notion of British aristocracy that it is a wonder anyone can claim to see a distinction. But it is a distinction, and founded on a principle that society runs better if presided over by a class chosen by some measure of merit, instead of by inheritance. Never mind that all such measures tend to be heritable.

To those numbered among the meritorious are awarded advantages of education, employment, power, wealth, privilege and honors. To the others go the dregs—together with a legally enforceable obligation to endorse a notion that the dregs, plus meritorious rule, enable a better life for the others than they could arrange on their own. That is meritocracy in a nutshell.

If it can be made to work, that is a system with certain attractions, especially for those who judge themselves meritorious. The sticking point is that aforementioned question about a, "measure of merit." An American problem is that any legal system capable to take cognizance of meritocracy must at least demand from Congress a definition to say what yardstick that measure of merit will rely upon, and how the measuring process is to work. Unfortunately for meritocrats, any such definition is practical political dynamite so powerful that no sane politician will ever enter a room where it might be discussed in detail.

In addition to that practical constraint, there remains a constitutional problem. The notion of meritocracy sorts poorly with the notion of equal protection of the laws. After all, you can't make a meritocracy work in a democracy, if dregs numbering an overwhelming majority decide to vote down decreed standards of merit, and put others more to their liking in place. To prevent that would require unequivocal judicial supremacy—which is where we came in.

Remember the part about political dynamite? That's why a court bent on enforcing meritocracy must find some ostensible alternative principle to justify its decisions. To mention meritocracy by name, without basis in laws passed by Congress, is too dangerous for any court even to consider. So courts bent on advancing meritocracy will always do so on the basis of some other announced principle—inevitably a principle too vague to bear discussion except by repeated re-assertions—like the re-assertions you have relied upon again and again.

[David Nieporent]

Look, a prolix comment about whatever Lathrop wants to talk about which is both entirely wrong and entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Courts aren't enforcing meritocracy. Your entire premise is stupid and wrong.

[Ilya Snowman]

'That is not what, “meritocracy” means. It means, “rule by the meritorious”—a definition so near to the notion of British aristocracy that it is a wonder anyone can claim to see a distinction'.

Have you ever been outside of the United States? Do you know any aristos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

[Ilya Snowman]

Why aren't the (East) Asians new whites, rather than just white-adjacent?

[Frank Drackman]

I think your numbers are slanted

[Kazinski]

So what was the lie Bernstein told?

And he did write it all down in a book,so it could be refuted line by line, so go ahead.

Just one example.

Otherwise I am just going to assume you just can't handle the truth.

[Randal]

He made up a whole conspiracy theory around how Universities were ignoring racial and ethnic diversity outside of the blunt categories defined by the US government for reporting purposes. Totally false. Harvard, for example, used much finer-grained categories internally for admissions purposes.

[David Nieporent]

No, they didn't, no matter how many times you make the claim. The only thing they tracked was the basic categories used for racial preferences. If an applicant happened to mention that s/he belonged to some classification that wasn't already tracked, and if Harvard happened to care about it, they might treat it as a plus factor for that applicant just like playing a particular instrument or being an orphan or whatever. But they didn't track it and didn't put a massive thumb on the scale to try to balance out their class with a certain number of each of those.

[Randal]

Yes, they literally did track much more granular categories. It's all there in the case files.

[David Nieporent]

Again, they didn't request the info, so they couldn't track it. All they could do was make a note if someone happened to disclose it.

[Randal]

If you mean the only explicit choices on the application are the federally mandated ones, that’s true. Because they’re federally mandated! Obviously the application isn’t to have a huge list of hundreds of options. But there are plenty of places to write in a specific race / ethnicity / national origin, and if you do, Harvard tracks it. Or did.

[Kazinski]

If you have any clue how systematic data collection is done, then you know that if that was their system then no meaningful data was collected.

But you don't have a clue, so its all good.

[Randal]

Well, they collected it. It doesn't matter to me how meaningful you think it was.

[Ilya Snowman]

You really don't know how these things work, do you?

And do you think the example of Harvard, alone, suffices to falsify the general claim about American unis' hiring practices?

Or is it rather that you don't care? Or do you know and want to cover things up?

[Ilya Snowman]

‘Freshman’ is a gendered and exclusionary word, you bigot. Let alone hierarchical.

[ThePublius]

White enrollment actually dropped, you idiot!

Affirmative action on the basis of race is, by definition, racist, and is therefore wrong, immoral, and anathema to the principles of the Republic and the constitution.

What's wrong with you?

It turns out that the students who didn't make it in without affirmative action have a greater chance of achieving degrees at other schools than they would have had at MIT.

I say good! We need more of this, we need to get rid of affirmative action everywhere.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe they're admitting students based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin, I think "Some Dude" said that once.

[Don Nico]

Didn't you mean to say that anti-Asian racists were dealt an bitter blow?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — You may have commented while I was editing. If so, reread to get a clearer understanding of what I say.

[Don Nico]

Stephan,
I read the letter from MIT's president last week. I also read the included links. Hence, I already knew that the acceptances from BIPOC students had decreased from 25% to 16% to be made up for mainly by increases in the number of Asian students.
While you call that result a product of anti-black racism, I call it the suppression of anti-asian racism. Interestingly Pres. Kornbluth's letter does not breakdown the demographics in detail.

There is no reason that the ethnic background of MIT students should match that of American K-12 schools.You might say that Jews are grossly over-represented; I would not say that.

MIT is a highly competitive environment; top students from "small ponds" can have an incredibly difficult time emotionally because of that. It does not mean that they are stupid or ill prepared, but only that they would have a greater success in life, if they made their transition into the "big pond" a bit more gradually.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, it is peculiar to the point of eccentricity to posit that what you call anti-Asian racism is in any way comparable to the centuries-long inflictions suffered by American blacks and Indians. In your case I will attribute to carelessness what I think many black people would read as malice.

[Don Nico]

What you call eccentricity is just you own bias that you refuse to recognize. So you just slander me with a charge of indifference toward inflictions on black and indigenous people.
I reject your terms of debate and your failure to recognize institutional racism toward Asians by America that persists to this very day in closed minds such as your. That is the true malice.
You can't recognize the truth on the ground. Too bad but don't try to tar others with your inadequacies.
By the way, who are you to speak for black people?

[Randal]

This whole debate is premised on the idea that kids somehow deserve spots at MIT because of... ??? What exactly? Test scores? That's just stupid Don.

Kids don't get into schools like MIT for all kinds of reasons. Too many New Yorkers. Too many Middlesex graduates. Too many aspiring philosophers. Too many rich kids. Too many basketball players. Too many violinists. Too many student council presidents.

You guys make it sound like MIT just stack-ranks all the applicants according to some fixed formula, then draws a cut-off line. That process would result in a sickeningly homogeneous class of... whatever the formula was selecting for. Nerds, athletes, whatever. And don't say the formula should look for well-rounded individuals. A class full of well-rounded kids would be the worst.

Colleges want a mix of kids. Some athletes, some nerds, some musicians, some artists, some engineers, some writers. Some east coast kids, some west coast, some midwest, some southwest, some deep south, maybe some from Florida if they're very special. Different backgrounds. Different religions. And until recently, different races.

All these arguments you guys are making about race apply just as easily to all those other things. Why should a kid from Colorado have a better shot at MIT than a kid from New York? Because that's how MIT wants it.

[David Nieporent]

All these arguments you guys are making about race apply just as easily to all those other things. Why should a kid from Colorado have a better shot at MIT than a kid from New York? Because that’s how MIT wants it.

Fine — and the law allows that. But it doesn't allow the same consideration of race as it does "all those other things." The Civil Rights Act was not enacted after a long struggle in order to ban discrimination against people from Colorado, or violinists, or student council presidents. it was enacted after a long struggle in order to ban racial discrimination.

[Randal]

Well Don's here talking about malice. If it were malice against Asians, it would also be malice against New Yorkers and violinists.

Obviously that's not what's going on. You got Harvard and MIT on a technicality, not out of some sympathy for Asians (where's your sympathy for New Yorkers?), but out of a hatred of Blacks and an own-the-libs-no-matter-the-cost mentality.

[Ilya Snowman]

'but out of a hatred of Blacks and an own-the-libs-no-matter-the-cost mentality'.

Do you actually believe that nonsense, or is that part of your 'I want to make you feel in addition to think' strategy? If the latter, you're triggering the wrong feelings in them by mischaracterising their motives and accomplishments.

If the private unis wanted far fewer gay matriculants going forward, would that be OK?

[TwelveInchPianist]

" You got Harvard and MIT on a technicality, not out of some sympathy for Asians (where’s your sympathy for New Yorkers?), but out of a hatred of Blacks...'

Laws against racial discrimination were passed out of a hatred for blacks? Now there's some revisionism.

[Randal]

If the private unis wanted far fewer gay matriculants going forward, would that be OK?

If they had so many gay matriculants that there was no longer a critical mass of straight students, sure.

Note that this is actually happening with women. Universities are making it harder for women so that their male enrollment doesn’t plummet. I suspect that practice will have to come to an end next.

Anyway, no one has explained why they care so much about Asians getting into college if not for either a) Blacks not getting in or b) own-the-libz.

[David Nieporent]

If the private unis wanted far fewer gay matriculants going forward, would that be OK?

I (for once) am not picking on IS here; I wanted to address a broader point: that last word. It is quite common in Internet debates, and it's just terrible, because it means anything and thus nothing.

What does "Would that be OK?" mean. It can mean, "Would that be legal?" "Should that be legal?" "Would the relevant decisionmaker approve of it?" "Would the general public approve?" "Would you approve?" Etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I for one am married to an Asian, so my son is likely to be feeling the brunt of this sort of discrimination. Fortunately, as a relatively dark skinned half-Filipino, he can pass for black if he wears sun glasses so they can't see the epicanthal folds.

Also, since I actually need to live in a functioning society, where bridges don't fall down, planes don't fall out of the air, and doctors can successfully treat illnesses, it's seriously in my interest that the institutions training them be meritocratic.

Is that a self-interested enough motive for you?

Nice to know that all those white guys should have kept in their own lane instead of supporting the Civil rights movement, since it wasn't them being discriminated against.

[Randal]

Also, since I actually need to live in a functioning society, where bridges don’t fall down, planes don’t fall out of the air, and doctors can successfully treat illnesses, it’s seriously in my interest that the institutions training them be meritocratic.

No, it's in your interest not to meddle with what they've decided is the best way to do education.

There is a counterargument to that, but I'll let you find it.

Nice to know that all those white guys should have kept in their own lane instead of supporting the Civil rights movement, since it wasn’t them being discriminated against.

If the rights of Blacks had come at the expense of the rights of Asians, you'd be correct.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, it’s in your interest not to meddle with what they’ve decided is the best way to do education."

No, it is ABSOLUTELY in my interest to so meddle, if the educators get caught up in some irrational fad and start 'educating' on the basis of skin color instead of competence. I don't have to agree to let them run the country into the ground just because they get off doing it.

"If the rights of Blacks had come at the expense of the rights of Asians, you’d be correct."

As the privileges being given to blacks come at the expense of Asians being treated fairly, I am correct.

[Randal]

No, it is ABSOLUTELY in my interest to so meddle...

That was not the correct counterargument. You are not better than MIT at doing MIT admissions, sorry dude.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘If they had so many gay matriculants that there was no longer a critical mass of straight students, sure’.

No. I’m asking if they just wanted to do so, regardless of ratios. Whether PRIVATE institutions can matriculate whomsoever they like.

And the folks here have repeatedly explained their views: they don’t want racial quotas and they want their existing metrics of merit (marks, SAT/exam scores), howsoever flawed, to predominate as the bases for matriculation, over and above some social re-engineering agenda. They believe, to some extent or other, in the primacy of the individual over and above group identity, when it comes to zero-sum games such as uni matriculation.

This is simple and easy to understand. You just don’t LIKE that. Your political preference differs. But what’s so disgusting is that you IMPUTE a nefarious motivation as part of a deligitimisation strategy—which is your lot’s wont—because you’re disingenuous.

As more and more people learn to see through your lot’s ruses, including language control efforts (eg framing matters in terms of ‘phobias’ that clearly aren’t) they’re neither going to take kindly to it nor tolerate you anymore.

[Randal]

No. I’m asking if they just wanted to do so, regardless of ratios. Whether PRIVATE institutions can matriculate whomsoever they like.

No, of course not.

And the folks here have repeatedly explained their views: they don’t want racial quotas and they want their existing metrics of merit (marks, SAT/exam scores), howsoever flawed, to predominate as the bases for matriculation, over and above some social re-engineering agenda. They believe, to some extent or other, in the primacy of the individual over and above group identity, when it comes to zero-sum games such as uni matriculation.

And I’ve repeatedly pointed out the internal contradictions in that view. Having received no answers, I feel comfortable assuming that it’s all due to anti-Black animus and/or anti-lib animus, with the possible exception of Brett. (It may be due to abject stupidity on the part of the actual people here, but their ideological masters from whom they get their opinions are operating with either anti-Black or anti-lib animus. It’s the only explanation.)

It would be really easy to dispel my accusations of a nefarious motivation if you addressed the fallacies in your stated position that I’ve pointed out. Even, like, hand-wavily, like Brett did. It doesn't have to be airtight, but it does at least need to pass the giggle test.

[shawn_dude]

LGBT matriculants are excluded from some private universities today. So that's a big "yes." LGBT employees are also excluded.

[David Nieporent]

No. I’m asking if they just wanted to do so, regardless of ratios. Whether PRIVATE institutions can matriculate whomsoever they like.

As SFFA itself illustrates, schools cannot in fact matriculate whomsoever they like. Of course, sexual orientation is not necessarily a protected class under federal law, so they may be able to do what you propose, though some states have more expansive antidiscrimination laws that cover more categories, including sexual orientation.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘No, of course not’.

Why not? They’re private institutions.

‘And I’ve repeatedly pointed out the internal contradictions in that view. Having received no answers, I feel comfortable assuming that it’s all due to anti-Black animus…’

No, you haven’t. And even if you’d shown certain problems with certain iterations of it, you haven’t shown a good basis for making that inference about their ‘real’ motivations either. It’s not an inference to the best explanation by any stretch of the imagination; the simpler, and more accurate, explanation is that they sincerely believe in the norm. That remains so, even if YOU happen to think there are problems with that norm AND EVEN IF THERE ARE INDEED problems with the norm/contradictions in the notion.

So, YOUR ironic and inapt usage of ‘fallacies’ here was amusing—At least for people who actually know first-order (and other forms of) logic, and for those of us who can actually appreciate irony.

[Randal]

the simpler, and more accurate, explanation is that they sincerely believe in the norm.

I already addressed this possibility. Where does the norm come from? Anti-Black animus. So even if they're too stupid to see the problems and contradictions, and even if they're blind to the true motivations behind the political positions they've adopted, they're still furthering anti-Black animus.

And I don't think they're that blind and stupid. At best, they're being willfully blind and stupid.

[David Nieporent]

Where does the norm come from? Anti-Black animus.

No, the norm is being anti-racial discrimination, which is not a product of any animus.

Now, yes, possessing anti-black animus in 2024 would indeed lead one to the same policy position, but that's just an example of convergent evolution. There are some people who were anti-gay marriage out of animus, and also some gays (one here, apparently) who were anti-gay marriage because, well, that's just assimilating into the heteronormative patriarchy, and we should really be trying to subvert the institution, not join it. The two groups may have shared a goal at that particular point in time, but they were coming from very different places and held very different views on gays.

[Randal]

That still doesn’t explain why you lot are suddenly so into anti-racial discrimination and not anti-any other form of discrimination, either in the context of admissions or generally.

The convenient fact that at this stage, anti-racial discrimination suddenly aligns with anti-Black racism is hard to miss.

It's not unlike how conservatives suddenly got all excited about the viability of women's sports... once it gave them cover to hate on trans people at the same time.

[David Nieporent]

That still doesn’t explain why you lot are suddenly so into anti-racial discrimination and not anti-any other form of discrimination, either in the context of admissions or generally.

I don't know who "you lot" is supposed to refer to, or why you think any of this is "sudden," or what you mean by "any other form of discrimination." Racial discrimination — America's Original Sin — is invidious discrimination, not every "other form" is. If by "other form" you mean religion or national origin or the like, then I am just as opposed. If you mean athletic ability or geographic distribution or the like, then I may agree or disagree with a particular classification as a policy matter, but it is not pernicious in the same way.

It’s not unlike how conservatives suddenly got all excited about the viability of women’s sports… once it gave them cover to hate on trans people at the same time.

Again, what's with the "suddenly" accusation? That 50 years ago conservatives may not have cared about women's sports does not signify anything about their views in recent decades. Now there is an entire generation of conservatives who grew up playing women's sports and/or whose daughters did so. There are even professional women's sports leagues now!

[Randal]

If by “other form” you mean religion or national origin or the like…

Religion, gender, national origin, domestic origin, high-school origin, socioeconomic status, legacy status, disability status, athletic ability, extracurricular involvement, test-taking skill… there’s a long list. I’m not saying you have to care about all of them, in fact I think you can’t care about all of them or you end up with a totally random lottery. I’m interested in where you draw the line.

… then I am just as opposed.

Congratulations on being opposed. By “you lot” I mean those of you who are so butt-hurt about racial diversity but don’t seem to care about any other ones. Why isn’t there just as much lawfare against the gender discrimination or geographic discrimination that goes on in university admissions? It certainly looks like someone out there has it in for Black people, but is willing to let all the other forms of invidious discrimination slide.

[Don Nico]

Randal,
"This whole debate is premised on the idea that kids somehow deserve spots at MIT "... Who said that?
At some level admissions at elite universities is a crap shoot. "You guys make it sound like MIT just stack-ranks all the applicants according to some fixed formula'> That is not the way it works, not at MIT, not at elite law schools or at medical schools.
At best only 5% of applicants can be admitted. Therefore, the first pass by admissions committees is to find reasons to say "no." The only question is the rules by which the admissions committee plays. Only when the odds are 5 to 1, do questions about positives play to get the odds to 3 to 1. At that point the mix issues that you cite play.
The fact is that this year a few rules changed. MIT did not change its rules unaffected by SCOTUS. The % of BIPOCs dropped and the % of Asians increased. Stephan complained that is anti-black racism. I disagree.

[Randal]

I don't understand how you can know all that and still say

I reject... your failure to recognize institutional racism toward Asians.... That is the true malice.

It obviously wasn't racism or malice, any more than selecting good lacrosse players is a function of ableism and malice. So why are you saying that?

Which means...

The % of BIPOCs dropped and the % of Asians increased. Stephan complained that is anti-black racism.

If it's not anti-Black racism, what is it? Even if you're in it for the Asians, it's still anti-Black racism. Why do you care so much about improving the chances for Asians to go to MIT at the expense of Blacks? You don't seem to care about the plight of other disadvantaged groups like New Yorkers and women. How come? That's the mystery that Lathrop and I are attempting to solve.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘If it’s not anti-Black racism, what is it? Even if you’re in it for the Asians, it’s still anti-Black racism’.

Circular reasoning on your part.

Further, all they need is some genuine notion or other of meritocracy and your claims are kaput.

You don’t even understand how, let alone why.

Oh, and go tell Stephen Lathrop to espouse his superficial views about AA to sundry groups of females. Feminists especially, but not just them. It would be amusing to see them rip his balls off—figuratively speaking, of course.

[Randal]

Yeah, I already destroyed the "genuine notion of meritocracy" concept so I'm not worried about that one.

And you once again haven't answered the question. But you're right, calling it anti-Black racism is probably hyperbole. What I think it really is is an attempt to help white people that just didn't pan out. (Which is still anti-Black racism from certain perspectives.)

[Don Nico]

You and Lathrop make the same mistake thinking that I favor any particular admission to MIT.
"If it’s not anti-Black racism, what is it? "
It is not anti-black racism, period. It is the luck of the draw. Your mistake and Lathrop's is calling any variation in statistics racism.
Since when are New Yorkers disadvantaged? You are projecting (making up) what you think onto me with every sentence.

As for institutional racism towards Asians, you know damned well that Harvard made up a metric, which they expected Asians would do poorly on, to reduce the acceptance rate of Asians. That is not the same as selecting football players over basketball players. It is making a race based decision. Perhaps you cannot understand that. But many Asian parents can.

[Randal]

Since when are New Yorkers disadvantaged?

New Yorkers are totally disadvantaged in admissions to elite universities. Did you not know that? They're way overrepresented, and would be even more overrepresented if it weren't for the geographic "affirmative action" built into the admissions process. If you're an applicant from, say, Colorado, it's a big plus factor.

Do you think that practice ought to be stopped?

As for institutional placeism towards New Yorkers, you know damned well that Harvard made up a metric, which they expected New Yorkers would do poorly on, to reduce the acceptance rate of New Yorkers. That is not the same as selecting football players over basketball players. It is making a place based decision. Perhaps you cannot understand that. But many New York parents can.

[Ilya Snowman]

'I already destroyed the “genuine notion of meritocracy” concept...'

HA! No, you didn't. At all.

And, more importantly, you didn't show that it isn't a real driver of THEIR conceptions, of THEIR motivations.

Try harder.

[Randal]

Well, nobody but you has even claimed to want a "genuine notion of meritocracy" to control university admissions. Most here have disclaimed that idea. It wasn't an argument in the case nor a basis for the decision. Because, it's an obviously bad idea that nobody wants.

Please, anybody, feel free to propose that universities stick to an individual "genuine notion of meritocracy" in admissions if that's what you're in favor of.

[David Nieporent]

Please, anybody, feel free to propose that universities stick to an individual “genuine notion of meritocracy” in admissions if that’s what you’re in favor of.

I am in favor of that — using the ordinary definition of meritocracy, not Lathrop's misuse of the term. But that's a normative matter; if I were in charge of a university that's what I'd do. I do not think it is legally required, and of course meritocracy does not literally mean "highest SAT scores." (As I said, I was using that as a metonym.) Other factors can constitute merit. (But not race.)

[Randal]

Ok DMN, you can join Brett in the group of people who have at least proffered a justification other than anti-Black or anti-lib animus. Although I’m skeptical that you’re actually that stupid to think that admissions based strictly on some measure of merit would work. Maybe you have a special sort of school where the kids have entirely individualized experiences and don’t interact with each other at all, like an online university? It could work in that context.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — You do insist—and repeat—that Asian American high school graduates who apply to MIT have in their ancestry and personal experience a record of cultural and economic oppression comparable to that of African American high schoolers who apply? You really think that?

Leaving aside that today’s Asian American applicants are overwhelmingly of recent-immigrant ancestry, what in Asian American history do you offer as comparable to chattel slavery, to lynch law, to Jim Crow, to the civil rights battles of the 50s, 60s, and 70s? Which of those groups, the Asian American recent immigrant families, or the descendants of black American slaves, lives to this minute in safer neighborhoods, or attends better schools?

Or, for that matter, what tribulations does Asian American history show to recall the policy of genocide by the U.S. Army, targeting Indian tribes across the American West? Were Asian Americans forced en masse to march to confinement in Oklahoma? Were Asian American forced onto reservations? Was there a Dawes Act targeting Asian immigrants, to disposess even the ones on reservations? Or were Asian immigrants left mostly at liberty to work as they pleased, as self-employed miners and entrepreneurs, or in the service of the whites targeting the Indians?

As for your concluding question, don’t put it to me. Put your commentary and mine side by side, show that comparison to black graduates of MIT, Harvard, or Yale, and put that question to them. Do you suppose they would find it a close question?

[Don Nico]

Stephan,
Cut the historical guilt-tripping. I don't buy your terms of debate. Maybe you feel guilt because your ancestors abused blacks. If so pays for some of those disadvantaged kids to go to college.
And who appointed you to speak for BIPOCs?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Yes, I get that. I am familiar with commenters who reject my terms of debate, and who leave unanswered almost all my questions. Usually, to do that amounts to a demand to abandon critical thinking, to clear the way for unsupported priors.

Nico, ask yourself the defining question of critical thought, in this case about your claims concerning comparative historical burdens for Asian Americans, and for black descendants of American slaves. You insist they are comparable. The question, of course, is, "How do I know that?" Please explain how you know they are equivalent. Or is a request to do that one of the terms of debate you reject?

[Don Nico]

"to do that amounts to a demand to abandon critical thinking"
Nonsense. I learned early in my philosophy courses that "language is a weapon in the class warfare."
When you don't have an actual answer of substance, you resort to a slur. I recognize a charlatan when I see one. How's that for critical thinking?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, until you address the question, you flunk the critical thinking test. Once again, how do you know Asian American experience in this nation's history has been comparable to black experience?

I have a suggestion. Give up. There is no comparison.

With the exception of somewhat different, but comparably horrific experience of American Indians, the experience of blacks in America has been unique.

[Jmaie]

"...the acceptances from BIPOC students had decreased from 25% to 16% to be made up for mainly by increases in the number of Asian students."

Asians are not included in Bipoc? That would come as a great surprise to my wife (Asian, progressive, fully onboard with the anti-racism scheme currently in vogue).

[DaveM]

White, Black, Purple, Yellow, what the heck is it with you people?

I’ve never found any connection between the color of someone’s skin and their honesty, or their intelligence, or their kindness, or any other human trait of any significance.

NOT ANY.

This is a freakin’ libertarian community. I cannot believe that even libertarians cannot rise above the absolutely ridiculous proposition that race has any meaningful impact on the worthiness of a person.

At least pick a different irrelevant human characteristic to base one’s entire worldview upon, such as one’s taste in music. That way all the same senseless arguments can be had all over again, only this time using different words.

[Frank Drackman]

So it’s just coincidence the NBA and NHL have the racial composition they do?

[David Nieporent]

This is a freakin’ libertarian community. I cannot believe that even libertarians cannot rise above the absolutely ridiculous proposition that race has any meaningful impact on the worthiness of a person.

This is not a libertarian community. There are probably two or three commenters here who are libertarian, just like there's only one or two bloggers here who are.

[Kazinski]

Thomas Sowell explained years ago how affirmative action screws Black kids:
"One study show that the average Black student at MIT scored in the top 10% on the math portion of the SAT, and in the bottom 10% at MIT."

I mean, and MIT, it's only a question of which part of the 99th percentile you're in.

Again there've been actually empirical studies done with medical schools, law schools. And in every single case where the Black students are put in places where the other students have similar SAT scores of their own, they learn more. And professions like law and medicine, there is an independent test, independently of the institution that you was tested in, to see whether you can pass the outside test to get licensed.

And in these cases where the, in one case back East, there was a high test, high ranked law school and a lower ranked law school. The Black students in both places had very similar SAT scores. When they came to the bar exam, the Black students in the lower ranked institution passed the bar exam on the first try 57% of the time, and the ones in the higher ranked one passed it 30% of the time. You learn more in a place where they teach, the professors teach at the level of the students that they have."

Surely you can see the disservice of taking kids out of schools where they would be in the 75th percentile, and put them in a school where they were in the 10th percentile, and start out behind and never catch up, and drop out.

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of quite successful blacks would take issue with this formulation.

But yeah, just throwing quotas at the problem is a bad idea.

But it's a pretty good idea to recognize that our meritocracy is not some smoothly running machine, and that talent is sometimes hidden by nonanalogous conditions. This means that with proper recognition and support you could have access to a wider population, and thus a larger pool of highly talented people for whatever you're going for.

That requires a more complicated process, of course. Different ways to engage, to nurture, to recognize, and to support.

And this is not just about race and gender. Or even socioeconomic class. Growing up in some states act to occlude talent all by itself. Your parents not going to college also does. Military families have a headwind for some reason.

This is complicated stuff, and facile fights over affirmative action just act to slow us down.

[Kazinski]

Well the reason it became a fight was because they were intentionally discriminating against Asian Students so they could admit Black Students who were much less likely to succeed for window dressing.

Black Students that would graduate with Honors at University of Oregon, but would end up being dropouts at MIT.

I graduated Magna Cum Laude at University of Arkansas, I would have been an academic casualty at MIT and it would have set me back years recovering, if I ever did. I don't have a problem admitting that.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, sure don’t target Asian students.

But don’t pretend that’s actually what this policy debate is about.

You assume your answer when you say these black students are less likely to succeed and don’t interrogate why.
Maybe it’s just they don’t have the intellectual chops.
Maybe it’s that they never got the educational foundation.
Maybe it’s that they’re not as engaged as they could.
Maybe they don’t have the money.
Maybe they were always told they would be bad at this.
Maybe they don’t understand the methods – how to study, how to take notes, how to prioritize, etc.

Yeah, coming from AK effects many of those, and it's not something to just accept.

Whatever it is, figuring out if there’s an easy way to make someone successful at MIT is a worthwhile endeavor – get high value talent for pennies on the dollar!

[Don Nico]

I suggest that you read the piece by Dean of Admissions and Student Financial Services Stu Schmill for MIT's complaint about the results this year.
It is just a warmed over distortion of tikkun olam.

