Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is quite perturbed with ABC for the debate moderators fact checking him in real time, and he is threatening reprisals:

I think ABC took a big hit last night. I mean, to be honest, they're a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that.

https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/trump-tells-fox-friends-abc-should-have-its-broadcast-license-revoked-because

In fact, ABC is not licensed as a broadcast network, but it does own and operate eight local television stations, which are required to be licensed by the FCC.

Of course, Trump could have chosen not to lie in the first place about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio eating dogs and cats and post-birth abortions, but I surmise that simply not lying never occurred to him.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, in theory the moderators could have chosen to fact check BOTH candidates, instead of just the one they didn't support.

Or, you know, they could have just stayed out of the way and let the candidates debate each other.

I know for a fact that it's possible for debate moderators to be impartial: I've actually seen it happen. Just not in a Presidential debate in the last couple of decades...

[hobie]

Is it possible that Trump just lied a lot more than Harris?

[Michael P]

ABC treated the two fundamentally differently, from asking Harris gentler questions, to telling Trump to answer the questions but allowing Harris to ignore the questions, to only fact-checking Trump and (like Candy Crowley) getting a number of those checks wrong.

Meanwhile, Mean Girl Harris spent her time muted by making faces.

[hobie]

That was pretty mean of Harris to just stand there and watch Trump self-implode

[not guilty]

Napoleon Bonaparte: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

[Commenter_XY]

NG, in about a month, your observation will become very relevant. Stay tuned. 🙂

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The fact that the campaign was so desperate they buried the debate with that Taylor Swift endorsement tells you that the people who are smart believe the debate went differently than you do.

[Sarcastr0]

Come on man, post the Harris earpiece conspiracy.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why do you think it's a conspiracy?

Do you think there wasn't a Taylor Swift announcement?

[Michael P]

According to hobie the hack, making calculated faces while friendly moderators tilt the playing field in your favor means you "just stand there and watch" your opponent "self-implode".

Independent panels of undecided voters broke in Trump's favor after the debate. The individual people had different reasons for it, but they overwhelmingly pointed in the same direction.

[hobie]

I don't think Harris' bemused smirk was calculated. In fact, the 60 million people who watched probably had the same smirk. I know I had the smirk.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Harris reminded men of their ex wives.

[Nelson]

And Trump reminded women of their ex-husbands. When you need suburban women to win an election, that's not good.

[David Nieporent]

Independent panels of undecided voters broke in Trump’s favor after the debate. The individual people had different reasons for it, but they overwhelmingly pointed in the same direction.

Is that as accurate as the quotes you were fabricating in the last thread? No, no, it isn't; it's less accurate. Literally nobody, including Trump's most ardent supporters, thinks he did well. His fake social media platform's stock plummeted after that performance, the GOP immediately started throwing tantrums afterwards about biased moderators, and focus groups said Trump was terrible.

I don't think it matters, per se; Trump is Trump and could not and cannot do anything to attract new voters. His only hope was that he could tear down Harris (or that she would implode on her own, as Biden did), and he not surprisingly didn't.

[OtisAH]

Plummeted “further.” His junk stock plummeted further after the debate.

[Riva]

The reality is that Harris is wildly unlikeable. If she had a pet, it'd probably be out looking for a new hunger illegal owner.

[Michael P]

You are bullshitting and moving goalposts as much as you usually do.

Trump didn't have to do *well* to be more compelling than the three-person team led by a screeching gargoyle.

[jb]

So, I guess the attempt to rig the debate in favor of Harris wasn't that successful? Seems weird for everyone to be so upset about something that supposedly helped Trump.

[Ilya Snowman]

Do you think the rest of the world believes that?

Do you even believe that, or is your own trolling a form of salve to comfort you from the fact that your country's essentially policy-less debate is evidence of your country's decline?

Do you even care, or is your trolling just a day job?

[Nelson]

Well how does your country do it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Which of Harris' lies did the moderators fact check? Certainly didn't fact check the Charlottesville lie. Or the lie about full term abortions not being a real thing.

[Commenter_XY]

The debate was predictable, and tedious. Yes, the moderators were biased. Pres Trump knew that going in. Yes, it was 3 on 1, and Pres Trump knew that going in also. Despite that, he allowed himself to be baited into useless irrelevancies, and get sidetracked. He knows better (does he?). His closing statement was effective; very much so.

The most one can say that while there was no clear winner, there was a perceived loser.

I don't think the debate hurts (or helps) either one, and I don't think the dynamics of the race changed. In about 2 weeks, we will see the resumption of the slow, steady slide downward of polling numbers resume for VP Harris.

It will be ~5 weeks to go at that point. Just in time for an October surprise.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying he performed well. Just that I'm sick and tired of the Presidential debates always featuring Democratic moderators.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, one thing that POTUS Trump did while in office was break the monopoly of the White House MSM. More alternative media was invited in, and we are better for it.

Same model for debates, going forward. You will have to have at least 1 debate with MSM, but after that, not so much. The current model has to be upended, they (MSM) will not change organically.

[Brett Bellmore]

The same model for the debates would be good, if it actually happened.

