Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

I continue disappointed after multiple attempts to get legal experts here to comment on Chief Justice Marshall's exegesis of the law of treason in Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout. While I understand folks who suppose my views on the subject are dismissible, I did not expect similar disregard for Marshall.

I speculate now that the entire subject looks too much like dynamite to many lawyers, frightened by the prospect that a former president might be charged with a capital crime—and even more frightened that a cycle of tit-for-tat partisan retaliation might follow. If that explains the lack of replies, I wonder why anyone thinks not mentioning extreme possibilities—possibilities plainly available—and broadly hinted at by Trump—will do anything to make such things less likely to happen.

[Mr. Bumble]

Way to start the thread with a wet squib.

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Bumble, I bet lathrop was always the last kid picked to play on the sandlot baseball teams. You can read why. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

And the first to get duct taped in his locker every new school year

[Dr. Ed 2]

Duck tape?!?

All you needed to do was put a pencil through the hole where a padlock would go.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s “Duct”

[Mr. Bumble]

It a floor wax and a dessert topping.
It was originally "duck" tape. "Duct "came into use after WWII when it was used to seal joints in heating ducts of hot air furnaces.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, although I was the best hitter on my high school baseball team, I did not play much. I preferred pitching, and I hated the gnats in the outfield. But you are correct that I have been an athletic also-ran—or maybe even an athletic impostor.

Actually, you can use YouTube to see the athlete who frustrated me the most. Google: "Don Schollander & John Charles Farrow on To Tell The Truth". It's an 8-minute clip. Watch it through to the end.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you a "Person of Southpaw-ness?" we're the ones who get stuck in that peculiar Pitching/Outfield rotation, bailing out the North-paws or stuck out in the Outfield (underrated group BTW), I tried playing first but didn't have the attention span, and that time I caught what I was certain was the 3rd out with the bases loaded and trotted in with my head down like Yaz? Hilarity didn't ensue

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Did your coach have an IQ of 70? = Commenter_XY, although I was the best hitter on my high school baseball team, I did not play much.

Forget the imposter bit. Try swimming, lathrop. At your age, joint mobility is quite important. I am not just saying that, there are studies coming out shortly looking at joint mobility/flexibility and longevity. There is a definite association (makes logical sense, too, when you think about it). Water polo could work too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Water polo is a bitch. Quite the workout.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — I did not understand my baseball coach, Mr. Stavasky. Whatever his IQ, I do not think he knew much about baseball.

As for your sandlot insult, I found out years after it happened that I had been scouted at a sandlot game. A guy I did not know showed up to watch. Then he talked everyone else off the field, and threw me a bunch of batting practice not-very-fastballs. They seemed ridiculous. On almost every pitch I was hitting line drives wherever I wanted.

Years later my dad told me he got a call afterwards from that guy, saying that if I was interested he would put me in touch with someone's minor league team. My dad chose not to mention it at the time.

Turned out lucky. I was destined for life-long genetically-mediated auto-immune trouble, which would have made pro baseball impossible (and of course, who knows anyway). The medical trouble had started in my early teens, but did not come on strong until my early-20s. It was not diagnosed until after age 30, when symptoms got bad. So yeah, joint mobility (but not osteoarthritis) remains an issue.

As for swimming, perhaps you did not watch the YouTube I mentioned? Swimming, not baseball, was my second-best sport. It was not until college that I learned by trying to keep up with my classmate Schollander that I would never be a world-class swimmer.

Rowing was my best sport, and the one I most enjoyed. I was lucky to get a chance to do it. As a public high school kid, I never saw a racing shell until college.

So thanks for your insult. It felt good to reminisce.

[Riva]

The projection is comical in light of Smith’s doubling down on lawfare. And the Biden DOJ’s prosecutorial distortions of Sarbanes-Oxley highlighted in Fischer. And Democrat attempts to pervert the 14th amendment to prevent President Trump from even appearing on the ballot. And the Biden/Harris abuse of federal authority to censor opposing views. And Democrat prosecutors and conflicted judges pursuing harassing frivolous prosecutions. Just to name a few. Rather seems the public has more to worry about from Biden/Harris and Democrats.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Only if they remain ignorant.

[SimonP]

Ignorant of what? Of Riva's largely false characterization of events, repackaged for easy consumption and recall?

[David Nieporent]

The bot is just programmed to spew this out as a list, despite being utterly nonsensical.

[Riva]

What this conversation does not need Nieoporon, what no conversation needs in fact, is the input of an a-hole like you who thinks it is possible to conclude that the assassination of President Trump would benefit the country. F’ing deranged democrat. But I’m being redundant.

[David Nieporent]

There's still no such person as President Trump. How could killing a fictional character hurt the country?

[Riva]

So, bat shit crazy, and classless. You’ve convinced me of your democratic party credentials if nothing else.

[SimonP]

It's often remarked that Trump is a "bully," and that's why his supporters like him - he promises to "bully" those coastal-elite "nerds" who think they get to dictate how the government should be run and society organized.

That much has been evident in the way that many MAGA commenters conduct themselves here. But rarely has it been done in such a cartoonish caricature as this.

[Riva]

No, President Trump promises justice and accountability. It is Biden’s DOJ and FBI that bully. They use swat teams to assault pro-lifers, they bully parents objecting to out of control school boards, they prosecute elderly women peacefully protesting. Oh and they prosecute their political opponents.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...he promises to “bully” those coastal-elite “nerds” who think they get to dictate how the government should be run and society organized."

Democracy feels like bullying to a coastal-elite nerd? I can't say I'm surprised.

[SimonP]

No. I'm talking about the widespread abuse of power that Trump supporters want him to embark upon.

[Sarcastr0]

For those who are confused, Simon's comment was about Commenter's childish schoolyard taunting.

[Kazinski]

It just isn't a serious prospect.

You don't really think the Biden Harris DOJ wouldn't try something if they actually thoght it could work do you?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Ever try to watch a really fast game of pinball? That's what trying to follow that sentence feels like to me. Can you untangle the negatives, hypotheticals and subjunctives, and give me a better chance?

[Kazinski]

A fast game of paintball is not an accurate description of my writing style.

Its more like a temporary fix of minor body damage after a fender bender with duct tape, thats permanent.

[Stella Link the dog]

" after a fender bender with duct tape, thats permanent."
How does one have a "fender bender with duct tape?" I can't visualize that.
What are these "thats" that you are referring to and what makes them permanent? I, for one, have never encountered a permanent "that." Perhaps you have a quirky hair dresser.

[Kazinski]

Look, Stella if my understanding of grammar is at least as good as the VP candidate of a major party, then its enough to pass muster of in blog comments.

And its probably best to quote full sentences, however fractured, rather than partial sentences, when decifering meaning.

[Stella Link the dog]

"my understanding of grammar is at least as good as the VP candidate of a major party,"

You flatter yourself with fulsome praise.

[Stella Link the dog]

“And its probably best ‘
You should light one up. You’re taking offense to a thinly disguised Groucho Marx joke.

[David Nieporent]

For the record, pinball and paintball are entirely different things.

[Armchair]

It's pretty easy to follow Stephen...

[Michael Ejercito]

There is no chance FJB is going to be tried for treason.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Right quick, 3 nervous-looking responses from MAGA types, who don't seem to want the subject discussed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your lament was that no lawyers would take up your suggestions.
Apparently no one wants to "discuss the subject".

[Michael Ejercito]

I mean, seriously.

Unless there is evidence, compelling evidence, that FJB ordered the withdrawal for the purpose of leaving behind materiel for the Taliban, a treason prosecution against him is a non-starter.

[Kazinski]

How many months ago did you float your pet proposal?

Was their any encouragement from anyone of any political persuasion?

[Dr. Ed 2]

FJB is not competent to stand trial...

[neurodoc]

Who is "FJB"?

[Kazinski]

A few days ago on the post about the X lawsuit against Media Matters I humorously/recklessly/criminally (pick one) suggested when the topic turned to Musk's standoff with Brazil that SpaceX should develop on offensive capability.

Well lo and behold it looks like they might have (although not along the lines I was suggesting).

Elon tweeted this out today:

"IMPORTANT X POLL

Should I allow ALL Brazilian citizens to access X from their cell phones via Starlink for free?"
https://x.com/iamnot_elon/status/1829646019413622833?t=Ig51CMU-LA1Nvn513ZjOlA&s=19

That might be more dangerous to the Brazilian regime than my suggestion of precision guiding 1 kilo steel weights to chosen targets.

[Mr. Bumble]

Free access to free speech; deadly to tyrants.

[Martinned2]

Compliance with the law; something billionaires think they don't have to do.

[Mr. Bumble]

Let Zuckerberg know.

[Martinned2]

People do. But whether the message lands or not is a different matter.

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110883/witnesses/HHRG-116-JU05-Wstate-ZuckerbergM-20200729.pdf

In a previous professional life I was personally involved in a case that cost Facebook $260m, which definitely got its attention, but I'm not sure it changed its behaviour long-term.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/23/facebook-owner-meta-sells-giphy-shutterstock-gif-search

[Armchair]

And when the "law" is used unevenly to enforce tyranny?

[Martinned2]

Is it?

[Armchair]

It certainly can be, and has been in the past. Do you need examples?

[Martinned2]

Sure, go ahead.

[Armchair]

Since you apparently NEED an example...

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

Perhaps you can explain why billionaires should have complied with these laws? Or...perhaps you'd like to argue the opposite and how the laws were unjust, and should not be complied with.

[Martinned2]

I didn't realise that the Nuremberg Laws regulated social media. (Or that there were billionaires who refused to comply with them.)

https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/hitler-millionaire-backers-how-german-elite-facilitated-rise-nazis-third-reich/

[Armchair]

"Perhaps you can explain why billionaires should have complied with these laws?"

I see you avoid the question. But...should those laws have been followed? Why or why not?

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair, this is precisely what Goodwin's law is about.

Not all laws you think are unjust are Nazi Germany. Not all who defy the law are brave underdogs standing against the Nazi regime.

You're occluding the issue with drama. That is not an argument.

[Riva]

It is difficult to keep track of cover-photos altered to make President Trump look like Hitler, almost daily gratuitous Hitler comparisons, including some unbalanced suggestions that the iconic photo of President Trump after the assassination attempt was actually a staged Hitler photo, and Godwin himself even encouraging Hitler comparisons. So I’m afraid that the Democrats’ right to invoke Godwin’s law has been revoked.

[Armchair]

Looks like Sarcastr0, our closet antisemite, is defending the Nuremberg laws now.

He's out of the closet now.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, comparing Trump to Hitler is also overwrought. But not what we’re talking about here, despite Riva’s unsourced attempt to deflect.

[Riva]

Not deflecting. You brought up Godwin’s Law. Democrats’ Godwin rights have been revoked.

[Kazinski]

Well Godwin repudiated Godwin's law, he basically said Trump Rules predominate Godwin's law.

But I did see an ad for a new drug that cures TDS, released by RFK's running mate, a Democrat.

https://x.com/NicoleShanahan/status/1829291690277966165?t=eE2FB4eIUZEh6btSdGlyGA&s=19

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz's posts is just two back-to-back appeals to authority.

[neurodoc]

What support for the accusation that sarcastro is a "closet antisemite"?

[Kazinski]

Reference to an Internet truism, and a campaign ad are hardly appeals to authority, because nobody thinks they are actually authoritative.

Quoting the definition of Appeal to Authority actually is an appeal to authority though, but may also be absurd:
“An argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure is used as evidence to support an argument.”

[Sarcastr0]

You appealed to Godwin the person to argue that overwrought analogies to Nazis and Hitler are fine.

You appealed to RFK Jr’s former running mate’s status as a Democrat.

No, neither is a very convincing appeal. But that is precisely what you did.

[Ed Grinberg]

Good example, but you don’t even need to go that far back. Just look at the COVID “mandates” (“social distancing,” masking, “closing” parks / playgrounds, etc.). I’m sure Martinned2 would disagree, but, IMHO, these “laws” weren’t worth complying with. And that’s before we get to summer of 2020, when, suddenly, we were told that some unmasked gatherings are A-OK (if the regime approves of the group's cause)!

[Mr. Bumble]

For a look backward to how pandemics were treated read this:
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-1968-69-hong-kong-flu-pandemic-revisited/

[Martinned2]

Yes, god forbid that the government might try to do something about a global pandemic. I guess they should have stuck with telling people to inject bleach.

[Mr. Bumble]

No one told anyone to "inject" bleach and obviously you didn't read the linked article.

[Martinned2]

Sure he didn't. Just "disinfectant". That's much better.

"I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52399464

[Magister]

The 1968 flu epidemic was milder than COVID, in part because exposure to the 1957 flu epidemic gave some measure of immunity, but it was still more severe than the 1957 epidemic, perhaps because it wasn't treated in the same way; a vaccine for the 1957 flu that nobody in the US had resistance to was developed faster than the COVID vaccine.

Both 1957 and 1968 benefited from improved medical treatment (e.g., antibiotics for secondary infections), and COVID more so.

Trump said:

And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.

The disinfectant in question might have been isopropyl alcohol rather than bleach, but that doesn't really excuse it. Did anyone take Trump's advice? There was a rise in poison center calls about ingesting disinfectants after that press conference. I did know someone who nebulized hydrogen peroxide, which is bad for your lungs and doesn't help with COVID.

[Mr. Bumble]

“Most estimates of excessive deaths due to the pandemic range from 1-4 million, some of which include years beyond 1958.[1][2][5][6][7][24][154] In particular, the attempt by the National Institutes of Health in 2016 attributed global mortality 1.1 million (0.7 to 1.5 million) excess deaths to the pandemic, including the year 1959.[5] This estimate of global burden has recently been adopted by the World Health Organization and US CDC.[6][154][155][156] The study also estimated the excess deaths in the first year of the pandemic, in 1957, to be 0.6 million (0.4 to 0.8 million)”

“The estimates of the total death toll due to Hong Kong flu (from its beginning in July 1968 until the outbreak faded during the winter of 1969–70[108]) vary:

The World Health Organization and Encyclopaedia Britannica estimated the number of deaths due to Hong Kong flu to be between 1 and 4 million globally.[1][34]
The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that, in total, the virus caused the deaths of 1 million people worldwide.[109]”
Essentially the same.

[Magister]

Despite Bumble's cherry picking, the 1968 epidemic should have seen fewer deaths, given improving medical knowledge over a decade and the existing resistance from the similar (H2N2 vs H3N2) 1957 flu. This is not a ringing endorsement of Bumble's celebration of 1968 indifference to the epidemic. And again, no existing resistance to COVID in 2020, and COVID was deadlier despite all the precautions.

[Mr. Bumble]

I "cherry picked" nothing, only posted the summations from both events from the wiki pages (both of which I lived through) without any of the panicked reactions that occurred during Covid.

[Joe_dallas]

Magister 3 hours ago
"And again, no existing resistance to COVID in 2020, and COVID was deadlier despite all the precautions."

Which is why covid was deadlier - simply because covid was so completely new. No prior immunity at all compared to the partial immunity that existed for 1968 pandemic, the 1957 flu and even the 1918 flu which has some carryover immunity from the late 1880's flu.

Which shows the only long term solution for covid and any respiratory virus is developing immunity through the population. Its a simple and well known concept. Which makes the insistence on the mitigation protocols so inane. Not a single mitigation protocol could ever achieve developing immunity.

[Magister]

The 1957 flu epidemic was blunted by the vaccine developed that year; quarantines where implemented also helped, and the objective is always to avoid crushing health infrastructure. There was a lot of concern over the 2009 flu epidemic; but fortunately we had prepared better (after anthrax attacks and the war on terror) against both bioterrorism and natural disease, and we had a competent President.

Conveniently, but of course coincidentally, all of Joe_dallas's epidemiology study confirms his political beliefs.

[Randal]

Not a single mitigation protocol could ever achieve developing immunity.

The vaccines were aimed at developing immunity. But I'll hazard a guess that you're unhappy about them too.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No prior immunity at all compared to the partial immunity that existed for 1968 pandemic,"

That's actually nonsense. Setting aside that people who'd had SARS exhibited significant immunity to Covid 19, there are several coronavirus 'common colds' that exhibit significant cross-immunity with Covid 19.

You'd still get Covid 19 if you had those prior exposures, but a significantly weaker case of it.

[Magister]

Brett increasingly seems motivated by his political cult membership.

The number of people who had SARS? Less than 10000 worldwide.

Common cold immunity might actually work against avoiding COVID: https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/immune-distraction-from-previous-colds-leads-to-worse-covid-infections
But other studies suggest it might help. Or that COVID infection might protect against some common cold infections, or other COVID infections. But maybe not; plenty of reinfection by COVID.

[Michael P]

Ve vere just following orders! Ze law said ve had to!

[Dr. Ed 2]

And how did that defense work at Nuremburg?

[Martinned2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[Michael P]

If you don't want to be compared to Nazis, don't make the same argument that Nazi war criminals used unsuccessfully.

[Martinned2]

You first.

[Michael P]

What Nazi argument do you think I am using?

You're actually going farther than those concentration camp guards -- they only claimed that orders should immunize them from violating the rights of their victims; you claim that orders should require people to violate others' fundamental human rights.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Martinned2 -- this is a case where International law would apply -- and while over Brazil, those satellites are NOT in Brazillian territory.

If he makes starlink free, it's MUCH harder to determine who used it,
And that's the end of the leftist dictator.

[Martinned2]

Which bit of international law do you think applies here? There are lots of situations where companies can break the law in a given country without having a physical presence there. (As indeed can natural persons.) That can raise the question of whether the country can, as a practical matter, enforce its laws against a company with no physical presence, but this is not generally a question of international law.

As for the "leftist dictator", please don't embarrass yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Brazilian_general_election

[Michael Ejercito]

What law is allegedly being broken?

[Kazinski]

Following unjust laws is no virtue.

Its been a topic of controversy here in the US for at least 2 decades whether tech companies should follow Chinese censorship laws.

The overwhelming concensus has been, no, don't be complicit in censorship. Being a party to human rights abuses is considered wrong, here in the United States.

Why are budding Authoritarian states like Brazil, UK, and the EU any different than long established authoritarian states like China, Iran, N Korea and Russia? Its just a matter of degree, and the difference is narrowing.

[Martinned2]

Indeed. But Elon Musk doesn't refuse to comply with the law because it's "unjust", but because it inconveniences him.

[Armchair]

I'm certain it would not inconvenience Musk at all to ban the people from Twitter that the Brazilian Judge demanded be banned.

Well, it might inconvenience Musk's morals. Which is the point.

[Martinned2]

He is losing money hand over fist, and the only way out is to turn Twitter into a global cesspool of misinformation and hatred.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/01/musk-twitter-investors-underwater/

Maybe as recently as last year he could have turned things around by hiring a large number of people to replace all the people he fired when he came in, so that they could develop software upgrades to improve the usability of the platform to people who aren't bots or Russian trolls. But now he's gone too far down the other path. Neither he nor anyone else can now justify investing the billions it would take to do that. So instead, the only way out is through.

[Armchair]

"He is losing money hand over fist,"
And? Both Tesla and SpaceX lost money hand over fist for years.

"the only way out "
Well, let's just assume Mr. Musk has a better handle on long term business operations than you do.

BUT...if I had to take a guess. If you're looking at long term business models for things like social media and other media....

A. In the short term, it might be easier to give in to government demands to censor and/or only tell favorable stories. Government demands can be "persuasive"

B. But in the long term, it's best to have a policy of social openness to all sides and not censoring or giving into government pressure. Even at the lost of temporary short term revenue.

C. That's because a lost of trust by the public (due to censorship, selective bias, and more) leads to increasing sidelining of the entire platorm.

D. The Washington Post is a good example. It's lost more than 50% of its readership since 2020. Because few people trust it anymore.

[Martinned2]

Well, let’s just assume Mr. Musk has a better handle on long term business operations than you do.

Let's not. The only thing Musk has a better handle on than me is the effects of Ketamine. At most of his companies he has whole armies of handlers around him who upward manage him through a combination of flattery and misdirection to stop him from doing anything monumentally stupid. It's basically the private sector equivalent of the Trump administration.

[Armchair]

"Let’s not. The only thing Musk has a better handle on than me..."

Well, as long as you've completely lost your sense of reality.

[Martinned2]

B. But in the long term, it’s best to have a policy of social openness to all sides and not censoring or giving into government pressure. Even at the lost of temporary short term revenue.

That's certainly better if your business model relies on people paying you to spread misinformation.

[Michael Ejercito]

Misinformation, even that coming from Hamas fanbois, is freedom of speech.

[Armchair]

"if your business model relies on people paying you to spread misinformation."

Or "information". AT&T, Comcast, Verizon...just some of the companies that are paid to "spread information", and don't need a "misinformation" censor stopping them.

Tell me, should those companies be forced to stop the spread of government determined "misinformation" as well? Should individuals who are deemed to spread "misinformation" be banned from those services too?

[Martinned2]

The difference is that telecom companies' business model relies on people communicating. Twitter actively makes more money from misinformation, because it drives engagement, results in payments from bots, etc. Musk has money reasons to prefer misinformation over the truth, as you can see from his platform.

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

[Martinned2]

D. The Washington Post is a good example. It’s lost more than 50% of its readership since 2020. Because few people trust it anymore.

That's actually an excellent example of what you're talking about. Newspapers could pander to their readers, or they can tell Trumpists what they don't want to hear and risk losing their "trust". The former is attractive in the short term, but lethal in the long term.

Likewise, a country can let foreign billionaires spread misinformation and avoid endless litigation in the short term, but in the long term that destroys the very foundations of democracy.

[Michael Ejercito]

Likewise, a country can let foreign billionaires spread misinformation and avoid endless litigation in the short term, but in the long term that destroys the very foundations of democracy.
I agree that the pro-Hamas propaganda campaign is full of misinformation, but how does that exactly destroy the foundations to the sea.

If democracy is so fragile it will collapse if one person reads, "From the River to the Sea"...

[Armchair]

You think Trumpists read the Washington Post?

You really lost the thread there.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair, the claim is that the Washington Post has lost 50% of it's readership. The competing narratives are:

1. The Washington Post lost 50% of its readership since 2020 "[b]ecause few people trust it anymore."

2. The Washington Post told "Trumpists what they don't want to hear" and lost their trust and readership.

1 and 2 are both compatible with your claim that Trumpists don't (any longer) read the Washington Post. I think it is undeniable that the Washington Post was widely read by all political stripes for many years, especially in the DMV. Losing all of the Trumpists, as you posit, would go a significant way towards their loss of 50% of their readership (assuming that's true).

You never picked up the thread.

[Armchair]

NoVa,

OK Mr "Unicorns are coming to assassinate political figures". ...When you use words like "undeniable", you're just asking for it.

The Washington Post, in 2020, had an overwhelming Democratic bias in its readership. By more than a 3:1 ratio, it was Democrats who were reading it, compared to Republicans. And that's all republicans, not just "Trumpists"

Every single "major" news source, with the exception of the NYT was more balanced than the Post. MSNBC, NPR, the BBC even. The Washington Examiner has a more balanced readership than the Post. The Post in 2020 could have lost every single GOP leaning member and still not even gotten half-way to a 50% readership loss.

So, when you see such massive losses, it isn't just because "Trumpists are being told the truth". It's because the partisan bias has gotten so extreme, even the Democrats can't trust it anymore.

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/americans-are-divided-by-party-in-the-sources-they-turn-to-for-political-news/

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair,

You are such a child with your fascination with unicorns and generally inability to understand what you read.

Armchair: “The Washington Post is a good example. It’s lost more than 50% of its readership since 2020. Because few people trust it anymore.”

But the data shows more people trust the WP now than in 2019 (the Pew data to whichyou pointed).

First, housekeeping: The data you present don’t actually reflect the political affiliation of subscribers or "viewers" (if you meant to refer to the data reflecting online website visits per month). It might be the most reliable data from which we might infer the political affiliation of subscribers/online viewers, but what Pew measured is not what you need to make the assertions you do.

To your original point “few people trust [the Washington Post] anymore”:

Your 2020 data indicates that 30% of all adults trusted the Washington Post and 21% distrusted it.

A 2024 YouGov poll indicates that 35% of all adults found the Washington Post “very trustworthy” or “trustworthy” while 23% found the WP “very untrustworthy” or “untrustworthy”. This demonstrates that, if anything, people trust the Washington Post more now than they did in 2020.

Moreover, in 2019 (your Pew crosstabs show 2014 and 2019 party affiliation data), 47% of Democrats/D-leaning people trusted the WP while 13% or R/R-leaning people did. In 2024 (YouGov poll), 55% of Democrats found the WP “very trustworthy” or “trustworthy” while 19% of Republicans did. (Distrust went from 7% (2019) to 7% (2024) for Democrats and from 39% (2019) to 35% (2024) for Republicans.)

So, contrary to your original assertion, the data indicates that more people trust the WP now than in 2020 and that holds for all people, Democrats, and Republicans.

You wanted to go with data, it proves you wrong.

*Oh, in the 2024 YouGov poll, 44% of 2020 Trump voters find the WP very/untrustworthy indicating that they likely are the only group that lost trust in the WP (if any did). Which supports my point.

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/crosstabs_Media_Trust_Ideology_Usage.pdf (This is the underlying data from YouGov. For the main article which links the data, google “Trust in Media 2024 YouGov”.))

[David Nieporent]

Armchair, the claim is that the Washington Post has lost 50% of it’s readership. The competing narratives are:

You omitted

3. Audience for all news is down since 2020, and it has less to do with anything specific to a particular outlet and more to do with external factors. Like no more pandemic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny quoting the Washington Post which is losing money hand over fist.