[Sarcastr0]

I would direct you to the first line of my comment above.

[Don Nico]

You correct on line 1.
That has nothing to do with my suggestion of reading Schmill's apologia.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, I’m happy to look it up. But what do you want me to get out of it? That MIT fucked up?
I’m quite willing to believe that just from previous discussions on this site!

An example of badly executed DEI doesn't mean DEI is bad.

[Don Nico]

No, I am telling you that you might be interested in the motivations of MIT's admissions dean if you are going to comment specifically about MIT.
Please note that I did not bring up DEI. I was only commenting on Lathrop's characterization of the results as SCOTUS imposed racism.

[Sarcastr0]

Have I committed specifically about MIT, though?

[Kazinski]

"You assume your answer when you say these black students are less likely to succeed and don’t interrogate why."

Sowell told us why, and there have been studies done to confirm this theory:
"in every single case where the Black students are put in places where the other students have similar SAT scores of their own, they learn more."

Its simple, admit students based on their grades and SAT scores.

If they aren't high enough for enough students, then the maybe the answer is to prepare students especially in elementary school and Highschool.

[Sarcastr0]

1. I am skeptical of this bare statement, especially with it's superlative.
The studies I've seen show racial disparities in standardized tests. Not so it's not a good thing to include in admissions, but enough to challenge Sowell's premise here.

2. Even if correct, this does not actually get at anything like why.

3. Admission based on grades and standardized tests is going to miss a *lot.*

4. You switched back to black people. Don't do that; making it about race muddies the debate.

5. By switching to blacks, you become dangerously close to advocating the racial IQ thesis, but for SATs. At the very least you're being panglossian - that current racial achievement disparities are the best of all possible worlds.

[Don Nico]

The last time that I had to review physics GRE scores (5 years ago), there were large (statistically significant) differences in the distributions between whites blacks, Hispanics and Asians.
As for Sowell's claim, I have seen no objective evidence.

[Kazinski]

Richard Sander, EV's former college at UCLA law has published several papers on Mismatch Theory.

He is credited with originating the theory in 2004, so that would be the best place to start if you want to see some dara.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — I suspect you might have become a wiser person today had you been an MIT dropout. You might even have dropped out with a clearer view of your deficiencies, used that interval as opportunity to improve your skills, and returned to MIT to graduate with honors there. But of course for any of that to happen, you would have had to win admission in the first place. Did you apply?

[Kazinski]

Of course I didn’t apply, by the time I decided I actually should go to a University and get a degree I was in my 30’s, a father, and wanted to get a degree as fast as possible and start getting a paycheck again.

I had a years worth of credits from a decade before from JR College, but then I spent more time smoking weed, dropping acid, playing Frisbee than I ever spent studying. The early 70’s were like that, it was a good time to be young.

[Frank Drackman]

It screws Black Adults too, remember this Black Cardiologist, Johns Hopkins trained, way smarter than even me, was a regular Stradivarius in the Cath Lab. Black patients didn’t trust him, wanting the old white fuck who had been one of Ike’s(Eisenhower, not Turner) Cardiologists (“Non Interventional” type, you’re having an STEMI he tells you to take an Aspirin)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've long said that I want a Black MD who graduated medical school before 1970, a female MD who graduated medical school before 1980, or a White male MD who graduated after 2000.

In all cases, they had to be twice as good in order to get through.

[hobie]

Lathrop, nothing makes the racist bigots here clutch their pearls faster than bringing up racism

[Don Nico]

Sure hobie, keep talking to yourself.

[David Nieporent]

Lathrop's just mad that the litigation helped Asians, because he has a fit any time they benefit. (And, to be clear, it was Asians, not whites, who benefitted at MIT.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — I have nothing against Asians. But I am not stupid enough to suppose, or dishonest enough to insist, that in the case we are talking about Asian-American university applicants were anything but a cats paw chosen to attack legally a private policy of affirmative action for blacks.

[Don Nico]

Stephan,
You are incredibly dishonest. You just don't like the fact that Asians enrollment increased; that is your brand of racism.

[Randal]

What? You must know that's a lie.

[David Nieporent]

He had a tantrum about this lawsuit, about the lawsuit over Thomas Jefferson High School… every time someone suggested that Asians were being discriminated against, his response was at best a shrug and at worst a cheer.

[Randal]

That's because Asians aren't being discriminated against. Not because he's ok with discrimination against Asians. Obviously.

[David Nieporent]

Weird how as soon as MIT stopped taking race into account and only looked at other relevant factors, Asians started getting admitted in significantly larger numbers, if Asians weren't being discriminated against.

In the case of Thomas Jefferson, the decisionmakers explicitly complained that there were too many Asians and implemented a new policy to change that.

[Randal]

So? In theory, SCOTUS didn"t even say that's not allowed. Diversity is still a legitimate reason to take race into account, if you could figure out a way to do it that didn't run afoul of one or another of their procedural obstacles. Diversity efforts always negatively impact the overrepresented, that's the point of them.

[David Nieporent]

There is no way to read SFFA as you are reading it. To be sure, the Court does not say that diversity itself is an impermissible goal. But it does say that it flunks strict scrutiny to take race into account to pursue that goal.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Diversity efforts always negatively impact the overrepresented, that’s the point of them."

Yup, and the Court had said that, "Twenty years have passed since Grutter, with no end to race-based college admissions in sight. But the Court has permitted race-based college admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions: such admissions programs must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must—at some point—end."

"Diversity", of course, was specifically designed to be an excuse for racial discrimination that... would never end.

And you've just admitted that it inherently uses race as a negative.

I think you're not getting what they're laying down:

"Recognizing that “[e]nshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend” the Constitution’s unambiguous guarantee of equal protection, the Court expressed its expectation that, in 25 years, “the use of racial preferences will no longer be
necessary to further the interest approved today.”

That was in 2003. It's 2024. Your excuse for racial discrimination officially expires in three more years.

[Randal]

David: But it does say that it flunks strict scrutiny to take race into account to pursue that goal.

No it doesn’t. It says that the specific ways that Harvard was taking race into account flunked strict scrutiny.

Brett: That was in 2003. It’s 2024. Your excuse for racial discrimination officially expires in three more years.

Whether or not racial criteria are necessary to achieve diversity is an empirical question. Even the court agreed with that. What it said, which is at least partially true, is that the universities did a bad job of answering that empirical question.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whether or not racial criteria are necessary to achieve diversity is an empirical question."

It is. It's also a legally irrelevant question. "Diversity" isn't enshrined in the Constitution, equality before the law is. So if they conflict, diversity can go pound sand.

They gave the schools 25 years to get used to the idea, foolishly, and the schools spent that time entrenching racial discrimination as much as they could, instead of moving past it.

[Randal]

the schools spent that time entrenching racial discrimination as much as they could, instead of moving past it.

The schools can't move past it on their own.

“Whether or not racial criteria are necessary to achieve diversity is an empirical question.”

It is.

The hope was that in 25 years, society would've progressed far enough that racial criteria wouldn't be necessary. That they're still necessary over 20 years later isn't the fault of the universities.

[Brett Bellmore]

It wasn't necessary then, it's not necessary now. They just gave the schools time to get over the idea that they were entitled to racially discriminate, and instead of getting over it, they became more race obsessed than ever.

[Randal]

They just gave the schools time to get over the idea that they were entitled to racially discriminate…

Lol. Do you know how dumb that sounds? You’re making shit up again, Bellmore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_gN6JlIJAA

[Commenter_XY]

Interesting. Now I am 'woke' to this (pun intended).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not my brand, Nico. I'm a forthright anti-racist; one whose formative years in the Jim Crow South made getting there a confusing struggle. You're the guy riding in the front of the bus with Edward Blum. I'm the guy calling Blum out. Maybe before opining about brands of racism, you ought to look into the history of your seatmate.

[Kazinski]

Stephen perhaps you didn't realize that Congress drafted the law as broadly as possible so that almost no University could claim it was beyond the reach of the law.

Neither Harvard or MIT even tried to argue that their conduct was private and beyond the reach of the Civil Rights act.

And please don't pretend Asians don't care, Asian Parents spend untold sums on placement consultants, rack their brains for the most resonant volunteer experiences, picking the best sport, etc., to win in a rigged game.

[shawn_dude]

"And, to be clear, it was Asians, not whites, who benefitted at MIT."

"at MIT" does a lot work. White racists who were upset that Black Americans could get into MIT through affirmative action policies benefitted here as well. Organizations like Turningpoint USA, who have a solid history of fighting the teaching of racism in US history, played a significant role in MIT's changed admissions policies.

[Lee Stillman]

Unlike the black students that would have gotten in under DEI but are now denied admission, the ones that got in actually belong there, and have a decent shot of graduation. All DEI admits do is pump up the numbers on the front end, only to drop out after accruing tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt... when if they go to a less demanding academic environment, they stand a fair chance of success.

[Randal]

This is just a made-up talking point to help you feel better about your racism. There are more than enough qualified Black applicants to MIT to probably fill a whole class. They can achieve diversity without having to compromise on standards.

[David Nieporent]

There are more than enough qualified Black applicants to MIT to probably fill a whole class.

I guess that depends on what one means by "qualified." If one means minimally qualified, I suppose. But at the level of MIT, the school isn't looking for minimally qualified; it's looking for the elite. MIT's average SAT score (and I'm not saying SATs are the be all and end all; it's just a quick and dirty metric) is roughly 1550. (And that's a bit misleading, because by definition the scale is compressed at the high end since one can't get more than a 1600. Its 25th percentile is 1530.) There are only around 2,200 African-Americans in the whole country who got a 1400 or above.

[Randal]

I don't mean minimally qualified, I mean supremely qualified, so that you don't have to fret about them failing out or whatever Lee's fantasy was about.

[David Nieporent]

If you admit an entire class of 1400s, then you don't have to worry about any of them failing out. Someone with a 1400 SAT (and again, I am using SAT scores as a quick and dirty indicator) can do STEM, and they're all in the same boat. But if you admit a class of 1550s, then you do have to worry about 1400s being able to keep up with them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But if you admit a class of 1550s, then you do have to worry about 1400s being able to keep up with them.

Nieporent — You deny you want legally enforced meritocracy, but with barely any challenge at all you whip out a preferred meritocratic yardstick—SAT scores, in your case—and insist that free choice of other metrics not be allowed. Let elite universities choose their own yardsticks. Then, by alternative metrics, some of those 1550s will struggle to keep up with some of the 1400s.

Because we are arguing about how to interpret the law, please leave empty reiterations of the law out of this. Instead, tell me what makes you personally disapprove of letting that happen.

Not least among those metric alternatives would be likelihood of contributing to amelioration of persistent inequalities among racial groups. That hopeful enterprise is one at which this nation abounds with promising experts in need of training, especially including young black people.

Educating an accomplished black student at MIT—with no matter what SAT scores—will contribute more to that goal to correct inequalities than you will likely get from a rich white candidate with a 1550 SAT. Make ability to accomplish that the metric, and your white candidate might even judge himself unqualified. But you demand that metric—and that metric alone—be placed off limits.

A claim to not see race, accompanied by a demand that no one else see it either, has for decades been an evasion practiced by crypto-racists. Based on your commentary, I cannot accuse you of crypto-racism. But it's a damned shame, your shame, that no black person who reads your commentary could be confident you are not a racist, crypto or otherwise. Do you understand that for the foreseeable future, black people will remain the best qualified judges to assess the state of American racism, no matter what the Supreme Court says?

You present as a match for self-described color-blind crusader Edward Blum, the guy who invented the Asian cat's paw strategy to beat Harvard. Not coincidentally, he was behind the gutting of the Voting Rights Act with the Shelby County case. Blum boasts a prolific history of frontal legal assaults on affirmative action for blacks. Are you sure you want to present yourself as a less-influential version of that guy?

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent — You deny you want legally enforced meritocracy, but with barely any challenge at all you whip out a preferred meritocratic yardstick—SAT scores, in your case—and insist that free choice of other metrics not be allowed. Let elite universities choose their own yardsticks. Then, by alternative metrics, some of those 1550s will struggle to keep up with some of the 1400s.

I can see why you think it so difficult for modern readers to read and interpret an old text; you can't even read and interpret contemporaneous texts. Literally nothing you wrote in that paragraph after the "but" is accurate. I did not cite SAT scores as a "preferred meritocratic yardstick," but just as an easily understood example. I did not even remotely suggest, let alone "insist," that other metrics not be allowed. The only thing I suggested not be allowed is race.

Also, I do not think there's any metric chosen in good faith by which 1550s will struggle to keep up with 1400s in general, though of course there's always some low-seeded team that goes deep into the NCAA tournament.

Instead, tell me what makes you personally disapprove of letting that happen.

Racial. Discrimination. Is. Bad. Which part of that notion confuses you?

Educating an accomplished black student at MIT—with no matter what SAT scores—will contribute more to that goal to correct inequalities than you will likely get from a rich white candidate with a 1550 SAT. Make ability to accomplish that the metric, and your white candidate might even judge himself unqualified. But you demand that metric—and that metric alone—be placed off limits.

I disagree with the notion that this is or should be the goal of university admissions, and I also disagree with your premise that this would be the result anyway. But it is the method, not the goal, that is correctly placed off limits.

A claim to not see race, accompanied by a demand that no one else see it either, has for decades been an evasion practiced by crypto-racists.

This is a purely bad faith argument, like Brett's mind-reading.

Do you understand that for the foreseeable future, black people will remain the best qualified judges to assess the state of American racism, no matter what the Supreme Court says?

Except, of course, Clarence Thomas, right?

But your comment misses the point; we are discussing law, not "the state of American racism." Nobody tasked the admissions office of MIT with assessing or solving American racism, and there's no reason to think that said admissions office has any particular competence in that area.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Edited quotations. Empty reiterations about the law, while ignoring substantive questions asked to critique the law. And a red herring named Clarence Thomas.

I don’t think you are making much headway, Nieporent.

Oh yeah, there is also your concluding absurdity, to suppose the MIT admissions office less competent about its own objectives than the Supreme Court. You could have confined yourself to the truth. The Supreme Court has more power. That’s the sum of your argument. I never questioned that. What I did question, you ignored.

By the way, despite its power, the Supreme Court will not accomplish a goal to make racialized inequality in America disappear. What do you suppose will be the practical political consequence of cutting out elite college access for black people? Increased racial harmony? You cannot be stupid enough to suppose that. What are you thinking?

[Randal]

a) What Lathrop said.

b) MIT has plenty of Black 1550 applicants. That they're constrained in this way is a lie.

[David Nieporent]

a) Any time you start a thought that way, you should stop and reconsider your life choices.

b) "Plenty" for what? Not plenty to fill a whole class, which is the claim I was addressing with this sub-discussion.

[Randal]

Probably plenty to fill a whole class. But at least plenty to satisfy any diversity whims.

[David Nieporent]

There are absolutely not "plenty to fill a whole class." There are literally not enough in the entire country to do that — and of course that assumes that none would be poached by any other elite school.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue is that your indicator is quick and dirty.
If we are just looking at graduation rates, probably a good correlative.
But throughput is not really the goal of schools.

And you ignore support services, which are in my opinion the silver bullet of DEI.
People come in without a support system or foundational skills, but towering talent? You'll never see the talent. It's not always the case, but the lack of those soft skills that are why the folks that make it in despite low scores founder.
(assuming it's not some turnkey racial quota thing)

Directly targeting Asians to assure racial balance is an awful idea for tons of reasons political and practical and just oy yoy yoy.
But dispirate impact? That's gonna happen in any shakeup of the status quo.

[Don Nico]

Randal, I agree with you that "they can achieve diversity without having to compromise on standards." I think that is the sad fact about MIT admissions this year, in the face of the Dean's tikkun olam motivation.

[Randal]

I don’t get it. What’s sad to you about this year’s admissions? I thought you were cheering them.

[Don Nico]

I am not sad about the result. I am sure that the students admitted will be an excellent class.
The sad fact is that Pres. Kornbluth and Dean Schmill are whining about it.

[Randal]

You think the class is sufficiently racially diverse?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, what a surprise...a duopoly party is exempt from a state ballot-access requirement.

https://ballot-access.org/2024/08/23/illinois-republicans-prevail-in-their-ballot-access-case-in-the-illinois-supreme-court/

[Mr. Bumble]

Not a surprise:
"The Secretary of State’s office [PA] said West’s campaign lacked the required affidavits for 14 of West’s 19 presidential electors.

Jubelirer, a Republican, agreed with the Secretary of State’s office that minor-party presidential electors are to be considered candidates for office who must file affidavits, even if major-party presidential electors are not."
https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-ballot-2024-independent-cornel-west-rfk-406dd1a46489e3049ab70e1633a28414

[not guilty]

Is Donald Trump crawfishing in his opposition to abortion rights? In a Truth Social post Trump said "My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights." https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113012083325505976 "Reproductive rights" is a euphemism often used by those who support abortion rights but are too squeamish to say the word abortion.

Trump has also recently said that he supports exceptions to abortion bans and that he will not enforce the Comstock Act to prohibit mailing of abortion medications. 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 I am curious as to whether this will lead those busybodies whose mission in life is to control women's sex lives to reconsider their support for Trump?

Is anyone surprised, though? Or is Trump's denunciation of safe and legal abortion akin to Strom Thurmond's fulmination against race mixing, Richard Nixon's tirades against Communism, Jimmy Swaggart's reviling pornography, Ted Haggard's condemnation of same sex coupling and George H. W. Bush's thundering "Read my lips -- no new taxes!"?

[not guilty]

J. D. Vance has told NBC News on Meet the Press that Trump will veto any national abortion ban. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zh4GnHcUDU

I must confess some schadenfreude in seeing Republicans squirm like worms on a hot brick regarding abortion rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm fairly pro-life, but I'm fine with Trump vetoing any national abortion ban. Abortion is a state, not federal, matter. And unconstitutional laws SHOULD be vetoed.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree: Abortion is a state matter, to be decided by the people. It takes the 'political sting' out of the issue.

[OtisAH]

Hilarious.

[Frank Drackman]

Inappropriate sense of humor is a sign of Alzheimer's, laugh at really funny things, like Sergeant Major-Dick Pepper-Waltz's crying son.

[OtisAH]

Oh poor piece of shit. So lost without getting to chase the Rev all around these comments. Sad.

[MoreCurious]

When you fall off a cliff, or get run over by an 18-wheeler, or develop an incurable disease, please make sure your family lets us know so we can have a good laugh.

[Commenter_XY]

OtisAH, for 50+ years, abortion was like a lingering canker sore. What animated many people was the fact that 9 unelected judges could effect social changes like that, by judicial fiat. Rightly or wrongly, that is how they felt.

Now they themselves (meaning, the people in each state) must choose what restrictions they will live with. For the overwhelming majority of people in the US, nothing changed as a result of Dobbs; there were no changes to abortion laws (i.e. NJ, NY. IL, CA, MA, etc).

I am fine with whatever the people decide for themselves, if they choose to have abortion on demand, I am fine with that; they chose it. I don't have to agree with the choice to be fine with it.

[OtisAH]

I already credited your joke. Now you’re just beating into the ground. That’s bad comedy.

[Josh R]

Harris will campaign on signing a national pro-choice law. That strikes me as both good policy and good politics.

[Bwaaah]

They cry when it’s anything but The One Right Way for All. That’s because they know right from wrong, and that there are no ambiguities about such distinctions. Good People know which side should win; there is, after all, only one side: the good side.

Donald Trump seems pretty much committed to letting states guarantee abortion rights as they choose. That’s unacceptable to the totalitarian left. (Except they’re always amenable to making exceptions for diverse peoples.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — Rs desperately want that, “sting,” withdrawn. But it was self-inflicted, entirely deserved, and not yet as fully punitive as it is destined to become.

By the way, are you in favor of finding the Comstock Act unconstitutional?

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not very pro life then, by the narrative pro lifers take.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's quite possible to be pro-life, AND pro-rule of law, you know.

[Sarcastr0]

It is, but not under the current Pro-Life rhetoric.

If a state legalized murder of innocent people, I think it would be a rare reaction to just say 'welp, that's the breaks when you respect rule of law!'

[Brett Bellmore]

I dare say that, as a pro-life Roman Catholic, I'm fairly well acquainted with Pro-Life rhetoric. I hear it often enough from the pulpit.

[Sarcastr0]

Then by all means explain how abortion is murder but a federal abortion ban is bad.

[mulched]

There is no federal murder law.

[not guilty]

"There is no federal murder law."

That is incorrect. Murder is predominantly a state offense, but numerous federal statutes prohibit murder or other homicides as well. Most of these federal statutes include an additional element over and above the common law offense in order to bring it within the ambit of Congressional enumerated powers, such as federal territorial jurisdiction or an effect upon interstate or foreign commerce.

[mulched]

"these federal statutes include an additional element over and above the common law offense in order to bring it within the ambit of Congressional enumerated powers..."

Thanks for agreeing with me.

[not guilty]

What on earth leads you to think I am agreeing with you? You made an ipse dixit assertion which I expressly disagreed with.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because the federal government lacks the general police power, a federal abortion ban is not within its lawful authority.

Surely the concept of sticking to legal means while combating the evil of abortion isn't over your head.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah but if a state legalized murder the people nor the federal government would be like ok cool.

[Brett Bellmore]

If a state legalized murder of the 'post-born', then the 14th amendment would clearly be applicable, and it would be perfectly appropriate for the feds to come down on them like a ton of bricks. And, arguably, they ought to be so coming down on states like NY, that have chosen to stop policing what happens to infants that survived their abortions.

But, I didn't write the 14th amendment, and it does apparently distinguish between people who've been born, and people who haven't been.

Look, I get that you'd like pro-lifers to resort to self-defeating tactics. I really get that. We're not going to oblige.

[Sarcastr0]

So is this a 180 and saying that you do think the Constitution demands a nationwide abortion ban?

That seems not in keeping with "Abortion is a state, not federal, matter. And unconstitutional laws SHOULD be vetoed."

There are many ways to be pro life without 'abortion is murder' melodrama. But all I see is the drama folks these days.

[not guilty]

"If a state legalized murder of the ‘post-born’, then the 14th amendment would clearly be applicable, and it would be perfectly appropriate for the feds to come down on them like a ton of bricks. And, arguably, they ought to be so coming down on states like NY, that have chosen to stop policing what happens to infants that survived their abortions."

We are deep into the realm of the hypothetical here, but a state is (theoretically) free to abolish murder as a crime. If that happened, any federal statute prohibiting murder would still be enforceable in that state, but the Fourteenth Amendment would not "clearly be applicable" in terms of providing a self-executing federal remedy for a murder occurring in that state independent of an act of Congress.

Brett, do you have any facts supporting your bald assertion that New York has "chosen to stop policing what happens to infants that survived their abortions"?

[Brett Bellmore]

NY law takes abortion out of state’s penal code

"Another change in the New York law repealed a section of public health law that required that abortions after 12 weeks be performed in a hospital; that an additional physician be present for abortions after 20 weeks to care for “any live birth that is the result of the abortion”; and that such babies be provided “immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York.”"

[not guilty]

Where a live birth results from a failed abortion, the killing of the infant would be a homicide like the killing of any other person, Brett.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that New York officials are failing to prosecute such homicides?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett caught just making things up.

Taking abortion out of the penal code doesn't "stop policing what happens to infants that survived their abortions." As ng points out, a live birth results in a person for purposes of the criminal code.

Changing the number of physicians present doesn't change the legal status of the infant or legality of any act. You might think it makes it less likely that a crime will be reported to authorities, but there were no police stationed in hospital rooms as, apparently, you would want (a second physician only being a next best option, obviously).

Removing the surplusage about whether live births receive "immediate" legal protection doesn't change the law. An infant born is immediately a person under the Constitution. New York saying the equivalent in a statute didn't make it so, taking out the language doesn't make it not so.

You're just hyperventilating over lies. The only thing unclear is whether you know they're lies.

[not guilty]

Truth time, Brett. What evidence, if any, do you have:
(1) that infants in New York have survived failed abortion attempts and were contemporaneously killed by another person or persons; and
(2) that New York officials have declined to prosecute any person(s) responsible for the death of any such infant(s)?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett doesn't deal in facts, ng, he deals in extrapolations from poorly understood and distorted data to arrive at indisputable "facts" which, generally, are nothing more than his fevered imaginings.

There is, in fact, no evidence that New York has stopped "policing what happens to infants that survived their abortions." He just used his amazing brain to extrapolate from a change in the law (which he clearly doesn't understand) to what that must entail out in the real world. He doesn't actually have to look out the window, you see.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Brett.

Why won't you man up and admit that you are making shit up? I promise that it won't break your keyboard to do so.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is the first I noticed that you replied.

Yes, murdering a newborn infant is still illegal in New York. It’s just that they no longer lift a finger to find out if it happens. They affirmatively decided to stop doing anything that would result in them finding out when it happens. When a law was proposed to resume trying to find out about it when it happens, they shot it down.

But they don't want it to happen. That's their story, and they're sticking with it.

[Magister]

Well, there has to be a doctor for it to be an abortion, and that doctor could conspire with someone getting a late term abortion to kill such an infant. The doctor would be at significant legal risk, and it is true that requiring two doctors could make such an unlikely conspiracy a little less likely. But requiring two police in any patrol car could also reduce the far greater chance that a rogue cop would kill someone, and I haven't seen two cops in a patrol car except in old TV shows, so I guess nobody cares about those far more frequent murders.

Multiple doctors, onerous requirements on facilities, admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, multiple appointments, transvaginal ultrasound, and so on - these are all various attempts to place burdens on the right to decide to have an abortion (which New York made legal before Roe v Wade and continues to make legal). So I'm not surprised they shot such a thing down in New York.

[Armchair]

I fine with this as well. It's a very reasonable position from Donald Trump, and surprisingly clear.

Many politicians hide their true views on abortion.

[Sarcastr0]

No respect for innocent human life. Just another chip to trade in the game of politics, eh?

[You play abortion is murder games, you gotta accept the abortion is murder prizes)

[Armchair]

"You play abortion is murder games, you gotta accept the abortion is murder prizes"

This is yet another a lie from you. I've made my position clear before.

[Sarcastr0]

Then please, clarify your position on abortion for everyone.

Many in Trump's coalition won't like this.
But yeah, most will fall in line. Because that's the kind of party Trump has insisted on.

[Armchair]

First apologize for your lie.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't lie, I assumed you were pro life.

Which seems a pretty fair assumption given your politics.

If that's wrong, by all means correct the record.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I didn’t lie, I assumed you were pro life."

I didn't lie, I assumed something that I had no basis to believe, then stated it as fact in a comment.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Little Dick doesn't seem to understand what a lie is or is not.

1) A lie is an intentionally false statement. That means knowing the truth, and deliberately stating otherwise. Assumptions don't count, as the truth is not known.

2) You're an idiot to try and claim Sarcastr0 had "no basis" to believe his assumption. The political bent of people like you and Armchair is painfully obvious.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A lie is an intentionally false statement."

Building on the George Castanza defense?

It's not a lie if you assume it?

Y'all are some dishonest people.

[NOVA Lawyer]

FFS. Armchair is clearly hiding behind the "lie" to avoid stating his position, particularly including whether he thinks abortion is murder.

And, yes, when someone comes in hot with anti-abortion rhetoric and, unless I am mistaken, a majority of anti-abortion people in the US currently believe abortion is murder, it actually is a reasonable basis to assume the person equates abortion with murder. It might be ideal to first ask if they do, but, if the assumption is made, it's pretty pathetic to scream "you just lied about me" and refuse to say what your actual position is.

Trying to transform a good faith, but incorrect, assumption into a lie.......just so they don't have to address the substance of the thread? "Y'all are some dishonest people."

[Armchair]

Now Nova,

I have to charitably assume you didn't really follow the thread. But, just in case, a few questions.

1) Do you support a National Ban on Abortion?
2) If a National Ban on Abortion was passed, would you support the President vetoing such a ban?
3) Would you consider supporting such a veto as "hot anti-abortion rhetoric"?
4) Would you immediately assume someone who supported such a veto as simultaneously holding views that "Abortion is Murder"?
5) Have Sarcatr0's bigoted lies fooled you?

[Armchair]

As for TwelveInchPianist,

This is pretty textbook bigotry by Sarcastr0. What are the elements?

A prejudice against a person or class of people, even when directly shown to be false.

Let's take an example.

Sarcastr0 says "Goldberg has usurious interest rates because he's a greedy man"
Goldberg says: "Actually, that's a lie, my interest rates are below market rates"
Sarcastr0 says: "I didn't lie, I assumed you had usurious interest rates, which is a pretty fair assumption, given that you're a Jew"

You can see the inherent bigotry here, in the lie, and in the "assumptions". Not at all dissimular to what occurred here. The initiation of the conversation was support (on my part) for a veto of any national abortion ban. If anything, that's a pro-choice position.