I see no sign of it happening. Perhaps due to their dominance of the media, the Democrats don't really need the debates as much as the Republicans do, and so are in a stronger negotiating position.

I really do miss the League of Women Voters. They were certainly good at running debates.

[ducksalad]

I really do miss the League of Women Voters.

Let's remember why the League of Women Voters pulled out. Bush I and Dukakis were colluding to (among other things) take control over picking the moderators and to make sure third party candidates were excluded. The most prominent third party candidate that year was Ron Paul.

[Nelson]

"I’m sick and tired of the Presidential debates always featuring Democratic moderators."

And by "Democratic", you actually mean "not a Trump sycophant". We know.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, by "Democratic" I mean actual Democrats.

[not guilty]

Brett, how do you claim to know the party affiliations of the ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis?

[Bddogs]

Lindsey Davis is a black female (calling her a woman gives her too much stature) which means the chance she's a Democrat is about 95%.

[Sarcastr0]

Lets say your unsupported supposition of party affiliation is right.

You assume that Democrats are all partisans first and professionals never.

That is not how people work. You're cynicism reveals a lot about your lack of integrity before your personal partisan bias. Most people are not like that.

[Ilya Snowman]

Dearest lying American pig. When you write 'We know', what do you mean by 'know' and who counts as 'we'?

Just kidding: no one could expect the truth from you. The rest of the world, across the political spectrum, sees your corporate media as systematically untrustworthy.

Congratulations on discrediting yourselves.

[Nelson]

And yet we still mange to be far superior to your country.

[Reallynotbob]

Remember that one time, when there was a *Republican* moderator, and Trump was so mad at her that he said blood was coming out of her eyes and wherever?

Sounds to me like your real problem is that moderators are journalists and therefore interested in, ya know, facts.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm not sure what that has to do with this.

I'm sure that, as journalists and as citizens, the moderators would love to join the debate on behalf of their preferred candidate. But they should avoid that impulse.

[Sarcastr0]

I seem to recall you predicted the debate would come out differently for Harris, Commenter.

Now you are in the mods biased crew.

Trump told a racist tall tale. That’s way off what you want Presidents to be like. And now he wants to go after the network.

But you are still all in.

[Commenter_XY]

The most one can say that while there was no clear winner, there was a perceived loser.

[Sarcastr0]

“The debate was predictable, and tedious.”

Apparently not that predictable.

And apparently bigoted bullshitting isn’t enough for Trump to lose your support.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Commenter! You better renounce your support for Trump so you can earn Sarcastr0, and the World's approval! And you'll also be On the Right Side of History!

It was SO dangnabbit bigoted of Trump to even MENTION that illegals were eating people's cats. HOW DARE HE!??!!?

He's such a bigot!

[Ilya Snowman]

The best part is that the pet eating business wasn't even refuted, definitively.

Sarcastro/Somin has established time and again that he himself is a bigot. The irony is lost on him, of course, but hypocrisy clearly does not bother him either. Is Sarcastro's bigotry itself a good reason to discount what he ever says?

[OtisAH]

Commenter doesn’t know much, but only a couple others here know more about predictability and tediousness than he does.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — What surprising lie do you suppose Trump is reserving for October?

[not guilty]

As I have said before, whenever I get a tu quoque reply, I know I have struck an exposed nerve.

[Michael P]

A more honest person than you would realize they were being exposed as a hypocrite.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Your desperation is palpable.

[Ilya Snowman]

So... you are guilty...

[not guilty]

I like a good non sequitur as much as the next fellow, but WTF? Guilty of what?

[Ilya Snowman]

You’ve betrayed (at least one of) your real motives.

[not guilty]

And just what do you fancy that motive to be, Mr. Snowman?

A tu quoque reply is a dodge -- a transparent attempt to avoid discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the original comment.

[Ilya Snowman]

I understand quite well what a tu quoque reply actually is, including as an effort to intimate hypocrisy.

It is your delight in eliciting that sort of response which I am referring to here.

[Reallynotbob]

You fool, not guilty! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! (the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia," of course)

[Nelson]

"the Charlottesville lie"

That wasn't a lie. When you claim that there were fine people on the pro-Confederacy, neo-Nazi-organized side, reasonable people say, "No, there weren't fine people on that side.". Assuming without evidence that there were fine people on the Nazi side is a lie. I mean, come on. They were marching with torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us.".

"the lie about full term abortions not being a real thing."

That is absolutely a lie. A baby that has been born alive cannot be killed without it being murder. Period. It is illegal in every single state. Period. There is no "Yeah, but ..." in that. It is one of the most heinous and delusional lies that anti-abortionists tell and they will never stop lying about it, reality be damned.

Maybe if Trump didn't want to have his lies pointed out, he should have ... not lied so much. To be fair, you have to admit his rambling, often incoherent statements and lack of self-control was a far bigger, 90-minute-long problem. Fact-checking was way at the bottom of the "reasons Trump got his ass handed to him" list.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There were fine -- non-racist people supporting keeping the statute.
And she's Black.