[Ska]

While being supported mostly by an owner whose wealth came from a company that took 10 years to post its first profitable year.

[Martinned2]

Twitter, on the other hand, regularly posted profits until Musk bought it and ran it into the ground.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/delisted/TWTR/Twitter/ebitda

[Michael Ejercito]

He is losing money hand over fist, and the only way out is to turn Twitter into a global cesspool of misinformation and hatred.

Yeah, there are posts on Twitter that actually celebrate the October 7th attack against Israel. Some of my fellow Americans were killed in that attack.

As Michael Tracey pointed out,

https://x.com/mtracey/status/1600171051287126016

so if you can not stand to read pro-Hamas tweets, just use the block button.

[Kazinski]

Obama once famously said "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money".

Looks like Musk agrees, its not about the money.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but the Obamas are still seeking more, contrary to Michelle's Grandmama.

[Kazinski]

Well few people turn it down, no matter how much they already have, even if it stops being their primary motivation.

[Life of Brian]

and the only way out is to turn Twitter into a global cesspool of misinformation and hatred

Maybe I lack the level of Dr. Evil grade imagination necessary to make the answer obvious, but how does "turn[ing] Twitter into a global cesspool of misinformation and hatred" result in it being more valuable/profitable? This feels a bit like a South Park underwear gnomes construct.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It does appear to be a miscalculation. But, there's always the examples of Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart, etc., that would suggest to Elon Musk that going all in on right wing conspiracy theorizing and misinformation can make you a lot of money. Twitter was not the right platform for that, or Elon messed it up, or he hasn't hit on the right way to monetize the cesspool of misinformation and hatred yet.

[David Nieporent]

Musk’s morals.

Musk's what now?

[Drewski]

But the law in question is not unjust - unless you're a fan of terrorism, "Kazinski." Recall that Musk initially refused to block accounts that orchestrated a terrorist attack, then withdrew his assets and employees from the nation to avoid penalties. Now boo hoo he isn't allowed to do business there, and Brazilians aren't allowed to do business with him. Only a complete lunatic would support a right to coordinate mass murder on social media, but it appears there are no shortage of them here, "Kazinski."

[Michael Ejercito]

Were the account owners imprisoned?

[Drewski]

Figures I'd find someone here that's in favor of terrorists. I'm surprised it's only one.

[BillyG]

Which countries laws? Does he have to follow every country's laws everywhere all the time? Do you?

[Sarcastr0]

Companies must follow laws of every country they’re in, yes.

[Kazinski]

What if they aren't actually in the country, but they do live in a country that says: laws which violate our constitution have no force here?

I guess we are finding out.

Salman Rushie broke Iran's law publishing an international bestseller, that clearly violated their laws.

[Sarcastr0]

The First Amendment does not extend worldwide. A moment's thoughts shows how that's some silly globalism.
Similarly, Brazil's remedies cannot extend worldwide, only to the operations of businesses in Brazil.

We are not finding out if the First Amendment protects Musk from Brazil, because that's not what the First Amendment does. It's about American laws.
There are no American laws at issue here; this is a private institution picking a fight with a state.

Twitter already complied with anti-speech decrees from India and Turkey. Musk is also censoring like wild on his platform, as is his right.
But don't pretend this is actually a fight about freedom and not the whim of a rich asshole.

[Bob from Ohio]

"every country they’re in"

Does twitter have an office or facilities in Brazil?

[Sarcastr0]

Operate in, of course. You know this; you just wanna quibble.

[Bob from Ohio]

By "Operate in" you really mean "allow Brazilian citizens to access their US based servers", right?

I think we can rightfully object to their extraterritorial punishment of a US company.

Of course Musk is an enemy of the current US regime and that regime favors the leftist regime in Brazil so nothing will happen

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, that is the law of the land.

I can't say I'm a fan of their laws, but what has Brazil done that's extraterritorial?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Bob doesn't care about facts or logic, he has bought into a narrative.

I don't like the judge's ruling, but the criticisms of the usual MAGA suspects are unintelligent. I don't like that Twitter and other social media platforms bend to the censors of India and China and Saudi Arabia either, but none of those are First Amendment questions.

[Krayt]

Dictatorships are inherently invalid, and so are their laws.

I thought you fancied yourself part of the resistance to the dictatorship tendencies of Trump. Just as I pointed out they had a chance to fight real, honest to god strong man armies in Europe instead of just mocking the hippies "punching Nazis" by the ones and twos, so, too, do you have a chance to stand against another dictator silencing the mass distribution of speech.

And you have failed.

[Estragon]

“precision guiding 1 kilo steel weights to chosen targets.”

FFS ted, give it a rest

[Kazinski]

Well, actually I am, I was just recapping the previous thread, not trying to revive a whimsical suggestion with evidently selective appeal.

Musks own suggestion seems far more serious, and actually implementable today, or at least within a week or two.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Musk is pretty good at losing money, so why wouldn't he keep doing what he's good at?

I doubt Brazil would seek to enforce its social media laws extra-territorially. But, I wouldn't choose to holiday in Rio any time soon if I were him.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Musk is pretty good at losing money, so why wouldn’t he keep doing what he’s good at?"
...and he is still the richest man in the world.
As the late, great Mel Allen would have said:
"How about that".

[Kazinski]

Just a few months ago Australia tried to force X to enforce its social media law extraterritoriality.

He refused to comply then, rather than look ridiculous shouting at clouds, they backed down.

I doubt Elon will travel to the UK or EU anytime soon, either.

[Sarcastr0]

"Twitter is complying with more government demands under Elon Musk"
https://restofworld.org/2023/elon-musk-twitter-government-orders/

Since Musk took ownership, the company has received 971 government demands, and fully complied with 808 of them.
Before Musk, Twitter's full compliance rate hovered around 50%; since the takeover, it is over 80%.

Twitter’s self-reported data shows that, under Musk, the company has complied with hundreds more government orders for censorship or surveillance — especially in countries such as Turkey and India.

[Krayt]

'member when he was a hero for conjuring into existence an EV company?

Then he opened his mouth he didn't like social media censoring, and became persona non grata? The power brokers that be decided he was more liability now, so chucked bad memes about him into the echo chamber-verse, where nonsentient cogs latched onto it and began repeating it.

[Estragon]

I could describe fantasizing about billionaires assassinating people from orbit several ways— none of which would be “whimsical”. Frankly I would have pegged you more for a mail-bombing kind of guy.

The process of the huckleberries decompensating in an attempt to cope with what is about to happen to Trump is proceeding more rapidly than even I anticipated.

[Kazinski]

Well i used to be a mailman. when Ted Sr. was actually mailing bombs.

I would never trust such delicate packages to them.

I heard of one guy, a fellow rural carrier who had hundreds of pieces of mail dating back 6 months found in his station wagon. Back then Rural carriers drove their own cars and got a mileage allowance.

What is about to happen to Trump?

I hear Nate Silver has him back in the lead in his model based on recent polls from PA.

[Stella Link the dog]

“Nate Silver has him back in the lead in his model based on recent polls from PA.”

Harris, according to the Silver model, has a “47.3 percent chance of winning the Electoral College versus 52.4 percent for Donald Trump.” So, no matter what happens in November, Silver will be able to say that he was right. As for PA, Silver qualifies his assessment by noting that there is but one decent poll from PA conducted following both the DNC and the recent RFK spectacle.

“What is about to happen to Trump? ”
Nobody knows.

[Estragon]

I know. He’s going to lose, bigly, he’s going to whine, and then he’s going to spend the rest of his life fighting to stay out of prison. And then— magically— nobody who supported him will be able to be found! “Oh I was always against him” they’ll say

[Stella Link the dog]

“I know. He’s going to lose, bigly”
Chickens, baby, chickens. Just like in 2016, lots of people knew then he was going to lose.

“Oh I was always against him” you’ll say.

Yes. No matter the winner, I will truthfully say that I was always against him.

[Estragon]

Not you, Stella. The hucklers like Kaz

[Josh R]

No, Silver will not be able to say he is right for two reasons: 1) his final percentage (the day before election day) will be what he is measured against, and 2) if it is still 50-50 by then, Silver will conclude he is neither right nor wrong.

In 2016, Silver gave Trump a 29% chance of winning. Did he get it worng? Yes, but he is supposed to get it wrong 29% of the time. If he got such a prediction right 100% of the time, his model sucks.

[Stella Link the dog]

"In 2016, Silver gave Trump a 29% chance of winning. Did he get it worng? Yes, but he is supposed to get it wrong 29% of the time. If he got such a prediction right 100% of the time, his model sucks."

A sound statistical model that predicts a 30% likelihood of a particular outcome is expected to have that outcome in 30% of trials. I am not sure what to say about the wrongness, rightness, or suckiness of a model which is predicting a probability of 30% of one outcome when the model is subjected to exactly one empirical trial. Perhaps Silver has a grand, unifying statistical model which he applies and tests on many poll data sets so he has confidence that his predictions are empirically sound. As Trump might say, I don't know Nate Silver, have never met him, and know hardly anything about him but from what little I've read, in his words, of his analysis it seems unlikely. It may be that he has uncommon insight and intuition, but I'm not sure that's the same thing.

I'm not challenging your understanding or explanation above. In short, I'm saying that instead of Silver's explanation of why we can't know anything at this stage (other than that we recognize that we can't know) and expressing that uncertainty with unjustified precision, the correct answer is BTSOOM.

[Josh R]

His model has only been around for 4 prior presidential elections (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020). So no, we cannot know if it is well calibrated (gets the result correct close to X% of the time when the predicited chance of winning is X%) based on such a small sample. But, he also has a model for the Senate and House (which he is apparently not running this year). And those models are well calibrated. So, there is reason to believe he knows what he is doing.

All that being said, his current conclusion that the race is a toss-up is not something we needed his model to figure out.

[Commenter_XY]

Shhhhhh....don't tell Josh R. We have a side bet on poll movement between now and debate. I win if Silver says Kamala went down in the polls by MoE or more. A week is an eternity in politics. 😉

[Josh R]

The polls haven't changed (I remain on track to win my bet).

What has changed is Silver's model assumes Harris should get a convention bounce. She hasn't and thus Trump now has a greater than 50% chance of winning. But, Silver's model also assumes the bounce will recede by debate night. If the polls don't change between then and now (thus, not chnaging from the start of the DNC to debate night), I will not only win my bet, Harris will be back over a 50% chance to win.

[Commenter_XY]

What changed are Silver's modeling assumptions, which he does frequently. Polls change every day.

[Josh R]

Silver's assumptions have not changed. And no, he doesn't change the model once he starts publishing results for a given election cycle (with the exception of how he had to deal with Kennedy dropping out).

Yes, polls change every day, but their results are essentially the same (plus or minus 0.5%-points) today as they have been since Kennedy dropped out.

[David Nieporent]

I hear Nate Silver has him back in the lead in his model based on recent polls from PA.

Nate had him back in the lead because his model adjusts for post-convention bumps, and Harris didn’t have one (not surprisingly, since she had a pre-convention one). Once that adjustment is backed out (it dissipates over time), she will be ahead of him again, unless of course polls change in the interim.

[Kazinski]

Well one major thing Silver is missing is error bars, when he says Trump has a 52.4% chance of winning, its probably more like between a 57.4 - 47.4%.

While Harris' chances are between 52.3 and 42.3%.

52.4% and 47.3% are false precision, they are midpoints in a range, and for entertainment purposes only.

[Randal]

Kazinski, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There are no error bars.

When you do a poll, you’re estimating a true fact based on a sample. There is some actual number of registered Iowa voters, for example, who would vote for Trump if the election were held today. The error bar as in a poll tells you (with some high degree of confidence, like 90% or 95%) the range of that actual fact.

The output of a model like Nate’s isn’t estimating some fact. There’s no real-life percentage liklihood that Trump will win. He’ll either win or not. It’s boolean.

Nate’s giving you his model’s prediction. If you like, think of the prediction itself as an error bar. Trump wins the election 100% of the time +/ – 49%. You don’t need error bars on your error bars.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The error bar as in a poll tells you (with some high degree of confidence, like 90% or 95%) the range of that actual fact."

It is really important to remember that the error bar you see displayed is just the theoretical sampling error. It's not remotely the only source of error for a poll, it's merely the only source that is mathematically well defined.

When you see that +/-5%, remember that: It's +/-5% if everything else is perfect. Everything else is NOT going to be perfect.

[Randal]

Good point. Most of the "everything else" is sampling error, which they try to compensate for with various fudge factors, which is the main reason different pollsters get different results.

Also people just lie or say something random to make the pollster go away.

[Armchair]

"Magic genetically engineered unicorns".

[Dr. Ed 2]

i doubt a 1 kilo steel ball would make it to the surface.

[Martinned2]

What exactly do you think might happen to "the Brazilian regime" (by which I assume you mean the democratically elected Brazilian President and parliament) if the people had access to Twitter?

[Armchair]

Perhaps they may know more. Is there a reason you're against free speech here?

[Martinned2]

I have no idea on what basis the Brazilian court shut down Twitter in Brazil. I didn't follow the story closely. But I do know that Elon Musk should obey the law just like everyone else. If he doesn't like the court judgment, he can appeal.

[Armchair]

Perhaps you should inform yourself more.

https://time.com/7016537/brazil-blocks-elon-musk-x-twitter-company-refuses-comply-judge/

If "the law" means that a judge can order all people he politically disagrees with shut off of Twitter, is that good with you? Should that extend to newspapers, TV, radio? Best not say something positive about a Judge's political opponent, or else your newspaper will be shut down.

Do you agree with that?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Of course he does. He's a European, and therefore genetically a serf. He absolutely believes his Lords and Ladies have unlimited power to do what they deem is best for the General Welfare Clause of the people.

[Martinned2]

From the article you linked:

X missed a deadline imposed by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes to name a legal representative in Brazil, triggering the suspension.

This seems like an entirely predictable reason why a company might get in trouble with a judge. Obey the court order or appeal, how difficult is this? Why do you feel the need to defend a billionaire who thinks he is above the law?

This is just as dumb as the reason why Telegram got in trouble in France. In the first instance, all they had to do was report their user numbers. Instead, they told the French authorities to get stuffed. It turns out you can't do that without consequences.

Are you somehow under the impression that in the US it is possible to ignore court orders with impunity, as long as you're sufficiently right-wing?

[Kazinski]

No, the reason Twitter doesn't have a legal representative in Brazil is because the former one resigned because the judge threatened to throw her in jail unless Elon complied with his secret censorship request. She resigned, then Elon said no. Now the judge is retaliating, among actions against X and SpaceX, he froze the former Reps assets.

No its not a perfectly legitimate request, he wants someone he can order to jail as a hostage to make Elon comply.

Martinned you are becoming a Nazi apologist before our very eyes.

[Armchair]

What Kaz said.

Seriously, read the full article and understand it.

[Martinned2]

Comply with the court order or appeal. How complicated is that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kill the Jews or appeal. Fuck human rights...

[Kazinski]

Well extraterrestrial jurisdiction is complicated.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's admirable to stand up to bullies, but not so much if you're a bully yourself. Instead, it's time to reach for the popcorn.

[Riva]

You’re confusing the jack-booted state thugs with the victims of the jack-booted state thugs. Or maybe you’re not confused at all and just like jack-booted state thugs?

[Sarcastr0]

Martinned you are becoming a Nazi apologist before our very eyes.

Brazil is not the Nazi regime, Kaz.

They can have bad laws. Their courts can have bad remedies to enforce compliance with those laws.

But there's a lot of people here who are invoking Nazi Germany to go against the concept of rule of law when you don't like the law and are rich enough to avoid personal consequences.

Not Nazis, just a lot of neo-aristocrats around here.

[Riva]

All these understanding and measured tones for state thugs in other countries. Predictable.

[Kenneth Almquist]

We have only X Corporation’s word for it that the judge threatened to throw X’s legal representative in jail. But the legal representative does face legal liability for the actions of the company they represent. If the legal representative lacks the authority within the company to make the company comply with the law, resigning may be the only viable option. Violations can result in the fines for the legal representative as well as the company. And the company can sue their legal representative to recover fines paid by the company.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Uh oh. Republican bullshit demolished within hours of being spoken yet again. Better get some new talking points you dumb fucks.

https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-top-headlines/ap-brazil-supreme-court-panel-upholds-judges-decision-to-block-x-nationwide/?tbref=hp

[Longtobefree]

If people always followed the law, you would be drinking tea instead of coffee, and call the hood of a car a bonnet.

[Frank Drackman]

and a Cigarette……

[Martinned2]

I drink both tea and coffee, and do call it a bonnet because that's the proper word for it. More generally, I don't think the historic example of a bunch of rich guys who started a rebellion because they didn't want to pay taxes and wanted to keep their slavery is quite the convincing example you think it is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look into why Massachusetts ELIMINATED slavery...

[Kazinski]

Ummm, The US outlawed the slave trade before the UK did. So don’t claim abolition was even a twinkle in the UK’s eye in 1776 when we revolted.

That was the first step taken in the abolition of slavery.

“ The United States outlawed the trans-Atlantic slave trade on January 1, 1808. The Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves was passed by Congress in March 1807” signed in to law by Jefferson March 2nd 1807.

The British outlawed it March 25th, 1807.

[Martinned2]

Four years before the declaration of independence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly abolition.
"Slavery had never been authorised by statute ("positive law") within England and Wales, and Lord Mansfield found it also to be unsupported within England by the common law, although he made no comment on the position in the overseas territories of the British Empire. The case was closely followed throughout the Empire, particularly in the thirteen American colonies.[2] Scholars have disagreed over precisely what legal precedent the case set".

[Martinned2]

It was the first step towards abolition. From Somersett's case onwards, abolition was just a matter of time. So the American slave owners started to get nervous.

[Kazinski]

I don't know, but why are there so many regimes so desperately trying to control the flow of information if it doesn't matter?

[Commenter_XY]

It is all about control, period.

[Krayt]

And why are people running apologetics for it? Are domestic American politics so vile they feel a need to do so?

Fuck Schindler, a functional billionaire thinking he's above the laws of the regime working to maintain its power. Fuck him!

[Krayt]

'member the Arab Spring, where the president asked twitter to not shut down their servers for a planned upgrade? Oh jesus!

[Martinned2]

If you think Brazil is run by Nazi's, you are deranged beyond hope of help.

[Martinned2]

A majority of the full Brazilian Supreme Court has now upheld the order: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkmpe53l6jo

Justice Moraes had ordered that X accounts accused of spreading disinformation - many of which belonged to supporters of the former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro - must be blocked while they are under investigation.

Brazil is said to be one of the largest markets for Mr Musk's social media network.

[Bob from Ohio]

"supporters of the former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro"

Amazing coincidence that the "misinformation" comes from the political opposition!

[Martinned2]

Misinformation works, that's how he was able to take over the right of Brazilian politics. That's not a coincidence, but it's not something that Brazil should tolerate either. It's like Trump in the US. They even had their own January 6th.

[Kazinski]

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

- One of RFK jr's uncles
Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America; Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, February 26, 1962

[Martinned2]

Yes. The vast majority of people are idiots.

[Krayt]

Btw, I warn everyone regularly that every time some US official offers blabber why their spy regime should be even more powerful, for crime, yo!, that dictatorships regularly adopt that blather to justify further repression.

Usually that’s with BS like Americans’ crypto should have back doors, or panopticon pieces being built that should not be.

But here we are. And, holy shit, Americans defending that argument for opporession. Are you FOBs? Friends of Baker?

Sorry, Mr. Baker, I am not a fan of things like that and the foregone conclusion principle, or the innocuousness of phone “metadata”, which fleshing out networks would have been a primary goal of the Tyrant King Geo. III.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I don't know that everyone is defending the Brazilian laws or the judge. Many comments above critical of Musk explicitly say the Brazilian law (or the judge's interpretation of it) are stupid, at minimum. But we aren't talking about Nazi Germany. Brazil is still, at least nominally, a democracy and it isn't committing mass genocide (except, perhaps, for aboriginal Amazonians which is a big perhaps, but that has nothing to do with Musk's efforts or complaint). So the comparisons to Nazi Germany and Elon Musk to Schindler are evil because they are, and would appear to be intended to be, to minimize the horror of what the Nazi government did.

It's both possible that Brazil has bad laws and bad judges but also that encouraging Musk to just ignore unfavorable rulings and the like is a also bad and undercuts the rule of law. The rule of law is vitally important for a stable, healthy country and should generally be followed except in extreme circumstances. Which is why you all make the Nazi comparison, despite how inapt it is to these circumstances.

(I haven't read enough to have a strong opinion about the Brazilian laws, the ruling, or Musk's actions, other than my first instinct is against any sort of government censorship and to distrust Musk's motives always.)

[Brett Bellmore]

The Nazi regime was not the Nazi regime at first, figuratively speaking. Yes, Brazil is still, nominally, a democracy.

But a democracy without free flow of information isn't going to stay one long, because the sort of people who don't tolerate the free flow of information are the same sort of people who don't tolerate the vote not going their way.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think the countries of western Europe are democracies? Their freedom of speech is not ours.

In the end, what made Nazi Germany become fascist was bad information not lack of information. There’s a ton of work on this and why.
Great Replacement fears, racial intelligence, hyperinflation, weakened civic institutions etc.

You can not like a law and yet it’s not a precursor to Naziism.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they are less and less democracies as time goes by, because more and more of the decision making is being moved to levels of government, such as the EU bureaucracy, which are not democratically accountable.

There's more than one way to render a society not functionally a democracy, IOW.

[Sarcastr0]

You can think lots of things; none of them support Brazil being analogous to Nazi Germany.

And the EU is the weakest body. Articles of Confederation level. It's not going to Nazify Europe.
Same weird conspiracizing as we heard about the UN back in the day, though not many are buying that debate society as the vehicle for one world government these days.

As I and Martinned noted, allowing the free flow of misinformation is itself a danger when it comes to the stability of democracy. Of course, there are lots of ways to deal with that as well, some better than others.

[Martinned2]

the EU bureaucracy, which are not democratically accountable.

I guess the EU elections I voted in earlier this year must be a figment of my imagination, just like the resulting negotiations about who are going to run the European Commission, which are taking place as we speak.

[Martinned2]

Disinformation is exactly how the Nazi's took over Germany. The whole point of learning the lessons of history is that you try not to let that happen again.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"The Nazi regime was not the Nazi regime at first, figuratively speaking."

Well, not the Nazi regime, but it was, from before it's beginning as the National Socialist German Workers' Party, anti-Semitic, nationalist, and anti-capitalist. The Nazi party was always a racist and populist movement with authoritarianism built in from jump.

It's Bolsanaro, not Lula da Silva, who most resembles an early Hitler's politics and methods, from being a far-right populist, to the January 8, 2023, attack on the Supreme Court and National Congress to proof that he tried to organize a military coup to remain in power. He's a dangerous, dictator wannabe.

Though Brazil needs to start making better choices in both their candidates, Bolsanaro and his ilk are a clear danger to Brazilian democracy.

[DaveM]

That is not Elon Musk's X account. It says so right there in the URL: https://x.com/iamnot_elon/...

[Kazinski]

Last week NG asked me for a cite of authority for a federal court to intervene in Braggs case in NY state court.

Trump's Lawyers have filed a motion in the 2nd district to remove the not yet final trial to federal court to ensure the Supreme Court verdict in the immunity case is complied with.

Here is a link to the letter Trump's lawyers sent to Merchan notifying him of that fact, and requesting he take no further action until the their is a ruling on his motion.

https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1829594126557368647?t=WD0EY-L7NhhzU0xtTGZkYA&s=19

[not guilty]

Here is the purported second notice of removal: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25081914/aug-29-trump-removal-notice.pdf

U. S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein promptly rejected the filing -- a fact which you notably fail to mention. The docket entry states:

***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT PLEADING. Notice to Attorney Emil Bove to RE-FILE re: Document No. 46 Notice of Removal. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): the PDF attached to the docket entry for the pleading is not correct; the wrong event type was used to file the pleading; Court's leave has not been granted; the order granting leave to file the pleading was not attached. Re-file the pleading using the event type Amended Notice of Removal found under the event list Complaints and Other Initiating Documents - attach the correct signed PDF - select the individually named filer/filers - select the individually named party/parties the pleading is against. File the Exhibit to Pleading event found under event list Other Documents and attach either opposing party's written consent or Court's leave (vf)

This is one more instance of incompetent lawyering on behalf of Donald Trump. Per 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1):

A notice of removal of a criminal prosecution shall be filed not later than 30 days after the arraignment in the State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier, except that for good cause shown the United States district court may enter an order granting the defendant or defendants leave to file the notice at a later time.

[David Nieporent]

U. S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein promptly rejected the filing — a fact which you notably fail to mention. The docket entry states:

That's not Hellerstein. That's the SDNY clerk's office; they're the biggest — well, I practice there, so i should probably not say what I think of them any more than I would say what I think of any particular judge. So let's just say that they're the biggest nitpickers of any clerk's office I have ever encountered anywhere. In this case they aren't wrong; the document can't be filed w/o leave of court because of the timing. But they routinely purport to reject filings for the most utterly trivial reasons, despite the injunction of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(4). (That's the civil rules; this is a criminal case, but there's an analogous FRCrimPro also.) In any case, though, the point stands: this never got to Hellerstein.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Hellerstein is a good judge. Not many come down from the bench and sit next to the attorneys to get into informal discussions about the points at issue, like he did with us in an insurance coverage case. Most federal judges (like Sotomayor, when I was in front of her in 1995) hate insurance coverage cases.