But immediately, the bigoted lies start, based on nothing but prejudice.
in

[Randal]

You think Sarcastr0 thinks you're pro-life because you're Jewish?

[Sarcastr0]

After all this bloviating, Armchair still hasn’t answered what his position on abortion is.

[Armchair]

As for Sarcastr0,

When a bigoted antisemetic liar, such as him, makes such a question... There is no point in answering it. Whatever one says, it will be lied about and deliberately misinterpreted.

Case in point. I literally supported vetoing a "National Abortion Ban" and somehow came out of that as saying "Abortion is Murder" according to Sarcastr0.

Simply a direct lie. But that's Sarcastr0. A bigoted antisemetic liar.

[Sarcastr0]

I literally supported vetoing a “National Abortion Ban” and somehow came out of that as saying “Abortion is Murder” according to Sarcastr0.

This is Brett's position.

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair, I see you've backed down from blood libel.

But still sticking with antisemetic and a liar.

My dude, you got WRECKED on this antisemitism nonsense this past Thursday. Remember? How many people other than me called you on your bullshit?
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/22/thursday-open-thread-205/?comments=true#comment-10696667

Nothing I said was antisemetic, or indeed nothing different from what plenty of Jews think. (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/how-us-jews-are-experiencing-the-israel-hamas-war/)

Just pathetic, Armchair.

[Commenter_XY]

You did, in fact, make a false accusation against Israel when you ‘oh confidently’ stated that “the indiscriminate bombing must end”. There was no indiscriminate bombing by Israel. That was a deliberate lie on your part, a blood libel.

Sleep well.

[Sarcastr0]

Don’t misquote me asshole, it’s right there in the link I never said “the indiscriminate bombing must end”

Also look up what by and large means.

Again, by your definition of any criticism of Israel handling civilian casualties is blood libel, a ton of Jews are blood libeling.

And also again, you do Israel no favors coming in with that kind of alienating broad and false accusation.

[Josh R]

There was no indiscriminate bombing by Israel. That was a deliberate lie on your part, a blood libel.

It's an opinion, so it can't be libelous. And even if it were a false statement of fact, it is not automatically a blood libel against Jews.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair is still running.

Armchair shares political views with Brett and adopted Brett's views in this thread with respect to Trump's announcement that he would veto a national abortion ban. Again, it may be the case that Armchair doesn't think abortion is murder. He conspicuously won't say. Why?

[Armchair]

Nova,

1) The question you asked was answered in this post and in last week's Thursday post.
2) You didn't answer any of my questi

Sarcastr0
1) Yes, you've issued blood libel. That phrasing "indiscriminate bombing of Gaza," in that context is considered blood libel by Israel's Michal Cotler-Wunsh, a former centrist lawmaker who serves as Israel’s antisemitism envoy,

2) Your "opinion" on what blood libel doesn't matter. Just like if you call a black person a certain 6 letter word and say "well, I don't consider that racism". It's what the people being accused of consider it. And Israel's antisemitism envoy considers what you said to be blood libel.

Now you can apologize for it. Which you steadfastly have refused to do. Or you can stand by your antisemitism. Which you continue to do. Like a white guy who insists that calling an African American a N***** isn't racism.

[Sarcastr0]

Your definition is not sustainable; it sweeps in lots of American Jews.

You will continue to marginalize yourself as an agro jerk so long as you keep this up.

[Bwaaah]

When you seriously consider the semantic origin, it's absurd to call you, Gaslight0, a "douche." Similarly, you are obviously a human and not a "weasel." And yet, it is clear that you can't weasel your way out of being the douche that you are.

I take pleasure in watching Armchair makes mincemeat out of you. Of course, you are not "mincemeat," so that can't possibly be true.

Say what you want. You are the kind of douche you can't really defend, so you try to split your own pubic hairs.

[Sarcastr0]

Keeping it contentless, personal, and weird, eh?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"That phrasing “indiscriminate bombing of Gaza,” in that context is considered blood libel by Israel’s Michal Cotler-Wunsh"

1) You're going to have to source that, because you're a well-known liar. I have my doubts that he has spoken up about Sarcastr0's commenting.

2) When did he become the arbiter of what does or does not factually constitute "blood libel" across the globe?

3) It is a fact that Israel prolifically used munitions which are highly indiscriminate in a densely-populated urban area. A Mk. 84 has a blast radius (lethal) of more than 350m. That isn't a precision fucking strike where you only care about the intended target being destroyed.

4) The alleged authority figure you allegedly cited, if the alleged definition is actually accurate, sure seems to be a self-serving method of shutting down criticism of Israel by hiding behind bullshit anti-Semitism accusations, much like you and Commenter try to do here. You're both pathetic.

5) Get a fucking clue.

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

[Frank Drackman]

Abortion, should be safe, legal, and rare, and occur disproportionately among Blacks (except for being rare, the other 3 are true)

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair — The remark applies fully to Trump, who has commented on television to support criminal punishment for women who receive abortions. It could not be more evident that nothing Trump says is a commitment to future action, because everything he says is a lie he will contradict with another lie at the first convenient opportunity.

In politics, what that means is, don't vote for Trump, no matter what he says.

[Josh R]

Trump doesn't have any views on abortion. He will go with whichever the way the wind blows. If the GOP allowed it, he would support a national pro-choice bill (it's good politics). But, it is a bridge too far for his base.

[Kazinski]

I appreciate that Josh, whenever I wonder what Trump thinks about something, can I just ask you for his position?

In return, I will be glad to answer any questions you might have about Kamala .

[Josh R]

You could ask any thinking person. They will tell you Trump cares only about himself. Or putting it another way, do you honestly believe Trump cares (on the substance, not the politics) what his abortion position is?

[not guilty]

Trump has notably refused to say how he will vote on Florida's abortion rights referendum. Somehow this does not cause consternation among his blastocystophile supporters.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — So you judge the Comstock Act unconstitutional?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty hardline about limiting federal jurisdiction, you know.

[SimonP]

Way not to answer the question.

Stephen, what Brett means here is that he believes that the Comstock Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress's limited authority to regulate interstate commerce. He would be favor of enforcing it; he just doesn't want to admit it directly here.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a really weird way to construe what I said.

I think it's certainly constitutional in regards to what can be mailed using the Federal Post Office, since the government can pretty freely regulate its own actions.

I think the case for it being constitutional in regards to non-postal transport is a weaker case. But I'd maybe fall on the side of it being constitutional there, even though this clause was not intended to allow Congress to ban things.

But as far as enforcement? No, I don't think the federal government should be leveraging unrelated powers to take over topics which aren't delegated to it.

[SimonP]

That’s a really weird way to construe what I said.

Is it? Because you just confirmed what I attributed to you. So you're not just predictable, but you're commenting in bad faith.

[Brett Bellmore]

"He would be favor of enforcing it; he just doesn’t want to admit it directly here."

I just said that I wasn't in favor of it, because I'm not a fan of the federal government leveraging unrelated powers in order to take control of matters that aren't properly federal.

Like, you know, abortion.

[SimonP]

Again, I can tell that you’re just weaseling out of the admission here.

“I’m not a fan of the federal government leveraging unrelated powers in order to take control of matters that aren’t properly federal” just means, “I don’t think the federal government should rely on the Comstock Act in order to effectively ‘ban’ abortion nationwide.”

But I don’t think you’d say something like, “I think that the Trump administration should regard the Comstock Act as a dead letter and not seek to bar interstate commerce of drugs or equipment that would typically be used to perform abortions.” Because you haven’t said anything like that yet. Would you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, you wanted magic words. OK, then:

“I think that the Trump administration should regard the Comstock Act as a dead letter and not seek to bar interstate commerce of drugs or equipment that would typically be used to perform abortions.”

Because I generally think the federal government should not seek to bar interstate commerce in stuff, period, regardless of its purpose or use. And because it's a great candidate for applying the concept of desuetude to federal law.

[hobie]

If you want to be a federation of states you need to have basic rights established for all who travel. Otherwise (hypothetically) you could have a black man wander into Arkansas and suddenly have himself enslaved per their laws. Same guarantees should apply to women

[SimonP]

So what do you think about the fact that Trump probably wouldn't veto any national abortion ban, and that this is all typical Trump obfuscation, designed to invite voters who support Trump to believe whatever they like about what he'd actually do, once in office?

[shawn_dude]

Could you explain what is unconstitutional (with our current SC) about a nationwide ban on all abortions? If that is unconstitutional nationwide, it's unconstitutional for any given state.

[not guilty]

If Congress were to pass a statute criminalizing performance of all abortions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, the current Supreme Court likely would uphold it. Compare Carhart v. Gonzales, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I rather this be academic -- I don't want to have to test how consistent he will be if a 15-week national ban comes to a vote.

Ditto what would happen if there was an attempt to block medical abortions via the Comstock Act.

Or, respect for local options in D.C.

Or, which led to holding up military promotions, the rights of military members and their families to have abortion access.

Still, if abortion should be removed as an issue for the federal government, why not repeal the Hyde Amendment? If he wants to go the "don't care" route of Stephen Douglas, go all the way.

[Brett Bellmore]

How exactly would federally subsidizing abortion remove it as an issue for the federal government?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Denying federal funding for legal medical care in a state in which that medical care is legal is placing a federal thumb on the scales against abortion. A federal carve out to deny funding for abortion, but not other medical care, is federalizing the issue.

And, so, removing the Hyde amendment would allow federal funding of health care that is legal in a state and, in what you say is best, leave the decision about abortions to the states and pregnant women in states where is is legal. Keeping the Hyde amendment maintains a federal anti-abortion stance and denies funding and, so, impedes abortions and very likely increases the incidence of late-term abortions (difficulty raising money for an abortion is one of the main reasons for post-14 week abortions).

[OtisAH]

I think it’s bending a few noses out of place, but also imagine his folks are desperately reassuring such folks he’s just saying these things to get elected and reminding them, as Convicted Felon Trump himself is wont to, that “he” ended Roe.

But I also think this provides an off-ramp for a small but likely significant numbers of his support to stay home in November. Now that they have no democratic squirrels to point at, folks cannot help but actually see Convicted Felon Donald Trump for what he is. And folks are finally recognizing that what CFDT is ain’t pretty. Or coherent.

[shawn_dude]

While I wish this would be what happens, I don't think that's the case. For starters, a lot of states have pro-women bills on the ballot which will draw a lot of the White Christian Nationalists out to vote. Then there's the fact that Kamala is not white and, heaven forefend, she's a woman, which will draw the WCN crowd out in a tradwife panic.

[Moderation4ever]

I see no reason to believe Trump on the issue of abortion. The idea that states should decide on abortions was popular when
the antiabortion crowd thought they could control at the state level. What they are finding out is that people don't want abortion restrictions and are working around state legislatures with binding referendums. Antiabortion leaders will shift to the national level and will expect Trump to do their bidding. Trumps promises to the voters are no better than his promises to his first two wives.

[David Nieporent]

I am curious as to whether this will lead those busybodies whose mission in life is to control women’s sex lives to reconsider their support for Trump?

It will not. They have already rationalized their support for Trump, and will continue to do so; they will just argue that he's saying what he needs to say to get elected.

[Joe_dallas]

The 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, was a recognition that certain practices are so fundamentally wrong that they can’t be tolerated, no matter how popular they are in any particular time or place. Crimes against humanity involve the denial of human dignity and rights; they can’t be sanctioned by any state because they can’t be justified under any circumstances.

Abortion, like slavery, is a crime against humanity. It devalues and dehumanizes. It treats a certain subset of human individuals as “less than” to justify stripping away their rights and dignity for the benefit of another. Just as the moral atrocity of slavery could not be left to the discretion of individual states, neither should abortion. It doesn’t matter how popular it is with suburban women.

[ReaderY]

Trump has been remarkable for telling both sides of an issue what each wants to hear, with each only hearing what it wants to hear.

You’d think that in an age of instant communications he would be called on things like this. But a combination of factors – the balkanization of America that social media seems to have caused, Trump’s inexplicable charisma and evocation of subrational human messianic instincts, his ability to get people to believe that media contradicting what he is saying are lying – I really can’t tell you exactly why - seems to enable him to do this and repeatedly get away with it.

[Martinned2]

You forgot to mention his ability to speak incoherently for hours, allowing his audience to project their preconceived notions onto his words without limit.

[shawn_dude]

Trump lies like it's as essential to his well-being as breathing. If he says something, anything, assume it's a lie.

[Randal]

A continuation of a thread with Frosty (and, to a lesser extent, Simon) from last week….

The cultural property claim can and likely will be weaponized against SimonP and his lot.

Yes, that was my point.

On “cultural property” not being a thing…

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.

Of course it’s part of my political ideology. It’s a value statement. I’m quite capable of distinguishing opinion from fact. Are you? I’m not so sure. You’ve got some pretty insane diagnoses and predictions, yet you accuse me of

confus[ing] your normative preferences with both truth and a sort of baseline that will, by necessity, invariably restore itself.

Uh, look in the mirror, Mr. “preserve American culture.”

Then we have a bunch of mischaracterizations of Democratic policy in fact:

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. (What non-moderate policies?)

mass illegal immigration (Not a policy.)

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). (The left doesn’t claim it drives wages down, that’s MAGA. There’s no contradiction between promoting [legal] immigration and working to resolve economic inequities.)

Then we get your special wisdom that can only have come from the feces of your brain worms.

If the left were practical, it would breed.

Why are you so obsessed with breeding? Things like political ideology aren’t genetic. There’s no such thing as a pure-bred Democrat.

MAGA are the ones who wish to preserve American culture.

Obviously false. American culture is what it is, and it’s the same now as it was 200, 250 years ago. We went through the Civil War already on much the same terms, and MAGA lost. MAGA lost prohibition. MAGA lost women’s rights. MAGA lost civil rights. MAGA lost gay rights. MAGA mostly lost reproductive rights… the recent change in legal regime hasn’t much changed the reality.

If MAGA were trying to preserve American culture, they wouldn’t be undermining its institutions, including its love of democracy, in order to get their way. They’ve been quite clear actually — they’re not counter-revolutionary, they consider themselves to be the revolutionaries. Because they're tired of losing. Because in American culture as it has always existed, they lose.

Anyway, they’re not actually willing to give up the benefits of American life in order to win the culture war. This is why I’m not too worried, even if Trump wins. MAGA likes their smart phones and PlayStations. They like fast food and TikTok and Marvel movies. They like the social safety net. They like living in a superpower. So by extension, they like free trade, national debt, and cheap labor, both here and abroad. Their grievances aren’t fundamental, they’re petty. Bathroom access garbage, Twitter moderation policies, things like that. If there were evidence that a big block of Americans were willing to abandon their privileged, mostly undeserved economic status in order to go back to an isolated, agrarian society with slaves where they could be as mean to gay people as they wanted, then I’d be concerned. There is none.

I think your critiques are much more applicable to the EU than to America. If the EU can hold itself together, then I’m sure America can. If the EU can’t hold itself together, then I still think America can. Just like how the failure of Brexit is a warning sign to other EU countries, the horrific aftermath of a failure of the EU would be a warning sign to Americans.

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.

This is the exact same thing the Confederates were saying before the Civil War. It’s the exact same case made by the resistance to any social change. Of course it’s a complex web of norms and practices. That doesn’t mean they can never change — or be changed — for the better. America’s culture is to change. We’ve never just sat back and said “welp, this present snapshot of America is good enough, any further progress would be too risky.”

[Brett Bellmore]

"mass illegal immigration (Not a policy.)"

Total bullshit.

Biden Signs Executive Orders Reversing Trump Immigration Policies

US Customs and Border Protection: Southwest Land Border Encounters

Biden takes office, immediately reverses a number of Trump's border policies, (Reversing a policy IS policy.) and within two months, Southern border encounters had gone from 78K to 173K. Trump's absolute worst month was 144K, Biden's numbers remained worse than that the whole time until the middle of this year.

Then early this year Biden decides that illegal immigration is hurting him politically, reverses course on some policies, and the numbers immediately begin dropping to the lowest during his entire time in office. They finally drop below Trump's worst month in June of this year.

That's not external forces. That's a POLICY, and demonstrably a policy he could have changed any time he wanted.

Massive illegal immigration was policy. A deliberate policy.

[Brett Bellmore]

And any reasonable person would expect that, as soon as the election is past, massive illegal immigration will return to being policy. Because you don't maintain it that high for that long if you don't WANT massive illegal immigration. They only started doing something about it for the election. Once they don't have that motive to control illegal immigration, they'll open the spigot again.

[Sarcastr0]

Really leaning into 'reasonable' lately, eh?

If you need to declare your position is that of all reasonable people...

[Ilya Snowman]

Yes, we read your posts about illegals all the time.

No, we don't think you're reasonable. (Not just mistaken. Unreasonable. Sincere? Harder to say.)

[Commenter_XY]

Insincere.

[Sarcastr0]

Care to back up that accusation?

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, you'd like me to 'bring receipts (again) and bitch slap you. It gets tiresome. It is an opinion, Sarcastr0. Feel free to try and change it.

[Sarcastr0]

So you have nothing.

Deal better with disagreement, this is just childish.

[Commenter_XY]

You're doing a shitty job (unsurprisingly) = It is an opinion, Sarcastr0. Feel free to try and change it.

[Mr. Bumble]

With apologies to L Bernstein:
When you're a Douche you're a Douche all the way....

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I don't actually give a fuck about your opinion, I want you to back your accusations up. Even opinions have foundations.

You have twice now tried to weasel out of anything like that.

Which says quite a bit about you.

[Ilya Snowman]

Why are you so sensitive about this?

After all, you feed people low quality propaganda here every day and regularly lie to them in the comments.

More than that, you promote superficial social and economic policies that will cause grievous, irreparable harm to their children, their culture, and their country—including to key values that you (at least pretend to) define yourself by.

You’re an existential threat to the United States of America, Tankie. Why do they OWE you anything?

[Bwaaah]

Useless Douche.

[Sarcastr0]

A more purely empty pejorative and thus a less problematic choice for namecalling than 'insincere' Bwaaah.

Thanks for providing the contrast!

[Ilya Snowman]

'Useless Douche'.

He is not! He's a harmful douche.

[Bwaaah]

I don't think he is dangerous in any distinguished sense beyond the danger of the greater herd within which he envisions himself, its size, and the implications of its advance toward vapidity. How compelling do you find his arguments? How many minds has he turned?

For some of your inclinations, I would describe you as "dangerous" for exactly the reason I think Sarc isn't. And at the same time, I find many of your arguments, most, to be quite compelling and on point. (I am called a "Jew," and as such, I find it difficult to place myself safely within your narratives.)

He's a useless douche. You are somewhat dangerous. You might as well take that as a compliment, even though it isn't intended as such.

[Ilya Snowman]

What does your safety have to do with their truth or falsity?

Do you understand the mortal danger your co-religionists are in elsewhere (not merely in Kikeland)? What is their risk calculus compared to yours?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Care to back up that accusation?"

Oh, he just assumed you were insincere. Given your positions, it's a reasonable assumption.

[Magister]

Assuming Armchair is prolife seems more reasonable than assuming that Sarcastr0 is insincere, and yet you prefer the less reasonable assumption?

[mulched]

Of course. How could someone with a name like Sarcastro ever be less than 100% sincere?Especially with no history whatsoever of trolling or saying something just for effect.

[Magister]

Sarcastr0 is almost never sarcastic, but sometimes (and obviously) snarky. Trolling and gaslighting is a favorite accusation of people who don't like his comments but have no rebuttal, and don't really understand either word.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Assuming Armchair is prolife seems more reasonable than assuming that Sarcastr0 is insincere"

Why? Sarcastro is defending making assumptions without evidence when he does it, and chides people for making much more defensible assumptions. What makes you think he's sincere.

[David Nieporent]

I just wish people would say "lying" when they mean "lying," instead of "gaslighting."

[TwelveInchPianist]

The only people who have said "gaslighting" in this thread are you and Magister.

But you may be on the losing end of the language evolution on that issue.

[Magister]

Are you really unaware of how often "Gaslight0" has been used to refer to Sarcastr0?

[Armchair]

"Assuming Armchair is prolife "

Based on what? Based on the fact the previous statement I made supported a veto of any national abortion ban?

That makes zero sense.

[Magister]

Based on your long history of right wing posting (you did used to be Armchair Lawyer?). The abortion is murder crowd might want to veto a national ban, as it would suggest that national protection would also be possible, and they might prefer that the conservative Supreme Court go all in on fetus as person if not citizen.

[Ilya Snowman]

'Trolling and gaslighting is a favorite accusation of people who don’t like his comments but have no rebuttal, and don’t really understand either word'.

Gaslighting about another's obvious regular trolling. How meta of you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you care to dispute my evidence that massive illegal immigration was a policy choice by the Biden administration? They've demonstrated they could open the spigot, they've demonstrated they could close it, too.

How is opening the spigot and leaving it open for most of four years not a policy choice?

[Commenter_XY]

He cannot dispute it, because it is the truth. It was a deliberate policy choice. In November, the American people will pass judgment on that policy choice.

[Frank Drackman]

Even "Lincoln Riley"(HT Sleepy Joe) may vote (it's Georgia, dead people vote all the time)

[Randal]

I dispute it here regularly, yet you guys keep coming back with your unsupported lies. See below for a quickie version.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/26/monday-open-thread-68/?comments=true#comment-10700794

[Ilya Snowman]

Your bald assertions Biden and about its being Congress' problem (plus misrepresentations about Trump), in posts such as the one to which you've linked, might count as 'disputing' the proposition. But they CANNOT seriously be counted as sincere, credible, evidence-based, reason-based arguments that could falsify the proposition of its being Biden's policy.

You don't REALLY care about that, though, do you?

[Sarcastr0]

We have been through this many times. You have no evidence. You take a single time correlated data point and assume causality.

When DMN and I and others have called you on it, you posit some secret message is being sent to illegal communities via allied nonprofits. That is a conspiracy theory.

You point to the fast rise in numbers as evidence. Big number is not evidence.

That's not evidence. It in fact goes the other way - no policy change would act that fast on that many people.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm starting to think that you wouldn't recognize "evidence" if somebody hit you over the head with it.

[Sarcastr0]

You 'reason' your way to secret plans, and causality, and hidden leftists so that some random number or anecdote point weaves a whole story.

I'm not alone in noticing this about you.

[Bwaaah]

Brett: "I’m starting to think that you wouldn’t recognize “evidence” if somebody hit you over the head with it."

What evidence do you have of that?

In theory, Il Douche is a strict empiricist. In reality, he's dimwitted.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 15 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
We have been through this many times. You have no evidence. You take a single time correlated data point and assume causality."

He gave you evidence - you just ignored it

[Sarcastr0]

You don't bother with anything but appealing to your own expertise and insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

People beyond me have noticed this about you, and mock you for it.

[Joe_dallas]

He gave you evidence and citations -
Something You can not dispute

[Sarcastr0]

Number go up and number went down.

Brett’s ‘they’ve demonstrated they could open the spigot, they’ve demonstrated they could close it, too’ requires a level of intention and causality that he's provided no evidence for.

[Brett Bellmore]

Joe, sweet reason has no power to constrain what Sarcastr0 is able to dispute. He could dispute the Sun rising in the East if it rising in the West were important to his politics.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve shown the leaps you make. And how you somehow assume an instant-effect wide-band policy.

It could just be expectations, but you discard that for...reasons.

Appealing to ‘reason’ doesn't paper over that nonsense.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett - Sweet reason has some irrational hate of common sense, logic. Being a woke leftist is a mental disease.

[Sarcastr0]

irrational hate of common sense

::eyeroll::

[Ilya Snowman]

'It in fact goes the other way – no policy change would act that fast on that many people'.

Question begging.

[ducksalad]

It was a policy choice in the sense that repealing Prohibition was a "policy of massive public drinking", or stopping enforcement of helmet laws is a "policy of increased head injuries".

It's fair to say that the Biden administration previously believed the political costs of stricter enforcement exceeded the political costs of having a large population of illegal immigrants, and now they recalculated and reversed themselves.

However, the most plausible theory is that it was mostly because they previously believed stricter enforcement would cost them the votes of Hispanic US citizens. Recent congressional elections and polling have shown them that's no longer the case, in fact, somewhat the opposite. So they changed their policy, which is always about winning elections rather than any higher principle.

The theory that they deliberately engineered, rather than tolerated, the drain on the welfare system and the problem of housing asylum seekers isn't very plausible. The theory that it was some plot to steal the election by having hordes of recent Guatemalans overwhelm the polling places is just an alt-right fever dream.

[Brett Bellmore]

Never read The Emerging Democratic Majority? It's been a widespread belief in Democratic circles for many years that demographic change was going to hand them the country on a silver platter. Importing more minorities was just a handy way to accelerate that.

Maybe the illegal immigrants couldn't vote, (Though they were useful for warping apportionment!) but their children would reliably grow up to be Democrats, the thinking went.

[Randal]

Maybe the illegal immigrants couldn’t vote, but their children would reliably grow up to be Democrats, the thinking went.

No, nobody but you is that stupid. No thinking went that way.

[David Nieporent]

I'm sure someone did — Kirkland, perhaps — but it was obviously not a Democratic strategy, if for no other reason than "let's come up with a plan that can't bear fruit for 18 years even if it works the way we want to" is just absurd.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I’m sure someone did — Kirkland, perhaps — but it was obviously not a Democratic strategy,"

It was a common enough argument the Nation thought it needed to be rebutted.

"Following Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney a certain argument became ubiquitous: the argument from demographic inevitability. That the Republican Party, absent deep-seated changes that are all but unimaginable, is in for a generation or more of electoral doom. Indeed the argument was being made long before the votes were even cast. Here was Jonathan Chait in New York magazine, etching the argument sharply almost a year ago:

The modern GOP—the party of Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes—is staring down its own demographic extinction. Right-wing warnings of impending tyranny express, in hyperbolic form, well-grounded dread: that conservative America will soon come to be dominated, in a semi-permanent fashion, by an ascendant Democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests. And this impending doom has colored the party’s frantic, fearful response to the Obama presidency."

"if for no other reason than “let’s come up with a plan that can’t bear fruit for 18 years even if it works the way we want to” is just absurd."

Actually, one thing I'd give the left credit for is that they're much better at long term planning than the right.

[Sarcastr0]

Your one example of this being Democratic strategy is the Nation in 2013 saying you're wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Nation in 2013 telling people, "This is a bad strategy!" does sort of establish that it's a strategy.

[Sarcastr0]

1. The article is not about a strategy, it's about a factual proposition. The strategy bit remains your personal take.

2. It is a factual proposition that the Nation thinks is wrong. Again, not about 'this is a bad strategy.' Unless this is one of those strategies that includes no actions.

3. The Nation very much does not speak for Democrats.

[David Nieporent]

JFC, Brett, do you ever read your links before posting them? Or do you just know you're right, and therefore just quickly google for something that has some of the same words you're talking about, and post it, assuming it must prove you right since you already know you are?

That link:
1) Isn't about immigration.
2) Especially isn't about illegal immigration.
3) Isn't about a Democratic strategy.
4) Is actually about an idea, and is about rejecting that idea.

The column says, "Lots of people think the GOP is inherently doomed because of demographics. They're mistaken."

[Randal]

Brett, your brain is so wilted! Demographics is not a synonym for immigration.

[Ilya Snowman]

Bullshit.

[Ilya Snowman]

'Massive illegal immigration was policy. A deliberate policy'.

Yes, of course.

At what point do you have to admit to yourself that these people aren't honest interlocutors, and that they don't care if you've bested them in argument or presented overwhelming evidence?

If you do come to think so, then you additionally have to ask: what is it that they REALLY want and what is it that they really do? What are these people, really?

[Randal]

Biden takes office, immediately reverses a number of Trump’s border policies, (Reversing a policy IS policy.) and within two months, Southern border encounters had gone from 78K to 173K. Trump’s absolute worst month was 144K, Biden’s numbers remained worse than that the whole time until the middle of this year.

The policies Biden changed weren’t aimed at increasing illegal immigration, silly, and they wouldn’t have had the immediate effect you’re pointing to. The immediate effect was driven mainly by Trump rhetoric, where people were waiting out Trump (and the winter) in order to come in under Biden, who they perceived to be more accomodating… again, because of rhetoric like yours.

Then early this year Biden decides that illegal immigration is hurting him politically, reverses course on some policies, and the numbers immediately begin dropping to the lowest during his entire time in office. They finally drop below Trump’s worst month in June of this year.

No, Biden tried working with Congress, and even got a deal done which Trump scuttled for political purposes. The last thing the Republicans want is to fix immigration. They learned their lesson from abortion. With Roe v Wade gone, what would they have left to run on if illegal immigration weren’t a problem? Trans hate by itself isn't going to win elections.

So, Biden tried a hail mary executive action. Biden tried executive action fixes before and the courts struck it down. They’ll most likely strike this one down too. Immigration is a Congress problem, not a Biden problem. And it’s the Republicans who are standing in the way.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘The cultural property claim can and likely will be weaponized against SimonP and his lot.
Yes, that was my point’.