As for "biggest nitpicker", that would have to be the guy in Room 217 at Bronx County (no longer there). They called him the "soup nazi", after a Seinfeld episode. He would reject a paper if the index number on the front page had a wrong digit. Mind you, he wouldn't fix it himself with a stroke of the pen -- he'd reject it and it would be the next day before you saw it in the "reject" bin. And then there was the time he posted a notice saying that all cross-motions would be rejected if they didn't deal with the same issue as the main motion -- a requirement that does not appear in the statute.

[David Nieporent]

He would reject a paper if the index number on the front page had a wrong digit. Mind you, he wouldn’t fix it himself with a stroke of the pen — he’d reject it and it would be the next day before you saw it in the “reject” bin.

Yes, that's an SDNY clerk special also. Next door in Brooklyn, which is the EDNY, if the civil cover sheet that one files alongside a new complaint has a mistake in it — let's say one forgot to check a box — the clerk will just fix it and issue a notice saying, "Fixed it for you." (The sheet is purely for administrative use; it has no legal significance.) The SDNY will issue a wordy rejection of the document instead, similar to the one above, and force you to refile it.

[Commenter_XY]

That really sucks. What bullshit from a civil servant. It doesn't surprise me at all. I bet they brag about it, too. There is a client in the background paying the lawyer for their time to refile.

How do you repay the favor, David?

[David Nieporent]

How do you repay the favor, David?

There's nothing practical be done, other than badmouthing them online. Any attempt to circumvent them would be more time-consuming and expensive than just complying.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Some people, if given a little area of authority, turn into miniature Hitlers over their tiny piece of land. You just have to put up with it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was Lord Acton referring to court clerks among others?

[not guilty]

Fair enough. It does indeed appear that the rejection was by the clerk rather than the District Judge.

Team Trump could seek leave to file the second notice of removal, but that would be idle ceremony. Judge Hellerstein's July 19, 2023 order of remand soundly rejected the notion that Trump was being prosecuted "for or relating to any act under color of [federal] office." 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(l). https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/23cv3773%20Order%20and%20Opinion%20Granting%20Remand%2007.19.2023.pdf The judge (following an evidentiary hearing) opined at page 13:

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President-a cover-up of an embarrassing event. Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President's official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President's official duties.

[Kazinski]

The Ink is barely dry on the Supreme Court’s Immunity order, which is an extremely good cause to miss the 30 day removal deadline. And the Immunity decision puts Merchan on notice that the verdict should be set aside.

But surely you realize the target of this appeal isnt Hellerstein, it isnt the 2nd court of a appeals, it is, well what’s the court above the 2nd circuit? Its that one.

However they probably won’t act until Merchan rejects Trump’s immunity motion on September 16th. And then if Merchan rejects a new trial, and claims harmless error, then don’t be surprised if something comes down before sentencing on the 18th.

And if the NY trial was “not related to a President’s official acts”, then why was Hope Hicks on the stand testifying about what was clearly an “official act’, and why did the prosecution describe that testimony to the jury as “devastating”?

So once again, the question you asked me the other day is what is the cause of action that will get Trump into federal court to stop Merchan, you helpfully quoted Hellerstein stating what it was, even if he clearly errored in disregarding Hope Hicks testimony over Trumps attorneys objection.

[not guilty]

The question I asked you last Thursday was "In light of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny, how is a federal court stay of pending state criminal proceedings a 'very real possibility', Kazinski?"

You still haven't said a word about Younger abstention. (Neither does Trump's rejected second notice of removal.)

There is no chance of Judge Hellerstein granting leave to file a posttrial, second notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1). I am unaware of any authority deeming a denial of such a motion for leave to be an appealable final decision according to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

If lightning were to strike and Judge Hellerstein did grant leave for such posttrial filing, his analysis of whether good cause would not be instantaneous. The courthouse is closed today, and the court would likely take at least a day or two to consider the motion for leave. After leave is granted, the court would either order summary remand to state court or would schedule an evidentiary hearing on removal pursuant to § 1455(b)(5). The New York DA would no doubt file a motion to remand.

Let's assume, however, that things move at breakneck speed. The evidentiary hearing would not be scheduled earlier than next week. There is no time limit on how long the District Court can take to decide the issues. (The window between the evidentiary hearing on the initial notice of removal and the order of remand was 22 days.) Among the issues would be whether Trump, as a former federal officer, even has standing to seek removal at all under § 1442(a)(1). See, Georgia v. Meadows, 88 F.4th 1331, 1338-1343 (11th Cir. 2023).

A puzzled batter once asked the famed umpire Bill Klem, “So what was it, a ball or strike?” Klem responded, “Sonny, it ain’t nothin’ till I call it.” Similarly, this is no federal matter unless and until Judge Hellerstein rules that it is.

[Kazinski]

Well at least youve gotten around to admitting there is a cause of action and your statement in Thursday's thread is not categorical:

"Only after the New York judicial system issues a final judgment or decree rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had could Trump petition SCOTUS to review by writ of certiorari pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)."

As you quote Hellerstein above it would be removable to federal court before final judgement if it is:
"related to a President’s official acts."

We are making some progress.

I am banking that we will never settle this completely because Merchan will blink, and either reschedule procedungs for after the election to preserve his temporary victory, or accept the inevitable and order a new trial.

[not guilty]

Don’t misrepresent what I have said, Kazinski.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that once the New York judicial system issues a final judgment or decree rendered by the highest state court in which a decision could be had, Donald Trump can petition SCOTUS for (discretionary) review by writ of certiorari pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). What he cannot do is petition any inferior federal court for a stay of ongoing state court proceedings in the interim.

I am unaware of any judicial authority for a federal court on any level to exercise jurisdiction of a state criminal prosecution after the jury verdict and prior to sentencing. If there were such federal jurisdiction theoretically, (there is not,) Younger abstention would counsel against the actual exercise thereof. Do you have any statute or judicial decision authorizing such an irregular procedure? If not, man up and admit it.

Trump has an available remedy in the New York court system which should preclude removal to federal court. As Chief Judge William Pryor wrote for the 11th Circuit in Georgia v. Meadows, 88 F.4th 1331, 1342-1343 (11th Cir. 2023):

The Supreme Court has instructed that federal courts must "retain[ ] the highest regard for a State's right to make and enforce its own criminal laws." [Arizona v.] Manypenny, 451 U.S. [232.] 243, 101 S.Ct. 1657 [1981).] The jurisdiction to try state offenses should not "be wrested from [state] courts" lightly. Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510, 518, 52 S.Ct. 635, 76 L.Ed. 1253 (1932). , , ,

Meadows cites no authority suggesting that state courts are unequipped to evaluate federal immunities. State courts have long adjudicated, for example, whether federal officers are entitled to Supremacy Clause immunity under In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 658, 34 L.Ed. 55 (1890). See, e.g., People v. Denman, 179 Cal. 497, 177 P. 461, 465 (1918); State v. Adler, 67 Ark. 469, 55 S.W. 851, 853 (1900); State v. Waite, 101 Iowa 377, 70 N.W. 596, 597-98 (1897). And they have continued to do so after the codification of the modern federal-officer removal statute in 1948. See, e.g., Battle v. State, 252 Md.App. 280, 258 A.3d 1009, 1021-25 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021); State v. Deedy, 407 P.3d 164, 188-89 (Haw. 2017); State v. Velky, 263 Conn. 602, 821 A.2d 752, 759-60 (2003). Likewise, state courts regularly adjudicate whether state officers sued for violating federal rights are entitled to official or qualified immunity. See, e.g., Rustici v. Weidemeyer, 673 S.W.2d 762, 772 (Mo. 1984); Johnson v. Morris, 453 N.W.2d 31, 37-40 (Minn. 1990); Moody v. Ungerer, 885 P.2d 200, 202-03 (Colo. 1994); Gentile v. Bauder, 718 So. 2d 781, 784-75 (Fla. 1998); Clancy v. McCabe,>i? 441 Mass. 311, 805 N.E.2d 484, 493-94 (2004); King v. Betts, 354 S.W.3d 691, 703 (Tenn. 2011).

Justice Merchan has said that he will rule on the defense motion for new trial on September 16 and that, if necessary, he will hold the sentencing hearing on September 18. No flight of fancy or wishful thinking on your part will alter that.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Kazinski. Do you have any statute or judicial decision authorizing a federal court on any level to exercise jurisdiction of a state criminal prosecution after the jury verdict and prior to sentencing?

I promise that it will not break your keyboard to answer yes or no.

[Kazinski]

Keep waiting, you didn't even address the authorities cited in Trump's letter to Merchan I posted the link to 16 hours ago.

Plus you are contradicting Hellerstein, who does not say the NY conviction needs to be final.

Do your own homework first.

[not guilty]

"Keep waiting, you didn’t even address the authorities cited in Trump’s letter to Merchan I posted the link to 16 hours ago."

It takes more than an ipse dixit assertion by an attorney representing Donald Trump to accept the correctness of such assertion. Which of the authorities set forth in the letter to Justice Merchan do you claim authorizes a federal court on any level to exercise jurisdiction of a state criminal prosecution after the jury verdict and prior to sentencing? Please be specific.

"Plus you are contradicting Hellerstein, who does not say the NY conviction needs to be final."

Uh, no. Judge Hellerstein said there was no federal jurisdiction in the first place. Right there on page 1 of the July 19, 2023 order and opinion granting remand: "I hold that there is no subject matter jurisdiction, that § 1442(a) was improperly invoked, and that the case is remanded to the New York Supreme Court for further proceedings in that court." https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/23cv3773%20Order%20and%20Opinion%20Granting%20Remand%2007.19.2023.pdf

As David helpfully pointed out upthread, that is Judge Hellerstein's last word on the matter. Trump initially filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but then voluntarily dismissed the appeal with prejudice. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.45.0.pdf That order having become final, the matter is res judicata.

[not guilty]

Yes, I know that Kazinski is a fish, and I know that he is in a barrel. I still can't resist shooting.

[David Nieporent]

And if the NY trial was “not related to a President’s official acts”, then why was Hope Hicks on the stand testifying about what was clearly an “official act’, and why did the prosecution describe that testimony to the jury as “devastating”?

There was absolutely no testimony about an "official act."

[Kazinski]

Her whole conversation with Trump was an official act, because she was the Whitehouse Communications Director.

Roberts opinion was very clear about that: The President's conversations with officials that report to him are Official Acts, and may not be introduced as evidence even to do no more than establish motive.

Hicks testimony about her conversation is so undoubtedly covered by the Immunity decision, that Bragg isn't trying to dispute it but is claiming harmless error.

"Manhattan prosecutors are fighting to keep Donald Trump's September 18 hush-money sentencing on track, saying in a new filing Thursday that it was "harmless error" if evidence he's now immune from entered the case."
https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-immunity-no-bearing-hush-money-conviction-da-bragg-2024-7?op=1

[not guilty]

"Hicks testimony about her conversation is so undoubtedly covered by the Immunity decision, that Bragg isn’t trying to dispute it but is claiming harmless error."

Kazinski, have you read the People's response to Trump's post-trial motion (which you conspicuously decline to link to, instead linking a paywalled magazine article)? https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Memo-of-law-in-opposition2-post-trial-motion.pdf

That response devotes six pages (pp. 20-25) to the merits of the admissibility of Hope Hicks's testimony notwithstanding the Supreme Court's July 1 Trump opinion. The discussion of harmless error appears at pages 34 through 51, and this analysis refers to Hicks's testimony only in passing.

As I have said time and again, there is no substitute for original source materials.

[David Nieporent]

Her whole conversation with Trump was an official act, because she was the Whitehouse Communications Director.

1) Why would a conversation be an "official act"? I can talk to the Whitehouse Communications Director. You can talk to the Whitehouse Communications Director. Any person can talk to any other person; doing so in no way depends on the power of the office of president.
2) Indeed, a conversation is not an act at all.
3) But even if for some inexplicable reason that Roberts pulled out of his ass, some such conversations were protected, why would a conversation with someone about an entirely private matter be protected just because the person happens to draw a government paycheck?

[Riva]

You practice there? What a bunch of horseshit. Now, I could see an opinionated little a-hole like yourself as a paralegal with some delusions, and your comments on an assassination of President Trump being a benefit to the country certainly show you’re unbalanced. But your half-assed ignorance on the separation of powers convinced me you have no real legal education. Now of course, there are a lot of moron attorneys out there so I admit I could be wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Whatever, bot.

[Riva]

bat shit crazy, classless, and let's add not too bright.

[David Nieporent]

Someone reboot it, please.

[Riva]

Go back to school bat shit crazy paralegal. Or do you prefer bat shit crazy legal secretary?

[Sarcastr0]

What appears to be happening, is Rivabot has picked up on folks making fun of Dr. Ed claiming to be in education, and the nonsense about me being a blood libelous antisemite.

He's trying to turn both of those to help him deal with DMN, making false accusations he wants Trump assassinated, and attacking his professional credentials.

[Riva]

Not sure what you’re talking about boy wonder, I”m referring to your bat shit crazy boss’s own comments:
“It’s possible to conclude that Trump being killed could benefit the country”

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, and only you think that means what you say it does.

[Riva]

And attacking professional credentials? Nothing wrong with being a paralegal. I have great respect for paralegals. Not bat shit crazy ones of course. And, if you want some reciprocal courtesy, maybe you should both stop being a-holes toward anyone you disagree with? Just a thought.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN and I disagree on a lot.
Abrasoka and I as well. And Noscitur.

We get along fine, disagreeing.

But you are stupid and a pathetic wannabe Internet bully, so I don’t treat you with the respect I afford people who are not those things.

Like, it's just insane you make up a useless lie about DMN and then demand I treat you with respect in the exact same post.

You want respect, don't act like a weaner.

[Riva]

I don’t who those commenters are but they likely share your basic political views you gaslighting ass. Anyone who disagrees, you clowns attack. And then whine about bullying. Pathetic. With a little bat shit crazy mixed in.

[Sarcastr0]

Ankle. Biting.

[Riva]

What are you? The side kick little chum of this bat shit crazy loser?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's lawyers have now filed a motion for leave of court to file a second removal notice under 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.49.0.pdf

If this motion is denied, I don't know whether such denial is or is not appealable as of right to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

[David Nieporent]

Calling that a "motion" kind of overly dignifies it, don't you think?

As for appeal as of right, § 1447(d) says that an "order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise." This removal purports to be under 1442. So it would be reviewable on appeal.

[not guilty]

I am aware of § 1447(d). What I don't know is whether the denial of a motion for leave qualifies as an order remanding the case. Since the matter here has not come before the federal court since the first order remanding became final, there is presently nothing to remand.

I would think that the motion for leave to file a notice of removal as to an action that previously had been remanded would be functionally equivalent to a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. The denial of a 60(b) motion is appealable, but appellate review is confined to whether the district court abused its discretion. The appellate court does not adjudicate the merits of the antecedent lawsuit, which would necessarily await remand for further proceedings before the district court.

[not guilty]

Judge Hellerstein wasted no time in denying Trump's motion for leave of court to file a second removal notice under 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.50.0.pdf

[David Nieporent]

And Trump has already filed his notice of appeal.

[Mr. Bumble]

Irreverent comment for today:
Who will die first; Jimmy Carter or Joe Biden?

[Ilya Snowman]

You sure Biden isn't already a zombie?

[Kazinski]

I think it will be Jimmy, although not being on the ballot is probably killing Joe.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, if Trump wins it may be the coup de grace for both of them.

[Moderation4ever]

I have heard that Jimmy wants one last chance to vote. So, I would not expect to hear anything before November.

As for Joe Biden, I will guess that he will live many more years. Former Presidents do live long lives. Did anyone note that Bill Clinton said that at 78 he had lived longer than any other man in his family in four generations?

[hobie]

All I know is, America is not prepared for the eventual deaths of Dolly Parton and Alan Alda

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biden. USSS thought he was last month.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’m assured that denial of ballot access is simply motivated by the noble purpose of avoiding ballot clutter. So let’s see:

“On August 28, an Iowa panel of executive officers with jurisdiction over elections removed all three Iowa Libertarian nominees from the ballot. They said the party improperly held its county conventions on the same day it held its state convention. The party expects to sue to overturn the decision.”

https://ballot-access.org/2024/08/30/iowa-elections-board-removes-libertarian-candidates-for-u-s-house-from-ballot/

Et tu, Florida?

"The Florida deadline for parties to certify their nominees has passed. The Natural Law Party, which is ballot-qualified, had nominated him in Florida. However, when the party submitted its presidential elector candidates to the state, it neglected to include the voter registration number of each of the elector candidates, and it is too late to fix the omission."

https://ballot-access.org/2024/08/27/cornel-west-fails-to-qualify-in-florida/

[Kazinski]

I think thats why ballot access rules are needed and reasonable, but i never said that explains the way they are being applied this cycle.

But, in the case of Iowa and Florida, I can't really tell from your links what the actual facts are, and what the law is. Although I know yiu think ballot access is like horeshoes and hand grenade.

Did it violate election law to have county and state conventions on the same day?

Are voter registration numbers required for Electors?

I don't think Florida is actually worried Cornel West will swing the election one way or another, although I do recall an even stranger case of that happening once in Florida.

[Krayt]

Are we to believe if one of the big two screwed up, a judge would keep them off the Florida ballot?

"Yes!", faceted the facetious ones.

[Kazinski]

Well Ohio, did tell the Democrats: do it our way or we won't do it at all.

[Ilya Snowman]

The prospects of 'Schland's democratic liberation from a psychotic, totalitarian, ill-conceived, social re-engineering project are somewhat better today than they were one week ago.

Congratulations. May it save itself from cultural genocide and ruin!

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

[Kazinski]

It had an effect even before the vote as the government just started deporting Afghans convicted of serious crimes back to Afghanistan, something they said was impossible before.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afghanistan-abschiebung-28-verbrecher-1000-euro-handgeld-und-ein-deal-mit-katar-a-f7bb97f4-82d9-4f0c-acb3-6283b2dc26c3

Not that that is going to actually fix the problem, or make the AfD go away.

[David Nieporent]

Shorter IS: Make Germany Nazi Again.

[Riva]

Why shorter? I think you should elaborate more on your bat shit crazy political views. Tell us, do you believe it is possible to conclude that Germany would benefit if the AfD leaders were killed?

[David Nieporent]

It is certainly possible to conclude that, but I do not believe that such a conclusion would be correct.

[Riva]

Well, a bat shit crazy refinement to your bat shit crazy views. Impressively insane.

[Riva]

And apart from the bat shit crazy aspect, this attempt to characterize the AfD as Nazis is idiotic. They want lower taxes, less government spending, and less government control. They want free market competition and a reasonable immigration policy. They are the opposite of nazis. They are defamed as “far right” simply because they oppose mass third world immigration. Could there possibly be someone objectionable in some way in their party? Maybe, but one could say that about any large movement, for instance bat shit crazy democrats who support Hamas and lawfare and even appreciate the possibility that the killing of their political opponents could benefit the country. If anyone wants to know what they stand for, read the AfD platform and ignore this bat shit crazy paralegal.

[ReaderY]

Person A comes up to you and wants to work with you. You say “Sorry, I recognize you’ll be disappointed, but I only work with men.” Person A walks off, disappointed, perhaps angry, but otherwise no worse off than before.

Person B comes up to you and wants to sleep with you. You say “Sorry, I recognize you’ll be disappointed, but I only sleep with men.” Person B walks off, disappointed, perhaps angry, but otherwise no worse off than before.

My question is this. I understand that it’s possible to make a distinction between the two cases. My question is, why does the constitution REQUIRE doing so? Why does the constitution hate you, require the government to hate you, ban you, pour its wrath in the first case? Why does the government love you and protect you, require the government to love you and protect you, in the second?

More fundamentally, why does the constitution require government to reify and annoint the disappointment people feel in the first case, to treat never having to be disappointed by others making life choices one disapproves of, as a “civil right”? And why does the constitution castigate the disappointment people feel in the second case, characterizing it as bigotry, animosity, hate, a phobia?

The poet Khalil Gibran wrote “Our work is our love made manifest.” Why does the constitution hate Khalil Gibran? Why does it require people to say that love is love, unless your love is Khalil Gobran’s kind? Why does the constitution REQUIRE branding people who consider Khalil Gibran’s kind of love to be love as enemies of the state? Why does it consider government to have a COMPELLING interest in extirpating people like Khalil Gibran and stamping them out? Why does the constitution think it a form of hate to derive meaning, a sense of ones identity, from ones work?

[Mr. Bumble]

Far out man. Where did you score the acid?

[Ed Grinberg]

I understand that it’s possible to make a distinction between the two cases. My question is, why does the constitution REQUIRE doing so?

The Constitution does not allow (let alone “require”) the government to interfere with either one’s employment or dating decisions. The various court decisions to the contrary are all wrong.

Why does the government love you and protect you, require the government to love you and protect you, in the second?

Ah, but that depends on who’s running the government, doesn’t it? If the voters, in their wisdom, elect people who’re sufficiently “progressive,” you can bet they’ll take steps to “rectify” the awful “discrimination” in your second case. (And the courts, in their wisdom, will uphold such measures.)

[not guilty]

ReaderY, the Constitution does not require what you posit as to prohibiting sex discrimination in hiring. That prohibition is statutory and can be repealed by Congress.

[Michael P]

The Constitution doesn't require the government to do anything in the first case. It *allows* the government to prohibit the first case. The question of why they are considered fundamentally different is still reasonable; I suggest that employment is a much less intimate relationship, and so society grants government more scope for interference in the name of general welfare. We similarly wouldn't consider laws against not paying one's spouse for household labor, or applying the full scope of workplace safety laws to one's own home (as the residence of one's spouse), but we would apply more laws to rental homes.

[Kazinski]

Because Work is part of commerce where the constitution gives Congress a lot more power.

In postwar UK, the Labour party preposed legislation that would allow the government to assign people to occupations, which seems a far more grevious would to Khalil Gibran than telling him who he has to work with, most of us have to work with someone we'd rather not at sometime in our lives.

But if A actually offends you then I assume you're voting libertarian, right?

[Ed Grinberg]

But if A actually offends you then I assume you’re voting libertarian, right?

Hmmm… Case A very much offends me, but no, I’m not voting Libertarian. For one thing, doesn’t the Libertarian candidate’s position on this issue exactly match that of the Democratic Party? (Strange that…) And, of course, there’re other issues to consider. (Even before we get to the obvious fact that the Libertarian candidate is guaranteed to lose, so I’d be wasting my vote anyway.)

[Armchair]

In other news, 49ers first round draft pick Ricky Pearsall was shot in San Francisco the other day.

He was apparently walking through downtown in the middle of the afternoon, and just someone decided to rob him.

SF really has gone downhill recently. In the middle of the Afternoon. In downtown SF.

[Michael P]

That's hardly news, sadly. One local news crew was robbed in 2021 while interviewing a violence prevention leader in front of Oakland's City Hall. Last year, a CNN crew's car was broken into outside of San Francisco's City Hall while they were filming about crime in the city, even with a security detail there. (I tried posting links but the comment system ate my comment.)

[Armchair]

It's simply gotten substantially worse in SF

It's one thing to get your car broken into. It's quite another to get shot while walking down the street.

Oakland was never a particularly safe place. But Union Square you used to be able to take a young family and walk through it without any fears. Like the National Mall in DC or Faneuil Hall in Boston.

But shot openly in the middle of the afternoon? Now it feels like Oakland or Detroit.

[hobie]

I take it you live in San Francisco? Otherwise, you would seem to have an unhealthy obsession with it's people, government, history, politics, and general well being.

[ThePublius]

That's rather fallacious. One needn't live there to have an appreciation for it, and enjoy going there. It was once one of the gems of cities in the United States, and something to be proud of. Now it has sunk into the slimy progressive abyss, becoming a hell hole, shit hole, whatever adjective you care to apply.

I visited there many, many times in the early 2000's, staying downtown, walking around at night, enjoying the bars and restaurants. I am glad I got to see and enjoy the city before its recent, precipitous decline into filth and lawlessness.

And, no, I don't live there, but due to my past enjoyment of and appreciation of the place, I have a keen interest in it.

(I feel much the same about Paris, having spent time there in the late 90's and early 2000's, too. I got to see Notre Dame before the fire, and walk the streets before people began defecating on them.)

[Sarcastr0]

Y'all are riding an anecdote and not looking at crime rates, and complaining others are fallacious?
https://www.sf.gov/data/violent-crime-and-property-crime-0

Why work so hard to align your gut with what you want to believe, but leave facts right out of it.

[Michael P]

It’s pretty dishonest to talk about crime rates as “crimes per unit time” rather than “crime per (relevant) capita”. The number of crimes tends to go down when 75% fewer people visit!

https://x.com/emissionite/status/1830701161764327447

[Sarcastr0]

It's not dishonest, you're just making a new goalpost based on some kind of crime population model that's in the head of this engagement farming twitter account.

He also wants to count drug dealing as homicide.

There are lots of reasons why crime might be coming down, picking one to focus on without doing any homework is not how you do evidence-based policy.

[hobie]

Now that I have moved to Ohio, I've had many chances to traipse around rural Ohio and West Virginia. Both are beautiful areas. But the malaise there is palpable. Your boy Vance could tell you as much. When you start deploring places like that in equal measure, you might have some credibility, Publius.

[Aoidized]

The rust belt was destroyed by government policies that prioritized finance and banking.

[hobie]

And which party has been running the government of them two states for the past decades?

[Aoidized]

It was on a federal level, doofus.