No, it wasn’t. I’m the one who delights in it as well.

‘Of course it’s part of my political ideology. It’s a value statement. I’m quite capable of distinguishing opinion from fact’.

Yes. That’s why your claim now is ironic, because you weren’t. ????

‘Uh, look in the mirror, Mr. “preserve American culture.”’.

Nope, I never assumed that my views will invariably win out. I don’t delude myself as to why younger people, in the United States and elsewhere are moving left (and why the right is abandoning your ideology now, finally). It is you who wrote about ‘inviting’ the left in to your blue camp circa 2016 and are now booting them out, as if all you’ve done is shown elite control within a political party, rather than a capacity to retain and win hearts and minds.

‘(What non-moderate policies?)’

Mass illegal immigration, which is a policy. Undermining election integrity rules. DEI funding and institution-building—including INTERNATIONALLY. Gender ideology policies. Etc.

‘There’s no contradiction between promoting [legal] immigration and working to resolve economic inequities.’

Look how you snuck the word ‘legal’ in there, you little devil, you. Who do you think you’re fooling?

‘Why are you so obsessed with breeding? Things like political ideology aren’t genetic. There’s no such thing as a pure-bred Democrat’.

Because demographic implosion is real, and it affects your ability to fund your state and its social welfare programs. Your blue team wants to copy those in the rest of the West, even as we struggle to prop ours up. You, unlike us (till very recently), compensate for failure to meet replacement by having the majority of your immigrants be unskilled illiterate labour. You’re rendering the country into a suicide pact.

‘Obviously false. American culture is what it is, and it’s the same now as it was 200, 250 years ago. We went through the Civil War already on much the same terms’.

The North went to war (illegitimately, one might add) to preserve the Union and to end slavery. You’re the modern day equivalent of slavers. You’re the ones who systematically invite mass illegal immigration to exploit millions of poor brown people, BECAUSE THEY ARE BROWN, in systematic violation of labour laws (min wage, max hours, sexual protection, health & safety, etc). And no one outside the USA believes that if these people were white you’d treat them thus. Bad news, Randy: YOU’RE the bad guys.

‘They like living in a superpower. So by extension, they like free trade, national debt, and cheap labor, both here and abroad’.

The RNC had the Teamsters speak. It was very touching, really. How vindicating for Perot, Buchanan, Trump, et al. The right is finally waking up to the consequences of your ‘free’ trade, debt, and labour policies. All that needs to be done now is to show the little blue team children their hypocrisy on these policies. To ask them WHY the clothes they wear every day are made in China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, etc, and WHY they buy them.

The rest of your dishonest spin about MAGA isn’t worth addressing. they’re the ones whose values created America, not yours. Yours are the values of ‘manufactured reality’/manufactured consent. Yours are the values of political correctness and identity politics quotas. Yours are the values of spectral concepts about gender and sex, but ensuring that other concepts aren’t treated as spectral ones (equality, personhood, etc).

The EU is an anti-democratic edifice foisted on the peoples of Europe. Everyone can see it now. If you knew anything about it really, other than as a cheerleader of imperialism, you’d know about the double layer problem of technocracy in the system AND think it to be horrendous—horrendous at least based on the values you PRETEND to represent, rather than the ones you actually hold.

Brexiteers knew it’d be a hard slog for decades. What they couldn’t foresee is (1) how the technocrats would seek revenge in terms of harsh policy for the divorce and (2) how the ‘conservative’ party had no real intention of doing the core things people voted them into office for, and would consciously do the opposite (as noted, for example in the Braverman letter).

Your pretensions about being a competent, informed agent for change of social norms in the United States is just a function of your superficial ideology, your hubris, and your gay ressentiment and hatred of the dominant, traditional American culture. You DON’T CARE that you don’t really know what you’re doing, and you DON’T CARE that it shows people that you’re NOT really liberal or libertarian; that those labels are a cheap veneer for someone with a megalomaniacal social re-engineering program for the USA and the world. For someone who wants new social norms, new morals, and a new population. NOT A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

Assuredly, change is guaranteed. But YOU won’t tolerate ‘change’ that you don’t like! Say, a move left for the blues and a move right for the reds. That’s INTOLERABLE for you.

Well, too bad, because yours is a moribund ideology. Get ready for changes you don’t. The IRONY is is that these changes are far more democratic than anything you’d every tolerate. They might be hateful and vicious, but the American people—particularly on the right—are far more conscious and aware than they’ve been in decades.

Real patriots will try to save their country from your totalitarian and imperialist schemes. That why RFK aligned with MAGA now.

Again, YOU are the bad guy team. Most of the world knows it. And much of your country thinks so now, too.

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

And don’t worry about the MAGA being mean to gay people. Do you know what’s going to happen to your entire international gay rights agenda as America loses sole superpower status? Besides, you want to import millions of people who would re-criminalize homosexuality in a heartbeat if they had the power. BUT YOU KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT YOU’LL REMOLD THEM ALL INTO GOOD LATTE-DRINKING LIBTARDS.

[Randal]

‘(What non-moderate policies?)’

Mass illegal immigration, which is a policy. Undermining election integrity rules. DEI funding and institution-building—including INTERNATIONALLY. Gender ideology policies. Etc.

Obviously, illegal immigration and undermining elections aren't policies. You're delusional. DEI and gender ideology policies predate Biden and aren't extreme. DEI efforts are declining under Biden as I mentioned before.

You, unlike us (till very recently), compensate for failure to meet replacement by having the majority of your immigrants be unskilled illiterate labour.

You obviously don't know how immigration works, probably because you don't know how breeding works. Skills, like ideologies, are not genetic.

Anyway, look at who's most doomed: China and India, the "breeder" countries. Their populations are on the verge of collapse.

The world isn't lacking for people. This isn't a breeding competition.

You’re the ones who systematically invite mass illegal immigration to exploit millions of poor brown people, BECAUSE THEY ARE BROWN, in systematic violation of labour laws (min wage, max hours, sexual protection, health & safety, etc). And no one outside the USA believes that if these people were white you’d treat them thus.

This just shows you have no understanding of US politics. That doesn't remotely describe the situation nor the positions of the parties.

how the ‘conservative’ party had no real intention of doing the core things people voted them into office for

You seem not to have had the intellectual curiosity to wonder why this is the case. I guess that as with everything else, you simply assume the answer to be "evil bad faith" of one kind or another. But it's what I said before. Nobody actually wants to give up their modern lifestyle in service of some abstract ideological purity. The value of the pound would fall 90%. I don't think the people of Britian would consider that a success.

and your gay ressentiment

Did you forget who you were talking to? 🙂

as America loses sole superpower status

Who do you think the other superpower is gonna be? The United States is performing an economic service for the rest of the world that no one else really wants to perform (and which is the concrete thing that MAGA is upset about). Someone's gotta do it.

[David Nieporent]

There are people I know on the left who sincerely view the Handmaid's Tale (probably the show, not the book, but it doesn't really matter) as the right's vision for America's future. They think that there's a coherent agenda by social conservatives to take us there, and they will elaborately describe this plot. That's the same level of fanfic that IS offers. In each case, they have an apocalyptic view of the other side, and not even a clue of how
society or economics actually operate.

[Magister]

I don't know anyone who thinks there is a plot to realize exactly what is in the book or television show, but there are plenty of would-be theocrats who want a totalitarian state that all but abolishes women's rights. There are regularly commenters here calling for women not to be able to vote; some of them may be the same person who keeps changing names, and some of them may be trolling. A backlash against feminism is not fan fiction; JD Vance has put forth some disturbing ideas about women.

[Ilya Snowman]

You're importing theocrats in the millions. Since when are you opposed to that? When they're 'white'?

Keep up the DEI-political-correctness-inclusion BS. It helps the world to see that YOU are totalitarian. Trying to police thought and speech, and to radically re-engineer your basic social institutions.

Seriously.

[David Nieporent]

1) Nobody is "importing" anybody.
2) I assume that your reference to "theocrats" just reflects your irrational obsession with Muslims, but only a small percentage of our immigrants are Muslim.
3) American Muslims — like other American immigrants — aren't like your view of what European ones are like. They are not an oppressed, unassimilated underclass.

[Ilya Snowman]

'Obviously, illegal immigration and undermining ...'.

Do you think you're tricking anyone? Do you think your bald assertions are adequate? Do you think, for example, that your mere assertion that they 'aren't extreme' PROVES that that's so? they're part and parcel of a programme to re-engineer your social institutions, to impose thought and speech controls, etc.

Don't take the populist DEI promoters. Taking the academic ones. Do you think their claims about epistemic standpoints, about the problems of measurement (and the 'whiteness' of measurement), etc, aren't a direct threat to the hard sciences and to credible, empirical social science? Are you actually going to deny that the assertions of new epistemic hierarchies isn't merely normative through-and-through, but also part of a radical social-political reordering about knowledge. What about 'alternative epistemologies' and 'alternative knowledge practices', ones that are meant to parallel the empirical science? (Do you know ANYONE who works in departments or faculties in which such people have been hired?) This trash is a threat to science and to credible university production of genuine knowledge.

Are you out of your fucking mind??? Or are you just completely ignorant about this stuff?

‘You obviously don’t know how immigration works, probably because you don’t know how breeding works’.

The empirical evidence is entirely against you on the immigration point—not that you care, most likely. And I won’t be taking lessons on breeding from the evolutionary dud who supports an evolutionarily inferior meme—one whose status as such a meme is evidence by your lot’s birth rates.

‘Anyway, look at who’s most doomed: China and India...'.

China could lose half its population and it won’t matter. It doesn’t have robust social welfare programs. They poor and elderly could die, hundreds of millions could go without healthcare, and they’ll be fine. The West, by contrast, which expects such things as of right and culturally, won’t tolerate such things. (It may tolerate a drop in living standards. But once the healthcare and ‘social security’ is done, people will go apeshit and it will undo your government.)

‘This just shows you have no understanding of US politics. That doesn’t remotely describe the situation nor the positions of the parties’.

The official positions of the political parties, or what the practices actually are on the ground? I’ve spent enough time in the United States to know that it is obviously true, in fact. Your safe haven cities have illegal brown neo-serfs whilst your urban poor black and brown struggle.

‘You seem not to have had...’.

You have it backwards. People now, on both the left and right, rightfully question whether they live in democracies. (You love your ‘liberal’ republic which isn’t a democracy. Even some red teamers love this as a talking point. Now that they see what this really entails, many are not so keen.) Now, why don’t YOU instead square what you wrote in the quoted paragraph with what was discussed above about birth rates…

And when you say ‘no one’, the evidence shows that you’re mistaken. People are willing to make economic sacrifices if they can achieve certain other social goals (NOT ‘abstract ideological purity). And you simply beg the question that the value of the Pound would collapse 90% if they stopped dumping poor immigrants into the country. The working poor understand this quite well.

‘Who do you think the other superpower is gonna be?’

You want to read what I wrote again and see if, as a matter of basic logic, it necessarily entails that another superpower must arise for America to lose ‘sole superpower status’. As just one example, American can decline from superpower status to a lesser power, and the world can become a multipolar nightmare for a generation or so.

‘The United States is performing an economic service for the rest of the world that no one else really wants to perform (and which is the concrete thing that MAGA is upset about). Someone’s gotta do it’.

This is called a ‘false necessity’ claim. You should learn basic logic.

You don’t really know much about the world, do you, Randy? You just have your parochial ideological comfort blanket.

[David Nieporent]

Do you think their claims about epistemic standpoints, about the problems of measurement (and the ‘whiteness’ of measurement), etc, aren’t a direct threat to the hard sciences and to credible, empirical social science?

They might be, if anyone took them seriously. But only loons on the extremes do. DEI is not some Juche-like ideology with the power structure to force people to put up pictures of Kimberlé Crenshaw in all their homes and offices to avoid being sent to the gulag. DEI is a self-perpetuating circle jerk that has no power outside of the academy and little power in it. Sure, companies mouth some DEI pieties, in the same way that they hold blood drives: it makes people feel good without actually doing anything meaningful.

The official positions of the political parties, or what the practices actually are on the ground? I’ve spent enough time in the United States to know that it is obviously true, in fact. Your safe haven cities have illegal brown neo-serfs whilst your urban poor black and brown struggle.

You may have flown into the U.S. to attend some White Power conference once, but you know absolutely nothing about the position of immigrants — legal or illegal — in American society or their role in the economy. They are not "serfs" — "neo" or otherwise — and are exploited only by employing the facile Marxist notion that wage labor is inherently exploitative.

People are willing to make economic sacrifices if they can achieve certain other social goals

Normal people aren't. That's why Brexiteers had to sell Brexit with false claims about its economic benefits. Because the people whose main objection was "It will help us get rid of the dirty foreigners" are only a small fringe. And much smaller here (as a percentage) than in Europe because we do not have an obsession with cultural purity.

[Magister]

While it may be that everyone giving blood at a company blood drive would donate blood at the Red Cross or somewhere else, I would be very surprised that the convenience would not help, so in that sense company blood drives do something meaningful.

For that matter, making people feel good is itself meaningful; companies with better morale generally do better, and not just for the employees.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘For that matter, making people feel good is itself meaningful; companies with better morale generally do better, and not just for the employees’.

Well, that’s a psychotic little rationalisation and apology for totalitarianism on your part. It also just begs the question that DEI is required, let alone optimal, for making people feel good at work.
(Or how about ‘feeling seen’ or ‘feeling heard’, and other such totalitarian claptrap?)

[David Nieporent]

He literally just uses "totalitarian" to mean "something I disapprove of."

[Randal]

What DMN said.

the evolutionary dud

Do you think I'm like Simon's alternate account or something? That would've been a pretty good fake-out the other day if so. I should perhaps take the compliment.

Or do you have another meaning in mind that I'm missing? Are all Americans evolutionary duds, or just the ones on the left?

China could lose half its population and it won’t matter.

lol

As just one example, American can decline from superpower status to a lesser power, and the world can become a multipolar nightmare for a generation or so.

Only if either someone else takes up the economic slack (who?) or the rest of the world decides they're willing to forego the economic benefits that the US provides (unlikely). It's true that the main beneficiaries are India and China, so if they collapse, the role of the US could diminish, but they're far from the only countries who benefit.

[Ilya Snowman]

Yes, for one thing your lot promotes an evolutionarily inferior meme: if you didn't have mass immigration to prop up your society it would collapse. You need outsiders to immigrate BECAUSE they don't believe what you do.

And you're just another gay, too.

'Only if either someone else takes up the economic slack (who?) or the rest of the world decides they’re willing to forego the economic benefits that the US provides (unlikely)'.

No, there's no NECESSITY for these things. You aren't indispensable. It's not even hubris on your part; it's a lack of understanding of the world, and a failure to see that the international institutions and policies America has created are contingent historical products.

[Randal]

So everyone on the left is gay now? Nice, your rhetoric is sensible and doing well.

No, there’s no NECESSITY for these things.

I mean, there's no necessity in the epistemological sense that the universe won't end. But there would be consequences, and I don't think the world, on balance, wants the US to abdicate its economic role.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘I don’t think the world, on balance, wants the US to abdicate its economic role’.

You clearly don’t know what the rest of the world wants. You’ve also given quite a few indications that you don’t care, either...

Given that the world is re-aligning for this new cold war, you’d think you’d know better. Or perhaps you just want to place all your HOPE into the phrase ‘on balance’.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, for one thing your lot promotes an evolutionarily inferior meme: if you didn’t have mass immigration to prop up your society it would collapse. You need outsiders to immigrate BECAUSE they don’t believe what you do.

Why he thinks fertility is ideological rather than economic is unclear.¹ Every advanced country has declining birthrates; it's almost a law of nature. And as even poorer countries have their standards of living improve, their fertility also declines. Really, it's Sub-Saharan Africa that's the only place where birthrates are still high, and it's not making those countries into world powers. (The Arab world is higher than replacement, but not by that much, and is also declining.)

And since we do have immigration, and we're happy about it because we are a country built on immigration, the "if you didn't have immigration your society would collapse" is purely hypothetical. And not true. Has Japan's society "collapsed"?

¹Also not sure why he keeps misusing the word meme.

[shawn_dude]

"Your safe haven cities have illegal brown neo-serfs whilst your urban poor black and brown struggle."

This is evidence that you don't understand these issues in the US.

Sanctuary cities (which I'm pretty confident is what you meant to say here) are nothing more than an economic argument for balancing the local governance needs against the federal immigration policing activities. Not spending local tax monies supporting federal policing activities, which should themselves be fully funded, is fiscally responsible. Further, using local resources to do the job that federal police should do ends up creating a local underclass that is unprotected and easily victimized.

Poor urban anybody struggles. That's part of being poor.

[Commenter_XY]

Obviously false. American culture is what it is, and it’s the same now as it was 200, 250 years ago.

I don't understand this comment; our culture is not 'frozen in amber'. When you say the same, what do you actually mean?

[Magister]

I took this to mean American culture is the same in the sense that a sixty year old man is the same person as his twenty year old self. Or in the sense that rivers are not renamed with every step into them, even if you can't step in the same river twice. MAGA wants to preserve (restore, actually) a particular moment of American culture, freezing it in amber, rather than preserving the living culture which must be able to change because it is living.

[Ilya Snowman]

No, MAGA trying to prevent a totalitarian social re-engineering project domestically. A project undertaken by a bunch of Elizabeth Holmes' (fake-it-till-you-make-it folks who've obviously no idea what they're really doing) who don't breed, and who delight in using forms of manipulation and control adopted from the former Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, etc, on their fellow Americans.

MAGA also wants to scale back America's disastrous, international imperialistic misadventures---including the idea of telling other people how they should live and associate.

Now, whether a Trump administration would really/sincerely even ATTEMPT to do these things, let alone could do them, is another matter.

But rest assured, M, you're a cartoon villain in much of the world's eyes now. No moral posturing can help you.

[Randal]

No, MAGA trying to prevent a totalitarian social re-engineering project domestically.

Just like the Confederates were trying to prevent a much much more "totalitarian" social re-engineering project in the abolition of slavery. And the long list of other ones I mentioned already. Social re-engineering projects are the United States' forte.

[Ilya Snowman]

No, the better comparisons would be like trying to prevent the Bolsheviks from gaining power, opposing the Munich Revolution, and putting down Pol Pot.

‘Social re-engineering projects are the United States’ forte’.

Good to see you out of the closet, totalitarian. You won’t be able to go back in, and your fellow Americans WILL hold you accountable for it.

By the by, to have a credible forte in such things, you’d have to have well-established, empirically-grounded-and-tested knowledge and skills. These, you CLEARLY lack. (And don’t you dare pretend that YOU have them based on what was done in Germany and Japan after WWII.)

You are Elizabeth Holmes–and you are SEEN to be such now, by most of the globe. You can baldly assert such things (about having real, empirically-grounded-and-tested knowledge and skills) all you wish, but you’re correctly seen to be fake—to your CORE.

What’s it like, having told yourself your whole life that you’re on the side of the good guys, to now realize that much of the world has abundant, credible reasons to think you’re on the side of the bad guys?

You have no right to tell anyone else how to live. And very soon, you’ll likely never have the power to do so again.

[Randal]

Good to see you out of the closet, totalitarian.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Totalitarianism is a form of government. Just having a political agenda isn't enough to be totalitarian. You seem to think if it's not anarchy, it's totalitarian. All governments tell people how to live.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘All governments tell people how to live’.

Better than you, obviously; and your attempt to strawman using artificial binaries (either anarchy or totalitarianism) isn’t fooling anyone.

Most governments don’t attempt to vigorously police thought and speech in order to reshape forms of consciousness. They don’t employ Orwellian tactics to do so. Very few engage in comprehensive social re-engineering projects.

More than that, people and social groups can be totalitarian, especially those who aim to seize power and co-opt governments. And you can have totalitarian practices amongst social groups.

Let me ask you: how can someone ‘decolonize’ American unis? When were those institutions colonized such that they need to be ‘decolonized’? If they’re the product of Western European males’ power-knowledge, which they most certainly are, then how can diversifying them (which can be a good thing) count as ‘decolonization’?

[Randal]

Most governments don’t attempt to vigorously police thought and speech in order to reshape forms of consciousness. They don’t employ Orwellian tactics to do so. Very few engage in comprehensive social re-engineering projects.

I mean yeah, they pretty much all do. They shouldn’t, but they do.

More than that, people and social groups can be totalitarian, especially those who aim to seize power and co-opt governments. And you can have totalitarian practices amongst social groups.

Not really… you’re basically admitting what I said, which is you’re misusing the word. Like calling your overbearing parents “fascists.”

Let me ask you: how can someone ‘decolonize’ American unis?

Let me remind you of something DMN said:

DEI is not some Juche-like ideology with the power structure to force people to put up pictures of Kimberlé Crenshaw in all their homes and offices to avoid being sent to the gulag. DEI is a self-perpetuating circle jerk that has no power outside of the academy and little power in it.

You continue to demonstrate that you have no clue what’s actually going on.

[Ilya Snowman]

'I mean yeah, they pretty much all do. They shouldn’t, but they do'.

That's an empirically false claim. A simple way to refute it now, though, is just to note that most states lack the resources and sophistication to implement such things effectively (most of Africa, most of South America, much of Asia, etc, where they can’t regularly regulate control or even communicate with large segments of their populations)

‘Not really… you’re pretty much admitting what I said, which is you’re misusing the word’.

Do you think your bald assertion here ESTABLISHES your point When large social groups have such policies amongst group members, then take over the state and render those policies into law, do they magically morph into ‘totalitarian ones’ because now they have the colour of law?

Regarding DEI, just because DMN asserted it (or David Nieporent, in his mindless ignorance, asserted it) doesn’t make it so. How about when the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor spends several million on DEI initiatives internationally? Or other US federal departments now having DEI officers? More importantly look at the hiring practices in major corporates since 2021. There are great empirical data about that too. (And I certainly know what's going on in the American unis better than you, too... 🙂 )

You’re dumb, Randy, and you’re either ignorant or a pathological liar. In the least, you’re dumb because you THINK your mere say-so establishes things and that it’s enough to show others that you know what’s REALLY going on. But it's also because when you’re shown that your claims don’t stand up to logical scrutiny you persist in them anyway.

[David Nieporent]

In the least, you’re dumb because you THINK your mere say-so establishes things and that it’s enough to show others that you know what’s REALLY going on.

Irony is dead.

[Randal]

When large social groups have such policies amongst group members, then take over the state and render those policies into law, do they magically morph into ‘totalitarian ones’ because now they have the colour of law?

Again, that's not totalitarianism. For example, you perfectly described Republicans' 50-year effort to overturn Roe v Wade. Do you think that's an example of totalitarianism?

I'm honestly surprised that you're defending your usage here. You seem like the sort of person who took some political philosophy classes, read some Foucault, learned some vocab and a few talking points, but doesn't actually understand shit, like, what even is a political system.

[David Nieporent]

How about when the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor spends several million on DEI initiatives internationally?

How about it? Do you think anyone anywhere on the planet — including people employed in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor — cares about this? (Also, several million dollars! Wow! That's, like, what, staging one international conference where people come for free coffee and pastries? The world breakdancing competitions spend more than that.)

[Sarcastr0]

He's a narrow, repetitive poster that I have blocked, but it is lovely to see him bring people together to tell him he's full of shit!

[Ilya Snowman]

'Again, that’s not totalitarianism. For example, you perfectly described Republicans’ 50-year effort to overturn Roe v Wade. Do you think that’s an example of totalitarianism?'

That doesn't even begin to make sense, let alone as an example of a totalitarian social norm and practice getting codified into law.

The rest of your slander just shows you've give up trying to defend your superficial, inconsistent views. You're BORING now, Randy.

(David can keep trying to throw low hanging fruit in order to try to grab attention, such has his obviously false claims about definitions (such as about 'memes'), about the impact of immigration, about his naive/childish Newtonian view of economic laws, etc. But it won't help him. He's like an over-eager teenager, desperate for attention. No wonder he could only secure an ugly wife. Randy, do him a favour and tell him that there's no Santa Clause, OK?)

[Randal]

That doesn’t even begin to make sense...

That was my point! 🙂

[Ilya Snowman]

You're not just a waste of time, but you've wasted your entire life on a superficial ideology that's falling apart now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

MAGA is populism and it hasn't lost. Women's rights and civil rights were populist issues. It hasn't lost reproductive rights yet == it may be 20-40 years but the aborted sons will be missed in later years.e
It was MAGA that ended slavery.

[Magister]

The movement that ended slavery and supported women's and civil rights is the same as MAGA which is widely supported by neo-confederates, misogynists and white supremacists? Foolish even by Dr. Ed 2 standards.

[Ilya Snowman]

Magister, have you pissed in your illegal alien gardener’s or nanny’s mouth yet today?

[Noscitur a sociis]

It was MAGA that ended slavery.

Remember folks, he doesn’t make things up!

[WestIsDeceased]

MAGA only "lost" because the American people have been replaced. How many of these policies would have been promulgated without 100 million third world peoples and their descendants?

[Randal]

Congratulations on realizing that America wasn't founded by the Indians.

[WestIsDeceased]

No, it was founded by English Protestants. Over time, it let in other Protestants, and eventually Catholics and then Jews. But with few exceptions, always white.

[Randal]

Always white by today’s definition of white. They certainly weren’t white at the time. Latinos are pretty much white now, and Asians will be next.

Not to mention you completely forgot about the slaves.

[WestIsDeceased]

Some Latinos are white. Most are not. Look at the people coming across the border as "asylum seekers." Most are full blooded Mayans or Aztecs.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Most are full blooded Mayans or Aztecs."

I expect there are very few "full-blooded Mayans or Aztecs", so it's likely numerically impossible for most asylum seekers to be "full-blooded Mayans or Aztecs."

[WestIsDeceased]

Look at them. They are much closer to Mayan or Aztec than to European.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, the time-tested method of determining the out-group someone belongs to by "looking at them." Please, tell me more about your racism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They certainly weren’t white at the time."

Sigh. Irish Catholics and Jews have always been white, as were Italians and other European immigrants.

[Randal]

Nope. They were Dagos and got lumped in with Blacks. They were lynched in the South and denied jobs everywhere.

As immigration from Europe and Asia neared its crest in the late 19th century, anti-immigrant sentiment soared along with it. The U.S. was in the grips of an economic depression, and immigrants were blamed for taking American jobs. At the same time, racialist theories circulated in the press, advancing pseudo scientific theories that alleged that “Mediterranean” types were inherently inferior to people of northern European heritage. Drawings and songs caricaturing the new immigrants as childlike, criminal, or subhuman became sadly commonplace. One 1891 cartoon claimed that “If immigration was properly restricted, you would never be troubled with anarchism, socialism, the Mafia and such kindred evils!”

MAGA is singing a very old tune.

[WestIsDeceased]

The fact that people who are scientifically white were described as non-white in the past doesn't mean that every non-white today is in fact white.

Anyway, your premise is a lie. Outside of Leo Frank, Jews were not lynched.

[Randal]

Scientifically white. Where do you come up with this stuff? I have to remember that one. Scientifically white.

[bernard11]

No such thing as "scientifically white." You're a racist, a fool, and a jackass.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nope. They were Dagos and got lumped in with Blacks. They were lynched in the South and denied jobs everywhere."

Nope. Anytime there was a legal distinction between whites and blacks, Irish, Catholics, Italians, Jews, etc. without African ancestry counted as white.

And of course, plenty of white people got lynched and were denied jobs. This may come as a shock, but sometimes white people discriminate against other white people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Although as anyone well versed in American history knows, sometimes Irish immigrants were considered less desirable than African Americans or Asian Americans.

[Randal]

Anytime there was a legal distinction between whites and blacks, Irish, Catholics, Italians, Jews, etc. without African ancestry counted as white.

Asians too. You just made the claim that everybody non-Black was considered white. Stupido.

Dagos were lumped in with Blacks back then in the same way Latinos are lumped in with Blacks today within terms like BIPOC, even though there’s no conceivable reason to categorize Latinos as non-white while Italians are considered white.

[Randal]

John Parker, who helped organize the lynch mob, later went on to be governor of Louisiana. In 1911, he said of Italians that they were “just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in [their] habits, lawless, and treacherous.”

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Asians too. You just made the claim that everybody non-Black was considered white. Stupido."

No I didn't. Illiterato.

"Dagos were lumped in with Blacks back then in the same way Latinos are lumped in with Blacks today within terms like BIPOC,"

Italians got affirmative action?

Italians without African ancestry were legally white. They weren't subject to chattel slavery, they were white for purposes of anti-miscegenation laws, Jim Crow laws, they were allowed into labor unions that excluded blacks, etc.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“John Parker…said of Italians that they were “just a little worse than the Negro”

You’re talking about the opinion of one guy, who doesn’t even support your claim?

[Randal]

Italians without African ancestry were legally white. They weren’t subject to chattel slavery, they were white for purposes of anti-miscegenation laws, Jim Crow laws, they were allowed into labor unions that excluded blacks, etc.

Same, for the most part, with Asians. They weren't subject to slavery, most miscegenation laws, etc. So they're white too?

There is also some grey area like, Italians marrying Blacks could be found not to violate miscegenation laws, and stuff like

Around 1900, as Italians were disembarking at Ellis Island and New Orleans by the millions, they were required to check off “Southern Italian” rather than “White” on entry forms.

In Utah, Greek and Italian copper miners were classified as “nonwhite.”

Anyway, legally white is almost as beside the point as scientifically white. Italians (and others) weren't popularly considered white for most of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Think of Arabs today. They're legally white in the United States, but people don't think of them as white. Even the Supreme Court in this very case suggested that their categorization as white was incorrect.

Here's the opinion of another guy.

Around the same time, a West Coast construction boss was asked, “You don’t call an Italian a white man?” “No, sir,” came the reply, “an Italian is a dago.” Odd though this usage may seem today, it was at one time fairly common. According to one historian, “in all sections native-born and northern European laborers called themselves ‘white men’ to distinguish themselves from the southern Europeans they worked beside.”

[David Nieporent]

Same, for the most part, with Asians. They weren’t subject to slavery, most miscegenation laws, etc.

Not the former, but the latter, they certainly were. Virtually every state/territory with a significant Asian population banned white-Asian marriages. (Obviously, that simply wasn't an issue in, say, Mississippi.)

[Randal]

Yeah. "Most."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh, no, Asian were not white. In addition to being prevented from intermarrying with whites in many areas (including Mississippi), they were prevented from becoming naturalized citizens by the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited naturalization to free white people, which included Italians, Jews, Irish, etc. Asians were even prevented from becoming naturalized citizens after the right was extended to blacks in 1870.

There were no laws that prevented Italians without African ancestry from marrying other white people, and contra your claim above, there were no instances where Italians without African ancestry were allowed to marry blacks on a different basis than other white people.

And if, per your claim, Italians without African ancestry were considered nonwhite, why were they allowed naturalization as free white people? Why were they allowed to attend white segregated schools, etc.

Have you ever been to North Africa? There's lots of black Arabs.

[Randal]

Have you ever been to North Africa? There’s lots of black Arabs.

Exactly. And yet, they’re considered legally white by the US government.

You keep going on and on about the legal status of Italians. That was never the point. You’re getting beaten up by your own strawman.

Anyway, this is totally an aside, but since it seemingly contradicts one of your ranting points I’ll toss it out for your pleasure:

https://casetext.com/case/rollins-v-state-120

The mere fact that the testimony showed this woman came from Sicily can in no sense be taken as conclusive that she was therefore a white woman…

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. They were legally white, socially white, white in any sense that you can be white, your nutpicking not withstanding.

“The mere fact that the testimony showed this woman came from Sicily can in no sense be taken as conclusive that she was therefore a white woman”

That doesn’t contradict jack shit, dumbass. You think only white people can come from Sicily?

"Exactly. And yet, they’re considered legally white by the US government."

You think a Sudanese Arab would have been allowed to be naturalized prior to 1870?

[TwelveInchPianist]

And of course, the fact that the court had to point out that just because she was from Sicily doesn't mean that she was white contradicts your claim. It sounds like the assumption below was that she must have been white because she was from Sicily.

[Randal]

Man, you have reading conprehension problems! I told you the court thing was an aside for entertainment purposes only. It doesn’t help my case at all.

Which boils down to this: Italians (and others) were popularly and socially considered non-white in the late 19th and early 20th century, notwithstanding their legal status. Similar to how Arabs, including North-African Arabs, are considered legally white today (not back then) even though Arabs are seen as non-white popularly and socially (and in SCOTUS oral arguments). And then a lot of interesting observations about Latinos and others that follow.

[David Nieporent]

Which boils down to this: Italians (and others) were popularly and socially considered non-white in the late 19th and early 20th century, notwithstanding their legal status.

The problem is that no matter how many times you say this, it is just wrong. Italians were looked down on by some as of inferior stock, but at no point in U.S. history were Italians ever considered non-white.

[Randal]

at no point in U.S. history were Italians ever considered non-white.

I just gave you a ton of evidence to the contrary. What do you make of it? Simply going to ignore it?

Italians even considered themselves non-white.

Birdie put her hand on her hips. “You dumb or something? White folks don’t shoot white folks.” She walked faster, so that Isola had to trot to catch up with her.

“But we’re not white,” Isola told her. “We’re Italian.”

[TwelveInchPianist]

“I just gave you a ton of evidence to the contrary.”

You quoted like three people in history talking shit. It’s the equivalent of claiming that Arabs are considered black because some people call them sand niggers.

And what's that you're quoting from?

[Randal]

Do you think people in this country consider Arabs to be white??

[David Nieporent]

Do you think people in this country consider Arabs to be white??

Yes.

Ironically — and giving the lie to people who rant about white privilege and talk about how horribly racist the country is — Arab-Americans themselves try to classify themselves as "people of color." (As Prof. Bernstein has pointed out many times, they will try to frame Israel-vs-Hamas as white-vs-people of color, even though Palestinians and Israelis are essentially indistinguishable.)

But as with Hispanics, there are light skinned Arabs and dark skinned ones. Light skinned are absolutely deemed white. Do you see lots of people calling Ralph Nader or John Sununu or Justin Amash or Darrel Issa black?

[Randal]

Do you see lots of people calling Ralph Nader or John Sununu or Justin Amash or Darrel Issa black?

Black is not the only other option.

Ironically — and giving the lie to people who rant about white privilege and talk about how horribly racist the country is — Arab-Americans themselves try to classify themselves as “people of color.”

Exactly. A) I feel like their self-classification is due some deference, B) The same phenomenon was happening with Italians 150 – 100 years ago, and with other populations today particulary Latinos. To assimilate or not to assimilate, that is the question. Of course, everybody eventually assimilates. The next question is, at what cost. Liberals want the cost to be low. Conservatives want the cost to be high / prohibitive. (Some progressives like Simon are skeptical of assimilation but they’re wrong and they’re starting to figure that out.)

But as with Hispanics…

You realize Hispanics are included in BIPOC, right?

[Michael P]

The left hates Brandon Straka with the white-hot hate of a thousand childless dog ladies spurned, but he seems to have been an early part of a very real phenomenon: Donald Trump predated him, but Elon Musk and RFK Jr are people who more recently realized that the Democrats are the actual enemies of America, freedom, and joy. Even Jill Stein recognizes which major party is doing this, although she's still trying to tough out her campaign in spite of anti-democratic power abuses by Democrats.

[OtisAH]

“Even Jill Stein”?! Hilariously dumb.

[Riva]

And, right on cue, the Biden/Harris administration withdraws secret service protection from RFK, although his is still technically in the race and his threat profile is probably even higher now. Add the secret service to the list of formerly honorable institutions that democrats have hopelessly corrupted.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think this policy of what happens to secret service protection when you suspend your campaign is new?

Or is this the operation of standard procedure and you're trying to turn it into a sinister plot?

[Riva]

The policy that governs security, from what I understand from experts, is predicated on threat level. It doesn’t matter who the protectee is. And here an apparent political decision has corrupted the process. Maybe this could be covered in a Kamala press conference? If she can find the courage to have one.

[Sarcastr0]

From experts?

I Googled. Here is what I found:
“Under 18 U.S.C.’ 3056(a)(7), “[m]ajor Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates” are eligible for Secret Service protection.” Determined by the Secretary of DHS.

Do you think RFK Jr. is such a major candidate right now?

[Riva]

Yeah, googled something. I guess that ends the debate, I mean it’s google and one statute, well part of one at any rate. Do you think that, notwithstanding the unquestioned absolute authority of a google search, the secret service may, under the present circumstances, have some discretion to continue RFK’s protective detail? The Pope was provided with protection and he wasn’t a presidential candidate, I don’t believe he was but you google that too, just to be sure. Not saying anything is conclusive, I’m saying what happened to RFK during this campaign was highly questionable and questions should be asked.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You’re being inconsistent and sloppy. Are you blaming the Secret Service, or Biden/Harris administration?

2. You’re shifting the burden of proof to me, after I provided a source that goes against your ipse dixit.

3. Here’s another source: https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024

4. You're shifting your thesis from positing affirmative action by the Biden administration ('withdraws secret service protection') towards failing to do something you think they should.

[Riva]

1. If my initial comments are too accusatory for you, tough shit. The Biden/Harris administration has earned distrust. (So have you and Google for that matter). So I do put the burden on them to provide a reasonable explanation for the treatment of RFK’s security. They have been in charge for the last 3.5 years. Maybe they can take some responsibility?
2. You provided nothing but a partial statute from your half-assed google search that doesn’t settle anything. Someone who relies on a half-assed google search to think for them has no business casting aspirations on anyone else.
3. I’m not putting any “burden of proof” on you and your half-assed google searches. I’m saying there are questions that should be asked and answered. Not something the Biden/Harris administration likes to do. And not something settled with links to general information.

[David Nieporent]

The Pope was provided with protection and he wasn’t a presidential candidate,

No, he was a foreign dignitary, who is statutorily entitled to protection under 18 USC § 3056 (a)(5). RFKJ is not a foreign dignitary, though, so it's hard to see why that would be relevant.

Which category of § 3056 do you think RFKJ falls under?

[Riva]

I think RFK is still on the ballot. I think his family has a special history in this context that merits special attention. I think recent events include an actual assassination attempt on a presidential candidate, with whom RFK is now associated. Whatever may be standard procedure, these are special circumstances.

[Randal]

Wow you are s t r e t c h i n g to find something to bitch about. The SS doesn't protect anyone in the country with "threat levels." Taylor Swift and the Duke of Sussex don't get Secret Service protection. RFKj officially suspended his campaign. It would be illegal to give him Secret Service protection.

If he's feeling threatened, he can do like everyone else: appeal to the local police or even the FBI / US Marshalls, and / or hire private security.

[Riva]

Taylor Swift is not a candidate. Taylor Swift is only a threat to good taste and music. So not sure how she could be protected from that, apart from just shutting up.

[Sarcastr0]

Guess who else is not a candidate, now that they've suspended their campaign?

[David Nieporent]

He is still on the ballot in a few states — he hadn't qualified in that many to begin with, and he has asked swing states to remove him, though for some that isn't a legal option. But the enabling statute does not authorize Secret Service protection for someone who is "still on the ballot" in some states; it authorizes Secret Service protection for "Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates." And if RFKJ could ever have been considered such, which is questionable, he is not a candidate at all anymore, let alone a "major" one.

[Riva]

Not actually willing to take the opinion of someone who doesn’t understand what separation of powers means. Now it may be the case that there is no discretion under law in these circumstances to provide protection. Don’t know with absolute certainty. But the secret service protective decisions throughout RFKs campaign merit review.

[Sarcastr0]

Another masterpiece from Riva.

"I could be utterly wrong this whole time. But you've called me wrong before, so I can't listen to you.

Anyhow, even if I'm embarrassingly wrong, what if we change the argument to a sort of more of a handwaving thesis with a broader, nebulous scope? But libs still bad!'

I don't know what I've seen someone rocket to near the top of the charts so quickly as Riva.

[Mr. Bumble]

States where RFKjr is on the ballot:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-map-on-the-ballot-states/

[Sarcastr0]

Mr. Bumble, if Harris suspended her campaign for President, do you argue that she would still be a Presidential candidate?

[Riva]

The DNC could engineer another coup if they wanted, all to save democracy of course. How could I ever have suspected improper political considerations influencing treatment of RFK by the obviously non-corrupt Biden regime at any stage, both before and after his endorsement of President Trump ? I should be ashamed.

[Sarcastr0]

You're on the fritz; this was some kind of conspiracy turducken that made no sense.

[David Nieporent]

You’re on the fritz; this was some kind of conspiracy turducken that made no sense.

Right; even if Riva weren't full of shit on the law, it's not even logical what he's saying. It's possible to conclude that Trump being killed could benefit the country, though only an unhinged conspiracy theorist would think Biden would want that. (It's hard to see how replacing Trump with someone that 53% of the country doesn't automatically reject would have helped Biden.) But how would RFKJ being assassinated — especially now that he's no longer a candidate — even help Harris?

[Riva]

Someone who wouldn’t recognize a separation of powers argument if it swam up and bite him on the ass really has no business lecturing anyone on the law. But as for generally being a shithead, you’ve permanently earned that label with your comment touting benefit of an assassination of President Trump. Shithead is frankly too mild.

[Krayt]

Enemy of freedom? As a libertarian, I can list many such points.

But abortion? Not throwing gays into jail for the temerity of sex? Contraceptives, and I don't mean morning after pills. Sorry, those are freedoms, too.

[WestIsDeceased]

Yeah, to you leftists, the only freedoms you care about are killing babies and gay men shooting diseased loads into other men's colons.

The right to keep and bear arms, to free speech, to free worship, and to private property are unimportant to you people.

[jb]

Haha. And in this fun post we see how the modern MAGA crowed thinks that anyone not in the cult is a "leftist". Better than just throwing out the "communist" label I guess.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yes, Republicans do indeed want to restrict a woman's "freedom" to kill her unborn baby.
As for the rest of your points, could you please provide the names of Republican office-holders who want to "throw gays into jail" and ban "contraceptives [other than] morning after pills"? I call BS.

[shawn_dude]

I hear you and "BS" are on a first name basis. Probably got "BS" on speed dial.

Justice Thomas has gone on record against contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut) and LGBT rights (Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.) All but one Republican just voted against the Contraception Act which guaranteed access to birth control for women nationwide.

[not guilty]

It seems Clarence Thomas hates every substantive due process decision. Except Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

[SimonP]

You might wait a beat, until we learn a bit more about Elon's Russian funders, before you praise him as some kind of principled Trump supporter.

I kind of feel sorry for you. Elon, Trump, RFK, Jr. - they're all playing the same kleptocratic game we can see happening in places like Hungary. These people are trying to construct a trap for the American people, one that will further corruption and enrich themselves, while shutting voters like you and me out of the process. But you're simply too deranged to recognize this for what it so transparently is.

[gVOR08]

I seem to be falling down on the job. Who the hell is Brandon Straka?

[Magister]

Straka founded the WalkAway campaign, which was intended to encourage supporters of the Democratic party to "walk away" and vote for Republicans and Trump; arrested for his involvement in the January 6th insurrection (receiving 36 months probation, including three months of home detention).

It's a grift; any converts were probably the same as people on the internet who pretend to have been lifelong Democrats until some obscure outrage drove them away.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump may be going sideways on his agreement to debate Kamala Harris on September 10. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/26/trump-harris-debate-abc/

[Michael P]

Very much like Kamala refused to debate on Fox.

ABC wouldn't be in that position if they were less biased. Or even less blatantly biased.

[Sarcastr0]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-agreed-offer-abc-news-debate-harris/story?id=112685962

[Michael P]

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

An agreement to debate is not a suicide pact, either.

[Sarcastr0]

What changed?

[Michael P]

ABC's commitment to political bias deepened.

[Sarcastr0]

Since August 8?

[Michael P]

August 25 is after August 8, yes.

Sarcastr0 used to make cutting remarks. Now he needs help figuring out the order of dates within a month. Sad.

[Sarcastr0]

You know, I don't think you can point to any material changes in ABC between August 08 and August 25.

[Michael P]

We know that you wouldn't admit to changes even if ng linked to the evidence at the start of this thread. That's what we know.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't talk about me, that's a dodge.

Answer the question.

[Riva]

Sort of. Kamala is trying to change the rules of the debate. She wants to be seated, with notes, who knows what else. And I suspect the lapdog media is more than willing to give her whatever she wants.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've noticed that, whenever somebody says "X is not a suicide pact!", what they really mean is that it IS a suicide pact, and as such should be violated. But they never seem to feel any obligation to demonstrate that actually following it would be suicidal...

[Sarcastr0]

The argument is the Constitution can't mean the thing that would wreck the institution it created.

So the proper interpretation is something less existentially risky.

[Brett Bellmore]

And if the proper interpretation of an agreement is that you must slit your throat, then the agreement IS a suicide pact, which really does call for you to slit your throat, and you must make the argument that you should break your agreement. The meaning of laws doesn't change just because you don't LIKE them!

The idea that, if you don't like the results of following an agreement, you get to pretend it means something different, renders agreements meaningless. It's a way of pretending you're still following a law you've actually decided to violate.

"If YOU", is the key point. There's basically always somebody out there who thinks the pact is fine, and not the least suicidal. Maybe a lot of such people, perhaps even a majority.

But reinterpreting the Constitution, conveniently, doesn't require going through Article V, doesn't require you to get the buy-in of anybody outside the government.

It doesn't require you to prove that people agree with you that the straightforward interpretation is suicidal! You just assert it, and, Presto!, you get to attribute to it some new meaning you've invented yourself, that you like better.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump made the agreement, Brett.

Did he agree to slit his own throat?
Trump can by all means he can back out. But it's not costless. He should explain why he made such a stupid agreement in the first place.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think he was somewhat foolish to agree to debates exclusively moderated by Democrats, but that's hardly foolishness on the level of suicidal. There's a limit to how much the moderators can skew the debate result, after all, and Harris probably wouldn't have agreed to debate at all if the moderators weren't going to be in her corner.

Given how much her campaign strategy relies on avoiding unscripted moments, even a debate with moderators hostile to Trump is better for him than no debate.

[shawn_dude]

What evidence do you have that "ABC" is a Democrat?

[David Nieporent]

The meaning of laws doesn’t change just because you don’t LIKE them!

As always, your problem is that you are Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be; you think there's a "the meaning" of laws — exactly one "the meaning" for each law — and all other possible interpretations are not merely inferior, but objectively wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

The exact point of the "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is just precisely that, if the straightforward reading appears 'suicidal', you abandon it in favor of a LESS straightforward reading. Application of it presupposes that normal constitutional interpretation has taken you somewhere you really don't want to be.

Take this quote from Jefferson: "A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest."; It outright admits that what is proposed is to NOT strictly observe the written law!

Or Lincoln: "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"; He's admitting to violating that one law!

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" doesn't get invoked in the first place if ordinary interpretation gets you somewhere you want to be! It's an escape hatch, and you don't need escape hatches if you're not already trapped.

My point is that one person's trap is another person's comfortable refuge. This principle is basically never invoked where the alternative is literal suicide, it's invoked because somebody just doesn't like what the Constitution says.

[David Nieporent]

it’s invoked because somebody just doesn’t like what the Constitution says.

No; it's invoked because someone doesn't like what you think the Constitution says.

[Sarcastr0]

Straightforward reading is not the one stop objective shop your mystifying confidence in the universality of your take might suggest to you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Strange, the article doesn't show Trump agreeing to a debate, or quote him agreeing to a debate.

And the linked "news" segment is basically a Kamala Harris campaign commercial.

[David Nieporent]

Very much like Kamala refused to debate on Fox.

Very much not like it, since Kamala had never agreed to any such thing in the first place, whereas Trump had agreed to a debate on ABC.

[Riva]

The Kamala campaign has never articulated a policy. What do you debate her on? I guess every insane, leftist, failed position she’s taken in the past.

[Sarcastr0]

"Harris has no positions, and also all her positions are bad! So no debate but also easy to debate!!"

Pack it up, Kamaliures.

[Riva]

This is historic. For the first time in US history, a candidate with no official position on, well, anything.

[Sarcastr0]

No positions except for all the failed positions she has taken in the past, as you say.

I know consistency isn't your strong suit, but good lord man get a grip.

[Riva]

If you read my comments, or it might be better to have your caregivers explain them to you, I noted that her campaign, that thing that started when she was installed by the democratic coup, has taken no official positions on anything. So are you claiming otherwise? And if so, where exactly can one find them? Where are they hiding?

[Sarcastr0]

What is this entity campaign that must generate for itself positions and policies?

Will it serve as President?

[Riva]

I suppose the democrat coup plan intended their puppet Kamala to act as president. What are her official positions on, well, anything? Is it actually written down somewhere or is it something that only exists in the cloud above us?

[Sarcastr0]

Ah so new argument: positions don't count unless they're *official*.

Does this process of officiating a position require a notary?
Must it be solemnized in writing? Because then this whole press conference push seems counterintuitive.

Riva, you sure as shit know enough about Harris to hate her, so dunno if I buy that you actually believe she doesn't have positions.

It's not very consistent, Riva. You really need to work on keeping a consistent throughline with your arguments, it's really becoming an issue.

[Riva]

No, not a new argument. The same one you try to avoid. There is nothing anywhere from Kamala on her policy positions. There's a reason she never won a presidential primary and had to withdraw from the race. Even you understand that as soon as this vacuous buffoon actually has to articulate something, it will be impossible for the media to fabricate support for her.

[Sarcastr0]

YOU seem to know her policy positions. In fact, you've even pointed out that you think they are all failed.

So you can keep making this call for what her positions are, but since you've already gone after her *on her positions*, it's really all fun and games for all who are reading you.

[Riva]

Whatever her past and incumbency show, and you may not be aware of this, but it has been customary for a presidential candidate to actually articulate a position on the issues. Of course, it has also been customary for a candidate to actually participate and win the primaries. Democracy under Democrats, unburdened by what has been. Or is their motto “F the voter and democracy, we just don’t give a shit”?

[Sarcastr0]

Ah, so now your issue is with not abiding by the CUSTOMS!!

Well, my stars and garters whatever shall we do with this rebel of a candidate? And running against the king of customs and norms, Dr. Donald 'propriety' Trump.

[David Nieporent]

suppose the democrat coup plan

The word "coup" does not mean whatever you think it means. "Democratic nominee for president" is not a governmental position. And even if you meant it in a purely metaphorical sense (like calling a company's board of directors unexpectedly replacing the company's president a "coup") Biden wasn't the Democratic nominee for president. The delegates decide that at the convention, and that hadn't happened yet. And Biden wasn't fired; he decided to step aside.

So the whole sour grapes tantrum makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, it looked like Biden was going to be the nominee, and yes, it looked like Biden would struggle badly against Trump, and yes, Harris is in a much better position to win. Boo hoo. Get over it. You're not entitled to have Democrats run the candidate you thought was weakest.

[Riva]

I guess the Democrat primary voters aren't allowed the candidate they voted for either. Looks like Democrats go with the motto “F the voter and democracy, we just don’t give a shit.” Good choice.
And, in the future shithead, don't ever respond to my comments again. It frankly makes me a little ill even responding to someone who thinks the assassination of President Trump would benefit the country.

[David Nieporent]

I guess the Democrat primary voters aren’t allowed the candidate they voted for either.

1) Bot is not programmed to use proper grammar.
2) They didn't vote for him; they voted for delegates who said they would support him.
3) Setting that aside, no, in fact, they are not. The 13th amendment says that they don't get to compel someone to do a job he chooses not to do.
4) Polls showed that in fact Democratic voters wanted Biden to step aside. They are not complaining. Only MAGA are. That speaks volumes about how insincere and bad faith the complaint is.

And, in the future shithead, don’t ever respond to my comments again. It frankly makes me a little ill even responding to someone who thinks the assassination of President Trump would benefit the country.

You're lying about what I said, and also there is no such person as "President Trump," you retard.

[not guilty]

I have long wondered why those who yap and yammer about "the Democrat Party" think that use of non-standard English is persuasive.

I understand the temptation to needle one's opponents. Many years ago I referred to "Rethuglicans" with some frequency. I later realized, however, that that did not add anything to the points I was trying to make.

Perhaps the impulse to channel Joe McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh is irresistible to some folks.

[Riva]

David Nieporent 20 hours ago "It’s possible to conclude that Trump being killed could benefit the country"

Lying unbalanced shithead lunatic. Go play somewhere else.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, do we actually need a debate? It seems pointless.

When The Donald makes an announcement, then I will believe it. WaPo is not exactly the most reliable or accurate publication.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and how about that press conference Kamaltoe promised to have by the end of the month?

[Riva]

How about an official position on any policy?

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "WaPo is not exactly the most reliable or accurate publication"

Right-wingers have reached the point where they can ignore embarassing reality if the unpleasant facts were reported in the media. Nothing else is needed to turn their backs on uncomfortable truth.

Take this case: Trump excretes a long screed against the upcoming debate and ABC on his flailing scocial media site. He's clearly scared shitless and looking for an excuse to flee. But - hey - Commenter_XY can avoid that ugly spectacle by "blaiming" the WaPo (who just quoted Trump's own public words).

[Krayt]

They always weigh benefit of vs. benefit of skipping. All the rhetoric for and ag'in of blabberers is already accounted for in this calculation. Still, both do your parts.

[Krayt]

The system won't work if you don't!

[Magister]

The Washington Post article headline: "Trump suggests he might skip ABC debate with Harris"

From Donald Trump's post:

and I ask, why would I do the Debate against Kamala Harris on that network?

The obvious answer is because he agreed to do that debate. (So not at all like Kamala Harris and a Fox News debate, which she did not agree to.)

So, another chapter in Donald Trump not honoring his own commitments; good reason not to trust his campaign promises and not to put him in charge of US commitments.

[Riva]

I think we so since Kamala is otherwise too afraid to appear in public and answer policy questions. Even the Big Guy gave some interviews from his basement when he was “campaigning” in 2020. That’s where we got “If you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black.” I’m sure Kamala could muster something equally stupid and racially exploitive. Those are her hallmarks after all.

[Josh R]

Rule 1: If you are behind, debate. Rule 2: If you are ahead, don't.

[shawn_dude]

Exactly... so why doesn't Trump keep his commitment and debate Kamala?

[Riva]

What is even more interesting is that Kamala has published zero policy initiatives. Oh there are other leftist sources, not official Kamala campaign sources, that may opine on the subject, but the campaign? Nada. Post a link if I’m wrong.

[Kazinski]

Last week when i asserted Trump’s 2018 corporate tax cut was the factor that made his economy so robust and why it performed so much better than Biden’s.

I decided to take a closer look at one question:
how did it affect the mean household income of the lowest quintile of households? Basically how it affected poor people specifically.

The mean of the 5th Quintile of Household Income in 2019, the first full year of data after the corporate tax cut, inceased by 10.96%.

The data is here;
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles

10.96% is impressive on its own, but even more impressive in context, it was the best single year performance going all the way back to 1980.

Now I admit there might have been other factors responsible for the absolute highest percentage increase in income for the lowest Quintile going back to at least 1980 other than his corporate tax cut, it might have also beeen due to sharply cutting illegal immigration, since illegal immigrants compete with mostly the lowest quintile in the job market, since 2017 was the lowest single year for illegal border crossings going back to 1990.

But whether the immigration policy was also a factor or not the data clearly shows Trumps policies were responsible for the biggest yearly jump in income for the poorest of us all the way back to 1980 in 2019 in his 3rd year where his policies had time to take affect and before Covid hit and disrupted the economy.

The data proves it.

[Commenter_XY]

That (the documented income gain) is why President Trump has higher support among young black men, and hispanics. Poverty went down, also. The people who most needed a shot in the arm got it with the 2017 tax act.

[Armchair]

There's an argument that corporate taxes come at the expense of the workers wages. So, a cut in the corporate tax rate would increase the effective wages.

[Frank Drackman]

Corporations don't pay taxes anyway

[Josh R]

I wouldn't judge any policy based on one year. Ditto, the claim about growth rates being higher under Trump (how can you evaluate any of this given COVID).

[Kazinski]

Because Covid didn't come on the scene until the last year of Trump's presidency. So he had about 3 1/4 years to build a track record before things went crazy.

After all we are evaluating Biden-Harris on 3 1/2 years of data, and things like median household income only through 2 full years.

I think its perfectly fair to look at the first full year after a major policy change and see if it had any discernable effect.

Here there was a big change, and there is a clear cause and effect mechanism.

[Sarcastr0]

1) bad data doesn't make all other data suddenly tell the complete picture

2) you didn't bother to baseline your data series to see how volatile it was

3) you just grabbed a single delta and assumed causality.

This is some shamefully bad data analysis. Because, of course, it's not data analysis. It's cheerleading dressed up to make it look like data analysis.

[Kazinski]

Be my guest, Sarcastro.

This is a very simple analysis of year over year change for a single metric.

By your lights the Commerce Departments annual GDP calculation which measures the percentage change of GDP year over year is invalid.

You should tell them, because a lot of people, not knowing what you know use it, like Wall Street, the Fed, Congress, Senate.

Your transition to a parody account was so seamless I missed it for quite awhile.

Well done.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not challenging the accuracy of the number, I'm challenging it's ability to support the conclusion you use it for.

I pointed out 3 non-accuracy related flaws in your method - choosing a very limited set of one due to a dirty data set, no baselining your data series, and failing to establish causality.