[Kazinski]

Well, I have lived in SF, and spent the first 1/3 of my life within an hours drive of it.

I remember when I lived in my grandmothers flat around 8th and Clement, being able run around the block unattended to King Normans toys.

It has gone way downhill since the 50’s and 60’s and 70’s. You used to feel safe everywhere, and even now you can get a false sense of safety like say at fisherman’s wharf, or the Embarcadero, but you keep your eyes open, especially if you are Asian.

I am also very familiar with Oakland, I was born there and met my first Wife there. That’s a harder call, the north and west of Oakland’s downtown core has always been a violent place racked with poverty, drugs, and now rampant homelessness. Although there are some really nice places in Oakland not far away like lake Merrit and the Oakland hills.

What’s really gone from Oakland now is any hope it will ever get better, although clearly, other than the homelessness, the rinding poverty isn’t as bad, the good parts have not deteriorated at all.

[Don Nico]

"Oakland was never a particularly safe place. "
Nonsense. I lived in Oakland for 40 years and for most of that time it was safer than SF in all but a few areas. Unfortunately in the past few years crime n Oakland has increased markedly with robberies in grocery stores, armed break-ins of homes, etc. The Oakland NAACP has vocally urged the police to get off their ass and get the hooligans under control.
I can't defend Detroit, but your comments about Oakland is BS

[Armchair]

Sorry Don,

Having also lived in the area, there are a few places in Oakland that are fine. Rockridge, the hills, etc. But the honest truth is, as you get towards downtown, it gets substantially worse.

Now, perhaps I have a higher bar for what I consider safe. I consider an area safe if I can walk outside at 2 AM without fear of being raped, stabbed or robbed. Do you go to downtown Oakland and walk around during that time? I used to be able to walk around downtown SF at 2 AM without an issue.

Much of Oakland is in tier 1 danger level for me (Tier 1 - bars go up on windows), and tier 2 danger level is apparent as well (Barbed wire starts going up). When you see those things...the area isn't safe.

[ThePublius]

Progressive policies have consequences.

[Don Nico]

In Oakland the trigger to the present situation was the "Occupy Oakland" movement. That was followed by the failure to maintain order during BLM protects, thanks to a shithead mayor and city council. Once hooligans find that they can get away with mischief, they make it their habit.

[Kazinski]

Going into Oakland’s Chinatown which used to be safe and nice, in the waning days of the pandemic was when I decided there was no point in going there anymore.

2/3 the shops were boarded up, the Police station was like a fortress prepared for a siege. People would still go shopping in the day time in the Asian groceries still open, but as it got dark it became a ghost town.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, the BLM roits marked the end of Oakland's Chinatown.

Regarding safe, anything east of Shattuck Avenue and north of 14th street is safe. Below 14th street, anything east of the I-580 is safe. 2 am safe? I have no idea.

The present problem is that even in Montclair, going to the Safeway or Lucky supermarket is no longer exactly safe.

[hobie]

Any particular reason you are fixated on a shooting in San Francisco and not, say, one in Little Rock?

[Frank Drackman]

It was a Spook shooting a Honkie and not your typical Spook on Spook Crime, that’s why, and it involved an Endangered Species, the White Wide-us Receiver-us,, used to be found on Gridirons all over the country, chased by its even rarer relative, The Crafty Caucasian Defensive Back, they’re both scarcer then Bald Eagles(see them in Georgia all the time)

Frank

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman: America's neediest veteran. Frankie, professional athletes in America shoot or get shot almost daily. Or are you nitwits trying one of your tortuous logic trails again:

white->black->crime->SF-> Harris!!!

[not guilty]

How do you claim to know that the 17 year old assailant was a "spook"? News media typically do not publish names, photos or other identifying information of juvenile offenders.

[Frank Drackman]

Common Sense

[ThePublius]

Who says he's fixated?

The reason it's of interest is that SF was once the gem of the Pacific Coast, and this brazen, random act of extreme violence in broad daylight on a downtown street is emblematical of the decline of this once great city.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Parts of it have been pretty ropey for a quite a long time.

You know why it suddenly interests you now. Deep down, you do know...right?

[Kazinski]

Go read the comments on ninersnation, the 49ers sports log about the shooting. The people there are for the most part Bay Area natives, and like the Bay Area are mostly liberal, and the blog itself is explicitly non political.

They don’t think it’s business as usual or same as it ever was.

[Sarcastr0]

Going off of second hand vibes is motivated reasoning.

Cities have problems. Crime is one of them. But the statistics don't tell the 'it's extra bad now' story you want to tell.

The conservative push to see cities as crime-ridden hellholes has been a thing for as long as I've been alive.

[Kazinski]

“Going off of second hand vibes is motivated reasoning.”

I am glad Sourcewatch is on the job here.

But what do you mean second hand? Do you think I, a Bay Area native, and a 49er fan since they played in Kezar stadium and Y A Tittle was their QB, am just a passive observer at a 49ers blog picking up 2nd hand vibes?

[Sarcastr0]

You didn’t source your own take above, you sourced some Internet commenters.

I note Bay Area but not SF. Which is fine! But not something to take as giving you a window into reality.

I’m tempted to take my own experience and generalize as well. But turns out humans are freaking awful at that.

[Kazinski]

I have lived and worked in SF, was born in Oakland, have watched Willie Mays play in Candlestick Park, seen Jerry Garcia play a free concert in Golden Gate park, and BB king play in Winterland. And I met my first wife in San Francisco, although she lived in Oakland (I think i said earlier we met in Oakland, but actually it was SF).

Doesn't sound like you are too familiar with the Bay Area.

[Sarcastr0]

I went to school there, actually. Crowd I was with went to much smaller, weirder bands. Never really worked for me, but couldn't beat the company I was with.

But my whole point is none of that matters. You are talking crime rates. Which is a generalization to be handled with stats, because the human brain thinks personal experience is an accurate way to find evidence of such things, but that's flat wrong.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
You spit out a lot of blah blah to avoid listening to things that you don't want to hear.
ry talking to people who live in the east Bay or Sf. Talk to lots of them, read local papers and you'll see that you're just trying to gaslight people about the decline of the Bay Area.
Talk about crime rates? How does that work when cities don't prosecute misdemeanors.

[Sarcastr0]

Talk about crime rates? How does that work when cities don’t prosecute misdemeanors.

Then look at violent crime. Or use the crime victim survey.

Talking to randos is bad evidence for lots of reasons. It's anecdotal, and a biased subset.

A big part of science is to humble yourself before the data. You're being profoundly anti-science here.

you’re just trying to gaslight people learn what words mean, don't sound foolish.

[Jmaie]

"But the statistics don’t tell the ‘it’s extra bad now’ story you want to tell."

I believe you were the one who brought statistics into the discussion, prior comments only mentioned it "going down hill." Which it has. Significantly. Pearsall was shot on Geary, near Union Square. That is a place where one watches out for pickpockets, not armed robbers.

The City rolled out "Snapcrap" in 2018. That such an app is needed at all is terrible. Incidences of calls for cleanup has (if the site I found is to believed) shows a quadrupling from 2013-2023.

https://openthebooks.substack.com/p/updated-the-san-francisco-poop-map

Was last there in 2021, found tents well outside the Tenderloin and our daughter (age 17, obviously a tourist) was approached by someone offering the sale of drugs. While were were walking down the street in Knob Hill. While my wife and I were five feet away.

I can't fathom why you're being oppositional on this issue. Is it just reflexive at this point?

[Sarcastr0]

OK so if you narrow the focus to Union Square, you find that there's lots of people pooping where they shouldn't.

And the Tenderloin can be a rough neighborhood. That was the case when I was last in SF well over a decade ago.

You have established that SF has bad neighborhoods. Not sure if you thought I was saying otherwise, but if so let me disabuse you of that idea.

[Jmaie]

OK, so it is reflexive.

I said nothing about people pooping at Union Square. The subject there was gunfire.

Nor did I say that the pooping was confined there - the map in the attachment is not great but the darker areas (presumably higher frequency of reports) covers a quarter of the city.

Tents lining parts of Knob Hill, not the tenderloin.

[Jmaie]

And before you assume otherwise - I'm making no claim that it's all about them dirty grrr woof SF liberals and their policies. SF has *always* been liberal and for a very long time was a lovely place to live. Still is, mostly, but there's no coherent way to claim it hasn't gotten a whole lot worse recently.

[Sarcastr0]

You linked to something called the San Francisco Poop map, my dude.

I don’t care where the tents are, my point is that if you’re going to talk about crime rates use data to do it.

It is legit to say there are bad neighborhoods. It is not legit to generalize to all of SF based on that.

If you clicked on my link above (https://www.sf.gov/data/violent-crime-and-property-crime-0), you would see it is a volatile data set, but it looks like property crime did get worse right after Covid, but this past year it’s returning to the norm.

Violent crime has not spiked in SF, even during Covid.

Frankly, I think we’re largely in agreement.

[Jmaie]

Don’t know why I can’t reply to your latest, but in case…

You’ve not argued against any of my cited particulars, you’ve only attempted to minimize. Why?

The site I linked to, do you dispute their findings? Or just a cite to (perceived lack of) authority…

The point is not whether there are bad neighborhoods, there have always been so. One night, early ’90’s, we had to bring a ship in at the Hunter’s Point shipyard to load ballast blocks for the navy. Staff were initially refused permission to bring their cars on to military property. Local 10 IWLU longshoremen refused to leave their cars on the street outside and the only way we got the ship worked was by waking up the Colonel and getting permission to allow them in. *Hunter’s Point* is a bad neighborhood.

And the point is not whether there are bad neighborhoods, I’ve stipulated so. Issue is that good neighborhoods have deteriorated. Shootings at Union Square were previously unheard of. Knob hill never used to have tents on the sidewalks. Excrement cleanup calls have quadrupled in a decade.

Crime statistics have not spiked. So what? That was not what started the conversation. Quality of life in the city has in many ways tanked. Weekend afternoon in Golden Gate Park sees many cars broken into every weekend. Didn’t used to be that much of a thing. Cars in traffic getting on the freeway are being broken into during the morning commute as well. Why is the problem so difficult to admit, is it because Michael P or Brett said otherwise and you can’t help yourself disagreeing on principal?

We will be flying into SFO this weekend. We would normally have dinner in the city before heading to the east bay, but we won’t leave the car parked with luggage inside (even with a sedan). My last business trip, I stopped off to pick up dinner on College Avenue in Oakland and upon return to my rental car I found the driver’s side window broken. There was absolutely nothing visible in the cabin and nothing in the trunk. This is not a “bad” neighborhood.

Lest you claim that anecdotes =/= data, I thought you lefties were all about believing “lived experiences”?

;<)

[Don Nico]

Because SF was a popular tourist destination that ws safe and not a pig sty.

[Aoidized]

If you let blacks run amok, they will.

[Armchair]

In other news about SF, Kamala's career there is interesting, especially in terms of her corruption in letting contractors who endangered people's lives by using substandard building materials off as a favor to Willie Brown.

I wonder what other "favors" she'll need to pay off if elected President, and how the US will suffer?

"When Harris was a subordinate in the San Francisco DA’s office, she started dating Willie Brown, the most powerful man in California politics, who was 31 years older and married. After the current DA passed over Kamala Harris, a woman who failed the bar exam and is not exactly known for her mastery of the law, Brown was instrumental in alienating the existing DA, and was personally involved in raising money and running Harris’ successful campaign to get elected district attorney. Once in office, Harris let a number of Willie Brown’s friends off the hook when they were facing serious charges — including an egregious case where she let a city contractor and Willie Brown donor skate after endangering people’s lives after defrauding taxpayers by using cheaper, structurally unsound recycled concrete to build bridges and other important structures. This was all reported on in detail by local San Francisco media when it happened"

https://thefederalist.com/2024/08/30/if-donald-trumps-sex-life-is-fair-game-for-the-election-so-is-kamala-harris/

[Martinned2]

Yes, corruption, it's terrible, and must be stopped!

[Armchair]

Well, seems you agree Kamala can't be elected.

[hobie]

So you don't like presidents who had affairs, eh?

[Michael P]

In terms of life success, there's a big difference between sleeping with someone to get ahead and being the one who people sleep with to get ahead.

[hobie]

Adultery for me, but not for thee!

[Michael P]

Great comment! You really show your usual familiarity with reality, where both of the leading candidates to be US president have committed adultery!

[Voize]

When a married person and an unmarried person have sex, only the married one is committing adultery.

[David Nieporent]

These pieces of shit are also essentially lying. Brown had been separated from his wife for roughly a decade at the time Harris started dating (not sleeping with) him. I don't know why he hadn't formally gotten divorced, but this was not an extramarital affair in the traditional sense. (When I say "not sleeping with," I don't mean they weren't having sex; they probably were. I mean this wasn't some sort of sneak around behind someone's back to hook up situation. They were openly and publicly dating, and nobody had a problem with it, because — as I said — Brown's marriage was only nominal at that point.)

[Voize]

I don’t know why he hadn’t formally gotten divorced

Still hasn’t. He and Blanche Vitero will have been married 66 years some time this month, and separated since 1982.

[David Nieporent]

Thanks; I did not know that.

It's hard for me to imagine why. Obviously religious or legal issues might be reasons not to get divorced, but (a) I don't know what religion forbids divorce but allows the couple to separate and have sex with others; and (b) I'm pretty sure one can work out any legal hurdles over the span of 40 years.

(An only-in-fiction will proviso that says that they get a million dollars a year from a trust, but only if they stay married?)

[Mr. Bumble]

Wrong again Mr. Know-it-All..
Pompous fucking jerk.

[Michael P]

Says who? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery:

Legal definitions of adultery vary. For example, New York defines an adulterer as a person who "engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse."[27] North Carolina defines adultery as occurring when any man and woman "lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed, and cohabit together."[28] Minnesota law (repealed in 2023)[29] provided: "when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery."[30]

[Voize]

Point taken.

I don't know that it is very relevant though to look to legal definitions of crimes that haven't been prosecuted in decades. If you look hard enough you can find historical definitions that only applied to married women, but I doubt that anyone today uses the word in that sense.

A definition that better reflects modern usage is this one:

sex between a married person and somebody who is not their husband or wife

What distinguishes adultery from run-of-the-mill fornication,and I presume why commenters in this thread brought up adultery in the first place, is the violation of the marriage oath. Though both people participate in the act only the married one(s) took that oath and so earn whatever extra level of approbation is due an oathbreaker.

[Michael P]

Or Matthew 5:32, English Standard Version:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The US military code similarly defines “extramarital sexual conduct” (a potential court-martial offense) to occur when either participant is married. Likewise the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations—even transient ones—they commit adultery.

More traditional Jewish and Christian law requires that the woman be married or engaged, but both partners are adulterers. None of these make the distinction you do.

[Don Nico]

I think that you misread the post. The complaint was not about the affair, but about the consequent corrupt actions.

[Armchair]

Indeed

[Sarcastr0]

It’s an opinion piece in The Federalist. The consequences are not gone into or supported, just assumed.

Because the complaint of the article is not what you say it is – the complaint is that people get mad when you call Harris a whore.

[bernard11]

Don,

Are you familiar with The Federalist?

It's best to assume, until proven otherwise, that its stories lie somewhere between extremely distorted and outright lies.

That Armchair likes to cite them says a good bit about his integrity.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are mistaking The Federalist for CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR etc.

[Sarcastr0]

No, he's recognizing that Don is a vastly more serious poster than you and your schoolyard wankery.

[Kazinski]

Well I agree that Harris’s sex life should not be a topic. But relationships do matter in looking for motivations in possible public corruption or sweetheart deals. Whether its a VP’s son, a Bankruptcy judges live in GF, those factors matter.

Here is the SFgate article referenced, but evidently not linked in the Federalist article. Whatever taint you ascribe to the Federalist, which is opinion, not news, can’t fairly taint a 2008 article in prominent local SF media.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Concrete-contractor-cuts-deal-with-prosecutors-3212567.php

Concrete contractor cuts deal with prosecutors

By Jaxon Van Derbeken,
Chronicle Staff Writer
June 1, 2008

Two years ago, San Francisco authorities blamed a local businessman for orchestrating a fraud scheme that resulted in tons of substandard concrete being used in public structures.

But the fraud case against Ricardo Ramirez crumbled earlier this year when prosecutors dropped those charges as part of a deal under which he pleaded guilty to a single environmental count. Ramirez will serve a year of home detention and avoid jail time as long as he pays $427,000 in fines and restitution.

Meanwhile, the public is stuck with his legacy. Substandard concrete from Ramirez’s now-defunct company was poured into a half-mile stretch of the Bay Bridge’s rebuilt western approach. Inferior, less-durable material also was used on a retrofit project at the Golden Gate Bridge, a wastewater treatment plant in Burlingame, the new parking garage in Golden Gate Park, the Municipal Railway’s Third Street light-rail line and other projects.”

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hey the guy who thinks Trump's morality is not an issue is very concerned about a 2008 deal in a court case.

Harris and Brown dated in like the mid 90s.

Tendentious timeline and inconsistent standards.

[Kazinski]

Yes, i do think conduct in office is much more important than activty between the sheets.

[Sarcastr0]

We've discussed; the executive is hired to react as much as act. Reaction comes from character more than policy agenda. Character counts. Other things do as well, but writing it off is a pretty pinched view of the job, and some weird assumptions about how easy it is to compartmentalize aspects of human nature from one another.

But the main issue is your inconsistency. Here, you strain to bring it in where Harris is involved. You made no causal connections, but think it's worth discussing.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, i do think conduct in office is much more important than activty between the sheets.

Me too. And yet, without the prurient aspect of the story, it's just "Random white collar criminal defendant got a good plea deal," which is pretty meaningless since none of us have any idea of the strength of the case against him.

[bernard11]

And how does this support Armchair's claim that,

Once in office, Harris let a number of Willie Brown’s friends off the hook when they were facing serious charges — including an egregious case where she let a city contractor and Willie Brown donor skate after endangering people’s lives after defrauding taxpayers by using cheaper, structurally unsound recycled concrete to build bridges and other important structures.

It happened in 2006, ten years after Brown and Harris split. There is no indication Brown was involved. There is no information on the plea deal., etc.

IOW, The Federalist made up a bunch of "facts," and Armchair swallowed them.

[hobie]

Let's see who Trump let 'off the hook' with his pardon power:

[about to start writing the list]

naw, you know all the names

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If you're taking a poll, my favorite was Sheriff Arpaio.

[Moderation4ever]

I game for a comparison of sex lives. Let see a grown woman have a relationship with a colleague. An adjudicated rapist, who is on his third marriage, and who routinely commits adultery. Seems a bit lopsided doesn't it.

[Frank Drackman]

You just described the “Second Gentleman”

[Moderation4ever]

I think you are a little far off, but it doesn't matter as I don't plan to vote for Doug Emhoff anyway.

[Aoidized]

He's not an adjudicated rapist any more than the Scottsboro boys were.

[Moderation4ever]

How about a comparison to the Central Park Five that Trump wanted executed?

[grb]

Moderation4ever : “An adjudicated rapist, who is on his third marriage, and who routinely commits adultery. Seems a bit lopsided doesn’t it?”

And that’s leaving out Trump’s creepy sexual fixation on his own daughter. He spent well over a decade talking about Ivanka as a “piece of ass” he’d be doing if it wasn’t for that irksome fatherhood thing. White House aides said this continued in the Oval Office:

“Aides said he talked about Ivanka Trump’s breasts, her backside, and what it might be like to have sex with her, remarks that prompted Kelly to remind the president that Ivanka was his daughter,” writes Miles Taylor, a former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security..”

But – hey – what’s that compared to publically dating a man who separated from his wife a decade earlier? In the cult, those things are equal.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-creepiest-most-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trumps-lewd-talk-about-daughter-ivanka-in-front-of-white-house-staff-recalled-in-new-book/

[Mr. Bumble]

Did Ivanka write in her diary about showering with daddy?

[David Nieporent]

You've got to love dubious whatabouts that aren't even about the right politician.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Moderation — During autumn in Vermont the locals have a name for that behavior: "Swivel Heads."

[Moderation4ever]

This opinion piece in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, from Froma Harrop caught my eye the other day.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a13/page_826e9bd6-30e0-5155-b116-d03357358f1e.html

Now retired, I like to travel. I admit I rarely think much about how the local people feel about tourists like me. I try to be a good tourist. Spend money and behave well. But I know I stop in the middle of the sidewalk to stare at things, stop to read all the historical sign, and drive slower in unfamiliar places.

[hobie]

That's some deep thought, man.

[Frank Drackman]

Might want to have a little more “SA” if you visit the MLK museum in Memphis, my Locums job affords me the opportunity to see, Niagra Falls, Statue of Liberty, Gettysburg, St Louis Arch, Grand Canyon, Giant Sequoias, Mount Whitney, Mount Hood, the Alamo, LBJ Ranch, Mt Rushmore, Joshua Tree, Blue Angels in p-cola
Only “Site” I was warned to avoid was the former Lorraine hotel in Memphis, went anyway and they were right, like the Bar Scene in Animal House, if I didn’t have my 357, would have become another statistic

Frank

[Paladin_44]

Pay-walled!

[Moderation4ever]

Sorry about that. The gist of the article is that locals in tourist spots are getting sick of the tourists. Many places are placing limits on the number of tourists that can come in especially from tour companies like cruise ships.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If only men voted, Trump would win in a landslide similar to Reagan in 1984. heels Up's support is amongst increasingly hysterical females, who now are talking about a future of cannibalism and "forced breeding camps." See: https://www.thecollegefix.com/u-s-hates-women-faces-future-of-cannibalism-forced-breeding-camps-asu-event/

A lot of women are single-issue voters, their world starts and ends with abortion and their "right" to murder their babies.

What women don't realize is that (a) we can't fight a major war without a draft, (b) women will get drafted too, and (c) the military can mandate abortions as easily and as legally as it mandated Covid vaccinations. No one is talking about this.

Nor that the military aged men invading our country have a very different attitude towards rape than most American men do. One need only look to Europe to see what American women will be dealing with in a decade or so -- even if they can then get abortions.

Ann Coulter says that the 19th Amendment was a mistake, and there are times that I agree with her.

[hobie]

Yep, it was a boon week for us Marxist/Communist/Pedophilic Liberals last week. Between Trump and Vance, they managed to alienate or insult almost all American women. And people like Dr. Ed here, with their sprinklings of misogyny here and there across the Internet, will mop up any stragglers. That pesky 19th Amendment is a bitch, ain't it?

[Ed Grinberg]

I note that you do not dispute the substance of what he said -- i.e., that Harris's support comes mostly from female voters (whose #1 issue is abortion).

[Ed Grinberg]

Here's one woman who might not vote for Kamala Harris:
https://x.com/laralogan/status/1827544721956217288

[hobie]

Good ol' Lara Logan. She who went crazy before crazy was a thing

[Magister]

The US lied about this from the start so it could justify handing over power to these monsters. Anyone with a brain knew there was no such thing as moderate Taliban & never will be.

Trump's deal of course was destined to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban, barring a large escalation by the new administration. Trump winning in 2020 would have had at least the same result (but he would have blamed the generals).

[Commenter_XY]

Uh, no = Trump winning in 2020 would have had at least the same result (but he would have blamed the generals).

I don't think a POTUS Trump would have a) left behind billions in munitions and equipment for the Taliban to use against us, and b) would not have tolerated the incompetence that got 13 service members killed (and abandoned the Afghan people who helped us for years).

[Magister]

Commenter_XY's thoughts derive from his cult membership. Donald Trump is the most incompetent President in history.

It is reasonable that Donald Trump would have expended many lives of suckers and losers to bring home American equipment, as he's made it clear that American treasure is more important to him than American blood. He probably would have left Afghan refugees to die; nothing in it for him, after all, and xenophobia is pretty much his favorite political theme. As for tolerating incompetence? He was railing against generals to the end of his term in office, but not really doing anything to fix problems, only to deflect blame from himself.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t think a POTUS Trump would have a) left behind billions in munitions and equipment for the Taliban to use against us,

Um, you seem to be confused about what happened. The U.S. didn't leave behind anything. This is stuff that we had given to the Afghan government, that of course fell into the Taliban's hands when the Afghan government collapsed. Even if the U.S. had the means to bring that stuff along during the withdrawal, how was the U.S. going to get it? Attack the Afghan government — our allies — and seize it?

b) would not have tolerated the incompetence that got 13 service members killed (and abandoned the Afghan people who helped us for years).

It was Trump who negotiated our surrender to the Taliban, you tool!

"Incompetence" did not get 13 service members killed; a suicide bomber did. And how was Trump going to "not tolerate" it anyway? Tweet some nasty stuff?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Even more than that, Harris is playing to female misogyny -- imagine if Trump did the same, starting with promising to reform the child support laws, which would get a lot of male votes. Then presuming that single mothers have a boyfriend (as they didn't get pregnant on their own) and adjusting financial handouts accordingly so as to encourage fatherhood -- heck, give them a bonus if they are or get married.

And then use the principle of the 21 year old drinking age to require states to revoke drivers licenses of those who default on student loans, It's mostly women and the gender confused who have the six figure loans in useless things, and they're not going to vote for Trump anyway.

And this is our coming civil war...

[Magister]

"Female misogyny" would be women hating women.

Warning: Everyone who played the "Dr. Ed 2 predicts civil war" drinking game is dead from alcohol poisoning. Be safe, fellow commenters.

[bernard11]

"Sprinklings?"

Floods is more like it.

[ThePublius]

Women who become pregnant while serving in a combat zone and refuse an abortion should be jailed. It's a ticket out that's unavailable to men.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why not strap them down for a forcible abortion like the Chinese do.