[Josh R]

I think its perfectly fair to look at the first full year after a major policy change and see if it had any discernable effect. Here there was a big change, and there is a clear cause and effect mechanism.

No and no. one year is not enough. A full business cycle should be the time window. And, there is not a clear cause and effect. It's a supposition.

[hobie]

According to your data, all percentiles gained about 25% under Obama

[Kazinski]

Actually over the entire 8 years the mean of the bottom quintile during the Obama administration only increased 11%. The bottom quintile is the only data I analyzed.

Difference of 2016 mean and 2008 mean divided by the base period.
(12940-11660)/11660 = .10997

Pretty simple calculation.

I have no idea how you could get 25% out of that data, in fact I don't think you did.

The top Quintile calculation was 25.07%, thats probably what you did.

Its just like you Hobie to only think about the rich and ignore the poor.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"The data proves it."

lol.

I mean, seriously, this is extremely shallow analysis.

You can also show that corporate tax hikes increase the incomes of the lowest quintile if you look at data after the Bill Clinton tax increases in the same way you are doing here. Or that tax cuts hurt the lowest quintile by looking at the George W. Bush tax cuts in the same way you are doing here.

The gall necessary to look at one change in one year and then write "The data proves it" is unfathomable.

And, you're just wrong when you say 2019 is the "first full year" of data. The law was signed in December 2017, it went into effect January 1, 2018. So, 2018 is the first full year of data (the Census Bureau income data is, I believe, calendar year data, not fiscal year data). This attempt to avoid the charge that you are cherry picking data fails.

You implicitly admit there were multiple other changes which might muddy the data, but only mention changes in immigration. Gas prices dropped by 30 cents from Jan 2018 to Jan 2019. The tax rate on the second lowest personal income tax bracket changed from 15% to 12% in 2018 (the same year the corporate tax cuts took effect). The S&P 500 fell by over 100 points (over 3%) from January 2018 to January 2019, but then rose by over 10% from January 2019 to January 2020. And numerous other factors which may or may not have had any effect on household incomes generally or of the bottom quintile specifically, or on other things which then affected something else which affected something else which affected household incomes. But you are confident it wast the corporate tax cuts alone.

If you find yourself doing incredibly lazy analysis of a single cherry-picked data point and then say "The data proves it", you might be a partisan hack.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, I applaud Kaz for trying to do some independent work. But he should not declare that he's gotten to the truth.

[Kazinski]

A couple of things. Median Household Income is not a cherry picked statistic, i picked it to look at the broadest measure of household wellbeing. I then refined it to only look at the lowest Quintile to measure the effect on the worst off because of course the criticism is always GOP policies only help the rich.

The Clinton years were very good, a 40%, increase in median income over 8 years. The Reagan Administration was better, 50%.

But once again, the best single year going back to 1980, was 2018, and Trump's policies deserve credit, even if I was wrong about the year his tax cut was implemented.

And Trump's first three years were 20%, which with compounding over 8 years would beat both Reagan and Clinton, until the covid year impacted that performance in 2020, to finish at 14.6%, still better than Obama over 8 years.

The bottom line is Trumps administration had a very good economy that significantly benefitted those at lower income levels, and the reason the polls say people percieve Trumps economy was better than Biden and Obama's* is because it was.

* I will admit that Obama got a raw deal coming in at the beginning of a recession, but numbers are numbers.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kazinski, moving the goal posts much?

“how did [Trump’s corporate tax cut] affect the mean household income of the lowest quintile of households? Basically how it affected poor people specifically.”

Now, you’re just saying Trump’s policies generally. And, still, you latch on to one year.

But even so. Yes, the first three years of the Trump administration were very comparable to the last three years of the Obama administration. That might make one hesitant to give Trump and his policies a lot of credit.

“And Trump’s first three years were 20%”

No, they weren’t. Either 18% unadjusted or 12% in 2022 dollars.

Obama’s last three: Either 10.4% unadjusted or 8.4% in 2022 dollars.

“which with compounding over 8 years would beat both Reagan and Clinton”

This is just stupid. Yes, let’s take the best three years, which continued a trend under Obama, and then assume it would have continued just like that for another five years even though it obviously didn’t because shit happens. Come on, Kazinski. Don’t be a partisan tool.

“to finish at 14.6%, still better than Obama over 8 years.”

I don’t know how you do numbers, but you aren’t doing them right. From start (2016) to finish (2020), the bottom quintile went up 13.3% in current dollars and 6.4% in 2022 dollars.

Obama’s last four were better: 12.6% in current but 8.4% in 2022 dollars.

Obama’s full 8: 10.8% in current and 1.1% in 2022 dollars.

Which goes to show two things: (1) it is asinine to assume the last five years of two terms of Trump would be the same as his first three and (2) the first years are due primarily to what you inherited, not what your own policies did. Obama’s first years obviously suffered because of the Great Recession. Nobody sensible will deny that any more than they would deny that Covid tanked the numbers in 2020.

More importantly, this entire discussion assumes the household income of the lowest quintile is directly and timely effected by a President’s taxation or other policies. It’s way more complicated than that.

Also, just to close the loop:

Clinton’s first 4 years: 18.5% in current dollars and 7.7% in 2022 dollars
Clinton’s 8 years: 40% in current dollars and 16.4% in 2022 dollars

Reagan’s 8 years: 50% in current dollars and only 5.6% in 2022 dollars. (i.e., lots of inflation ate into the apparent gains).

So, no, Trump didn’t beat Clinton or Obama, unless you don’t compare apples to apples and assume that all his years would have been the same as his best years which doesn’t match reality under any other president (which suggests the assumption is stupid).

Again, the main point is your analysis (and my follow-up analysis which corrects yours) is fatally flawed as any intelligent analysis of the effects of Trump’s policies versus anyone else’s policies. You did cherry pick a single year (the best year, rather than the first year) and you used the lowest quintile. There are too many confounding factors to draw even tentative (much less firm) conclusions from one data point.

As I pointed out, there is every reason to believe that it actually takes time for a policy change to really affect household income. Thus, it is more reasonable to assume that, because Obama’s final three years were similar to Trump’s in terms of growth of household income of the lowest quintile, that growth trend was the result of Obama’s policies. Trump’s didn’t fundamentally change the trajectory.

Further, even assuming the one year jump was due to Trump’s policies, have you factored in the cost of those policies in terms of the dramatically increased deficit spending during Trump’s first three years as compared to Obama’s last three years? That deficit spending, everyone agrees, will be a long-term drag on the economy. But you want more if he can juice the short term numbers (assuming that is what he did). That’s also dumb.

What we’ve learned: Kazinski cherry-picked the best year during Trump’s administration and wanted us to extrapolate out from that year as if it was all Trump and not business cycles, inherited growth from Obama, the effect of dangerously irresponsible deficit spending in a growing economy, etc., etc., etc.

[Michael P]

So, France arrested a billionaire (Pavel Durov) because the guy’s social media business (Telegram) didn’t censor the things France wanted censored. What a loss for actual liberalism, and a win for petty leftist tyranny calling itself liberalism. No surprise what came from their election shenanigans.

[Sarcastr0]

“ French media reported that the warrant for Durov was issued by France at the request of the special unit at the country’s interior ministry in charge of investigating crimes against minors. Those include online sexual exploitation, such as possession and distribution of child sexual abuse content and grooming for sexual purposes.”
https://apnews.com/article/france-russia-telegram-paris-durov-arrest-63cd8e5663c6b6f3404745866d662954

[ReaderY]

Michael P’a comment, like it or not, was accurate. France, like the US, censors child porn. Michael P apparently believes doing so violates billionaire privelege to do whatever they damn well please.

[Michael P]

Nobody has accused Durov of having, much less producing, child porn. The only accusation has been that he doesn't perform unpaid work for the French government in implementing their preferred censorship.

For the record, I am fine with bans on child porn, but the government should go after the people who actually produce and consume it, not people who operate social media sites that are incidentally used by those offenders.

Dishonest shits like Sarcastr0 and ReaderY pretend otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to partisanize this so that those liberals are tyranting it up by regulating platforms that share child porn.

Um, please proceed.

[Brett Bellmore]

He wants to run a platform that's a common carrier. Government doesn't want internet platforms that are common carriers, because they WANT the platforms to censor for them.

[Sarcastr0]

Common carrier is not something a private company can declare itself to be and thus avoid consequences that other private carriers would not.

[Brett Bellmore]

But it's something a private company can BE, because there are legal standards for whether you're one, which an internet platform could potentially decide to comply with.

[Sarcastr0]

But there are no such legal standards. You want a dodge from liability that does not exist in the US much less for every country worldwide.

[Martinned2]

"incidentally" is doing a lot of work there...

But just to help you, the public prosecutor's office in Paris has taken the highly unusual step of risking the wrath of Les Immortels and issuing a press release in English as well as French:

Pavel DUROV, founder and CEO of instant messaging and platform TELEGRAM, was
arrested at Le Bourget airport in the outskirts of Paris on Saturday, the 24th of August
2024, then taken into police custody at 8 p.m.
This measure comes in the context of a judicial investigation opened the 8th of July
2024, following a preliminary inquiry initiated by Section J3 - JUNALCO (Fight against
Cybercrime) of the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office.
This judicial investigation was opened against person unnamed, on charges of:
- Complicity – web-mastering an online platform in order to enable an illegal transaction in organized group,
- Refusal to communicate, at the request of competent authorities, information or documents necessary for carrying out and operating interceptions allowed by law,
- Complicity – possessing pornographic images of minors,
- Complicity - distributing, offering or making available pornographic images of minors, in organized group,
- Complicity - acquiring, transporting, possessing, offering or selling narcotic substances,
- Complicity - offering, selling or making available, without legitimate reason, equipment, tools, programs or data designed for or adapted to get access to and to damage the operation of an automated data processing system,
- Complicity – organized fraud,
- Criminal association with a view to committing a crime or an offense punishable by 5 or more years of imprisonment,
- Laundering of the proceeds derived from organized group’s offences and crimes,
-Providing cryptology services aiming to ensure confidentiality without certified declaration,
- Providing a cryptology tool not solely ensuring authentication or integrity monitoring without prior declaration,
- Importing a cryptology tool ensuring authentication or integrity monitoring without prior declaration.
The investigative magistrates in charge of this preliminary judicial investigation have requested a co-referral of the Centre for the Fight against Cybercrime (Centre de lutte contre les criminalités numériques, C3N) and the Anti-Fraud National Office (Office National Anti-Fraude, ONAF) for the pursuance of the investigations.
It is within this procedural framework in which Pavel DUROV was questioned by the investigators.
The custody period was extended until the 25th August 2024 by an investigative magistrate and can last up to 96 hours (that being the 28th August 2024) given the applicable procedure for organized crime offences, as referred to above.

https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-08-26%20-%20CP%20TELEGRAM%20.pdf

[Kazinski]

They should go after the pornographers rather than the innocent platform.

Durov alleges that one intelligence agency went after one of his engineers to install a back door, so they could see all messages, not just go after child porn.

The idea that they need total transparency to all of your communications so they can catch child pornographers is bullshit, but thats what they are saying.

Their real target is everyone.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, most countries roll heavy on child porn, perhaps a bit more than idealism would prefer.

For reasons of pragmatism and just human nature, I don't think this is a battle worth choosing.

Somehow, however, the right seems to be trying to turn this into another right-wing being oppressed story.

Which does not seem a wise choice to me, but what do I know.

[Kazinski]

Is Durov right wing?

I have no idea.

Oh, wait, i think I see your point, freedom of speech and freedom from unconstitutional searches are rightwing values, and its a blind spot to just assume everybody shares those values.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like your real issue is with Michael P. above:

"What a loss for actual liberalism, and a win for petty leftist tyranny calling itself liberalism."

I don't particularly think this is a very partisan issue, but that does not mean some fools on the right starved for a cause célèbre aren't trying to make it one.

[Martinned2]

Basically the French are going after Telegram the same way the US went after the Silk Road. Another company that didn't personally own any illegal anything, and only engaged in speech, but that was shut down by the evil Obama administration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace)

[Kazinski]

I agree, and I would include Backpages newspaper too.

I did hear that one of the candidates pledged to pardon or commute Ross Ulbricht.

[hobie]

Michael is still butt-hurt that FB wouldn't let him publish rants about nano-trackers in the vaccines during the pandemic

[Martinned2]

Hmm...

French authorities detained Pavel Durov on allegations that his Telegram social media platform was being used for child pornography, drug trafficking and organized crime — but the immediate freakout came from Russia.
That’s because Telegram is widely used by the Russian military for battlefield communications thanks to problems with rolling out its own secure comms system. It’s also the primary vehicle for pro-war military bloggers and media — as well as millions of ordinary Russians.
“They practically detained the head of communication of the Russian army,” Russian military blogger channel Povernutie na Z Voine said in a Telegram [!] statement.

https://www.politico.eu/article/telegram-ceo-arrest-pavel-durov-russian-military-communications-france/

[Kazinski]

Mark Zuckerberg is starting to get an inkling, a few years too late.

Question is what will he do the next time, I don’t expect anything different:

“ I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg continued. “I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today.”

The Facebook founder also admitted that Facebook demoted the Hunter Biden laptop story, because it was warned by the FBI about a potential Russian disinformation operation regarding Burisma and the Biden family leading into the 2020 election.

“It’s been since made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we should not have demoted the story,” Zuckerberg said.”

https://justthenews.com/nation/free-speech/mark-zuckerberg-admits-biden-administration-pressured-facebook-censor-americans

[Martinned2]

It sounds to me like he's exactly not getting the message. No matter how rich you are, you don't get to ignore laws you don't like. You can litigate, you can lobby, but you can't ignore.

[ReaderY]

Hamas turned down another cease fire proposal. Basically, Israel wasn’t giving it enough in exchange for agreeing to stop.

Hamas is in the driver’s seat, making the kind of demands for a cease fire that a victor normally would. And with good reason. It knows that it has persuaded millions of people in the West that any act of self-sefense that Israel might do is a war crime and genocide. Its real weapon is its propaganda arm. The longer the war goes on, the more Israel’s international reputation is in tatters. Every time Israel has any sort of tactical victory on the battlefield, Hamas turns it into a strategic defeat. Every Hamas figjter killed becomes so much civilian casualties, so much war crimes, so much gnenocide. Every time Hamas loses tactically in the war on the ground, it gains strategically in the war on punlic opinion.

So why should Hamas agree to stop fighting, and with all the pressure that fighting enables it to put on forwign hovernments, without Israel having to pay a heavy price for the privilege? After all, nobody’s going to believe that Israel would agree to a cease fire and Hamas refuse. Hamas knows that if the price isn’t high enough, it can just blame Israel and the world will believe it.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-816108

No need for a ceasefire with Judeocidal terrorists. Israel is hunting them down, and killing them. I am glad America is helping.

Hamas will never stop trying to destroy Israel. They have reaffirmed this at least 962 times since the Simchat Torah pogrom. Hamas can end the conflict today by releasing the living (and dead) hostages, and surrendering to face Israeli justice. They will do no such thing, of course.

So Hamas will be hunted down like the human animals they are, and killed; one by one. No need to confine oneself to gaza, either. There are plenty of Hamas members in the EU and USA that need to be a) deported to Israel, or b) directed to the nearest police station to surrender, or c) hunted down and killed.

[Don Nico]

At this point Israel has nothing to gain from a ceasefire.

[Mr. Bumble]

...because in all likely hood all of the hostages are already dead.

[Moderation4ever]

Sadly, I think this is the case or close to reality. If Hamas agrees then they will have to admit it and then the truth will be known.

[Brett Bellmore]

They've already said that any hostage trade would have to allow them to count dead hostages being returned, so they've tacitly admitted they've killed a lot of them already.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I’m not sure what Hamas has to offer. Are they going to agree to stop murdering and raping Israeli civilians? They weren’t supposed to be doing that anyway.

They can release hostages, but as Putin showed us, they can always take more.

[Don Nico]

12",
It is far from clear that any of the ~100 remaining hostages are even alive.

[ReaderY]

One was just rescued alive today.

[ReaderY]

They can reduce the genocide propaganda and the pressure on Western governments to boycott and embargo Israel. That’s really their main weapon at this point.

[Moderation4ever]

I would say that Netanyahu has nothing to gain from a cease fire. At some point fighting will stop and then the Netanyahu government will have to answer questions about the failings on October 7.

[Don Nico]

That is correct, unless Hezbollah increases its attacks and diverts the national attention northward.

[Josh R]

When will the war end? Under what conditions? Can those conditions be achieved? What happens after the war?

[Commenter_XY]

When Sinwar is dead, and the last Hamas member in gaza is dead (or surrender), the hot war will end. The cold war, where hamas members are hunted down and administered terminal justice, won't end for some time.

What happens after the war? IDK. But hamas won't be part of the equation, they'll be rotting in their graves.

[Josh R]

You forgot to address the “can these conditions be achieved” question.

What happens after the war (assuming your conditions can be achieved) needs to be answered. That’s why Gantz left the war cabinent.

[shawn_dude]

"...any act of self-sefense that Israel might do is a war crime and genocide.

Silly hyperbole. *Any* act of self-defense is a war crime?

On most topics, you're far more careful with the facts. On this one, you're so out in left field as to make you unrecognizable.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

For those who need some light reading (if addressing some serious topics), Michelle Moran’s Maria, a historical fiction account of Maria Von Trapp & the making of The Sound of Music is a good read.

[GreenLanternCorps]

I have her husband, Georg Von Trapp's memoir "To the Last Salute". He was a real life U-Boat ace in the Imperial and Royal Navy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during World War I. There was a reason the NAZI's wanted him for their navy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He was very courageous for giving up everything for his beliefs.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I see the book is in the library. Will check it out.

Elizabeth M. Campbell, the granddaughter of Georg von Trapp, provides a translation & introduction.

[Dr. Ed 2]

HOW does a state of the art modern yacht -- even if hit with a waterspout -- go down in less than 60 seconds?!?

The Italian authorities are investigating. https://www.firstpost.com/world/why-italy-has-launched-manslaughter-probe-into-mike-lynch-yacht-sinking-13807934.html

[Frank Drackman]

I've heard Cums-a-lot Harris can do down in less than 60 seconds, and there's a "Spout" involved, but it ain't water

[ReaderY]

Since you’ve appointed yourself an expert in these things, how does this compare to Cums-a-lot Trump? I mean, it’s not like he hasn’t frequently boasted about his own er, uh, performance record.

[Frank Drackman]

I watch almost all of his Rallies, somehow I missed those parts, maybe you have some links?

[Mr. Bumble]

...or maybe a video.

[hobie]

I think the Billy Bush thing was only audio

[ThePublius]

Since I'm a sailor I've been following this and reading everything I can find on it. It took 16 minutes to sink. The captain should have lowered the lift keel and closed all on-deck doors and hatches. In addition, below decks doors/hatches should have been closed, as the boat had several water tight sections. He did none of those things. I think he will end up in jail.

My opinion is that this tragedy is the result of yachts becoming more and more ostentatious, 'my mast is taller than yours,' that kind of thing, risking stability and safety.

[Paladin_44]

Mast-envy bad!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Even in the dark and on its side, if it really was 16 minutes, you'd think that people could have gotten out of it -- and I do fear that the captain made the mistakes you mention, and likely more.

If it truly was a waterspout -- a low pressure vortex and not a microburst (overpressure from collapsing thunderhead) -- one theory I've heard is that the entire ship was lifted by her mast, which she isn't designed to do, and that put cracks in the frame rendering watertight compartments moot.

A wooden mast would snap off -- was this aluminum one too strong?
Or too big?

A lot of these ships, including some of the newer cruise ships, do not look seaworthy....

[John F. Carr]

You wake up in the dark with your mattress on top of you and water flowing around you. What do you do?

I gather from YouTube commentary that a big mast is a status symbol. It is about as useful as a peacock's tail. Birds do need tails. They do not need such big tails.

Also based on YouTube commentary, the ship is not compartmentalized and does not have strong watertight hatches around the living quarters. Once on its side it is going to fill with water and sink.

The yacht was not carrying passengers for hire and may have been regulated less strictly than a cruise ship.

[Brett Bellmore]

No water tight compartments? That's crazy on any sea going vessel of any size.

But, sure, you might be a bit slow running for the life boats in the middle of a tornado...

[ThePublius]

It did have watertight compartments, but the nature of those hasn't been disclosed or revealed to date.

[Armchair]

Watertight compartments where the hatches aren't closed aren't watertight...

[John F. Carr]

I saw a plan on a more informed YouTube channel. There were compartments (contrary to earlier comments) but two of the otherwise watertight bulkheads had doors. Those doors would normally be left open in harbor. And, if I understand correctly, the door from the owner's quarters to the cockpit was only watertight if locked.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"You wake up in the dark with your mattress on top of you and water flowing around you. What do you do?"

You do what you were trained to do -- what you prepared yourself to do, what your emergency protocol says you do.

Bad weather can come up fast, but not THAT fast, and even if you don't have someone standing anchor watch (which you should), you JUMP when the weather radio alert goes off. If they had a multi-man paid (purportedly "professional") crew, there is no excuse for everyone on board not having been awake.

Of course, I remember the guy who hit a lighthouse on a calm night with a nearly full moon out. He set his autopilot onto the radio beacon of the lighthouse and it found the lighthouse for him. No one else had hit that ledge since the lighthouse was built in the 1800s but he did...

More money than brains.

[Armchair]

My understanding currently is that many of the hatches and windows were left open.

Even the best boat will sink if there are large holes in it letting water in...

[David Nieporent]

It took 16 minutes to sink.

I am pretty sure that can't be true, because Dr. Ed said it took less than 60 seconds, and he doesn't make things up.

[ReaderY]

It got hit by a tornado. A water spout is a kind of tornado that goes over water.

I think it’s at least understandable that a direct hit from a tornado would be a problem for something like a boat.

[ThePublius]

The current thinking is that it was hit by a downburst. It should have been able to survive that, had it been properly prepared and rigged.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet the crew escaped?

[John F. Carr]

The crew was on deck preparing for rough weather. They did not think the situation was serious enough to wake up the passengers and put life vests on them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd fire any crew that didn't wake me.

But then, I respect the ocean...

[GreenLanternCorps]

Italy, unlike the US, treats transportation accidents as crimes, at least initially. They involve prosecutors from the beginning of the investigation.

If this had happened in US waters, the NTSB would take the lead, and involve state or federal prosecutors only if evidence of a crime was found.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As it is a foreign flagged vessel, I imagine it also gives them more authority than they otherwise would have.

[Armchair]

So RFK Jr endorsed Trump.

He makes a number of good points. How Democrats no longer support free speech, with their "misinformation" nonsense. How Democrats are working to suppress democracy, by keeping people off the ballot. How Democrats have worked to be as non-transparent as possible.

When you've lost a Kennedy (to Donald Trump, no less)...you've got to wonder.

[Michael P]

Sadly, they mostly seem to be wondering how to implement a more stringent orthodoxy.

[ThePublius]

What does that mean?

[Commenter_XY]

I am curious to hear Don Nico's take on RFK's announcement.

[Don Nico]

I live in MA. So I will still be able to vote for RFK.
I thought that his take on the DNC keeping people off the ballot was accurate.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yeah. For values of, "accurate," which encompass stochastic hits by hailstones on a manhole cover.

[Mr. Bumble]

Morphing into Il Douche II.

[ducksalad]

Stephen, the organized DNC legal strategy of attacking RFK's ballot access is well-documented in sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN that can't be accused of anti-Democratic bias. Most importantly, spokespersons for the Democrats and Biden aligned groups have openly said that is their strategy. People like Matt Bennet are on record saying that their right to attack ballot access is just as valid as the right to run for office.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/22/politics/democrats-legal-challenges-rfk-jr-ballot/index.html

Democrats filed lawsuits or challenges against him and/or other third parties that compete with Democrats in: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Illinois. There are probably others, that's just what comes up in first few pages of ballot-access.org archives.

TLDR version: You're wrong.

[Don Nico]

Stephan,
Do you deny that the DNC systematically filed suit to keep RFK on the ballot?
Do you really believe that Ms. Harris is something other than the result of a "palace coup?" Oh, I agree that Pres. Biden is no longer mentally competent to do the job.
As I said, as I live in MA, I will still be able to vote for RFK if I bother to vote at all.

[Commenter_XY]

Make it a point to vote, Don Nico. It is the right thing to do (follow the process of voting), even though the choices suck. Mickey Mouse garners thousands of votes every presidential election. What is one more?

Still, the process of showing up and voting (for Mickey), is respected.

That is my pitch. Show up and vote 11/5.

[Brett Bellmore]

In an increasing number of states, they're taking away the right to vote by write in, so you can't vote for Mickey anymore.

[David Nieporent]

They are not.

[Brett Bellmore]

As usual, you just casually deny verifiable facts.

[David Nieporent]

As usual, you start by believing what you want to believe, and therefore just assume that any source must support your belief, so you cite it without reading it. Where in that link does it support the claim that "In an increasing number of states, they’re taking away the right to vote by write in"? All that does is reflect that there are nine states where one cannot vote by write in — and it doesn't even purport to show changes over time.

[Commenter_XY]

I was struck by his comments on the state of the Press in America. Et Tu?

[OtisAH]

“When you’ve lost a Kennedy (to Donald Trump, no less)…you’ve got to wonder.”

Hilarious. Y’all are starting to feel it now, aren’t you? Yeah, you are.

[Michael P]

Feeling like the (arguably) mentally competent half of the Harris-Biden administration will be easy to tie to that administration's failed policies, especially now that she has endorsed them more or less across the board? Sure.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mentally competent?

[ThePublius]

I watched Kennedy's speech, news conference, announcing this in its entirety. I was never an RFK, Jr. fan, but this was a stunningly good, riveting speech. He won me over. He talked about three main things, censorship by the Dems/left, the Ukraine war, and disease in children due to the food supply.

He spoke about how the federal institutions regarding food and health are corrupt - and they are - and that he will work to end that.

It's really worth watching.

One remarkable aspect of this that really struck me is that both he and Trump speak about an administration with members who can disagree on things, but still work together in solving problems and crafting policy. I have NEVER seen or heard anything like this from the Dems, who insist on total agreement and loyalty.

RFK Jr. will work with Trump to end the Ukraine war, and all 'forever' wars,' and to Make America Healthy Again! Let's go!

[Frank Drackman]

I thought he was a nut until I heard him on Joe Rogan's show, he's the kind of DemoKKKrat I could vote for (RFK, not Rogan)

Frank

[Estragon]

RFK Jr.: Wifi radiation opens up your blood-brain barrier so all these toxins that are in your body can now go into your brain.
Rogan: How does wifi open up your blood-brain barrier?
RFK Jr.: Now you've gone beyond my expertise.

[ReaderY]

It is a known habit of the personality type to accuse the other side of the things they themselves do.

[ThePublius]

What does that mean? Whose personality? What type? What accusation?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I have NEVER seen or heard anything like this from the Dems, who insist on total agreement and loyalty."

I offer your own words as a clue, that you might for once see the stupidity and hypocrisy of what you've said.

How many people came and went through the Trump administration for no other reason than they weren't "loyal" enough to Trump? How many of the "best" people did he hire, like he claimed he would, only to turn on them the moment they left and claim each and every one of them was the worst, or useless, or incompetent, or whatever his insult-of-the-day was?

You people are a disease of stupidity.

[ThePublius]

Yes, but here we are - Trump boisterously welcoming RFK, Jr., with open arms and fireworks. Gives the lie to what you say, no?

[Magister]

Trump has enthusiastically praised people he welcomed, and then pretended he didn't know them when that was more convenient for Trump. You really aren't aware of the many examples of that?

[Commenter_XY]

That makes him different from any politician how....? 🙂

[David Nieporent]

Most are personally loyal.

[Commenter_XY]

Like, with POTUS Biden. That kind of loyal?

[David Nieporent]

Exactly like that, yes: Biden did not put his personal ambition ahead of the welfare of everyone else.

[Magister]

None of them go to the extremes that Donald Trump does. George Papadopoulos, hired as a foreign policy advisor, was later demoted to coffee boy. Anthony Scaramucci made it from "great respect" to "totally incapable" in 11 days. General Mattis went from "most effective general" to "world's most overrated general". Paul Manafort, campaign chairman for five months, suddenly someone Trump did not know well when he was prosecuted, but Trump remembered him enough for a pardon later.

[Josh R]

RFK will work with Trump to end the war in Ukraine? True, if by ending it you mean letting Putin win.

Trump working with people he disagrees with to solve problems? Get the Fuck Out of Here.

RFK may have made good points on food, but his stance on childhood vaccines disqualifies him as a crank.

[ThePublius]

"Trump working with people he disagrees with to solve problems? Get the Fuck Out of Here."

Why then, would he welcome RFK Jr.?

[Josh R]

To give himself a better chance to win the election (the effect is in the margins and yet this election could be decided int he margins).

[ThePublius]

If you watched RFK Jr.'s speech, you might also find it quite compelling. But I doubt you have.

[Josh R]

I just watched it. It was pathetic. His points:

1) We need to get chemicals out of our food and Trump is the man do it. I don't know about the former (he may be right, but I don't trust a crank who says Big Pharma pushes poison vaccines) but on the latter, Trump doesn't give a fuck.

2) We have to stop supporting Ukraine. That's Lindbergh-style America First isolationism (but he is right, that's what Trump will do).

3) We have to rebuild the middle class. No Shit, Sherlock. But, he doesn't say how Trump will do that.

4) We have to stand strong against censorship that leads to totalitarianism, What censorship? And, is he being satirical about the guy who tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power as being a bulwark against totalitarianism?

Give Me a Fucking Break!

[Don Nico]

"We have to stop supporting Ukraine. That’s Lindbergh-style America First isolationism (but he is right, that’s what Trump will do)."

He was not preaching isolationism. If you had listened carefully, you would have heard that Biden torpedoed a peace agreement in April 2022, so that he could have a proxy war draw down of Russian military capabilities on the backs of Ukrainian lives. That has cost at least 300,000lives. Happy now?

[Josh R]

Citation?

[hobie]

Trump's more interested in talking to the worm than RFK the man

[David Nieporent]

Because both are antiestablishment wacko conspiracy theorists, so they're sympatico, and of course both want Trump to win.

[Armchair]

"RFK will work with Trump to end the war in Ukraine?"

Perhaps. Personally, I believe Trump kept Putin out of Ukraine with his negotiations. Not to mention, Trump authorized the lethal military aid to Ukraine from 2016 to 2020 that kept Ukraine afloat during the initial Russian Invasion.

Right now, I believe the Biden-Harris administration is half-assing it. Getting Ukraine "just" enough to not fall, but not enough to win. And it's not a matter of $$$ necessarily, but of just the right types of arms, in enough numbers. Ukraine needs lots and lots of arty shells, but they aren't getting it. One F-16 is up to $60 million. One 155 mm shell is just $5,000. A decent Trump administration could prioritize production. 12,000 155 mm shells are more useful than a single F-16.

[Randal]

Right now, I believe the Biden-Harris administration is half-assing it.

Of course they are. It was obvious from day one that from NATO’s perspective, the only thing more important than Ukraine not losing is Ukraine not winning. At least not until Putin’s gone.

[David Nieporent]

Not to mention, Trump authorized the lethal military aid to Ukraine from 2016 to 2020 that kept Ukraine afloat during the initial Russian Invasion.

He did absolutely no such thing. Congress authorized it. Trump illegally refused to deliver it unless Zelensky bribed him with an announcement of an investigation into Biden.

[TwelveInchPianist]

from CNN

While the Obama administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, it did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment.

...

The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank missiles, something long sought by Kiev.

[Frank Drackman]

Putin's going to win, no "letting" involved

[Estragon]

“Make America Healthy Again!”

How many diet cokes per day would you consider healthy?

[ThePublius]

Sure, make light of it, mock it. But I don't hear the other side talking about anything like this - or about anything in particular at all, except copying Trump positions, and promoting Marxist and socialist policies, like price controls.

What has Kamala said about the Ukraine war?
What has Kamala said about the food supply, and childhood disease?

[hobie]

Michelle Obama championed child nutrition and, as I recall, you kooks lambasted her for it. So now nutrition is kosher again? Why? Because the worm said so?

[ThePublius]

No, because Michelle's approach was juvenile, stupid, and resulted in poor nutrition for kids.

[Estragon]

The idea that Trump cares—at all— about public health policy is laughable. We’ll see if he brings up “food supply” in any appearances between now and November, but I doubt it. Free breakfast and lunch at school— now there’s food being supplied.

What happened here is the natural conclusion of a rat-fuck gone wrong. It was the brilliant brainchild of Steve Bannon, among others, to boost this vanity campaign in an effort to siphon votes from Democrats. The problem was— Steve didn’t think things through quite enough, and the anti-vax loon RFK starting pulling more from Trump than Biden. The day that RFK referred to the J6 insurrectionists as activists stripped of their civil liberties and political prisoners was the day that this union became inevitable.

The idea that there are legions of Democrats lining up to vote for the anti-vax, J6 curious, Wi-Fi causes cancer, worm-addled bear-dumper who were merely thwarted by the perfidious DNC is so ridiculously half-baked I don’t know where to begin other than to note, with sadness, that there appear to be many around here who believe it.

You didn’t answer my question about the diet cokes. The idea of well-done steak and Diet Coke Don (just shine a light inside your lungs) being the avatar public health is hysterical— or would be if I didn’t believe there were many more people out there like you that actually vote based on these ridiculous ideas.

By the way, RFK’s choice for VP had this to say the other day: “The hesitation we have right now in joining forces with Trump is that he has not apologized or publicly come out and said Operation Warp Speed was his fault… There was a lot that happened under Donald Trump's watch that should not have happened and cannot happen again.”

Obviously you have been following this more closely than I have— did Trump do this? Do you agree that he should apologize for operation Warp Speed?

Finally— I can’t resist the “childhood disease” bit. You know who has some ideas on how to deal with childhood disease?? Donald John Trump! I’m going to turn the mic over to his nephew:

“I got him up to speed on what Eric had told me. I said I’d heard the fund for William was running low, and unfortunately, the expenses certainly were not easing up as our son got older. In fact, with inflation and other pressures, the needs were greater than they’d been. “We’re getting some blowback from Maryanne and Elizabeth and Ann Marie. We may need your help with this. Eric wanted me to give you a call.”
Donald took a second as if he was thinking about the whole situation.
“I don’t know,” he finally said, letting out a sigh. “He doesn’t recognize you. Maybe you should just let him die and move down to Florida.”

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Free breakfast and lunch at school— now there’s food being supplied."

That's Kamala's solution to food supply issues? Just make food free? And you guys claim to be the adults in the room?

You get that there's no such thing, right?

[Estragon]

If you and your fellow travelers want to come out hard against free school lunches— be my guest. It is absolutely within our capability as a society to provide free breakfast and lunch to children at school, and I think it’s a great idea for several reasons.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Free school meals actually *saves* money because you don't have to do all the eligibility paperwork, all the outreach to those who are eligible but haven't applied, and then have to chase down all the parents who should have paid but for whatever reason haven't. You don't want to deal with cash because that cost money so it's parents having to prepay for meals and kids not getting a meal because of this. It's a lot easier just to say "bleep it."

The problem is what do these kids do in the summer and on weekends -- school only meets 180 days -- half of 360 -- and what do kids eat on the other days?

[Estragon]

In my jurisdiction, the schools provide free lunch to minors in public parks on weekdays throughout the summer

[Frank Drackman]

You seen kids today? Bunch of Fat Fucks, they’re getting plenty to eat, better would be to end School Breakfasts/Lunch and replace them with mandatory PE.
Since College I started every Day with the “Fighter Pilot’s Breakfast”(Cigarette and a cup of Black Coffee) since giving up the Cigs (For the most part, like with Barry Hussein, it’s a “Work in Progress’) it’s just the Coffee, unless you’re an actual Lumber Jack, you don’t need a Lumber Jack Breakfast to keep your energy level up, that’s what your Pancreas is for, Once in a rare while I’ll get a Crispy Creme or a Sausage Biscuit (Kosher of course) and then feel like Shit as my Pancreas cranks into OD

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

They don't rot your teeth; I've been drinking diet soda basically my whole life, and had my last cavity back in the early 70's. My A1c is pretty decent for a guy my age, too.

You'd rather marinate your teeth in sugar water?

[Magister]

Did you know that those are not the only two choices? I'm sitting here with a cup of tea and it's quite nice, although I can't consume as much caffeine as I used to.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I drink quite a bit of tea myself. I'm a big fan of Constant Comment. (I have a cup it at hand right now.) At this point I just drink an occasional diet soda when I need the caffeine. But if you really want to try something amazing, try this:

Oliver Pluff & Co. Colonial Bohea Black Tea We first ran into it in a park gift shop, (It's a recreation of the tea that got tossed into the harbor in Boston.) but it was so good we buy some occasionally as a treat.

[David Nieporent]

RFKJ is an anti-science conspiracy theorist nutjob. He knows as much about health as Dr. Seuss does. Maybe less. He belongs in an administration about as much as… well, about as much as Donald Trump does.

[gVOR08]

The entire rest of the Kennedy clan seem to think RFK Jr is nuts.

[ThePublius]

They are all a bunch of Democratic sheep.

[Frank Drackman]

that's why I like him.

[Armchair]

Hypothetical situation time.

So, for the first time since WWII, Russia has been invaded. Took 30 years of underfunded armed forces, and a war with 50,000 casualties first.

By contrast, what would it take for an invasion of the mainland United States to be possible? For fun, assume it's not just a local invasion by Mexico or Canada.

[Commenter_XY]

First, the aggressor would need to deploy EMP weapons, while simultaneously taking out thousands of satellites. You need to 'blind' the military, pre-invasion. At that point, tactical surprise goes out the window.

Second, to take CONUS, you'll need to move 2MM to 3MM troops, and their equipment. Only way to do that is by ship, for months. That means the MOAB at sea, with 14 US carriers pitted against whatever.

Third, invading is easy. Holding on to territory is hard. The only way that happens is if there are hundreds of millions of Americans dead.

The alternative: America destroys itself with internal dissent and disagreement.

[Don Nico]

"America destroys itself "
Not so hard to imagine if people keep claiming that we are facing an existential threat and then act accordingly

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone's talking that game; not many are actually acting accordingly on either side.

Contrast to the runup to the Civil War; we're all just indulging in drama.

[FWIW I've said I think Trump's second term would represent an unacceptable level of risk to the Republic, but not in any way an assured one.]

[Commenter_XY]

I know Don Nico, and we are watching it play out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

During WWII, one Japanese leader famously said that the problem with invading America is that our population is armed and hence "behind every blade of grass is a rifle barrel."

[Noscitur a sociis]

Anyone can pull out an apocyphal quote to conveniently support their point. But to misquote an apocyphal quote? That takes a Dr. Ed.

[Frank Drackman]

I think your quote is slanted

[Armchair]

So this is the "Invade America Now" scenario.

I believe in such a scenario, the American Navy would need to be defeated before such an invasion. Not impossible. But difficult. Perhaps hypersonic missiles, perhaps a mixture of ballistic missiles and subs. Perhaps a poor American strategy that "loses" a few carrier groups in a Taiwan or Middle East conflict. But any surprise would be impossible, when moving 3 million troops. The invasion is coming...somewhere.

After that, you get to the invasion itself. That becomes an East Coast/Gulf coast versus West Coast question.

The East Coast is easier for invasion, with many harbors, sandy beaches, clear plains, etc. In addition, many of the large military bases are further away. An invasion landing at Cape Cod, Long Island, or the Delmar Pennisula are pretty feasible. The most potent geopolitical foes are on the Pacific side however.

On the West Coast, there are many mountains, and the good harbors/beaches are few, and heavily urbanized. A direct landing into Long Beach or Oakland is asking for a disaster. Honestly, the best bet there would be an invasion of the Mexican port of Ensenada (with or without the Mexican Government's support). That would give a reasonable beachhead, ideally with limited resistance.

[Magister]

Further discussion should take the form of a movie review of Red Dawn (1984). Just because there aren't enough movie reviews.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, an actual land invasion of the US is going to run into some serious trouble with the fact that most of the guns in the US are owned by private citizens, not the government.

[Martinned2]

Ask the people of Syria how much good that did them.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Quantity has a quality of its own"; A small armed country can be overrun by a large force, but who could transport to the US a large enough force to accomplish that here?

[David Nieporent]

For once, I agree with Brett. The U.S. is the only country on the planet with the ability to project large amounts of force wherever on the globe it wants. The Brits and French have some capabilities — but not on the scale invading the U.S. would require. China has robust force projection capability in east and southeast Asia. Outside that area, it — and Russia — could put some troops on the ground some distance away if unopposed, but not a lot. Numerous countries can do so in adjacent countries, but I don't think Canada or Mexico are actually threats to the U.S.

[Longtobefree]

What would it take?
An open border policy that (so far) admits 3 divisions of troops from Communist China.

[Brett Bellmore]

It really depends on whether the purpose of the invasion is to take and hold territory, or to just cause a lot of damage so that the US ceases to be a factor in international relations for a while.

Taking and holding very much US territory would probably require cooperation from a turncoat administration, because in addition to our military, we have a very well armed population.

Just coming in and wrecking stuff to the point where we stopped being an international superpower for a generation? Really wouldn't need much more than infiltrating a bunch of saboteurs. Our infrastructure is horribly vulnerable; A few thousand people armed with anti-materiel guns could take down most of our electrical grid, turning our cities into death traps.

[Armchair]

"A few thousand people armed with anti-materiel guns could take down most of our electrical grid, turning our cities into death traps."

So that's an interesting concept....and a dangerous one.

You mention anti-material guns. Those are relatively difficult to acquire in the US. They require direct line of sight, and large number of people. But...a first-person view drone, with an explosive attached? One that may be able to be directed by a person in Russia or China, while the network is still up?

That's a more frightening prospect.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, a Barrett, which is not all that hard to acquire, (You just need the money.) would do for most transformers. Our grid relies on a large number of very long lead time transformers that are not stocked in large numbers, and are sitting in exposed positions. This has been a known vulnerability for many years, and nothing ever gets done about it.

You could also take out our long distance power lines, by shooting out insulators. It would be some precision shooting, but perfectly feasible. Insulators are more replaceable, but the lines are so long that you could just take out another one every time they get it fixed.

Once the electrical grid was down, the water and sewer systems would naturally go down for lack of power. Refrigeration would also be out.

I suppose the next step would be to have sappers take out some critical highway overpasses and rail bridges, and I suppose internet switching centers.

You know, our major cities are only a few days away from being uninhabitable in the event of a sustained power and logistics breakdown. Then the starving masses fan out into the countryside, destroying what remains.

I more or less take it as a given at this point that, when China finally decides to invade Taiwan, our first indication of it will be the US electrical grid going down. And we'll cease being a world power for a generation.

[Krayt]

What would be required? The US to slack off on its policy of having the most advanced and powerful and well-trained military than the next x biggest countries combined, for 30 years, and probably not even then as dictatorships produce shit quantities of shit.

Dictatorships are kleptocracies, and tangling with someone who might end your gravy train, your whole purpose for seeking power, is not part of their business model.

[Mr. Bumble]

That might be but we're working on it:
https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-ballot-2024-independent-cornel-west-rfk-406dd1a46489e3049ab70e1633a28414
"The Navy will reportedly sideline 17 vessels due to a manpower shortage that makes it difficult to properly crew and operate ships across the fleet. "
More at the link.

[Mr. Bumble]

Corrected link:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/08/the-devil-and-the-deep-blue-sea.php

[ducksalad]

It's a lot easier to cross a land border that's just a line on the ground, but you excluded Mexico and Canada invading. A massive beach landing is much harder.

So-
Step 1: Take over either Mexico or Canada.
Step 2: Invade from there.

If Castreaux suddenly decided to seize some part of northwest Maine forest land, it would probably take a few weeks to get our act together and take it back.

[Jerry B.]

“Wolverines!!!”

[Magister]

Nothing gets Americans fired up like a Soviet paratrooper prying someone's gun out of his cold dead hands.

[Frank Drackman]

Still no sign of the Revolting Reverend? Even Hobie-Stank has yet to defile this thread, J-Hay's terrible swift sword cuts fine.

Frank

[Michael P]

Tanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.

Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.

"Come on, girl," said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.

Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"

"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"

(Not that the Irreverent Kookland is young, lovely or female, but the general principle is the same.)

[Krychek_2]

I don't know where he's been lately, but he may simply have come to the realization that nobody ever lay on their deathbed and said, "I wish I'd spent more time on the Internet with halfwits like Drackman." That thought has occasionally occurred to me too.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s “Dr Half-Wit”

[MoreCurious]

Doctor? Only in your imagination.

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman; America's neediest veteran. Now he want's props for his honorific ala Jill Biden. Thank you for your service, Dr.

[Frank Drackman]

You're gonna say that to the wrong Veteran some day, hope like Foghorn Leghorn with his Feathers, that you keep your teeth numbered.

[hobie]

Yet I'm saying it to you, not some other veteran. You know Frankie, Hobie is my real first name, and because I'm a lot tougher than you (seen many loud mouths like you), I looked up Frank Drackmans in the Atlanta area to see if you wanted to fulfill your fantasies and finish me off. But I think you're hiding under a pseudonym. Keep hiding, Frankie. And thank you for your service, Dr.

[MoreCurious]

Thanks, Hobie. We've all known that Drackman is a not-very-bright middle-schooler hiding in his mother's basement and that he is too much of a coward to accept your challenge. His attempts at what I suppose he intends to be humor merely show what an inarticulate, illiterate moron he is. The proof that he is a fraud is that there is no doctor anywhere who writes as stupidly and childishly as he does. He has yet to write anything that comes close to resembling something that an intelligent person would write.

[Bwaaah]

"The proof that he is a fraud is that there is no doctor anywhere who writes as stupidly and childishly as he does."

Your proof is an assertion you made up? You have a new meaning for the word "proof"? Maybe you're just a shit-talker who doesn't know it? No? Too bashful to break the fourth wall about it?

And your pretense of speaking for all of us and what we know...not a bit of overreach there?

You sound like a resentful ant stamping his little ant foot on Frank Drackman's big toe.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Leave it to Bwaah to posit that Frank is sane and literate. Takes one to know one, I suppose. And Bwaah isn't one, so.......

[not guilty]

In 2019 at the age of 35, James David Bowman Hamel Vance converted and affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/25/us/jd-vance-catholic-church-conversion.html That does not speak well of him.

While I can understand a cradle Catholic being reluctant to repudiate his/her upbringing, I am at a loss to understand why an intelligent, well educated parent of prepubescent children would voluntarily choose to affiliate with an institution so corrupt that it has paid out billions of dollars in damages and legal settlements because it was unwilling or unable to keep its personnel out of its parishioners' children.

[Moderation4ever]

I see Vance as having political ambitions and understanding that a politician needs to have a religious affiliation. Atheist don't get elected. If his base was deep south he might go evangelical, but Midwest is still very much mainstream Protestants and Catholics. What he should be asked is his feeling on Pope Francis? Francis is not the most popular pope with the American Catholic Church. Also ask him about the many Catholic Bishops and Priests support for immigrants.

[not guilty]

I wonder if he takes the doctrine of transubstantiation literally.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Vance was practical to choose Catholicism. In the Republican Party Catholics give orders. Protestants get manipulated.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Phil Donahue remained a Catholic (to my knowledge) but was a critic of some of its policies.

[GreenLanternCorps]

You mean like the public schools?

The Roman Catholic Church is hardly alone in being an institution catering to children/teenagers in which adults took advantage of the situation. The problem was endemic across public and private schools, youth sports, and youth groups of all kinds.

[loki13]

Look, unlike the original poster, I don't think it's appropriate to go after Vance's religion. Not only is it poor form and offensive, but he is such a target-rich environment it is unnecessary.

That said, comparing the Catholic Church's behavior in this matter to any other institution is also inappropriate. The sins of the hierarchy are not the sins of the adherents, but c'mon ... we have seen that they engaged in a pattern and practice of cover ups, obfuscation, and abuse over scores of decades, not just in America but all over the world, and it is impossible to think of a comparable institution in modern times that has aided and abetted that scale of child abuse.

[not guilty]

Whenever I get a tu quoque reply to a comment, I know that I have struck an exposed nerve.

[ducksalad]

Well, you’re assuming that religion is a consumer choice, taken after doing some kind of cost benefit analysis. And that’s because deep down you don’t really literally believe.

If you take the view that your religion is an undeniable, inevitable, and eternal fact about the universe - not a choice, a fact - then it can’t be changed by the sins of earthly practitioners, no matter how numerous and grave those violations are.

[Don Nico]

That comment is pretty bigoted and arrogant, ng.
And it is not as if no rabbi (or minister or scoutmaster) ever molested a youngster.

[hobie]

Catholicism seems to be the new black for the 'Christian' right

[Frank Drackman]

Ask Sleepy Joe Biden

[Commenter_XY]

NG, who really knows what is in another man's heart? No human. My point is: only JD Vance knows why JD Vance converted. As for what touched his spirit, we will never know. We don't have a religious litmus test for office, AFAIK.

Catholicism doesn't disqualify someone from the vice presidency, does it? Surely we have had a Catholic VP in our past. 🙂

[John F. Carr]

The governor of Massachusetts proposes to take a hospital by eminent domain so it can be operated by people she likes better. The hospital belongs to the failing chain Steward Health Care. Steward's woes have offered progressives a chance to vent a lot of hot air this year. Stereotypical corporate raider tactics are in evidence – Steward's hospitals no longer own their properties but have to pay rent to a private equity firm.

So now we have two legal questions.

1. What is the value of 14 acres in Boston zoned for a private hospital with a private hospital on it? The governor says $4.5 million, which is probably not a serious offer. The government is allowed to make a lowball offer, take the land, and make the former owner sue for fair market value.

2. Can she even do that at any price? The Boston Globe cites a Missouri court case rejecting the proposition that the government could seize a hospital to turn it into a hospital. The "prior public use" doctrine gets in the way.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/08/23/business/steward-eminent-domain-legal-battle/

[Don Nico]

14 acres in Boston, so zoned,< is a ~$20M property

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like a plan for a new future Fenway Park.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: What was the property last sold for? What did the private equity firm pay for it?

2: If it is zoned for a hospital, it theoretically can only be used for a hospital and as the state licenses hospitals, if the state wanted to play hardball and not let a hospital be there, what (if anything) would the land be worth?

Case in point -- New England Memorial Hospital in Stoneham closed 30 years ago and the land is STILL vacant.

3: I'm no fan of Maura, but isn't her issue that SOMEONE run a hospital there more than WHO runs one?

[John F. Carr]

The assessed value is $50,988,100 for the land and $140,220,400 for the building. https://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?pid=2101835100

The registry of deeds shows a sale in 2016 for $189,000,000 from STEWARD ST ELIZABETHS MEDICAL CENTER OF BOSTON INC to the current owner MPT OF BRIGHTON-STEWARD LLC with an address in Alabama.

I don't know what uses are permitted under Boston zoning rules.

[loki13]

Random thoughts for the day-

AppleTV has a very funny show called Shrinking. Highly recommend it. Anyway, one of the ongoing jokes in it was that the older shrink (played by Harrison Ford) would keep telling people that they were rawdogging him (harrassing him) because he didn’t know what it meant.

I was thinking of that when I saw all the pieces about people “rawdogging” on airplanes. So. Very. Weird.

Next- if you like the NFL, and you want RedZone but don’t want to pay for the whole Sunday Ticket on Youtube, look into NFL+ and thank me later. That said … once you go RedZone it’s hard to just watch games. You’ve been warned.

Finally- I love fine dining. But is there ever anything as good as a great BBQ place with a bunch of friends? Search your feelings, you know this to be true. (Apologies to vegans and vegetarians, but you are missing out. By the way, how do you know if someone is a vegan? …. oh, don’t worry. They’ll tell you.)

[Don Nico]

Loki,
Agreed. If only we had such a great BBQ place in the Boston-Cambridge area.

[loki13]

Look, I'm not gonna pee on your leg and tell you its raining. You're not getting BBQ like you'll find in Lockhart, TX. Or KC. Or Memphis. Or Carolina (if you're into that, I'm not kink shaming).

But I have found surprisingly good BBQ in weird places. A while back, I was in upstate NY, and had some amazing BBQ. I know! I was as shocked as the next person.

So maybe if you can pull yourself away from those clambakes, you can find something decent!

[Ska]

Dinosaur in Syracuse is pretty famous for NY (and they expanded to Harlem at least 10 years ago). Hill Country is about the best you'll find in Manhattan. Fette Sau in Williamsburg is delicious, but there's no mistaking where you are when you go there.

You're right, it's not like any of the places I've gone to while traveling. But they're the best options we have here and are good in their own right.

[Don Nico]

Loki,
I had to laugh. You missed Austin on your list.
I have not been at a clambake in more than 40 years, but I am a big fan of lobster prepared most any way.
We did have a decent BBQ nearby until several years ago. But even there the brisket was only okay.

[loki13]

I didn't miss Austin! Austin is like the vegans ... you don't have to mention them in BBQ discussions, because they will talk about themselves! 😉 I prefer the slightly deeper cut of Lockhart.

But you have my condolences. Good brisket is a true wonder. I am also a huge fan of burnt ends, or, at least, I was until they became all hipster-y. It used to be if a place was serving them, you knew that they were going to be good. Now? Some places just slap that name on any old thing they are putting out.

[Estragon]

I went to Lockhart once. The place was oddly reminiscent of a haunted house inside but of course the food was excellent, as was the little dive nearby. Many shiners died heroes that day

[loki13]

Isn't that a Johnny Cash song?

But I ate some BBQ in Lockhart just to watch some shiners die...

Two things-

1. I don't think many people go to Lockhart if'n they're not looking for good BBQ.

2. Shiners got two good uses- watering your lawn, and downing with some BBQ.

...and I ain't got no lawn.

[Ska]

At least rawdogging when used to describe flying has some kind of, admittedly tenuous, relationship to the term's origin: the act in its most unaltered state. Why flying that way is some kind of grand accomplishment or statement is kind of odd, but hey, amusement takes many shapes.

Fine dining with groups kind of sucks, and with groups greater than four it's worse. Barbecue places - the atmosphere screams "group outing." Although around where I'm at good barbecue is both incredibly rare and nearly as expensive as fine dining. Still, much better with groups.

[Frank Drackman]

Wilson's BBQ in Albertville Alabama, Drive up only, Alabama Vinegar Sauce, Pulled Pork (Kosher of course) Close Second is some place in Lilburn GA, in the back of a Gas Station, they have both Kinds of BBQ, Pulled Pork and Pork Ribs, wait a minute, its the "Tipsy Pig"!!!!!!!! thanks, Hippocampus

Frank

[Jerry B.]

The best barbecue is out in the boondocks in or near some small town in the South. It’s either been there forever or just opened. It is pig (and maybe chicken). It will be served with store bought white bread and homemade sauce. Beef will not be on the menu. Sweet tea will. A roll of paper towels will be on the table. Greens of some sort will be sides, and maybe beans. You will leave full.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that pretty much describes my favorite spot on I-25 north of Traveler's Rest. Just a trailer along side the road, a big smoker converted from an old oil tank, and a canopy over a picnic table.

And REALLY good smoked chicken and pork.

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, wrt BBQ, I offer you this. If you are ever in Knoxville TN, go to Horn of Plenty restaurant, and get the beef brisket (with NC vinegar bbq sauce on the side, of course). They are only open 4 hours daily (M-F); I think it was 11-3. Go early, they sell out.

Yes, they are that good.
PS: The Banana pudding rocks, rich and utterly decadent.

[Jerry B.]

Sorry, but beef is not barbecue. It might be barbecued beef, but if it ain’t pork pig, it ain’t barbecue.

[loki13]

Try going to Texas and sayin' that!

Or KC.

You know, I thought I was making my usual, "Let's have some fun and ignore all the usual partisan arguing" posts for the open thread.

I forgot that opinions about BBQ are probably more heated any mere political disagreement!

[Sarcastr0]

History of the Oregon Trail game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QbjlHeoLdc

Published before personal computers and floppy disks, as text in a hobbyist magazine people could copy by hand if they had one of those dishwasher-sized machines for whatever reason.

Also decent chance Prince was one of the first kids to test it out.

[Ska]

While I don't have the time to watch that now, if I'm getting the gist Oregon Trail was originally a "type this in BASIC and you'll have a functioning game" as its origin? That's a cool factoid. I had a few books like that when I was a little kid and that's how I learned how to write in BASIC on the C64; none of the games were as in depth as that classic. A text adventure and a Space Invaders clone seem to stand out in my recollection.

Stuff like Beach Head, Ghostbusters, Impossible Mission, Bruce Lee, Space Taxi, all the Zorks, and of course Sid Meier's Pirates! were truly memorable. I've played all of those titles in the last 5 years through emulators. I've never gotten tired of the cool worlds, both fantasy and historic, that computer games offer players to experience - even the early ones from four decades ago.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I had a few books like that when I was a little kid and that’s how I learned how to write in BASIC on the C64; none of the games were as in depth as that classic. A text adventure and a Space Invaders clone seem to stand out in my recollection."

I also had some of those books, if we're talking about the same thing. I remember having to type up a BASIC program in order to get the answer to something in the book. That kind of thing?

[Magister]

I probably still have several Byte magazines from the 1970s that had Basic programs, some of them simple games, and maybe even a book or two with such. I do recall for the Apple II before getting a floppy drive that there were games on cassette tape (loaded by playing them on a tape recorder plugged into a computer input); Temple of Apshai was one I played.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds truly boring and laborious to hand-jam code for every program you like. But you were also at the forefront of a pretty incredible frontier.