[Magister]

For the same reason we don't copy other human rights abuses the Chinese have done. But Dr. Ed 2 would really, really like to run over protesters with tanks, and is miffed that he has to settle for fantasizing about using snowplows.

[Dr. Ed 2]

First, tank treads damage the pavement and hence rubber-tired snow plows will suffice. 🙂

On a more serious note, why couldn't a military with the power to order you to die have the power to order you to have an abortion? It's only a medical procedure, like the anthrax vaccine, that is intended to maintain the strength of the unit.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2, who regularly advocates use of nuclear weapons, backs off running people over with tanks ... out of concern for the roads.

Again, not taking Chinese practice as a model for the US military.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, the other option is what was done to men who contracted VD during WWII -- they were considered to have "stolen" time from the military and it was tacked onto the end of their enlistment.

Hence the enlistment of the woman who gets pregnant is extended a year, and she gets to go into combat then...

[David Nieporent]

Well, the other option is what was done to men who contracted VD during WWII — they were considered to have “stolen” time from the military and it was tacked onto the end of their enlistment.

Is this as true as everything else Dr. Ed says?

[Magister]

Such a policy would have worked against the encouragement to see military doctors promptly, rather than seek quack remedies.

[Kazinski]

I would give them a medal, both for having a baby, and improving morale.

I actually think women having babies is a good thing even if somewhat inconvenient sometimes.

[ThePublius]

In addition, why don't we have affirmative action for women in combat? I mean, only women in combat until the body count equals the number of male combatants killed since the Revolutionary War.

[Martinned2]

As long as the men agree to get raped in similar numbers to the rapes of women that have happened since the Revolutionary War, we might have a conversation.

[ThePublius]

Wow, what does that have to do with the draft?

[Stella Link the dog]

Nothing. And that, El Denso, is the point.

[Martinned2]

Historically, men have started wars, and women have died and gotten raped in them.

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

[Magister]

As previously noted, Dr. Ed 2's primary hatred is for women.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/22/thursday-open-thread-205/?comments=true#comment-10697661

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hatred for dumb, brainwashed women.

And links to ones own past ad hominums? Poor form...

[Magister]

Supporting evidence supplied from Dr. Ed 2's own posts*. Depriving all women of the vote sounds like assuming they're all dumb, brainwashed women.

* (Dr. Ed 2 posts sound like misogyny, so that might count as an ad homonym argument.)

[David Nieporent]

You seem to be forgetting his "all sex workers deserve to be murdered" extravaganza from months ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which isn't what I wrote, and Needledick knows it.

I said that prostitutes (not "sex workers") were assuming the risk and hence -- like a drunk driver -- should anticipate the consequences of their actions. That they could have made an honest living if they had wanted to, and they enjoyed the fruits of whoring, so I really didn't feel sorry for them.

[David Nieporent]

I will let the other posters here decide whether Dr. Ed’s description or mine is more accurate — and for that matter, whether they are any different.

Just keep in mind that when he says "the consequences of their actions," he means neither pregnancy nor STD; he means being murdered.

[bernard11]

I said that prostitutes (not “sex workers”) were assuming the risk

Yeah. They should have been electrical engineers instead.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Yeah. They should have been electrical engineers instead."
That would have made graduate school a lot more interesting.

[Magister]

Two electrical engineering students met on campus, and the first said to the second: "Nice bike!"
The second replied, "Yeah, I was walking to class and a gorgeous co-ed rode up on this bike, ripped off all her clothes and said I could have anything I wanted. So I took the bike."
The first nodded, "Good thinking, the clothes wouldn't fit you."

[not guilty]

"What women don’t realize is that (a) we can’t fight a major war without a draft, (b) women will get drafted too, and (c) the military can mandate abortions as easily and as legally as it mandated Covid vaccinations. No one is talking about this."

Like a blind hog finding an acorn, Dr. Ed 2 may have gotten this right -- although it doesn't support the point he is trying to make.

Where a government is unconstrained by respect for personal autonomy regarding whether to bear or beget offspring, that government can indeed compel women to abort -- and not just in the context of armed combat.

Those who doubt this should reread Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), which has never been overruled and remains good law. Buck and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), are two sides of the same coin.

[Michael Ejercito]

Buck also relied on Jacobson v. Massachussetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which also hasn't been reversed...

[not guilty]

Actually, Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153-154 (1973), cited Buck and Jacobson in support of the proposition that a state may constitutionally prohibit third trimester abortions:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I have always been uncomfortable with Jacobson and Buck. I thought they went too far in compromising human autonomy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Dr. Ed is complaining about people projecting unrealistic apocalyptic scenarios if they don’t get their way politically and calling them hysterical.

No words, should have sent Alanis Morissette.

[Sarcastr0]

People who seem to agree with Ed's 'my misogyny goes up to 11' take:

-Ed Grinberg
-ThePublius

[bernard11]

If only men voted, Trump would win in a landslide similar to Reagan in 1984.

And if only women voted Harris would win in a landslide. So what?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not really -- married women will vote for Trump.

It's the dead vote that tips the scale back the other way.

[Sarcastr0]

People who can't defend themselves physically (women and low T men) parse information through a consensus filter as a safety mechanism. They literally do not ask "is this true", they ask "will others be OK with me thinking this is true". This makes them very malleable to brute force manufactured consensus; if every screen they look at says the same thing they will adopt that position because their brain interprets it as everyone in the tribe believing it.

Only high T alpha males and aneurotypical people (hey autists!) are actually free to parse new information with an objective "is this true?" filter. This is why a Republic of high status males is best for decision making. Democratic, but a democracy only for those who are free to think.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump continues to have trouble deciding whether to shit or go blind regarding the availability of safe and legal abortion. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/us/elections/abortion-polls-women-trump-harris.html

For the blastocystophiles, restricting abortion rights has been a motivational issue for decades. In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), as well as multiple state referenda, preserving and protecting abortion rights has become such a motivational issue for those who previously took such rights for granted.

This state of affairs calls to mind the Pottery Barn Rule: "You break it, you buy it."

[Michael P]

Have you been taking lessons from Kamala Harris on how to make word salad?

[hobie]

All the states where these ballot initiatives are in play (Montana, Nebraska, Arizona, Missouri) will blue wave this year. Especially Florida, because all the elderly woman there - who had this right all their lives - have sympathy for the younger ones. And all these women, in all instances, while in that voting booth, are going to take their vengeance on the candidates responsible for this inconvenience

[Dr. Ed 2]

A lot of elderly women wish that their grandchildren hadn't been aborted...

[ThePublius]

How has Trump been inconsistent on this issue of late, or flip-flopped, since Dobbs?

[Michael P]

I think it's that he said he thought Florida's six-week ban on abortions was too early, then said he would be voting against a referendum to strike it down. I guess this is one of the rare cases where Democrats believe we should practice democracy.

[Life of Brian]

In fairness, Florida's Amendment 4 goes far beyond simply striking down the 6-week ban:

no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider

Simply limiting it to "before viability" might well have passed, but the architects got greedy and went for the uber-subjective moonshot.

[Martinned2]

Of course. Who better to decide whether an abortion is medically necessary than the Florida state legislature? Or are you suggesting that we should just let women die?

[Life of Brian]

Or are you suggesting that we should just let women die?

Very poignant and all, but Florida's 6-week ban already has an exception for the mother's life. The notion of "health" is of course far broader and in practice would mean whatever the shopped doctor might need it to mean.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Brian — Because there will always be unreliable doctors who might be woke, you need pregnancy supervision, with regular examinations at the state's clinics. For women already pregnant, there would be no need to schedule compulsory examinations more frequently than monthly, or quarterly for teenagers and married women who were not yet pregnant.

[Josh R]

How could the law be written to distinguish between legitimately protecting the health of the women and proscribing fraudulent appeals to health? And, how many such fraudulent abortions occur? Is it a problem?

[Life of Brian]

Dunno. If the proponents seeking what is, let's recall, a new constitutional-level protection, think there's a subset of bona-fide threats to health not allowed by the current law and that it's possible to clearly define that subset, the burden's on them to draft the amendment to cover it.

But they didn't choose that path, which was my original point: they decided to go all-in and propose what is effectively an end-run around any meaningful statutory limitations on abortion at all, and I highly doubt that's going to fly.

[Josh R]

Or perhaps it isn’t possible to clearly define what constitutes a legitimate health exception and we should trust women and their doctors? And, the burden should go on those who disagree to propose a workable law to the contrary that addresses what appears to be a non-existent problem.

I predict the Florida referendum will get more than 50%, but whether it gets to 60% (as required to pass) is iffy. A similar referendum passed in Michigan 57-43 in 2022.

[not guilty]

The words of the proposed amendment contemplate that the legislature may prohibit post-viability abortion when unnecessary to protect the patient's health. If a criminal statute so provides, the absence of necessity becomes an essential element that the prosecution would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

By way of analogy, Florida law provides that a pharmacist, in good faith and in the course of professional practice only, may dispense controlled substances upon a written, oral, or electronic prescription of a practitioner, under the conditions specified by statute. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.04.html

If a pharmacist dispenses controlled substances other than in the course of professional practice, he would be subject to prosecution. Under my hypothetical abortion statute, a healthcare provider who performs a post-viability abortion which is not necessary to protect the patient's health would similarly be subject to prosecution.

[not guilty]

"How has Trump been inconsistent on this issue of late, or flip-flopped, since Dobbs?"

Trump has praised the SCOTUS justices who overruled Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and has claimed credit for appointing three of those justices. He has apparently realized, however, that the decision in Dobbs has become widely unpopular.

Trump on Friday said he will vote no on a Florida ballot measure that would repeal the state’s six-week abortion ban, a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump has said he thinks Florida’s ban is a mistake and said in an interview with Fox News Channel on Friday, “I think six weeks, you need more time.” https://apnews.com/article/trump-abortion-florida-six-weeks-ae0ce47cb2af82a6586fa19235ea2226

Trump wrote on social media last week that his administration would be “great for women and their reproductive rights.” His running mate J. D. Vance followed up in an interview by saying Trump as president would veto a federal abortion ban even if one managed to pass Congress — a 180-degree turn from the former president’s past promise to sign national restrictions on the procedure into law. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-s-newest-flip-flop-now-says-he-s-voting-against-florida-abortion-amendment-decision-gives-harris-ammo-videos/ar-AA1pLqgb

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s always been obvious that Trump doesn’t care about abortion and doesn’t even want to be bothered to think about it. Someone with his history of predation would in effect be prochoice, for obvious reasons.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed. But, those Christian rubes won't con themselves, you know...

[Magister]

Mostly they do con themselves, though, as Josh R notes below.

[not guilty]

As I have said before, Donald Trump is just as opposed to abortion as Strom Thurmond was opposed to miscegenation or Ted Haggard was opposed to buttsex and drug use. Each of them is/was pandering to the rubes.

[Josh R]

In a rare occurance, the GOP base bit back at Trump.

Usually, the base accepts whatever Trump says. If he wants tariffs, that must be good for us. If he wants us out of NATO, sure. If Biden stole the 2020 election, you betcha. Trump’s appeal to the base is as a charismatic, straight-talking advocate for those who have been left behind by the establishment. And, all that he does, no matter insane to the rest of us, he does on their behalf.

But, not abortion. There is no anti-establishment argument.

[Magister]

According to Wikipedia, Pottery Barn does not have such a rule. (They probably wouldn't write it off if you go in and break a bunch of stuff willfully, though.)

In reality, Pottery Barn, a chain of upscale home furnishing stores in the United States, does not have a "you break it, you bought it" policy, but instead writes off broken merchandise as a loss, as do most large American retailers.

[Dan Schiavetta]

They were upset when The Mustache of Understanding kept using the phrase after the Iraq War.

[Michael P]

I believe we should be allowed to have the death penalty for headline writers who pen things like "Tenstorrent's Blackhole chips boast 768 RISC-V cores and almost as many FLOPS" when they actually mean "almost as many teraFLOPS" (trillion floating-point operations per second, counting operations with 8-bit numbers instead of the more traditional 32- or 64-bit numbers). The omission changes the headline by 12 orders of magnitude.

[Longtobefree]

There are only two numbers; the one and the zero.

[John F. Carr]

I know a one year old who knows three numbers: no, one, and two, with two meaning more than one. A simplified version of the traditional classification one, two, three, many.

[Michael P]

The Pirahã language is reported to only have the categories one, two and many. (But maybe the words mean “a few” and “many” instead, and the Pirahã people cannot count in the way we usually think of it.)

[John F. Carr]

The categories one, two, many, as distinct from the numbers, were once common in Indo-European languages. The dual number, in between singular and plural, survived to 2,000 years ago in ancient Greek and some ancestor of the Slavic languages.

[SRG2]

FWIW the Hebrew word for "many", rabim, is cognate with the word for "four", arbah - and in many cases in the Tanakh the Hebrew word for "forty", arba'im, should really be translated as "many" or "numerous".

[Krayt]

I recall an old humerous story where some tech store salesman bragged a camera had “12 million megapixels”. Slowly explaining it yield no abudgement.

As of today, the highest so far is 3200 megapixels.

[bernard11]

3200 megapixels in an ordinary consumer or professional camera? What model has that, and how do they get all that on a sensor.

Maybe you meant 32MP, but 61MP cameras, at least, are available.

[Voize]

Would Krayt mislead?

https://petapixel.com/2022/10/04/3200-megapixels-the-worlds-largest-camera-is-almost-complete/

[bernard11]

Thanks, Voize. That's interesting.

3200 MP is in fact very impressive, but I don't think I can order one from B&H just yet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

12 million pixels = 12 megapixels so he really wasn't wrong, just using the wrong word.

[hobie]

I was thinking the other day that Bush Sr. is probably the last president the Navy will name a ship after. With our poisoned politics, I foresee half of the seaman refusing to board the USS Laundry Ship Trump, and the other half refusing to board the Battleship Obama. But I'm thinking Clinton might just squeak in though

[Mr. Bumble]

The US hasn't built a battleship since the Iowa class ships.

[Moderation4ever]

Battleships seem kind of useless in current age of warfare. With the exception of aircraft carriers, it seems you want smaller faster ships.

[Frank Drackman]

They made a great prop for that Cher video

[Moderation4ever]

Agree fully.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny thing about the Video, they announced they wanted Marines and Sailors as Extras, but the Director didn’t like the look of the Marine Camies(in his Defense those 80’s “Woodland” with the Leisure Suit Larry lapels were pretty awful and it was night, white uniforms better contrast with the dark) fair number of Marines swallowed their pride and donned Navy “Cracker Jacks”(to get a look up Chers 1989 Snatch? I’d dress up like a Nun)

Frank

[Joe_dallas]

Battleships were shown to be very obsolete early in WW2, without air support and / or air superiority, though they were useful for shore bombardment prior to land invasions (somewhat effective).

A legitimate question exists as to whether aircraft carriers will be obsolete in the next major war (with China? perhaps) with the advent of missiles, cruise missiles, etc. ( i will leave that analysis to those with better knowledge of naval warfare).

Somewhat unlikely to have major war with china since their economy is so heavily dependent on trade with western countries. (very unlikely is better guess of the future )

[Dr. Ed 2]

Battleships were effective in providing fire support in Vietnam, they could go 25 miles with a great deal of accuracy. The USS New Jersey was quite effective off Beruit in the '80s -- each round would take out a whole city block.

The problem is that they were not armored from above -- that's what Pearl Harbor showed. But as gun platforms, they are still effective.

[Mr. Bumble]

They are no more except as museum ships.

[Krayt]

There will be no major war. Nobody can compete with the US, and the only ones who might challenge are dictatorship kleptocracies, which are not interested in a suicidal attack bringing their corruption gravy train to an end.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They said the same thing about Hitler...

[SRG2]

They're still making submarines so perhaps Melania class submarines - "go down easily".

[hobie]

Hmmm...assigning names based on characteristics. So I guess a Trump-class ship would be one bristling with fake golden gun turrets, completely hollow inside and hemorrhages wreckage in its wake

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit, that was my line, only about Cums-a-lot

[Magister]

George H. W. Bush was the last president who served in a war; his son served in the National Guard during the Vietnam war but did not fulfill his obligation. Starting in 1992, candidates with more military experience steadily lost, and haven't been nominated in a while. There was a ship named for John McCain, although it was also already named for his grandfather and father, but the White House wanted the name covered to avoid triggering Donald Trump.

[Joe_dallas]

Magister 1 hour ago
"George H. W. Bush was the last president who served in a war; his son served in the National Guard during the Vietnam war but did not fulfill his obligation. "

Rathergate and Mapes ring a bell

[bernard11]

Anyone who thinks W. simply walked into the National Guard office one day and just signed up wasn't around at that time.

Efforts to avoid the draft were quite common, to say the least, and the National Guard was one way to do it, but it required some good connections and pull. The waiting lists were long.

It doesn't really bother me that W used connections that way, but his refusal, decades later, to admit that there was anything dubious about it, does.

The war, which he approved of, was fought by conscripts. When you dodge conscription you are essentially sending someone else, probably against their will, to risk their life in a cause you support, but are unwilling to risk your own life for.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One of a whole generation of Republican “chicken hawks”.

[Krayt]

John Fogherty covered it much more elegantly.

[Joe_dallas]

Bush made requests to transfer to Nam, but was turned down because the plane he was trained on was being retired from active duty.

Make some attempt to get your facts correct.

[Dr. Ed 2]

To say that W didn't fight in a war is asinine -- and an insult to a lot of brave men who flew potentially suicidal missions in the ANG.

All during the Cold War, Soviet aircraft would penetrate American airspace and it was the brave men of the ANG (including W), flying obsolete (and often unsafe) aircraft who went up to challenge them. And it would be their death that indicated that the Soviets were actually attacking and not just testing our responses.

Bush flew a F-102, and he volunteered to serve in Vietnam except he didn't have the required 500 hours in the 102 that was required, and it was also being withdrawn from Vietnam, and rapidly being retired.

The ANG didn't want to train him to fly a different aircraft because he didn't have enough time left in his enlistment to make it worth the expense, and as the USAF was downsizing at the time, there were a lot of other pilots (already trained in the newer plane) who wanted Bush's slot so that they could get their 20 years in for retirement.

So Bush really did the decent (rich boy) thing and gave his reserve slot up to someone who needed it for the money. And at that point, they really didn't care if he showed up or not, and he made up the drills (which is permitted).

Walz did the same thing when he spent a year teaching in China, except that was in the middle of his career when his unit likely needed him.

Jimmy Carter graduated from the Academy in 1946 and then spent five years aboard a submarine. That also was de-facto combat duty as our submarines played a deadly game of "cat and mouse" with the Soviet subs.

[David Nieporent]

All during the Cold War, Soviet aircraft would penetrate American airspace

This guy. He thinks everything is an act of war. Except actual acts of war. Which he has hallucinated. Occasionally there be encroachment… in Alaska, which of course is right next to the Soviet Union.

[Magister]

Beyond the preferential treatment to get into the Guard, Bush did not complete a required annual physical, and was excused to work on a political campaign and then allowed to quit early to go to Harvard Business School. By contrast, both of his presidential opponents actually served in Vietnam.

[Dan Schiavetta]

And guess who got the big cheers from veterans groups? It was nauseating.

[Mr. Bumble]

Suck an egg.

[Joe_dallas]

Magister 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Beyond the preferential treatment to get into the Guard, Bush did not complete a required annual physical, "

Seriously magister - The fake killian letters have been completely debunked. Are you still believing Dan Rather and mary mapes?

You even posted your comment after you were reminded of rathergate
Did you ever hear of Rathergate?

[bernard11]

Rathergate has nothing to do with it.

That a letter making some claim proved to be fake doesn't mean the claim is wrong.

Bush made requests to transfer to Nam, but was turned down because the plane he was trained on was being retired from active duty.

From Wiki:

According to three pilots from Bush's squadron, Bush inquired about this program but was advised by the base commander that he did not have the necessary flying experience (500 hours) at the time and that the F-102 would soon be retired, all aircraft of the type withdrawn from Vietnam by the end of 1968.

"Inquired about" and "made requests" are two different things.

Further, as I said above, I don't really blame him for dodging. I do blame him, and other chicken hawks, for not understanding, when they got older, the moral dimensions of their behavior.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think the fake letter was a plant from Rove to distract the media from the actual draft evasion. And it worked.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Any competent reporter should have said "a General Officer who knew how to type -- in 1972?

It would never have happened.

A handwritten note, maybe -- or it would have had a secretaries initials on it. BC -- Before Computers, men didn't know how to type.

[Joe_dallas]

bernard11 14 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Rathergate has nothing to do with it.

That a letter making some claim proved to be fake doesn’t mean the claim is wrong."

Bernard - Rathergate exposed the misrepresentations lies the left had been perpetrating for 10-15 years. Mag was repeating those same lies from the same playbook.

Request vs inquiry - If the commanding officer told him there was no avenue for a request, then the request would have been futile.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See above -- he volunteered to go as a F-102 pilot but was turned down. And then when the F-102 was retired from even Guard use, he was redundant and made useless.

He wasn't flying anymore -- he didn't have anything to fly.

[ThePublius]

Should there be a death penalty for drunk drivers who commit vehicular homicide?

NHL star Johnny Gaudreau, brother killed by alleged drunk driver in New Jersey

[John F. Carr]

A death penalty for people who call for the death penalty!

On second thought, there might be something wrong with my proposal. But it feels good and that's what really matters.

[Martinned2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

[Moderation4ever]

Better question is should we have the death penalty at all? I think pursuing the death penalty is a waste of time and resources. Long prison sentences are better.

[Frank Drackman]

You’re just contracting the Executions out to the Prisoners, which I don’t mind, one good thing about the Death Penalty is Death Row is worse than General Population(but ironically safer, as you’re kept separated from the General Population) How did Jeffy Dahlmers “Life” sentence work out?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

At some point, "deterrence" fails to deter, and the populists inevitably call for even longer sentences. And then for more prisons to house the prisoners serving longer sentences.

It makes the populists popular, and the people pleased (albeit additionally taxed), but the criminals will take absolutely no notice and continue to commit crimes, because they are criminals in large part because they lack self control and the ability to foresee the consequences of their actions.

Studies have shown that, if anything, criminals respond to the certainty of punishment, rather than to the severity of punishment.

Which means, in this case, what would have been more likely to save the Gaudreaux brothers would have been pervasive sobriety checkpoints, rather than the death penalty for drunk-driver killers.

[Michael Ejercito]

So why no such checkpoints everywhere?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Because they're a lot less popular with voters than stopping drunk drivers is. You may consider that irrational. Some people consider the US' 2nd Amendment irrational. As they say, freedom isn't free...

[Commenter_XY]

NJ did away with the death penalty, unfortunately. That guy looks like a real loser, too. Try collecting anything.

[John F. Carr]

A more serious answer:

Under current Supreme Court precedent a sentence of death requires intent to kill plus an aggravating factor. I don't know of any American jurisdiction where DUI homicide requires any more proof than traditionally suffices for manslaughter. Some use the label murder. The crime is really akin to common law involuntary manslaughter. Somebody died accidentally and you should have known better.

We have three grades of DUI homicide in Massachusetts. The most severe form of the crime is typically charged when there is a sympathetic victim or the driver was fleeing police. Not much of a deterrent to make the sentence depend so much on who you happened to hit.

[Joe_dallas]

Walz – a former teacher from Mankato has a very pathetic performance on education front in Minnesota during his terms as governor.

20% increase in spending per pupil in a few short years now at $16k spending per pupil, while having significant drops in kids reading and math skills below grade level.

https://www.americanexperiment.org/majority-of-minnesota-students-still-not-meeting-reading-and-math-standards/

[Ed Grinberg]

Even more interesting is what is being taught in Minnesota schools:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/tim-walz-brings-liberated-ethnic-studies-to-minnesota-radical-decolinization-election-44a267ca

[Joe_dallas]

Reading and math skills deteriorating. the solution more DEI , CRT etc instead of focusing on the basics

[hobie]

Well, Joe, let's take a look at the educational outcomes of the southern redneck states...[checking notes]...oh dear...

[Joe_dallas]

Compare across demographic groups, The southern states have much higher minority populations.

What is noticable about MN is the rapid decline under Walz and the vastly smaller minority population. 7% african american in MN vs 37% in Mississippi

[Frank Drackman]

And I think I saw every one of them at the MSP Airport, riding the train between terminals like that Scene from “Borat”

Frank

[bernard11]

Why compare among demographic groups? Shouldn't we compare among socio-economic groups instead?

If Blacks are worse off economically than whites, and have worse educational outcomes, then economic status might easily be a better predictor than race.

Not as useful for the racists, of course.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A much bigger predictor is the illegitimacy rate because a father in the home is the single biggest factor and the Black illegitimacy rate is now 76%.

The White rate is climbing, but it isn't anywhere near that.

So yes, you can start elsewhere, but the illegitimacy rate brings you right back to race.

[bernard11]

the illegitimacy rate brings you right back to race.

Only if that's where you want to go to begin with. Is illegitimacy correlated with socioeconomic status?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes.

In fact, there have been studies that the SES differences in racial groups evaporate once you adjust for different illegitimacy rates.

[David Nieporent]

Saying that quiet part loud.

[John F. Carr]

Reuters reports on a proposal to make Mexican judges elected officials:

A Mexican judge ordered the Lower House of Congress not to discuss controversial judicial reform scheduled to be taken up by lawmakers the first week of September, according to a legal document reviewed by Reuters on Saturday.
...
Separately, a district judge in Chiapas, Felipe Consuelo Soto, also ruled on Saturday in favor of judges who had challenged the judicial reform. His order would stop the reform from being sent to state legislatures for approval, if it were passed by Congress.

There's some judicial supremacy for you.
The article goes on to note that the legislature has ignored similar orders in the past.

[John F. Carr]

The Boston Globe describes how Massachusetts police and prosecutors declined to pursue rape and murder charges against a police officer.

A former prosecutor not connected to the case told the Globe that the suicide declaration by Massachusetts authorities had all the telltale signs of “confirmation bias,” in which the initial assessment by officers on the scene set the frame for other investigators to conclude she had killed herself; that in this case, investigators trusted the word of a police officer over concerns for a woman who had faced hardship, a bias that can jeopardize an investigation from the start.
“There’s a framing of the case that seems to blind people to the truth,” said Casey Gwinn, president of Alliance for HOPE International, a California nonprofit that trains law enforcement officials to identify and investigate domestic violence strangulation cases that are staged to look like suicides or accidents.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/01/metro/sandra-birchmore-matthew-farwell-investigation/

The prosecutor who declined to charge a police officer with raping and murdering Sandra Birchmore is also suspected of prosecuting an innocent woman because the real killer was a police officer. This is the Karen Read case. The FBI provided Read's lawyers with exculpatory evidence after the DA and local police either didn't look for it or didn't reveal what they found.

Unfortunately Massachusetts' experiment with a progressive prosecutor who would go after police was also a disaster. That was Rachael Rollins, who is lucky not to be on trial herself.

[ThePublius]

I live in Massachusetts, not far from both Canton (Karen Read) and Stoughton (Sandra Birchmore). I'm a NYC transplant of 40+ years.

I am appalled at the depth of corruption in both cases, on the part of the police, the prosecutor, and even the judge in the Karen Read case. In the latter the judge completely blew the jury instructions and verdict cards/ballots, and even though several jurors have come forward and said that the jury was unanimous in acquitting her on charges 1 and 3, (of 3), the mistrial will result in a new trial on all charges, and the judge and prosecutor have asserted that this doesn't amount to double jeopardy.

In the murder of Sandra Birchmore, the police investigators couldn't find any text messages between her and the suspected murderer, a police officer. Yet, the U.S. Attorney's office found 31,000 text messages! Gee, amazing that the cops couldn't find ANY. And, those text messages are appalling, to say the least.

Words to the wise: Don't drive through Canton. Don't drive through Stoughton.

https://whdh.com/news/former-stoughton-police-officer-indicted-in-connection-with-pregnant-womans-2021-murder/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Amtrak goes through Canton on the BOS/NYC run.
I believe it's also where I-93 ends.

[John F. Carr]

By custom rather than law, local police do not patrol major highways in Massachusetts. Similar in New York. Not similar in Ohio and Georgia where local agencies love to raise revenue on the main highways.

Don't drive through Abington either.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In Maine, there is a state policy prohibiting it.

[bernard11]

Corruption seems to be endemic in MA law enforcement.

[not guilty]

In the District of Columbia prosecution of Donald Trump, the government and the defense have submitted a joint status report stating the parties' competing positions as to scheduling of further proceedings. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.229.0_4.pdf The District Court will conduct a status conference this Thursday.

To no one's surprise, Team Trump is seeking interminable delay, heedless of the public interest in prompt resolution of this case. As then-President Richard Nixon said, "People have got to know whether or not their President's a crook." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M

The District Court should order expedited briefing and, if necessary, an evidentiary hearing on the immunity issues presented in this case.

[Michael Ejercito]

There is no public interest in prompt resolution of this case.

[John F. Carr]

In the public interest the case should have been resolved by the end of 2023. And Trump's alleged co-conspirators should have been indicted already, or their indictments unsealed. Perhaps Chesebro has a plea deal with federal prosecutors. I doubt the others do.

[not guilty]

Mark Meadows reportedly was granted immunity to testify before the federal grand jury. https://abc7news.com/mark-meadows-donald-trump-immunity-granted/13967010/ That did not prevent his being indicted in Georgia.

I surmise that Kenneth Chesebro has been cooperating with federal authorities, as his plea deal in Georgia likely required. The superseding indictment in D.C. includes greater details about Chesebro's participation than the original indictment.

[not guilty]

"There is no public interest in prompt resolution of this case."

Au contraire. The Speedy Trial Act, as well as judicial decisions applying the Act, recognize the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases. See e.g. Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 500-502 (2006). Every day that Donald Trump spends outside a prison cell is another day that he has gotten away with serious criminal conduct.

[Michael P]

So what has Joe Biden actually done in the past several weeks, besides read from a teleprompter at the DNC?

[Martinned2]

Pushed for peace in the Middle East.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/01/biden-israel-gaza-ceasefire-deal/

What have you been up to, besides spouting nonsense on the internet?

[ThePublius]

Let me rephrase that for you: "pushed for an Israeli surrender to Hamas."

The OP's point is taken. He went from vacation to vacation over the last couple of weeks, and the only thing that got him off the beach in Delaware was the IDF liberation of six recently murdered hostages, one of who was a US/Israeli citizen.

[myself]

Lets all remember what's really important here.

Keeping the war going so Bibi can remain President and stay out of jail for corruption.

[Don Nico]

That is your distorted view.
The so-called ceasefire deal would have all IDF presence removed from Gaza. That is a distinctly bad idea. It would create a power vacuum that would suck in terrorists.
Then what happens.
Israel breaks the deal and reinserts the IDF.

If you are talking about an extended ceasefire with all forces remaining in place, then maybe. But that is unlikely to get any hostages back

[myself]

And what is your proposal? IDF maintain a permanent presence in Gaza, constantly antagonizing Palestinians and providing terrorists with easy targets?

Remember the US's experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan? The proper substitute for no exit strategy isn't to never leave.

[Don Nico]

That is correct; the IDF needs to maintain a continuing presence at least along the philadephi corridor until a substantial reconstruction is done

[Sarcastr0]

So a literal occupation.

This does not have a history of sustainability. For the occupier.

I would hope some other way ahead comes up, though I do not know what it could be.

[Don Nico]

Yup, if that is what it takes. But you would prefer an immediate power vacuum. Already in North Gaza where IDF presence is minimal, Hamas has built a sophisticated tunnel, just found by the IDF.
But if you are so clever, tell us who should be in control of Gaza, if the IDF leaves completely in 2 weeks?

[Sarcastr0]

I wrote 3 lines and you failed to read the third.

Else you wouldn't have asked your last question.

[myself]

Put Fatah in power, give up on the blockade idea that was never feasible anyway (you can't keep contraband out of actual prisons, how will you keep it out of a city?), and guard the border (instead of diverting guards to support West Bank Settlement expansion).

It's a crappy solution, but seems a lot better solution than the current plan... which is what exactly? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen an actual Israeli proposal for peace.

[Michael P]

Thanks for demonstrating again that you can’t read. That doesn’t say Joe Biden did anything. It says Joe Biden and someone else did things, with specifics always attributed to the other person or people involved.

[Joe_dallas]

ThePublius 52 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Let me rephrase that for you: “pushed for an Israeli surrender to Hamas.”

good point - Even Neville Chamberlin wasnt that stupid - yet thats what we have with the biden administration and the potential with the Harris administration. Phil gordon and other advisors for harris. Actions speak louder than words.

[SRG2]

Do you want him to do anything?

[Michael P]

If he can, he should. If he's no longer competent, Harris and the rest should invoke the 25th, and we can see how she would actually behave as president. I infer she doesn't want the public to see that.

[myself]

You infer dishonestly.

There's obviously a gap between enough of a decline to make another 4 years infeasible and enough of a decline to demand the 25th.

Not to mention he'd obviously fight the 25th and create a big nasty fight in the middle of an election campaign.

Despite your fantasy of the Democrats trying to rescue Trump's failing campaign it's not going to happen.

[Michael P]

The gap you mention was relevant in 2020. It's not relevant now. There was lots of evidence that Biden has lost his marbles even before his debate against Trump, but that debate made it clear to everyone (except him and maybe his innermost circle).

[Josh R]

It's still relevant now as demonstrated by Biden's performance at the NATO press conference when he went into great detail on substantive issues.

[myself]

Given your great concern for marbles and competency I'm sure you're a steadfast never-Trumper.

[Moderation4ever]

I would image he is doing the job the American people hired him to do in 2020. I believe one of the reason's people fired Trump is the fatigue of hearing about him every day. I rather enjoy have a President that just does his job in the background. Don't you?

[Commenter_XY]

Not when POTUS Biden's incompetence is killing American hostages.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

There isn't any causality there, but don't let facts or reality stop you from your usual partisan bullshit.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden is feebleminded and weak; an empty vessel. He is not respected, and more importantly, he is not feared by anyone. POTUS Biden's weakness and incompetence are partly responsible for the outcome.

[Josh R]

What would a sound-minded, strong president have done differently?

[Mr. Bumble]

Offer unwavering support for Israel and demand the release of the hostages (especially the American hostages)?

[Josh R]

That's not going to produce the desired result.

[Commenter_XY]

UKR and ISR never would have happened had we had a sound-minded and strong POTUS.

Things were being done differently (and better) before the empty vessel. You can fill in the rest.

[Josh R]

What would a sound-minded and strong POTUS have done to prevent these wars?

[David Nieporent]

That is an incredibly stupid comment. You understand that Netanyahu, not Biden, is the one acting in Gaza, right? Do you think he's feebleminded and weak? Did Hamas act because he was not respected or feared?

[Commenter_XY]

David, you're in your zone of competence when discussing the law, the shitty civil servants of SDNY. You are out of your depth here.

hamas does not respect or fear the empty vessel. They DO fear Putin, as they released RUS nationals within days of the pogrom, unharmed. Think that was an accident? It was not. hamas respects Iran and fears RUS.

The empty vessel pushes for a ceasefire to reward judeocidal terrorists; a reward for killing Jews. His utter incompetence and stupidity has killed our American hostages.

Don't associate yourself with that.

[Sarcastr0]

Nope. Still stupid, even if you pull a condescending zone of competence thing.

The world does not revolve around the US. And if only we had a strong leader like Putin is missing some big things Putin has done.

Elsewhere I see you added a flawless withdrawal from Afghanistan to counterfactual Trump’s worldwide accomplishments.

[David Nieporent]

hamas does not respect or fear the empty vessel.

You didn't respond to my question. What does Biden have to do with it? They didn't attack the US; they attacked israel. Either their attacks are unrelated to who they "respect or fear," or they don't respect or fear Netanyahu. Which is it? And if they don't respect or fear Netanyahu, how do you think they would respect or fear Biden? And why would they fear Putin? What's he going to do, put them in the gulag?

[Commenter_XY]

David, for a POTUS to be effective, he has to have credibility on the world stage. POTUS Biden is a) enfeebled, and b) has terrible and atrocious execution of his foreign policy. He has no credibility after the Afghan debacle. The Houthis have thwarted the USN, shut down the Suez Canal, created and environmental catastrophe, and Biden's response is to bomb dirt mounds in the desert. Very effective, and competent. Our POTUS is an empty vessel, respected and feared by no one. We are at the mercy of the empty vessels team (or whoever is making the decisions over there), because the enfeebled one is surely not making those decisions.

Judeocidal terrorists have but one goal: the extinction of the Jews (us). They will sacrifice their lives to kill Jews. It would not matter who is PM, it would not change hamas' goals or tactics. Amalek didn't respect Moses, did they?

As for Putin...are there any RUS nationals being held hostage anymore? Uh...don't think so. They were all released back in late October, early November. The world has seen what Putin is capable of doing (I just look at what happened to Yevgeny Prigozhin and his entire leadership team and draw my own conclusion).

[David Nieporent]

Judeocidal terrorists have but one goal: the extinction of the Jews (us). They will sacrifice their lives to kill Jews. It would not matter who is PM, it would not change hamas’ goals or tactics. Amalek didn’t respect Moses, did they?

Either Hamas can be deterred or not. If they can't be, then it doesn't matter who the U.S. president is. If they can be, then it does matter who the Israeli PM is. You can't have it both ways.

As for Putin…are there any RUS nationals being held hostage anymore?

Um, one of the six hostages just killed by Hamas, alongside Hersh Goldberg-Polin, was a Russian citizen. So — whoops! — yet another silly talking point out the window.

Hamas released some Russians in October — but they also released Thai hostages in October, and I don't think it's because they were scared of the fearsome Thai military.

[Josh R]

Citation for the release of Russian hostages within days of October 7?

A ceasefire is being pushed not to reward Hamas. It's being pushed to gain the release of hostages. Again, since you have yet to answer the question, what specifically should Biden have done (after October 7) to gain the release of the hostages?

[Don Nico]

Provide the IDF with intelligence that the IDF complains that the US has and is not sharing. That would be a start.

Moreover, both candidates are ducking the question of how to choke off Iranian funding as its oil revenues have doubled since the beginning of 2021

[Josh R]

The Biden administration denies wihholding intelligence.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

From your tone I would infer that you would prefer he resign and hand over to Kamala now?

Can't argue with that idea...

[Don Nico]

To me that would be worse.

[John F. Carr]

Biden's job since last month is to make Harris look good, as if she were co-president.

[Martinned2]

The US continues its track record as the shining beacon of sleaze, I see:

A Washington startup pitched as a service to integrate AI into lobbying is covertly run by a pair of well-known, far-right conspiracy theorists and convicted felons who are using pseudonyms in their new business, according to four former employees as well as photo and email evidence.

LobbyMatic was founded last year by Jacob Wohl, who in 2022 was convicted along with his longtime associate Jack Burkman of felony telecom fraud after running a robocall campaign in largely Black neighborhoods in several states telling people not to vote by mail. An Ohio judge ordered them to spend 500 hours registering people to vote, and the Federal Communications Commission fined them $5 million.

In his role as a founder and CEO of the new firm, Wohl uses the name “Jay Klein,” according to the former employees and emails obtained by POLITICO. Burkman uses the pseudonym “Bill Sanders,” the former employees said.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/02/jacob-wohl-jack-burkman-ai-lobbying-pseudonyms-00176917

[ThePublius]

"The US continues its track record as the shining beacon of sleaze, I see:"

Get lost!

[Michael P]

Well, he needs to compensate for being part of a legal system that is jailing people for posting mean things to Xitter while releasing career criminals and declining to jail violent offenders.

[hobie]

People who say American isn't great churn my stomach!

[Bored Lawyer]

So perhaps next time a totalitarian dictator takes over your country, we should just ignore it rather than spend American blood to rescue you.

[Martinned2]

At this rate, I'm not holding my breath for the US to help its allies regardless. Europe should invest in its own defence.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahaha.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Everything is bigger in America, Martin!

In any case, the story here is more typical of "Trump University"-type MAGA-sleaze, rather than generic "American" sleaze. (At least I hope so.)

[Bored Lawyer]

So the Columbia Task Force on Antisemitism issued its report. You can read it here:
https://president.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Announcements/Report-2-Task-Force-on-Antisemitism.pdf

Here are three excerpts:

Most of the testimonies we heard were difficult to listen to. Students described being shoved, pushed to the ground, berated for showing support for Zionist causes, and watching Israeli flags burned. They recounted seeing drawings of swastikas in their dorms, students yelling pro-Hamas chants, and being denied access to public spaces and opportunities simply because they were Jewish or Israeli. We heard from students who had been chased off campus, called horrific and 75 deeply antisemitic slurs, and heard others minimize or silence claims of antisemitism. The majority of the incidents they recounted took place between students. But some were between students and faculty or staff. Several students told us stories of faculty members antagonizing the Israeli community, refusing to take students’ concerns and fears seriously, or even expressing openly antisemitic views. Some students were pressured to adhere to political positions they didn’t hold; others were silenced or exposed and humiliated in classrooms. All these accounts are only a few of the ones that were shared with us.

Students witnessed and sometimes experienced threats of violence or actual violence in these settings. Several recalled being assaulted while holding Israeli flags, which in at least one case protesters attempted to burn. One recounted having seen a student holding up a sign reading “Al-Qassam Brigade’s next target” standing in front of a Jewish student peacefully singing the Israeli National anthem. Students told us about chants such as, “Al-Qassam you make us proud, kill another soldier now,” “Yes Hamas, we love you, we support your rockets too,” or “We say justice you say how, burn Tel Aviv to the ground.” Another talked about fearing for their safety when, during Passover, they did not have a phone: “I don’t know how I will get around without
my phone, without a video, without the ability to call the police.” when, during Passover, they did not have a phone: “I don’t know how I will get around without my phone, without a video, without the ability to call the police.”

The hatred toward Israelis has reached alarming levels on campus. While hanging signs with pictures of hostages captured on October 7, an Israeli student was physically attacked.53 Following the attack, he had to deal with a false complaint that was submitted about him to Columbia (and was eventually dismissed).54 False complaints targeting Israeli students increased during the spring of 2024.55

A student described the situation following October 7: “People that you sat in class with, you had drinks with, you had lunch and dinner with, the next day they say they hope your entire family dies.…I have had people spit at me, I have had people yell at me. I think they just don’t know. Some of them think that it’s genocide, and it’s legitimate to call for the erasure of [the] Israeli state. If I can put it in one word, it is heartbreaking. And it breaks your heart even more than people [not wanting] to have a discussion.”56

Remember, this is one of the elite institutions in the country. And some of this happened immediately after October 7, before the IDF reacted in any way.
There is something deeply, deeply rotten in American education.

[Sarcastr0]

The focus on 'there is antisemitism on campus' skips the bulk of the report, which is about "Recommendations for Promoting Shared Values and Inclusion: Improving the Campus Environment."

Cherry pick the first bit, ignore the DEI bit? You can't have it both ways.

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't have to cite or agree with the recommendations to cite a report of deep problems. If someone is diagnosed with cancer, that does not mean that drinking snake oil will cure him. There is a lot of bureaucratic DEI bulls--t in the report. I don't have to accept it to credit its accurate reporting of antisemitism.

This is just about the kind of stupid deflection that I have come to expect from you. Go carve a swastika somewhere, you a--hole.

[Mr. Bumble]

BL, a reminder. A douche will always be a douche and SarcastrO is among the ultimate douches.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Everytime I read one of your inane and juvenile comments I get a sense of moderate to severe elation; elation that I have likely managed my affairs so that I may retire, well before I'm your age, on a pretty nice boat.
Everytime I read one of your profane posts I get a moderate to severe sense of gratitude that I will never be a bitter seventy something old man calling attorneys "douches" - on a legal Internet blog.
You loser, even Larry Fine had some dignity.

[Sarcastr0]

So the left has an antisemitism problem. Liberal institutions are aware, and working on ways to address the issue. I may not agree with all of their solutions, but that's the hard part.

The right also has an antisemitism problem. Conservative institutions are working on ways to ignore the issue, mostly by pointing left.

You're accuse me of deflection?! Right there, first sentence of this comment, I'm already way ahead of you on this issue by acknowledging my side has a problem.

No solutions are good enough for BL other than vote against Dems. He will never worry about cleaning up his house until he takes the issue actually seriously.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Saying that the right has an antiseminism problem is like saying the airlines have a problem with drunk pilots.

Unlike drunk drivers, drunk pilots are newsworthy because they are RARE. So to with true antisemites on the right. And saying "Merry Christmas" is not antisemetic...

[Magister]

If they're so rare, why is Donald Trump so reluctant to reject their support? Or at least stop inviting them to dinner?

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
So the left has an antisemitism problem. Liberal institutions are aware, and working on ways to address the issue. I

A) The liberal institutions are doing very little about the anti-semitism other than trying to hide it.
B) The main stream left is not doing much of anything to repudiate the anti-semitism that is dominating the left.

If the main stream left ( which several commentators here profess to be ) was actually trying to do something about their support for iran and hamas, they would be screaming to get rid of the pro-iran and pro hamas advisors along with other positive steps. But that is not being done.

[Sarcastr0]

This report even existing indicates a desire to solve the problem.
It's also not an easy problem to solve. Extinguishing an idea, yada yada.

It's not like either party in Congress is slow rolling the issue. The right's calling for mass firings and other such nonsense is not actually seeking as solution, they're seeking to make partisan hay. Again, not actually taking the problem seriously. Just using it as a tool.

pro-iran and pro hamas advisors
Oh stuff it, you neo-McCarthyite.

[Joe_dallas]

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, on at least five occasions, hosted a Muslim cleric who celebrated Hamas‘s Oct. 7 attack and promoted a film popular among Neo-Nazis.

Is sacastro condemning Walz for cuddling up to pro hamas clerics?

DETAILS: https://trib.al/BOf59BQ
https://x.com/dcexaminer/status/1821905521232035914?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1821905521232035914%7Ctwgr%5Efed28f48b7d675967f00164c2c1067ec0d31694c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flegalinsurrection.com%2F2024%2F09%2Fwalz-bolts-when-asked-to-comment-on-the-6-murdered-hostages-in-gaza%2F

[Sarcastr0]

This story isn't taking off at all. Do you know why? Because it was well before October 07, and it was all group events.

This has been another issue of 'Joe_dallas doesn't care about antisemitism, he just wants a new partisan cudgel.'

[Joe_dallas]

He hosted Muslim clerics who praised the massacre - you want to defend his actions

Harris has pro hamas advisors including phil gordon

[Sarcastr0]

Now you're fucking with the timeline so you can tell a story that isn't true.

You're no friend to anyone but MAGA.

[Bored Lawyer]

Once again, Sarcastro deflects.

If you read the WE article, here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3114957/tim-walz-repeatedly-hosted-muslim-cleric-oct-7-pro-hitler-website-link/

You will learn that (a) the cleric in question "has used his Facebook page over the years to share official Hamas press releases, blog posts on antisemitic websites slamming Jews, and, in one 2015 instance, a link to a piece on a website for a pro-Hitler film called The Greatest Story Never Told. " while (b) his appearances with Walz were all after that, in 2019, 2020 and 2023.

It's acceptable in Democratic circles to be a Jew hater.

Now onto a more recent even, as to which no one can claim the timeline defense. The Harris campaign last week tapped Brenda Abdelall, the Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary of partnership and engagement, to oversee efforts to win support among Arab-American voters.

That same person has engaged in anti-semitic conspiracy talk:

“The Zionists have a strong voice in American politics. … I would say they’re controlling a lot of it,” Abdelall told The New York Sun in 2002, while attending the American Muslim Council’s annual convention in Washington, the Beacon revealed. She suggested that the election defeat of former congressman Earl Hilliard Sr. (D-Ala.) “shows the Jewish influence in politics,” according to the Sun.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s acceptable in Democratic circles to be a Jew hater.

No it’s not. Most American Jews are liberal, so right there is a clue you've poisoned your brain to a level beyond most and should pull up.

At best this is bad vetting, but honestly I don’t think I can trust your source’s credibility so I’m going to wait and see even on that.

This is exactly what I mean about you not taking the problem seriously.

If you’re going to make these tendentious accusations, it’s all just partisan politics to you, and not a problem you care about solving.

Partisan virtue signaling, and nothing more.

Shameful. And sad. This is a hard problem to solve, and it sucks so many aren't interested in doing the lifting because they want to use every ounce of energy towards attacking the other side.

I'll keep supporting Title IV audits of schools for antisemitism while you keep posting how the party most Jews belong to hates Jews.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’ll keep supporting Title IV audits of schools for antisemitism while you keep posting how the party most Jews belong to hates Jews.

And I'll ask them exactly what part of "kill the Jews" they don't understand and why they remain loyal to a party dedicated on exterminating them.

Yes, have your Title IV audits and crucify innocent people for making the "ok" sign and ban the number 77 which is not only a NASCAR but worn by numerous famous NHL, NBL, & NFL players, along with various college athletes.

The Dems and higher ed are antisemetic in a most vile manner, and no one is willing to admit it.

[bernard11]

WTF makes you think you know more about what is good or bad for Jews than Jews themselves?

Just STFU about this. Your comments are way out of line, even for you.

And I’ll ask them exactly what part of “kill the Jews” they don’t understand and why they remain loyal to a party dedicated on exterminating them.

"Kill the Jews?" I'll tell you who killed Jews. Robert Bowers and the RW extremists who motivated him. That's one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do realize that there were German Jews who voted for Hitler in 1933.

How'd that turn out???

[David Nieporent]

It’s acceptable in Democratic circles to be a Jew hater.

https://www.mediamatters.org/antisemitism/trump-shared-post-n-word-spewing-account-claims-hitler-was-right-and-holocaust-never

The account Trump promoted is filled with extremist content, including claims that “Jews have been capitalizing on niggers for thousands of years”; “Adolf Hitler was right”; and the Holocaust was “the Holohoax. 6 Million never happened.”

The account also wrote: “I'm a proud White Nationalist” and “Make Anti-Semitism Great Again.”

There is nothing subtle about the X account that Trump promoted: It is blatantly white nationalist and antisemitic, including writing numerous posts that deny the Holocaust and portray Adolf Hitler as a hero. Here are several examples:

• TheRISEofROD wrote in April 2023: “Adolf Hitler was right.”
• TheRISEofROD wrote in April 2024: “Hitler didn’t kill 6 million jews, but Stalin did kill 50 million Christians.”
• TheRISEofROD promoted a pro-Hitler video in July 2024.
• TheRISEofROD wrote in April 2023 that it is “my 1st Amendment right to call out the Holohoax. 6 Million never happened.” The account has called the Holocaust a hoax in other instances.
• TheRISEofROD wrote in August 2024: “Jews have been capitalizing on niggers for thousands of years.” The account also wrote that month: “Shut the fuck up, nigger.”
TheRISEofROD wrote in August 2024: “Bin Laden was a CIA/MOSSAD asset so he knew exactly what was going on. Jews did 9/11 and he was the patsy.”
• TheRISEofROD wrote in August 2024: “The Kalergi Plan has been in action for decades to replace Whites in our countries. Mass deportations must happen to stop and reverse the evil jew scheme.”
• TheRISEofROD wrote in August 2024: “Make Anti-Semitism Great Again.”
• TheRISEofROD wrote in June 2024: “If you’re White and not a full blown patriotic White Nationalist at this stage in the Great Awakening then you’re a faggot.”
• TheRISEofROD wrote in February 2024: “I'm a proud White Nationalist.”