[Magister]

I found BASIC code online for Hunt the Wumpus, a fairly simple game; 50+ lines and a few thousand characters. You could save a program you laboriously typed on a cassette tape and reload it later, at least for the Apple II in the late 1970s. Simple games were not that impressive, but there was a certain satisfaction to making your own (and creating Roguelike games is still popular, although neither small nor simple).

[Mr. Bumble]

Three years since Abbeygate. Biden is at the beach and Kamala is ?.
There were no American KIAs from Mar. 2020 to July 2021 and then Biden and company's perfect withdrawal left 13 American service members dead.

[ducksalad]

Not disputing any of your facts, just commenting.

The withdrawal could have been done much better, but the withdrawal schedule was already agreed upon by some previous president. The 13 American deaths could (maybe) have been avoided if someone else had been in charge, but we’d still have the parts about triumphant bearded guys swaggering about in the presidential palace, women putting on their burkas again, and every single piece of military equipment we’d given the Afghan army now being Taliban military equipment. That was all (effectively) agreed to way back in 2020, even if no one wanted to admit it.

[grb]

ducksalad : ” … even if no one wanted to admit it.”

That’s putting it mildly. Doesn’t anyone remember the terms of Trump’s capitulation to the Taliban? What he gave-away to wave about his little “piece of paper” had Neville Chamberlain spinning in his grave. Before the negotiation concluded, I bet the Mullahs fell over themselves demanding more & more. They knew they’d get everything while giving zilch back.

Per Trump’s deal, the U.S. had to cut their forces by two-thirds within four months. All troops had to be withdrawn in just over a year. Per Trump, the U.S. had to immediately close five military bases and end all economic sanctions on the Taliban. Per Trump, we pledged to get the U.N. to lift their restrictions against the Taliban as well. Per Trump’s agreement, we would make the Afghans trade 5,000 Taliban prisoners for 1,000 government POWs. Per Trump, U.S. military aircraft were banned from attacking the Taliban more than 500 meters away. Per Trump, the U.S. couldn’t launch airstrikes against Taliban units unless they were actively fighting.

The United States had conducted 8000 airstrikes in the 14 months before the agreement. That number dropped to 800 in the 10 months after. And Afghan Gen. Sami Sadat described some of those new Trump rules : Taliban fighters had to be actively shooting within 150 meters of a checkpoint for U.S. aircraft to engage. If Taliban forces were 500 meters away, or stopped shooting when U.S. aircraft arrived, the Afghan security forces were on their own.

So what did the Taliban have to give? They didn’t have stop attacks on the U.S, car-bombing Bagram Airbase during the middle of negotiations. But that didn’t slow Trump’s appeasement a bit. The Taliban also didn’t have to limit attacks on our Afghan allies. In fact, attacks on Afghan troops steadily climbed after Trump’s deal handcuffed U.S. forces. In under two months after Trump’s Munich, Taliban attacks increased 70% over the previous year. More than 900 Afghan security forces were killed in that period, up from 520 a year earlier. Taliban casualties dropped to 610 in the period down from about 1,660 in the same period a year earlier.

All Trump got was a pledge the Taliban would not allow al-Qaeda to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the United States. Left unsaid, the Taliban would stop targeting our troops as long as they kept leaving. Plus, deal-maker Trump got a pledge the Mullahs would (maybe) talk to our Afgan allies about some kind of (peace-like) agreement.

[ducksalad]

Thanks for all the details on the rules of engagement, hadn't seen them before.

I think Trump was right to negotiate a withdrawal and any agreement would have ended up looked similar no matter who negotiated it. But he does own it and the results.

IMO the one little thing we gained - the Taliban deciding, maybe, that hosting Al Qaeda isn't worth the grief - was accomplished by 2003 or so. We could've made the same agreement then.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think "appeasement" is really the right word here. That — as made famous at Munich — involves giving the other side what it wants in the hopes it won't attack you. This was more just plain ol' surrender. We agreed to withdraw and they agreed to… let us withdraw.

Now, it wasn't clear what we were accomplishing by staying, and I think everyone in the U.S. was ready to quit the fight, so I won't condemn Trump for negotiating this. Though he cowardly scheduled the withdrawal for after the presidential election, and of course MAGA tendentiously blames Biden for simply carrying out Trump's plan.

[apedad]

Free electricity?

Suppose I install a small water wheel or propellor device in my house's main water feed and then attach a generator to that.

So every time water flows it generates electricity.

I'm not an EE so I don't know how much energy would be generated but is this a crazy idea?

And legal?

[ducksalad]

I’m an EE.

At reasonable pressure that your pipes can stand you would need an unreasonable flow of water to generate the 2000+/- Watts average needed to run a typical house.

Furthermore, if everyone did it, the municipal water system’s power consumption in pumping water would increase by the amount used plus a good large factor for inefficiency due to friction in the pipes. They’d need to recover the cost, with the result that your new water bill would be larger than your current electric and water bills combined.

If your idea is to individually harvest enough to, say, trickle charge some backup batteries to run your computer during a power failure, then yes, it’s marginally feasible if the per gallon water charge is low. But again, only if everyone didn't try it at once.

[John F. Carr]

If the water comes from a reservoir at higher elevation the pressure may come for free.

[ducksalad]

Sure, hydroelectric power is a thing.

But also keep in mind that a turbine works off the difference between inlet and outlet pressure. Apedad probably still wants his toilet tank to fill and water to come out of the shower head.

[Michael P]

As a fellow EE (among other degrees), I endorse that analysis. A notable exception to the general conclusion is that some sump pumps can be powered from by-flow so that there's a way to keep a basement at least somewhat dry when the electricity mains fail.

[Brett Bellmore]

Depending on local conditions, the utility could be delivering water at a pressure grossly in excess of normal internal residential pressures, with it being regulated down at the point where it enters the house. That’s the case here, because it’s hilly, and we’re at a low point in the system.

I know this because our regulator failed after some local utility work, and we ended up having to jackhammer through the slab floor to repair a burst line.

So there IS some free power available there, if you replaced the regulator with a hydropower setup. But not remotely 2KW, unless you’re routinely filling a swimming pool.

Even in our case, it would take about 1.5 gallons per second to achieve 2KW. That's a LOT of water...

[ducksalad]

For 60 psi I’m getting something in the range 5 gallons/sec even if everything is perfect. You’re the ME maybe I did something wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

That doesn't seem right.

[Brett Bellmore]

50 psi pressure difference. A gallon is 231 cubic inches, so each gallon represents 11,550 inch pounds.

Divide by 39.4 inches to a meter, 293 meter pounds.
Multiply by 4.46 newtons per pound, 1,308 newton meters=Joules.

2kw = 2000 Joules/second, so 2000/1308=1.53 gallons per second is required.

[Commenter_XY]

Constant flowing water = constant way to create bitcoin on the relatively cheap?

[Zarniwoop]

For 5 gals/sec (18.9kg/sec) and 60psi (equiv to height drop of 42m), I get

P = 18.9kg/s * 9.8m/s2 * 42m = 1285 kg m2 / sec3 = 7779W

if everything is ideal. The math works out about correct for 1.5gal/sec:

P = 5.7 * 9.8 * 42 = 2300 watts

[ducksalad]

Thanks guys. Must have botched something.

Fortunately for the students I’m teaching electronics rather than fluids.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you were working in liters rather than gallons? That would have put you at roughly 5/second.

[ducksalad]

Carelessness. One reason I teach instead of work in industry.

Miss a digit on the whiteboard, five students correct me, and they get a confidence boost in the process.
Miss a digit at Boeing, the fully loaded 737 plunges into the mountain, resulting in ungodly amounts of paperwork.

[John F. Carr]

Paperwork and public embarrassment for top executives and lawyers. I remember a lawyer telling a room full of tech people to be careful in word choice in discoverable internal communications so he wouldn't look bad in court when opposing counsel pulled out a poster-sized reproduction of a memo to show to the jury.

[Mr. Bumble]

Or you get lost in space and get a new contract from Uncle Sam.

[John F. Carr]

In 2018 a gas company overpressurized a supply line, overwhelmed the regulators on individual gas lines, fed high pressure gas into houses, and blew up the Merrimack Valley. What was supposed to be a closed loop feedback system was running open loop. During pipe replacement the pressure sensor was isolated from the supply line and registered no pressure. The upstream valves opened all the way to compensate for low pressure downstream. The legislature responded by requiring involvement of a professional engineer in future gas line work. The mistake struck me as one a professional engineer could make as easily as an employee with no letters after his name.

[Don Nico]

Off the top of my head, your water bill will be much higher the the value of the electricity that you produce. Likely the city water department has rules against what you propose if you use any significant quantity of water.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don,

Water was once used to power elevators -- http://northamptonfilmfestival.com/the-gilded-cage-northamptons-last-water-powered-elevator/

[Zarniwoop]

I'm not an EE, but I took 8.012 once upon a time.

Since the Q appears to be "how much energy would be generated" from water passing through a turbine during normal household water usage, let's think along those lines.

Let's say flow is 0.1kg/s (about 1.6gal/minute) and a height of 10m (equiv to about 14.2psi) in standard gravitational field, with ideal machinery.

P = W/Δt = R g(y1 − y0)

P = (0.1kg/s)(9.80m/s2)(10m) = about 10 kg m2 / s3 = about 10 Watts

So some quite-small amount of "free" power, from normal household use (and only during "normal" household use, not continuous).

But as everyone above agrees, almost certainly not worth the cost and effort.

[WestIsDeceased]

Reform "Judaism" is not Judaism at all, but an anti-white, anti-Western political ideology dressed up in some religious garb.

[David Nieporent]

Yawn. As I mentioned the other day, it's sad how lazy our trolls are getting. I think we need to import some Mexicans to do the trolling jobs Americans will no longer do.

[Ilya Snowman]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2024/08/23/law-school-yale-berkley-campus-protests/74861885007/?tbref=hp

It’s MORE than a little odd that this man calls himself a ‘conservative’. Even so, his point still stands.

[Ed Grinberg]

It’s MORE than a little odd that this man calls himself a ‘conservative’.

?
Could you please elaborate why you question this?

[Ilya Snowman]

Because he’s a neocon/liberal imperialist who has nothing to do, really, with CONSERVING traditional norms, institutions, etc---outside of this one context, that is, of preventing leftist subversion of the academic institutions (and so legal norms downstream), which is something any principled liberal can and should support too.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Joshua" Blackman reference/quote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/08/26/trump-cannon-special-counsel-ruling/

[Aubrey LaVentana]

Have defense attorneys changed anything about their practice with clients in matters of civil disarmament orders or preserving challenges on due process since Rahimi?

[not guilty]

I don't know if defense attorneys have changed as a result of Rahimi.

Both before and since that decision it has been unwise for someone who routinely goes armed to consent to entry of a civil restraining order prohibiting firearm possession and including a finding of a credible threat to the safety of the petitioner, to nevertheless continue to threaten other persons with firearms and to shoot at others repeatedly on multiple occasions, to thereafter plead guilty to a federal firearms charge and to hope to win a Second Amendment facial challenge on appeal.

I would hope that any competent attorney would have advised his clients of all of the above before Rahimi, as well as afterward.

[hobie]

Yesterday made deviled eggs posing as baked potatoes. Instead of cutting the boiled eggs in half, I cut out a quarter wedge, pipe on the deviled yolks, then sour cream, bacon bits and chives.

[Frank Drackman]

And after you ate that Shit, Hobie-Stank

[Jerry B.]

40 years ago my now wife and I made deviled eggs with yolk, asparagus, and shallot filling. We managed to dirty almost every pan in her kitchen. We gave not deviled an egg again.

[ThePublius]

"Germany’s Scholz (Again) Vows Tougher Knife Laws, Increased Deportations After Fatal Stabbing"

Well, you can't fix stupid, I guess. Wacky jihadist, under a deportation order that wasn't executed, stabs a bunch of people. Let's have more knife control. Duh!

What's next, rock and stick control?

[hobie]

Always knifings in Europe, never shootings. It's amazing what comprehensive gun control can accomplish

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank has never heard of Anders Breyvik, or Charlie Hebdo

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman; America's neediest veteran. Norway and Sweden have the most liberal gun laws in Europe (next to Switzerland). Mass shootings there are inevitable. But I do welcome you to make an honest comparison of gun violence between USA and Europe. Let's see what you got, Dr. Oh, and thank you for your service

[Frank Drackman]

Attack the Veteran much? and maybe you should get a Namenda Rx, because you're the one who said......(Lets go to the Video Tape!!! Do I have to explain to you what "Video Tape" was?)
"Always knifings in Europe, never shootings."
Seriously, if you didn't get off such a Woke-Man-Bun vibe I'd almost think you were a Spook

Frank

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman. America's neediest veteran. If you want more praise for your service or your academics, I'm happy to give you that. But, in reality, I've seen enough fake warriors in my time like yourself. Breitbart would worship you. You should go there

[ThePublius]

Never shootings? Ha, ha, ha.

[Mr. Bumble]

hobie gives fresh meaning to the term "useful idiot".

[Frank Drackman]

he's not really that useful, except that when his N-word neighbors are spending time stealing his shit, is time they can't spend stealing mine.

[hobie]

I actually got threatened today by a big buck nigga. I did nothing to provoke this but it happened. I'm silently begging him to enter my house

[Commenter_XY]

Really? That was illuminating (your comment).

[hobie]

Christ, I figured if I was cordial to everyone things would work out fine. And that worked except for this guy. So now I have my bats ready both upstairs and down (I prefer bats in closed quarters, guns ain't worth shit in combat)

[ThePublius]

"(I prefer bats in closed quarters, guns ain’t worth shit in combat)"
Yea, that's why Army soldiers now carry Louisville Sluggers instead of M16s.

[Frank Drackman]

Worked pretty well on Vito Spatafore

[John F. Carr]

Jack Smith's team filed its opening brief in the appeal from the order dismissing the indictment in the Florida case. The issues are framed as

1. Whether the Attorney General had statutory authority to appoint the Special Counsel such that the appointment was consistent with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
2. Whether the statutes the Attorney General invoked to appoint the Special Counsel constitute “other law” under the appropriation for independent counsels, such that using that source of funding for the Special Counsel was consistent with the appropriation and the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, art. I, § 9, cl. 7.

Docket entry 18 at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68955302/united-states-v-donald-trump/

[Zarniwoop]

It’s a well-written brief. I’ll be interested to see the Convicted Felon’s response.

[not guilty]

Right. The Special Counsel has taken Judge Cannon to the woodshed.

[Mr. Bumble]

What a rich fantasy life your TDS provides you.
Smith is just throwing more shit against the wall hoping the appeals court will find something, anything, that doesn't stink.

[myself]

Yeah, because no one else would get charged for responding to a subpoena by hiding things from their lawyers to ensure they can more effectively lie to the FBI.

[WestIsDeceased]

Being convicted of felonies brought by Alvin "I'm an 85 IQ black" Bragg in front of Juan "I don't know food beyond rice and beans" Merchan is a badge of honor, not an insult.

[Frank Drackman]

What does Hunter Biden have to do with it?

[Jerry B.]

Convicted felon can’t be Biden, since he’d claim diminished capacity. Strange that he’s still President. Shouldn’t the 25th amendment kick in?

[David Nieporent]

Have you bothered to read the 25th amendment? Unlike the 14th, it is not self-executing.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

One very good thing about Kamala Harris’ speech, which no one seems to have noticed, is that it reassured scientifically literate viewers/listeners that she will have a sound policy regarding science, and will robustly fund basic research in the rigorous (“hard”) sciences

You will, of course, point out that she didn’t say anything about science policy. That’s true – party conventions and other general-public-accessible events are not usually good venues for discussing nerdy subjects – but she mentioned that her mother came to USA in order to do medical research, and that’s good enough, particularly when her opposition includes anti-vax loop-a-dupes and exponents of the “my-ignorance-is-just-as-good-as-your-expertise” ideology. She clearly understands the importance of robust funding for basic science (which is not amenable to private-sector funding only, because the profits are too uncertain, too far in the future, too dependent on multiple investigations of seemingly-unrelated phenomena) in order to maintain our position as undisputed world-leader in technology, brain-draining our rivals. Contrast her opponent, who tried to cut the agencies which fund the best and most basic science (which are NIH and Department of Energy) by as much as 19%.

We scientifically-literate voters, who grew up reading Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan, and who (in some cases) went on to actually work in scientific fields, we tend to blend into the background, but we are a significant voting bloc even so, and it’s as well to give us a wave every now and then.

(Is anyone else here old enough to remember when Republicans were the party of scientific rationality, and Democrats were the loop-a-dupes? Remember “No nukes”?)

[WestIsDeceased]

The left's idea of "funding science" is that gender is a social construct and that man-made global warming is unassailable.

Party of science, my ass. It's an affront to nature and science to cheerlead a man inserting his ramrod into another man's bum.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Ummm…. no, that is a caricature. Here is something a little closer to the current “left’s” idea of funding basic science (and it's not an affront to nature):

https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(24)00592-0

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

oops I see I made an error in taking you seriously. My bad. Apologies.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Look at how utterly unscientific you drew you conclusions.

I don't know if your concurrent puffery signals parody or just patheticness.

[WestIsDeceased]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/08/26/san-diego-federal-judge-rules-californias-switchblade-ban-is-lawful/

The judge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Simmons_Jr.

When a black Biden or Obama judge rules against the 2nd Amendment, rest assured that the real reason is that he wants his black "brothers" to be able to prey on whites with impunity.

[Frank Drackman]

I've got a lot of money (I got money), a professional cynic but my heart's not in it, paying the price of living life at the limit
Caught up in the century's anxiety

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The GA election board passed a rule that each county must verify the accuracy of the votes before certifying an election.

The Democrats immediately sued saying they will suffer injury and that certifying an election is a mandatory duty even if it's fraudulent.

Two questions come to mind:
Since they have suffered injury yet, how do they have standing. And don't give any ng nonsense without contrasting it to all these other election claims by the good guys that got dumped on standing grounds.

Secondly, why do Democrats want elections that are insecure and unverifiable?

Don't answer that question either. The answer is obvious.

[Bored Lawyer]

IDF rescues Israeli-Bedouin hostage Qaid Farhan Alkadi from Hamas captivity
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-816613

Next time someone tells you Israel is an apartheid state, tell them they are full of s--t.

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure why you think this excellent news is in any way relevant for the question of whether "apartheid" is a sensible term to describe the conditions on the West Bank.

[Bored Lawyer]

I am sure you are clueless about it.

[Frank Drackman]

Think about it for a minute, if you still don’t get it, hold your nose, cross your legs and fart, you could clear out your mind

[OtisAH]

See? Even piece of shit has no idea what BL means.

[SimonP]

He was found in a tunnel while the IDF were engaged in an unrelated military objective. Also, from the NYTimes' reporting:

"It was not immediately clear whether the operation to free Mr. al-Qadi had resulted in any deaths. But there were no reports on Tuesday of intense bombardments in Gaza of the kind that have preceded other attempts to rescue living hostages."

No apartheid state, you say?

[Bored Lawyer]

"He was found in a tunnel while the IDF were engaged in an unrelated military objective."

Source? That's not what I read.

“It was not immediately clear whether the operation to free Mr. al-Qadi had resulted in any deaths. But there were no reports on Tuesday of intense bombardments in Gaza of the kind that have preceded other attempts to rescue living hostages.”

Yeah, war is hell. Lesson is, don't start a war.

No apartheid state, you say?

Right. Nothing you have written refutes this.

I know it's hard not to let your Jew hatred get in the way of facts. But try.

[SimonP]

Source? That’s not what I read.

Read a newspaper, fuckface. Or just re-click the link you posted.

Moron.

[Bored Lawyer]

The link says nothing of the kind. And you failed to provide any other source. IOW, you are lying scum. Earned muting. Bye-Bye!

[SimonP]

You didn't bother to go back to the story you linked, which was updated since you first posted it. Or the several other stories that have been published since. Fucking idiot.

[Martinned2]

No apartheid state, you say?

Not in Gaza, no. Dropping bombs has nothing to do with apartheid.

[OtisAH]

How does rescuing a hostage prove Israel is not an apartheid state? Is there some history of apartheid states refusing to rescue hostages?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Have you heard of the West Bank? You're the one who's full of shit.

[Bored Lawyer]

West Bank? Is that a branch of the First National Bank?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Everyone knows you're an ignorant twat: don't overdo it.

[John F. Carr]

This morning the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the Second Amendment, as construed by Bruen, overrules a state law against carrying a switchblade knife. The court declined the prosecutor's request to remand for more historical research.

In short, folding pocketknives not only fit within contemporaneous dictionary definitions of arms -- which would encompass a broader category of knives that today includes switchblades --- but they also were commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes around the time of the founding. Setting aside any question whether switchblades are in common use today for lawful purposes, we conclude switchblades are "arms" for Second Amendment purposes. Therefore, the carrying of switchblades is presumptively protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

Commonwealth v. Canjura, SJC-13432.

The switchblade ban dates to 1957. Carrying a switchblade or other enumerated dangerous weapon, or any dangerous weapon during a breach of the peace, is punishable by 2 1/2 years in jail. A conviction is a misdemeanor under state law (jail rather than prison) but counts as a felony conviction under federal law (more than one year).

One wonders if the SJC doesn't want to be reversed by the Supreme Court again, or if the justices think the switchblade ban is a silly law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it IS a silly law. Ever tried to open a regular lock blade one handed while you're holding something? It's an open invitation to cut yourself. Switch blades are much safer.

[John F. Carr]

Switchblades were banned the year West Side Story premiered. Coincidence?

[Bored Lawyer]

BTW, anyone notice that the commenting system here tends to jump around the page. I start commenting, then all of a sudden sent back to the first comment. Mucho annoying.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's browser dependent, but yes, it's annoying.

[Sarcastr0]

Some of the ads, one they load, seem to reset the scroll bar.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's probably why I don't see it at home, my browser is screening out ads.

[SRG2]

Trump re-indicted: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czdpq4en1vvo

[Mr. Bumble]

https://pjmedia.com/paula-bolyard/2024/08/27/breaking-jack-smith-brings-new-indictment-against-trump-n4932029

[Brett Bellmore]

An annoying scanned document, unsearchable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Picky, picky, picky.....

[not guilty]

Here is the superseding indictment: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.226.0_37.pdf

I will have more to say when I finish reading it.

[Mr. Bumble]

...of course you will.

[SRG2]

Well, he prefers to read something and reach his own conclusions as opposed to getting it refracted through some whacko far right site which tells him what - or indeed, if - to think,

[not guilty]

Exactly. Some of us know how to do that. Too many on these comment threads do not know but blather on nevertheless.

[not guilty]

The Trump cult members here are strangely silent. I surmise that they are dumbfounded until someone gives them their talking points.

[tylertusta]

You're sure talking a lot of shit for someone who gets it wrong a lot.

[not guilty]

[Duplicate comment deleted.]

[not guilty]

A few first blush impressions. It looks like the Special Counsel has drafted the superseding indictment to conform to both the July 1 SCOTUS opinion in Trump and the June 28 opinion in Fischer. The government has done a commendable job of plugging the ratholes.

The current indictment eliminates averments as to Trump's manipulation of the Department of Justice and its personnel. It emphasizes how central the fake elector slates were to Trump's scheme, illustrating how Trump and his co-conspirators violated 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) by creating false evidence and transmitting it to Congress.

The superseding indictment includes greater detail as to the participation and activities of Kenneth Chesebro (referred to therein as Co-conspirator 5). I suspect that Chesebro is cooperating with federal prosecutors, as his Georgia plea agreement likely requires him to do.

The District Court has scheduled a status conference for September 5. I suspect that that will result in a schedule for filing and briefing of motions related to the superseding indictment and a future hearing on immunity issues.

[not guilty]

The superseding indictment was presented to and found by a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.228.0_1.pdf

That is a smart move. Team Trump now cannot argue that the new indictment is tainted by grand jurors having heard evidence of official acts for which Trump is immune from criminal prosecution.

[tylertusta]

I’d say its the bare minimum of competence and actually planning a legal strategy. That’s something Smith has shown very little of to date, so the bar is very low.

Perhaps he consulted with actual lawyers this time. Lawyers who thought that perhaps Smith shouldn’t count on getting his requests figuratively rubber-stamped by judges.

Then again, he's still leading the charge of the Light Brigade directly into difficult constitutional and legal issues while also trying to test the limits of what Fischer allows, so they evidently weren't good lawyers.

[not guilty]

When and where did you get your legal training, if any, tylertusta? Have you ever litigated a jury trial to verdict or an appeal to its conclusion?

[tylertusta]

I’m no less qualified to opine on these matters as you are, Mr. Guilty.

Unless you’ve been a Federal prosecutor in DC and haven’t told anyone. If that were the case, then you’d have actual experience instead of being just a cheerleader.

[not guilty]

Your running away from my questions like Usain Bolt is duly noted.

My experience (28 years of private practice before retiring) is primarily on the criminal defense side, including scores of jury trials and hundreds of appeals. A significant part of that includes evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the government's position -- especially in determining how to advise a client on whether to plead out or risk going to trial. A competent lawyer should be able to present either side of a case with roughly equal facility.

Now how about you answer my questions, tylertusta. I haven't seen from your comments that you are qualified to distinguish your ass from your elbow.

[tylertusta]

A significant part of that includes evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the government’s position —

This from the guy who was blindsided by the merits of Trump’s immunity claim.

I haven’t seen from your comments that you are qualified to distinguish your ass from your elbow.

The. Fucking. Irony.

When it comes to certain subject matters, your legal theories are best described as “aspirational.”

Now how about you answer my questions, tylertusta

No, you’ve lost that privilege because you’re being an ass. You can go back to playing with the other kids only after you’ve had a proper timeout.

[SRG2]

blindsided by the merits of Trump’s immunity claim.

The claim still lacked merit. What many of us were blindsided by was the degree to which the SC were willing to invent law to protect Trump.

[tylertusta]

That folks like you and our mutual friend Mr. Guilty couldn't even conceive that immunity would gain traction with the Supreme Court is exactly what I'm talking about.

It's why Jack Smith's office is staffed by idiots, yes-men, or partisans with blinders on.

[SRG2]

Yes, we made the mistake of thinking that it was possible to be a conservative justice while maintaining integrity.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, tylertusta. When and where did you get your legal training, if any? Have you ever litigated a jury trial to verdict or an appeal to its conclusion?

[Bwaaah]

Who needs legal training? The goals are political, so why get bogged down in laws? The strategy is to attack the institutions of power that stand in our way, undermine them, and reconfigure them to deliver our political ends.

So says you, not guilty:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/26/senate-democrats-virtually-certain-to-pass-supreme-court-reform-bill-by-majority-vote-in-2025/?comments=true#comment-10701163

Go back to your little legal job and keep your head down. There are bigger things going on in the world that you needn’t concern yourself with (except when you behave like just another moron who is fed up with the system whose importance you tout here).

I too, like you, am a self-serving asshole.

[Sarcastr0]

“The goals are political, so why get bogged down in laws” is not what not guilty’s quote says:

“Mitch McConnell and the black robed wardheelers he shepherded into office have overreached at every turn since Satan called Justice Scalia home in February 2016.”

That’s about laws and norms, not about political outcomes.

And if you're just mad because he used spicy language you need a mirror.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, weenie.

[tylertusta]

Like most arrogant fools who are hopped up on their own self-importance, our friend Mr. Guilty doesn’t understand that our world and these comments do not revolve around him, nor does he understand the concept of time zones.

It does amuse me that I’m living rent free in your brain, however, that you have to scream into the ether about how you’re waiting for me to reply.

Kinda like a teenager waiting for his crush to call him back.

Thank you for making my day.

[Mr. Bumble]

I started the comments by saying "insomnia suck"s" but apparently ng relishes it, waiting all night for your reply.

[tylertusta]

Yeah, he's making an effort to lean into the bitter old man stereotype.

[SRG2]

living rent free

I don't know when this phrase became in common usage but it seems unique to American right-wingers, who've adopted it as a piece of debate mockery - usually about Trump, apparently thinking that it's clever and irrebuttable. It is, however, clichéd, immature, and tedious - reasons enough for its usage to persist from people who think in clichés, are immature and are tedious.

[Mr. Bumble]

FYI:
Origin

Pre-internet usage, the original phrase is often attributed to advice columnist Eppie Lederer (writing under the pen name Ann Landers), who coined the term in her writing sometime during the latter half of the 1900s (seen below).[6]

“Hanging onto resentment is letting someone you despise live rent-free in your head.” – Ann Landers
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rent-free

[tylertusta]

You poor man. I feel for you that you're having to suffer through my comments.

I'm here if you need a hug.

[SRG2]

Oh fuck off, you self-important prick.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess tyler is living rent free in your head.

[SRG2]

@Mr Bumble: now that was funny 🙂