[bernard11]

Here is the story on which this is based:

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, on at least five occasions as governor of Minnesota, hosted a Muslim cleric who celebrated Hamas‘s Oct. 7 attack last year on Israel and promoted a film popular among Neo-Nazis that glorifies Adolf Hitler, the Washington Examiner found.

The imam, Asad Zaman of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, joined other Muslim leaders in May 2023 for a meeting about mosque security with Walz’s gubernatorial office in Minnesota. Zaman also spoke at a May 2020 event to call for peaceful protests with the governor during the riots in Minnesota sparked after George Floyd’s death. In April 2019, the cleric delivered an invocation before Walz’s state address — just months after Zaman called for an end to a government shutdown at a press conference with Walz in January 2019.

What a load of shit you are putting out, Joe. Getting as bad as Armchair.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
You are no surprise. You always find a way to dismiss or trivialize institutional reports of anti-Semitism. The simple reason is that despite pro forma claims of disapproval, you actually don't care about the atmosphere of fear and hatred engendered by the pro-terrorist demonstrators. It was just like you dismissed the concerns aboyt the Mapping Project in Cambridge -Boston, because the MIT President is not going to write to the entire campus community about every single speech incident.

Why don't you tell us explicit about what conservative institutions at doing to promote anti-Semitism?
Instead of criticizing BL, why not work to clean up the fascist, antisemitic left.

[Sarcastr0]

"So the left has an antisemitism problem. Liberal institutions are aware, and working on ways to address the issue. I may not agree with all of their solutions, but that’s the hard part."

How is that dismissing or minimizing anything? How is that pro foma?
You want to go after people for speech, and think that any who disagree with you are soft on the issue.

Why don’t you tell us explicit about what conservative institutions at doing to promote anti-Semitism?
Do you know *any* liberal Jews? Because I do, and they have opinions.

Viktor Orban spoke at CPAC.

Trump is full-on dual loyalty for American Jews, saying "Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion...They hate everything about Israel.”

Jewish Space Lasers lady gets to stay in the party.

White nationalists largely support Trump, with nary a peep from him or his campaign.

And then there is the tropey puppetmaster bullshit about SOROS who is different than other big liberal donors in exactly one way.

Musk's twitter is a cesspit of race science and antisemitism now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Viktor Orban spoke at CPAC."

What's CPAC? It died about 15 years ago and is about nothing about money now.

Trump is full-on dual loyalty for American Jews, saying “Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion…They hate everything about Israel.”

I think he is right.

Jewish Space Lasers lady gets to stay in the party.

As does "Some people did something" and several others.

White nationalists largely support Trump, with nary a peep from him or his campaign.

Could it possibly be that he doesn't want to give them publicity?

And then there is the tropey puppetmaster bullshit about SOROS who is different than other big liberal donors in exactly one way.

Yes, Soros got rich from stealing Jewish property during the Holocaust. (He admitted it to 60 Minutes...)

Musk’s twitter is a cesspit of race science and antisemitism now. As opposed to what twatter WAS?

[bernard11]

Yes, Soros got rich from stealing Jewish property during the Holocaust. (He admitted it to 60 Minutes…

Fucking lie.

[David Nieporent]

Please, be clear: fucking antisemitic lie. But that's our Dr. Ed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, needledick it is not a lie.
29 years ago, he was on 60 Minutes.
See for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7lwSiwxzAI

[David Nieporent]

"Me: Dr. Ed admitted to molesting children in comments on the VC.
Dr. Ed: That's a lie.
Me: No, it's true; he posted comments on the VC."

What the fuck does "29 years ago, he was on 60 Minutes" — something I was well aware of — have to do with your lie that he "got rich from stealing Jewish property during the Holocaust"? He did not "admit" doing any such thing, and he did not "get rich from" doing any such thing.

[Don Nico]

"Do you know *any* liberal Jews? "
Yes, hundreds. I lived and worked with them all my life. Try not to be so patronizing.
In fact except for Victor Orban, you did not provide any US exmples. Typical of you. Your posts duck the question with off point comments of dubious veracity.

[Sarcastr0]

The liberal Jews I know have some antisemitism problems with the MAGA movement.

What the do you mean I didn't provide any US examples? Is the GOP not a US institution? Guess who they promote, and what he says?

[Don Nico]

What antisemitic actions has the RNC taken? Give us a list. or admit that you are being dishonest.

[Sarcastr0]

I listed them above already.

or admit that you are being dishonest.
When has this construction every been productive?

[Mr. Bumble]

Don,
Engaging with a douche will get you slimed when the douche bag explodes.

[SimonP]

There is a lot of bureaucratic DEI bulls–t in the report. I don’t have to accept it to credit its accurate reporting of antisemitism.

What you don't seem to grasp is that the summary you've excerpted treats claims of emotional harms - feeling afraid, feeling unwelcome, hearing offensive slogans, being subjected to chants - as in the same category of physical harms - physical assaults, vandalism. That categorization is based upon the "woke" belief that these emotional harms are just as bad as the physical ones, and require some kind of "training" to address.

You live by the sword, you die by it, BL. Antisemitic attacks are one thing. But much of your excerpt is just talking about "wrongthink." You can't pretend to be upset by it unless you accept certain core beliefs of the DEI mindset.

[Frank Drackman]

You act like you’re surprised, I’d bet my last Shekel Mullah I’ll-hand Omar, Akeem the Bad Dream Jefferson, and Priapism Slap-a-Jap get $$$$ straight from Ham-ass, and probably send some national security secrets to them also, like Bill Maher always says, “I don’t know it as a fact, I just know it’s true”

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

"There is something deeply, deeply rotten in American education."

It's fucked up beyond all hope -- and I say that as an educator.

And one other thing -- sooner or later, one of these Jewish kids is going to show up on campus with a gun, or maybe two or three guns. At which point everyone will ask why he did it...

[David Nieporent]

It’s fucked up beyond all hope — and I say that as an educator.

Janitor, not educator.

And one other thing — sooner or later, one of these Jewish kids is going to show up on campus with a gun, or maybe two or three guns. At which point everyone will ask why he did it…

Once again, not everyone pleasures himself to the thought of murder like you do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was a janitor IN HIGH SCHOOL -- it was my second job, washing dishes was my first.

I don't know what your fixation with janitors (technically called "maintainers") actually is but I'm not one.

And as to your second comment, you clearly haven't sat through a school safety seminar post Columbine....

[BrotherMovesOn]

"It’s fucked up beyond all hope — and I say that as an educator."

You spelled 'janitor' wrong.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Whoops, didn't see DMN beat me to it

[BrotherMovesOn]

Dr. Ed, why not take a mental health break from your murderous fantasies and spin us another plagiarized tale from Edward Rowe Snow. It's been awhile.

[Mr. Hook]

Okay, "Dr" Ed, let's pretend you actually are an educator. You've doubtless had many students who claim to be much more intelligent than they really are. They make assertions of fact that are anything but. They are impervious to being corrected by those with expertise through both training and experience. How have you handled those students who resist or ignore those with superior understanding?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This is why "it could happen here", just as it happened in Germany. All it takes is the right tinder, and the right spark...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Germany didn't have 250 years of religious tolerance, we do.

[Martinned2]

It doesn't? That will be news to the Germans.

[Michael P]

Martinned, infamous defender of the Third Reich's religious tolerance?

Paging Mike Godwin... again.

[Martinned2]

Wait, you think the Nazi's oppressed religious minorities?

[John F. Carr]

They have going on 400 years of allowing both Catholics and Lutherans in greater Germany, not necessarily in the same place at the same time.

[Martinned2]

That's what I was thinking too. Germans haven't killed each other over religion since c. 1648.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you're discounting Muslim "Germans".

[John F. Carr]

I was thinking of a scene from The Blues Brothers. Our heroes walk into an unfamiliar bar where they are going to play some music, with no idea what they are expected to play.

Blues Brothers: "What kind of music do you usually have here?"
Lady behind the bar: "We got both kinds, we got country and western."

[Commenter_XY]

BL, you're an alumnus of Columbia, no? What have you directly observed? Anything like what this report (unbelievable what is happening) documents?

Completely agree = There is something deeply, deeply rotten in American education.

[Frank Drackman]

You read it here first, in October Sergeant Major Pepper-Waltz will have his own Christine Balls-y Ford, except it’ll be a “Chris” or a “Brett” and with some specific charges not made up bullshit, watch the media (except for Faux News) not cover it, I’m not a Criminologist, but Sergeant Pepper looks like every Creepy guy showing up with Malt Liquor and Condoms on that Chris Hansen show

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

He was an assistant high school football coach.

It'd be par for the course, although NAMBLA will defend him if it was a boy...

[Mr. Bumble]

Here, let me show you the right way to do a three point stance.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This might have been discussed already, but it’s an issue that I’m interested in & has been addressed in the past at the Balkanization Blog. A resident of the comments here talked about his views too.

https://lyldenlawnews.com/2024/08/08/trying-again-to-revive-era/

The Bar Association’s new plan is based on three legal propositions:

[1] That 38 states, the necessary minimum number, have already ratified the ERA.

[2] That no state will be allowed to withdraw its earlier ratifying vote – as six states have attempted to do.

[3] And, that the Constitution does not allow Congress to put any time limit on when a proposed amendment must be ratified to complete the process specified by the Constitution’s Article V.

I think practice & text suggest the second argument is true though Congress can consider it when determining if a pending amendment is still “contemporary” etc.

(see Coleman v. Miller)

I think Congress legitimately put in a deadline & legitimately extended it. It was not in the amendment itself, so a supermajority vote was unnecessary. The 27th Amendment had no time limit.

The deadline ran out. The three states “ratifying” it does not mean the 28th Amendment was ratified.

OTOH, Congress still retains the discretion, which it probably should not supply (50 years passed — the situation changed; a new amendment process should commence if desired; Ruth Bader Ginsburg supported this approach), to revoke the deadline.

I think the 27th Amendment is a minor, idiosyncratic measure. It probably should not have been allowed to be ratified after so many years. Dillon v. Gloss was right to consider that a bit ridiculous even a hundred years ago. There was a reasonable implication that amendments would be ratified generally contemporaneous to the period in which they were proposed.

But, the amendment is so minor, and eventually, 46 states did ratify it, so it doesn’t matter much.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Michael Dorf in a blog post and the linked article says more here:

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2020/01/does-it-matter-whether-era-is-part-of.html

The ERA by itself also might not help abortion rights:

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2022/08/please-stop-talking-about-equal-rights.html

OTOH, its text (deny/abridge, etc.) & understanding as an open-ended equal rights measure do have a reach beyond current sexual equality precedents.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't think women would like the consequences of it passing -- first it would eliminate any question about the draft, women would have to register.

Second it would bring in concepts such as "disparate impact" and "strict scrutiny" to female professions such as teaching & nursing. These professions now pay quite well on just a BA and it's the hostile environment that keeps the men out.

Third, B Hussain racial equity in school suspensions would now include sex -- you'd have to suspend the same number of girls as boys, and it'd be the end of single sex sports teams.

Forget trannies, all restrooms and locker rooms would now be coed.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t think women would like the consequences of it passing — first it would eliminate any question about the draft, women would have to register.

Pro tip: there isn't any draft.

Second it would bring in concepts such as “disparate impact” and “strict scrutiny” to female professions such as teaching & nursing. These professions now pay quite well on just a BA and it’s the hostile environment that keeps the men out.

It would not bring in any such "concepts," as disparate impact is statutory, not constitutional. and (assuming the ERA elevated sex from intermediate to strict scrutiny) I have no idea how you think it would apply to "teaching & nursing."

Third, B Hussain

Racists have to racist, I guess.

racial equity in school suspensions would now include sex — you’d have to suspend the same number of girls as boys, and it’d be the end of single sex sports teams.

You would not have to, and it would not be.

[bernard11]

As a possibly abstract matter, (2) and (3) together mean that all amendments submitted to the states will ultimately be ratified.

I think this is unwise and dangerous. I prefer a time limit to allowing ratification to be withdrawn, because the latter can lead to disputes over whether X withdrew before or after Y ratified.

Another approach is to require re-ratification by a state after a period of time - 15 years?

[Martinned2]

(2) and (3) together mean that all amendments submitted to the states will ultimately be ratified.

How do you figure? Is the logic that, over a long enough time horizon, no matter how stupid the proposed amendment, a sufficient number of states will be stupid enough to ratify? Unless you think the US will continue to exist for millions more years, that seems like a very, very abstract idea.

[Michael P]

If there can be neither time limits for ratifications, nor withdrawals of ratification, then it is only possible for the number of ratifying states to increase over time. As bernard11 says, that doesn't seem like the way it should work.

California's ballot initiatives and legislative pushes show how often states do stupid things.

[Martinned2]

then it is only possible for the number of ratifying states to increase over time

Not at all. It is also possible for the number of ratifying states to stay constant, including staying constant at zero.

[bernard11]

I don't think it would take a million years, though it certainly could take many decades. All it would really need is for the amendment to become popular in various regions at different times.

The current red state - blue state divide is not fixed in stone.

[Martinned2]

Yes, but for an amendment to become popular it still needs to achieve some minimum level of not stupid.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There should be a sensible time limit — something around 5 to 10 years would generally be logical — to make the amendment process contemporary. The ERA deadline made sense.

The original understanding probably wasn’t that the proposed amendment would be open for all time. That’s also not sensible.

In a vacuum, the ability to withdraw might be sensible. During voting of bills, there is a chance to change one’s vote.

That isn’t generally — except to some extent as applied to the ERA — how it has been understood. A notable thing: I know of no assumption that a state could decide to withdraw their ratification of the Constitution before the necessary number of states ratified.

Art. V gives a state the power to ratify. The formal certificate is sent to the relevant official in D.C. and certified.

There is no suggestion it can be withdrawn. We can imagine a convoluted process of states ratifying and withdrawing multiple times. Anyway, if there are some unclear details, it makes sense to give Congress wide discretion in the process.

The Supreme Court granted the point (at least to some degree) in Coleman v. Miller.

[Krayt]

Weasels arguing in court on a process that should be open and obvious.

Weasels are as weasels do. Wease, weasels.

[SRG2]

Quote from Mike Johnson: "“We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it’s not been something that is easily provable.”

IOW "we have no evidence just our believzzz" - if they even genuinely believe that.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/politics/illegal-voting-by-noncitizens-is-rare-yet-republicans-are-making-it-a-major-issue-this-election/ar-AA1pNOia

Other links showing how rare illegals voting is are in the article.

[Moderation4ever]

What is it libertarians believe, the country has too many laws. So, Republican want more laws for problems that don't exist.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"...so, rather than find the elusive evidence, let's just push on regardless, because, we all know, intuitively..."

[Estragon]

Anyone here have a kid that was operated on in public school? This seems really bad, if true:

“But uh the transgender thing is an incredible thing… your kid goes to school & comes home a few days later with an operation the school decides what’s going to happen with your child & you many of these childs 15 years later say “what the hell happened who did this to me?”

I’m so old I can remember 5 weeks ago when mental deterioration related to a candidate’s advanced age was the single most important issue in the 2024 presidential campaign, and speculated about endlessly! Ah, memories

[Moderation4ever]

I agree it would be bad if true, but it doesn't seem to be true, so it doesn't matter. if you want to contemplate, think about the times when schools could do really bad things to children. For native American children to cut their hair, forbid them to speak their language or force left handed children to use their right hands. These are real things and we should be concerned they don't happen again.

[Estragon]

The guy is completely deranged. This is total fantasy. Where are the calls for him to drop out?

[Josh R]

His derangement isn't because of age. He's always been this way. If it wasn't enough to sink him in 2016, it's not enough now.

[David Nieporent]

Although he has always been substantively deranged, if you watch old clips of him talking, he is significantly more incoherent now than he used to be.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One newspaper was on the ball in June:

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/editorials/first-presidential-debate-joe-biden-donald-trump-withdraw-20240629.html

[Michael P]

It's better than Kamala Harris refusing to say anything because she's afraid of Americans hearing what she would say: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1830643014542500189

[SimonP]

When Trump talks to the media, they report what he says, endlessly repeating his most outlandish statements. They might couch them with skepticism and note how often they're false, but the talking points get out.

When Harris talks to the media, they write multiple news stories dissecting what she says. She's criticized for not providing more details. When the details are forthcoming, they run for comment from the Trump campaign and hostile commentators.

It's not surprising to me that Harris doesn't want to talk to the media. It has nothing to do with what she actually has to say or how she conducts herself. It has to do with the fact that the media still applies a different standard to her statements than it does with Trump's statements. And it just so happens that the media's treatment of Trump - even when it's hostile - helps him with his voters, while the media's treatment of Harris - even when it's trying to be "supportive" - hurts her with independents.

So it's a smart strategy. We can blame the institutional media for this.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Imagine the kind of bubble you’d have to live in that your brain could get broken badly enough for you to be able to think you could actually convince someone that the media is biased against Kamala Harris and in favor of Donald Trump.

[SimonP]

That's not what I said, is it?

Nothing I've said is untrue. The media isn't kind to Trump, but the way it covers him, though negative, serves his strategy. At the same time, by treating Harris as a "serious" candidate, it subjects her to a degree of scrutiny that it doesn't devote to Trump, which drives critical news cycles and headlines, which hurts her strategy.

There are so many examples - a WaPo piece describing Trump as trying to "bring Harris down" by smearing her - while repeating many of those smears. A NYTimes piece describing how billionaire donors are trying to get Harris to soften her tax proposals.

On today's front page NYTimes is a story about how Trump likes Vance's much-publicized combativeness. Flipping to the political section - page 16 - for the first story featuring Kamala, headlined: "Inverting the Message: Now that Polls are up, 'We're the Underdogs'". The section also includes a piece on Moms for Liberty, Trump's appearance at Arlington, and then a piece on the biggest donors to both candidates.

That's what it's like, reading "friendly" media to Harris. Nothing positive about Harris is reported without some kind of qualification or caveat, and there's a steady supply of criticism. Meanwhile Trump dominates the coverage, albeit with critical framing designed to serve the typical NYTimes reader, but still making him and his supporters the center of the campaign.

[bernard11]

Imagine the kind of bubble you’d have to live in that your brain could get broken badly enough for you to be able to think you could actually convince someone that the media is biased against Kamala Harris and in favor of Donald Trump.

Not much of one. The baseline matters. If you report on one candidate more favorably than he deserves, while you report on the other neutrally, you are in fact biased in favor of the first, even if your coverage seems to favor the second.

[Estragon]

The fuckin NYT just drew an equivalence between the housing policies of the two candidates— equating a down payment for first time home buyers with deporting tens of millions of people!

And what about the dementia stuff. Hundreds of stories about bidens mental state, the drumbeat of articles driving him out of the race. Now, we have trump claiming kids are getting sex change operations at school, and…. Crickets.

You have struck me as one of the more reasonable people around here for a long time, but you are mistaken here. The man is completely unhinged and it’s not being reported.

[Dr. Ed 2]

trump claiming kids are getting sex change operations at school

AT school, or being taken by the school somewhere to have them?
Abortions are being provided -- in *some* states/schools -- in such a manner. It's what the fight over parental notification laws is all about.

[David Nieporent]

Abortions are being provided — in *some* states/schools — in such a manner. It’s what the fight over parental notification laws is all about.

No, they're not. This has never happened.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte
https://msmagazine.com/2020/12/29/massachusetts-abortion-law-roe-act/

[not guilty]

Uh, the article you link to says not one word about schools. (If you don't believe me, simply run a ctrl-f search.) And at the time the article was published, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), was still good law, such that no state could then enforce a requirement that a minor obtain parental consent for an abortion.

[David Nieporent]

no state could then enforce a requirement that a minor obtain parental consent for an abortion.

They could as long as there was a judicial bypass option. This law was about removing that requirement for older kids.

And as you say, the article says not one word about schools, let alone about the lunacy of schools providing abortions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

AT school, or being taken by the school somewhere to have them?

Dr. Ed, you should really consider stopping helping.

[Stella Link the dog]

This shit is great. Mr Ed makes a claim that schools are providing abortions and pretty soon someone will make a twit repeating that assertion and sourcing it to a well-known educator and who should know better and, before you know it, Dotard Donnie will re-twit and it will become a standard part of his campaign speeches along with the stories about all the prisons and mental institutions around the world that are dumping their prisoners and patients at our border and all the beautiful babies that he's personally witnessed being turned into autistics by vaccines.

[David Nieporent]

The media is obviously not intentionally biased against Harris or in favor of Trump. But the media doesn't report on everything awful Trump says and does because it's treated as, essentially, old news not worth covering.

Or look at the abortion story this past week. Rather than reporting that Trump is a liar who says whatever he thinks will help him win, that he's got zero actual principle or core belief, but that his anti-abortion supporters will force him to take the most extreme position possible, the media reported it as Trump "struggles for message on abortion."

[David Nieporent]

It’s not surprising to me that Harris doesn’t want to talk to the media.

While I might agree, I don't think politicians should have the luxury of doing that without being called on it. But it's important to note that this is a fake story here. She came out of the car listening to something. Some MAGA rando posted on twitter with no basis whatsoever that she was doing so to avoid taking questions. And then some MAGA rando here — i.e., Michael P — adds yet another layer of fiction, claiming that she's "afraid of Americans hearing" her.

[Michael P]

This is just one example of her avoiding questions from the press and the public, you lying flack.

[Sarcastr0]

I know you're lazy, but without establishing there is a lie, you're just doing some lame namecalling.

[Michael P]

Go find something defensible to deny.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/business/media/kamala-harris-press-interviews.html
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-08-06/kamala-harris-donald-trump-press-interview-joe-biden-election-2024

[Sarcastr0]

Harris did talk to the media. I guess it doesn't count for Michael because he's super into this talking point still.

Heck, if she gets elected I figure he will ride it to the middle of her first term.

[Don Nico]

In an edited before broadcast interview, with a helper for hard questions. Keep making excuses for her.
Now I will admit, the best campaign strategy for her is to remain silent.

[Sarcastr0]

Look at how many provisos you have added.

I don't find her political and policy positions to be much of a cipher, and I don't think anyone else does either.

[Don Nico]

"Look at how many provisos .."
You are sooooo fucking dishonest.
She talked ONCE in a scripted format.

[Josh R]

She had no script.

[Sarcastr0]

This is just sad, Don.

It does show you don't have much else to oppose her on, hence the ridiculous doubling down over and over.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Hey fuckhead - you're the one here spreading lies.

You, Joe_dallas, and Commenter_XY. You're all liars with no redeeming human qualities whatsoever. Fuck every last one of you.

[Commenter_XY]

The best part: there was a 41 minute interview. Viewers saw 18 minutes. And no transcript. You’re right about the helper(s), LOL.

[Josh R]

We saw 27 minutes. It's total horseshit that it was edited. Here is the transcript.

[Joe_dallas]

Josh R 31 mins ago
We saw 27 minutes. It’s total horseshit that it was edited. Here is the transcript.:Josh R 31 mins ago
"We saw 27 minutes. It’s total horseshit that it was edited. Here is the transcript."

Gullible to the extreme. Its extremely doubtful that the interview was not edited.

[Josh R]

Gullible? Yes, MAGA nation is full of gullible people who believe any shit thrown at Harris. If this was edited, it will come out and CNN will be seriously hurt. It makes no sense for CNN to do that.

Even though it may smell since you head is up your ass, don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

[Mr. Bumble]

It was edited you fool.

[David Nieporent]

So, is Mr. Bumble a lying asshole or a gullible retard? (Or, as always, why not both?)

[Mr. Bumble]

Please point us to the whole interview as aired by CNN.

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't Josh R link to that?

[Mr. Bumble]

No, he linked to a transcript.

[Sarcastr0]

So by whole interview, you mean only the video will do.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/30/politics/video/kamala-harris-tim-walz-full-interview-part-1-digvid

This is why people say you sealion. You could have found that on seconds.
But instead you want to complain that the transcript is arbitrarily not enough.

I'm sure the next arbitrary standard is coming next. Doesn't count unless she is to be alone, or she has to have a full press gaggle, or she has to be named Trump) or whatever bullshit you come up with so you can keep complaining.

[Josh R]

Part 1, part 2 and part 3 of the video.

[bernard11]

Who's gullible?

What evidence do you have that it was edited, other than those voices in your head? Some claims by MAGAt's?

You choose to believe it, for no real reason other than that you want to. Talk about gullibility.

[Mr. Bumble]

Where is the whole video?

[Sarcastr0]

You think the transcript is false?

[Mr. Bumble]

Where is the whole video?

[David Nieporent]

On CNN's website, jackass.

[Mr. Bumble]

So a video divided into three parts is "unedited"?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Unless some content was altered or omitted. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[David Nieporent]

It was not edited, nor did Walz help her with hard questions. Keep making shit up because you're so stupid you actually said you would vote for RFKJ.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 17 hours ago
It was not edited, nor did Walz help her with hard questions.

There were no hard questions

[Sarcastr0]

Joe once again has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about.

Here's some of the 'no hard questions.'
—————–
There’s a crisis of affordability…. What do you say to voters who want to go back on the economy, when groceries were less expensive and housing was more affordable when Donald Trump was president?

The steps that you’re talking about now, why haven’t you done them already?

You maintain that Bidenomics is a success?

Do you still want to ban fracking?

In 2019 you said “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” So it changed in that campaign?
What made you change that position at the time?

You were tasked with addressing the root causes of migration…. Why did the Biden-Harris administration wait three and a half years to implement sweeping asylum restrictions?

Will you appoint a Republican to your cabinet?

Would you withhold some US weapons shipments from Israel? That’s what a lot of people on the progressive left want you to do.

Donald Trump suggested that you happened to turn Black recently for political purposes.

To Harris: You were a very staunch defender of President Biden’s capacity to serve another four years…. Do you have any regrets about what you told the American people?

[Estragon]

“It’s better”

No. No it is not. The man has lost his goddamn marbles. Medical operations in schools? It’s a deranged fantasy and false. And you want to give him the nuclear codes. God help us.

Funny how all the the concerns about dementia have disappeared. Because, let me tell you— the above sounds like something a dementia patient would say. Whatever happened to Fred Trump at the end of his life, anyways?

[Frank Drackman]

I heard she proposed “No Tax on Tips”? Trump should have thought of that

[Stella Link the dog]

REMF says: "I heard she proposed “No Tax on Tips”? Trump should have thought of that"

Do you think Trump should have a monopoly on stupid tax policy proposals?

[Frank Drackman]

You should look up what REMF means so you wouldn’t look so fucking stupid, it’s “Rear Echelon Mother Fucker” like Sergeant Minor Pepper-Waltz, not a Doctor with a Marine Infantry Battalion, who went through the mine fields with everyone else on G-Day. The tax codes full of Bullshit, what’s one more exemption?

Frank

[Stella Link the dog]

I know what REMF means, Mengele.

[Frank Drackman]

You obviously don't, or what Mengele did, I've done more for humanity in one of my humanitarian trips to Haiti (OK, I get it, even with the War, Israel's a fun place to go, but Haiti? El Salvador?) than you've probably done in your whole life, you're the fuck who wants to kill unborn humans right up till the cord's clamped, and I used to work at this "Free Clinic" in ATL seeing mostly Ill-legals and the Destitute (yeah, a Gas Passer treating Diabetes and Gout, better than who they had before, some DEI Nurse Practitioner, only quit when they jacked up my Malpractice 50%(Yeah, I was paying Insurance Company so I could treat people for free) What the fuck have you ever done for anyone,

Frank

[Stella Link the dog]

Oh Mengele,
I had no idea I was in the presence of such a great humanitarian, and a towering intellect of humility nonpareil. Has the Nobel Committee been notified? And, such a great writer with all the best, even beautiful,words! And such a beautifully well-organized mind you have. A real beauty. Uncommonly beautiful. Almost Trumpian in its awesome beautifulness. Uncommonly beautiful. It's obvious why you are such a huge, huge fan as you share the same penchant for the truth. All of us mere mortals stand in awe and are thankful for just being allowed to share the same internet. Hugely, hugely thankful. Big league.

[Frank Drackman]

So you haven't done shit, you've actually helped the "Less well off" by not inflicting your essence on then. Yeah, this "Free Clinic"(I was the only one working for Free) in one of Atlantas Shitholes (there are so many) needed an M.D., and even with a HBU Med School in the ATL, guess who was the only one who would work for free (actually lost money, cause you still had to have Malpractice) Did it for 2 years until the Bullshit got too thick, those fucks are still trying to get me back (I'll help the Po' for free, but I ain't paying to do it) so now they get seen by NP Rappa-Lappa-Oooka-Looka-(Insert "Clicking noise here")Pa-Dong, who prescribes NSAID's along with Coumadin, great concept, you'll bleed out even faster from your Ulcer. In Haiti passed gas for Randy Paul, who is sort of a Prick, (He's an Eye Surgeon)
Frank

[Stella Link the dog]

Mengele, you are such a sensitive soul. Sensitivity like nobody’s ever seen before. And boundless selflessness to spend so much effort regaling us with your onanistic fantasies when you could be more productively spending your time inventorying the stock in one of your numerous pawn shops. Selflessness to the degree that nobody’s ever heard of such selflessness. And I’ll bet you’re very good looking to boot. Much better looking than that tramp the Democrats offer up as a presidential candidate. Bigly good looking. Hugely. And I bet that women for miles around drop there drawers when they know that you’re coming around. Certainly after they witness you licking your eyebrows.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Estragon -- SOME schools have medical clinics in them, which is one logical step beyond the school breakfast/lunch programs, providing medical care to children in the school as well.

Could one have gone this far -- sadly, it wouldn't surprise me.
I haven't seen any mention of it in the Education literature, but then it also isn't something one would want to nationally advertise, either.

If you know what state, check with the medical board in that state to see what kind of licenses the bigger school systems have.

[Estragon]

Yes, Ed, we know you are unreachable, and would excuse anything. It’s a deranged fantasy that has zero basis in fact. The guy is losing it.

Whatever happened to Fred Trump at the end of his life, anyways?

[bernard11]

SOME schools have medical clinics in them,

So they do. I happen to have a relative who runs one of those clinics, a big one in a major city. She is a nurse practitioner, not a surgeon or even a physician. She spends time dealing with cuts, bruises, routine injuries, kids needing to go home because they are sick, and so on.

If you imagine she is doing abortions or sex change operations you are insane (which you actually are).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There should be day baseball games on Labor Day.

Also, keep track of white shoe rules. "Serial Mom" shows breaking them can be lethal:

[Juror #8 is talking on a payphone when Beverly grabs the receiver from her]

Beverly Sutphin: You can't wear white after Labor Day!

Juror #8: That's not true anymore.

Beverly Sutphin: Yes it is! Didn't your mother tell you? Now you know.

[she whacks her in the face with the phone]

Juror #8: No! Please! Fashion has changed!

Beverly Sutphin: No... it hasn't.

[she hits her again]

[Original Understanding in action?]

[bernard11]

There should be day baseball games on Labor Day.

I'd hope there would be unanimity here on this, no matter what else we fight about.

[Frank Drackman]

Not only did there used to be Day games on Labor Day, they were usually doubleheaders. The 1976 White Sox played 16 Doubleheaders, (2 on Consecutive days!) So did the Braves
the 2024 White Sox should have done that, would have saved a lot on their power bill.
And back then they weren't usually the "Split" Variety, you got 2 games for the price of one (with the 1970's Braves it wasn't really a great deal)

Frank "Lets Play 2......Not!"

[bernard11]

Stop cribbing Ernie Banks' lines.

[Martinned2]

Given that the relevant legal standard is "real risk", this seems like a no brainer:

Britain is suspending the sale of a raft of arms being used by Israel in Gaza after concluding there is a real risk weapons could be used in violation of international humanitarian law.
U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced Monday that 30 licenses, including components for fighter planes, helicopters and drones will be immediately put on hold.
After a review commissioned straight after Labour’s landslide election victory in July, the government concluded there have been possible breaches on humanitarian access and the treatment of detainees.

https://pro.politico.eu/news/185237

[John F. Carr]

When I saw the news I thought the relevant standard was "elections have consequences".

[Bob from Ohio]

UK rewards Hamas for murdering 6 hostages. Hurrah!

[SimonP]

Of course, the UK should reward Israel, with the most humanitarian army in the world, for briefly ceasing military operations in Gaza so as to conduct a polio vaccination campaign. Apparently the military objectives in Gaza can be put on pause, on short notice and at will, when there's a risk that a polio outbreak in Gaza could come back to impact Israel (which has pockets of seriously under-vaccinated populations).

[Bob from Ohio]

The pause is not for all of Gaza and for limited duration. So your pals in Hamas are still at risk!

"most humanitarian army"
Silly, that's the US army.

[John F. Carr]

Polymer80, a company that sells parts for making home-assembled guns, has shut down under the weight of lawsuits. CEO Loran Kelley Jr. hints that the business will return. I don't know if any of the settlements and injunctions against the company affect him personally.

Next month the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok. The case is about a new regulation prohibiting selling gun components without going through all the formalities of selling complete guns. Polymer80's business model depends on a legal environment where gun components are easier to buy and sell than complete guns. As often happens these days, the case is about whether an agency exceeded its statutory authority but there aren't enough votes in Congress to clarify the statute.

[Commenter_XY]

Baruch Dayan Ha'Emet: Hersh Goldberg-Polin

American hostage, murdered by hamas in captivity.

May his name be as a blessing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't expect Biden or Harris to say his name.

[SimonP]

They've already called his parents. From the Times of Israel:

“Hamas is an evil terrorist organization. With these murders, Hamas has even more American blood on its hands. I strongly condemn Hamas’ continued brutality, and so must the entire world,” [Harris] said.

Harris extended her condolences to Goldberg-Polin’s family, saying, “When I met with Jon and Rachel earlier this year, I told them: You are not alone. That remains true, as they mourn this terrible loss.

“As is said in the Jewish tradition, may Hersh’s memory be a blessing,” she added.

Here was Trump's response:

Meanwhile, Republican candidate, former president Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that “The Hostage Crisis in Israel is only taking place because Comrade Kamala Harris is weak and ineffective, and has no idea what she’s doing.

“I look forward to seeing her at the Debate!” he adds. “THE OCTOBER 7th ISRAELI CRISIS WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IF I WERE PRESIDENT!”

[Mr. Bumble]

Completely out of character for Biden/Harris and as far as I can see, so far, unreported in US media.

[SimonP]

Completely out of character for Biden/Harris...

*rolls eyes*

...and as far as I can see, so far, unreported in US media.

It doesn't seem to be widely reported, no. I could find some references in the Chicago Tribune and NYPost, but generally the mainstream media has been focusing on the protests in Israel. It would appear that Israeli media are more interested in that detail than American news outlets, for whatever reason. Perhaps they realize that it's so "in character" for Biden to call the victim's family that it doesn't merit a lot of coverage; perhaps the mainstream media doesn't want to look like it's providing earned media to the Harris campaign.

[bernard11]

Not at all out of character for Biden/Harris, and not for Asshole Trump either.

[Stella Link the dog]

"unreported in US media."

Is CBS not part of the US media?

CBS is just the first one I found -- I'm sure there are others.

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW I searched just before posting my comment and the only thing that came up was the Times of Israel article referred to by SimonP.

[David Nieporent]

Completely out of character for Biden/Harris

It is of course completely in character for Mr. Bumble to lie…

and as far as I can see, so far, unreported in US media.

…even about things easily checked like this.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2024/09/01/biden-harris-call-parents-hersh-goldberg-polin-hostage-hamas-israel-ceasefire

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/politicians-outrage-hamas-renew-calls-end-war-rcna169169

(Those were the first two links using Google News. I'd post more but the Reason software only allows two links, and if Mr. Bumble were honest and interested he'd just do the search himself.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, Fucktard. At the time of the post the only hit was for the Times of Israel as I mentioned above and which Simon P referred to. TOF is not US media.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It wouldn't have.

Trump would have told Hamas that he'd nuke Gaza if they did it, and they wouldn't want to find out if he was crazy enough to actually do it.

[Magister]

Without advance notice of Hamas's intentions versus other terrorist groups, wouldn't he have had to threaten to nuke every terrorism supporting country? If he actually nuked somewhere, especially in close proximity to American allies, what would be the world's response?

[bernard11]

Too bad Brett's not here to explain to you, for the tenth time, what a stupid thing it would be to Nuke Gaza, whether the US did it (insane), or Israel (insane and suicidal).

[John F. Carr]

It is not likely that Hamas would believe Trump. He might be crazy enough to give the order. The military would not carry it out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump needs to clean house.

[bernard11]

That might be a good job for him.

Hand him a broom, a vacuum cleaner, a toilet brush, and put him to work.

[SimonP]

Hamas's attack was widely believed to have been motivated by the impending normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia - an initiative that Trump championed while in office and likely would have taken credit for, had it been completed on Biden's watch.

No threat to use nuclear weapons on Gaza would have been taken seriously. That said, Trump would likely have endorsed a far more aggressive approach to the Gaza war than Israel has actually taken, including more reckless disregard of civilian casualties and pushing Gazans into Egypt (or otherwise displacing them, perhaps into mass graves).

But that would have come only after the fact of the attack. Trump's strategy to terrorists while in office was to ignore or placate them (see, e.g., his agreement to release Taliban prisoners in order to secure promises not to attack American troops, and his desire to invite Taliban leaders to Camp David). Trump's actions goaded Hamas (and Iran) into the attack. He doesn't understand - and you don't understand - how his inconsistent, transactional approach to geopolitics and empty posturing made American weaker and put us in danger.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Motivated by IRAN because of....

Trump dealt with Iran -- they were quiet during his reign.

[SimonP]

Trump unilaterally pulled out of the Iran deal. Iran spent the next couple of years trying to work with the remaining parties to the deal, hoping to salvage some of the relief it had provided. Meanwhile, Iran slowly amped up its uranium refinement capabilities and revved up its regional proxies.

Now, the Iran deal is completely dead, Iran is closer than ever to producing nuclear weapons, and it is actively pushing its proxies to create problems for Israel and the west.

On point after point - inflation and the national debt, immigration, the pullout from Afghanistan, the war in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, China emboldened in its near abroad - we are dealing with the consequences of Trump's profound incompetence. The fact that it has happened on Biden's watch doesn't change that. We fortunately got rid of Trump before he could be in charge of dealing with the fallout of his own bad governance. Hopefully we don't give him the opportunity to double down.

[Sarcastr0]

You cheapen everything.

[Don Nico]

As do you, with that uncalled for snark.

[grb]

As do you, with your incessant ankle-biting. Accompanied by your high-pitched yipping and leaping-about, it's pretty darn destracting.

[Bwaaah]

Well *that* certainly elevated the dialog. Sarc's wingman...you're hitting your stride now. The anti-cheapening squad has landed, and oh boy, things are gettin' straightened 'round here.

[Aoidized]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/09/02/two-years-after-migrants-began-to-arrive-many-have-settled-in-chicago-even-as-some-continue-to-struggle/

So many of the migrants have expensive medical conditions. Why do the Democrats think we have a moral obligation to take care of the whole third world?

[Moderation4ever]

The Good Samaritin had no obligation to help the man set upon by thieves but did so anyway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I didn't read about the Samaritin taxpayers being on the hook for it...

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If you were to design a secure election system with integrity that people could trust, how would that look?

[ThePublius]

I think the only way it could be done if retail banks were enlisted to conduct elections, and followed the same protocols they do for one's checking and savings accounts. You get one vote, and you can 'transfer' it to your preferred candidate. You can do it in person, online, and even schedule it for election day, and change it before that date.

[Moderation4ever]

You have an interesting reply. It is amazing how much we trust our money to be handled electronically, but balk at the idea of electronic voting.

[David Nieporent]

Voting is (deliberately) anonymous, so there's no way to do the same sort of audit trails and such that we can with banking.

[ThePublius]

Electronic voting in the U.S. has so far been abysmal - flakey, extremely poor security, and demonstrably hackable. People don't trust it, and rightly so.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember that the banking system just accepts a certain amount of fraud as a cost of doing business, they don't even try to drive fraud down to zero, just down to the point where it's cheaper to live with it than spend more to reduce it further.

Somebody steals your credit card number, and buys something with it? You prove to the bank it wasn't you, and they fill your account back up, and just mark it down as a cost of doing business. They don't relentlessly hunt down whoever stole the card number.

That's because in the end nothing hangs on whether Bob has one more dollar than George, while a LOT hangs on whether candidate Bob has one more vote than candidate George.

Our elections are probably already more secure than banks, because more hangs on the precise numbers.

[Moderation4ever]

The current system is very good so there is not a lot of room for improvement. I would suggest getting rid of signatures in favor of PINs

[Michael P]

Hard copy ballots as the ballots of record. Early voting for cause only. Stronger protections against boxes of ballots being "found" late and still counted toward the totals. Meaningful reconciliation of ballot counts against voter counts. Use of government-issued photo ID to confirm identity.

[Mr. Bumble]

First thing we do is clean ALL the voter rolls and keep them clean and up to date.

[Moderation4ever]

Why not just go to motor voter plan where you are register when you get a driver's license. It is pretty simple. People who don't have licenses will need to have different mechanism but that is a much smaller subset.

[Mr. Bumble]

Motor voter is part of the problem, not the solution. Illegal aliens can get a license in many states.

[Brett Bellmore]

Motor voter actually included a provision requiring cleaning up voter rolls. It never got enforced.

[Moderation4ever]

Voter counts against ballot counts are commonly done at polling places. In Madison, we do them hourly and report them to the clerk office.

[Mr. Bumble]

…and Democrats in GA are having a fit over not certifying the results if they don’t match.
Also it does nothing to count illegally cast votes (that is votes by those not eligible to vote).

[David Nieporent]

Early voting for cause only.

What on earth does that have to do with election integrity? Either early voting is insecure or it isn't. (Note that early voting and vote-by-mail are different things; there's no reason why early in-person voting would be any different than election day in-person voting.) If it is insecure, then how does allowing people to do it "for cause" make it any more secure?

[Michael P]

It encourages people to vote based on less information and increases the window of time that their ballots can be spoiled or corrupted.

But yes, we should also make vote-by-mail only for cause.

[Josh R]

Don't move to Oregon (100% mail-in voting since 1998).

[Michael P]

The wiser parts of Oregon are trying to leave so they are no longer saddled by Portlandia.

[Vryedni]

"The wiser parts," as in the parts that want to join Greater Idaho (i.e., Aryan Nations 2.0)?

[Josh R]

They want to join Idaho for ideological reasons, not because they want to stop mail-in voting.

[Michael P]

Another example: North Carolina refused to remove RFK Jr from the ballot because they already sent out absentee ballots. Apparently a foolish consistency is more important to them than only listing candidates who are still running.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Michael P, you should contact your local election board and ask to train as an election worker. After you've worked an election and understand how it actually works, you won't sound like such an idiot.

[Michael P]

Maybe you should actually get an argument that doesn't make you sound like such an idiot.

[Moderation4ever]

Drinkwater is correct your need to learn hold the election is actaully done as you seem to have no real idea.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Poor Michael is still under the delusion that our elections have integrity problems.

Intelligent people rely on evidence to form conclusions. Michael has no evidence for his conclusion. The implication is obvious.

[Michael P]

Tyler Cowen has a thoughtful column on how underdeveloped yet overcomplicated the Harris proposal to tax unrealized capital gains is: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/09/taxing-unrealized-capital-gains-is-a-terrible-idea.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Country Club Republican have been selling out social conservatives for so long that I think they deserve something like this.

[David Nieporent]

In what way have alleged Country Club Republicans been "selling out" social conservatives?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Socially Liberal but Economically Conservative"?!?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Go on…

[Dr. Ed 2]

Start with illegal immigration...

[Estragon]

“She said, daddy, I don’t want to do that, I just want to help people get jobs. She would go around – not a glamorous iob – but would so around to see Wal-Mart, to see Exxon, to see all these big companies to hire people and she had hired, like, millions of people during the course of
her stay”

Lost. His. Marbles.

[Michael Ejercito]

An article by Jack Marshall.

https://soc.culture.israel.narkive.com/5JCXXX3F/more-election-ad-deceit-in-nh#

More Election Ad Deceit in NH
September 1, 2024 / Jack Marshall

Former Senator Kelly Ayotte is the GOP candidate for Governor of New
Hampshire. She is also one of the long-time Roe v. Wade opponents who is
being targeted by pro-abortion groups in attack ads. If you listen
closely, some of the ads reveal the dark and ominous heart of the ‘We
Love Abortion!’ movement.

I have had to watch one such ad repeatedly while following the Boston
Red Sox as they are just-barely contending for a wild card berth. A
sad-eyed mother reveals that when she was pregnant, a doctor who checked
out the embryo (that was well past the usual legal abortion period in
many states including New Hampshire) told the mother that “my baby would
not survive.” She goes on to say that Ayotte is so cruel that she would
make a mother like me “carry” a baby for months knowing that “it would
not survive.” Ayotte supports the current 24 week limit on abortions.

There is so much that is intellectually dishonest about the ad and its
implied argument. Because of this mother’s unusual dilemma with an
unhealthy unborn child, mothers should be allowed to abort healthy, even
viable unborn children if they awake one morning and decide, “Eh, this
is too much trouble. Time to kill the thing. Thank goodness I hadn’t
named her yet!” Is this part of what Ayotte is “cruel” for opposing?

More ethically suspicious is the ad’s careful use of the word “survive.”
What did the doctor say, exactly? That the baby wouldn’t survive birth?
That it wouldn’t survive a month? That it wouldn’t survive childhood, or
adolescence? None of us “survive” eventually. What is the difference
ethically from aborting a living unborn child because it won’t survive
some minimum period of time after it is born, and wanting to kill a
child who is diagnosed after birth with a fatal condition?

I don’t see any. The mother, meanwhile, frames the issue with her
inconvenience and misfortune, as if the life of the unborn child is
irrelevant. The doctor might be wrong. I believe that a shot at life,
however short, is preferable to no life at all.

The anti-Ayotte ad confuses and obscures the real issues in the abortion
controversy rather than clarifying them.

[Mr. Bumble]

…and that’s the way Dems like it.
Maybe if Planned Parenthood did a better job with the planned part things would be different.

[not guilty]

Planned Parenthood, by facilitating access to contraceptives, has prevented more abortions than an army of "sidewalk counselors" has ever dreamed of.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

10,000,402 people have attempted to registered to vote WITHOUT ID in America just in the year 2024

https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1830602847966331046

[Moderation4ever]

I would like to see where this data came from because I think it is BS. I have registered people at the polls, which is allowed in Wisconsin. If a person asked to register and did not have an ID and proof of residency, the poll workers simply told them they could not register. We never recorded unsuccessful attempts. So where did the data come from?

[Josh R]

It comes from the Social Security Administration’s Help America Vote Verification website.

Many people try to register to vote, but don’t have driver’s licenses. The SSA assists by verifying eligible would-be voters based on the last 4 digits of their SSN. There is nothing nefarious going on.

So yes, it’s BS.

[Magister]

One should also note that in Wisconsin one does not need ID to register in advance; proof of residency in various forms (which could be a driver's license or other appropriate ID, but does not have to be) is all that is needed, and an ID will be checked at the polls. (Both are needed to register and vote at the polls on election day.)

https://myvote.wi.gov/DesktopModules/GabMyVoteModules/api/document/getproofofresidencedoc

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Not proof of citizenship?

That's weird.

[Moderation4ever]

Wisconsin driver licenses are Real ID compliant, and they are the most commonly used form of ID to register. That you are unfamiliar with the Real ID system which has been in effect for so many years seems weird.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Wisconsin offers both REAL ID-compliant and non-compliant driver licenses and ID cards. The cards look similar; REAL ID-compliant are marked with a µ​, while non-compliant cards are marked “NOT FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES.”​
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/license-drvs/how-to-apply/realid.aspx

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the question of reliability of the twitter account "Wall Street Apes," ID is not required, so what is the significance of "registered to vote without ID"?

But, in fact, we cannot set aside the question of reliability of the twitter account "Wall Street Apes"; in fact, those have absolutely nothing to do with whether someone had ID. Those are just the total number of times (not number of people) that voter officials requested that SSNs be verified.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/apr/11/facebook-posts/social-security-administration-data-doesnt-show-nu/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

politifact? lol good grief, I can't believe people still use that website

[Magister]

Great comment from someone who prefers Twitter account "WallStreetApes" to Politifact. Here's another from a different source:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-migrants-voter-registration-skyrocketing-905290261987

[Mr. Bumble]

Unless there has been another delay, Hunter Biden's next trial begins on Thursday. Just in time for the next open thread.

[Moderation4ever]

Do we really care? With Joe Biden out of the race the punching down to Hunter is unnecessary and looks bad.

[Michael P]

Since when is holding the US President's child accountable for crimes "punching down"?

[Martinned2]

It looked dumb before too, and that never stopped anybody.

[Mr. Bumble]

Prosecuting tax evasion looked dumb?

[Sarcastr0]

Would this have been a case were Hunter not Biden's kid?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, because he'd never have gotten the money he evaded paying taxes on.

[Jmaie]

Dunno, how many not-children-of-presidents are prosecuted when caught failing to report millions in income? I'd like to think the majority...

[Martinned2]

No, but making a big fuss about this case was. He did a crime, he's going to do some time. Acting like it's the second coming of Benghazi was stupid. (As was the first coming, of course.)

[M L]

Huh.

Female darts players threatened with disciplinary action for refusing to play transgender rivals

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/tv/female-darts-players-threatened-with-disciplinary-action-for-refusing-to-play-transgender-rivals/ar-AA1pUeeW

[David Nieporent]

Remember the other day when people were pretending that Tulsi Gabbard and RFKJ were prominent Democrats who wouldn't support Harris, and these people were pooh-poohing the much longer list of Republicans not supporting Trump because most were not well-known?

Well, in addition to the many members of Trump's cabinet who won't support him, neither will his own vice president.

(To be fair, anyone who you tried to have murdered would be unlikely to support you. On the other hand, there's Ted Cruz, who's such a spineless weasel that he supported a guy who called his wife ugly and his father a murderer.)

[Josh R]

I see Maduro has announced Christmas will be on October 1 this year. That's Bananas!