And while a rebel, Lee needs to be recognized for ENDING the war in 1865. Otherwise it would have turned into a Vietnam, a guerrilla war into the 1870s and the North would have given up. Lincoln almost didn't win re-election in 1864, an END THIS WAR candidate would have won in 1868.

[Nelson]

I didn't say people who supported the statue were racist. I said they weren't fine people. If you are standing with Nazis and Confederate supporters, you are, by definition, not a fine person.

I'm not sure what "she" you're referring to.

No, Lee doesn't deserve any credit for anything. He and his fellow oathbreaking traitors started the war in the first place. The only thing they get credit for is getting half a million Americns killed in a war because they wanted to keep overworking, beating, raping, and killing slaves. The one who starts the killing doesn't get anything but disdain and condemnation from decent people.

[David Nieporent]

And while a rebel, Lee needs to be recognized for ENDING the war in 1865.

Shorter Dr. Ed: OBL deserves praise for only hijacking 4 planes.

[David Nieporent]

There was no Charlottesville lie. Trump said there were fine people on both sides. It's on video.

And "full term abortions" are not a thing anywhere on the planet.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Great and Powerful Notimportant has spoken.

[Riva]

Nope, President Trump unequivocally condemened nazis, neo or otherwise. That's on tape. Even that right wing bastion Snopes acknowledges that. But I admit Harris has the lie down pat, right down to the tiki torches.

[David Nieporent]

Trump indeed said he condemned neo-Nazis. Right after he called them very fine people.

[Riva]

This would be more convincing if the evidence didn't absolutely contradict you. Anyone can easily listen to his statement for themselves. Then they can decide whether to believe their own lying ears or Harris' regurgitated BS.

[Reallynotbob]

Trump at the time:
“What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. The press has treated them absolutely unfairly. You also had some very fine people on both sides."

Presumably he meant the NON-nazis who were chanting "Jews will not replace us" are the fine people.

[Riva]

By “fine people” he certainly didn’t mean the Antifa thugs. “[A]nd I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.”

By “fine people,” President Trump was referring to people opposed to tearing down and destroying historical statues, as would be clear to anyone if they want to listen to his full remarks. Alan Dershowitz agrees with that group. Get a new lie you clown. No go away.

[Sarcastr0]

By “fine people,” President Trump was referring to people opposed to tearing down and destroying historical statues,

And the people that came out to that Neo-Nazi protest opposed to tearing down the *Confederate* statues were in fact Neo-Nazis.

As for calling statutes historical...well, you may want to look into the difference between monuments and museums, and for that matter when most of those Confederate statues were put up and why.

[Riva]

Nope not true for Charlottesville and not true for many, probably a majority, across the country who opposed the insane woke obsession with tearing down history and making public spaces about as colorful as a Siberian gulag town in winter. And more importantly President Trump's own words clearly and unequivocally prove, indisputably, his opposition to Nazis of whatever vintage. But I encourage Harris to run with the bullshit lie, it will only embarrass her more every time she mentions it, Next time though, remind her to say coming out of the field with Tiki torches and veins bulging. She remembered the Tiki torches but forgot those other details that provide important weighty context to the bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

When last you tried to provide an example of a good person who went to that protest, it was a white nationalist militia member.

I see why you're back to bare assertion.

Confederate statutes are not required to make our public spaces colorful, actually.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"When last you tried to provide an example of a good person who went to that protest, it was a white nationalist militia member."

So maybe Trump was incorrect. That doesn't mean that he was calling neo-nazis very fine people.

If Sarcastro is alone in a room, and someone says, "There are plenty of fine people in that room, and I'm not talking about Sarcastro", they are not saying that Sarcastro is a fine person.

[Riva]

This could descend further into some idiotic back and forth when I cite a nearly contemporaneous NY Times news report of at least one group who were not neo Nazis (and that's just one example in a larger field) and then Sarcastr0 follows up with his little after the fact politically motivated "fact checkers" (most definitely not news reports) that claim otherwise. As an aside, the quality of media "fact checkers was on full display last Tuesday. But as noted in the comment above, that's beside the point because Sarcastr0 is only attempting to distract from the clear, undeniable video evidence that confirms that President Trump was NOT praising any variation of Nazi. But you clowns feel free to run with the rabid neo-Nazis, joining hands with white supremacists, coming out of the field with Tiki torches. Or something. Race exploitation is a central theme to every Democratic campaign.

[SimonP]

These weren't "lies," Brett. These were "omissions of context that legions of right-wing trolls have spent way too much time and energy debating online."

As usual, the right-wing perception of "bias" in the media is not actual bias, but rather the failure to tailor narratives and presentations to incorporate as relevant every last grain of right-wing spin.

[Ilya Snowman]

'As usual, the right-wing perception of “bias” in the media is not actual bias, but rather the failure to tailor narratives and presentations to incorporate as relevant every last grain of right-wing spin'.

Meta-spin. A failed effort at such on your part, at any rate.

Keep up with your lies, totalitarian evolutionary dud. Your time is over and you will be tolerated no longer. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Remember when we asked who the good people are and you folks came up with an article that quoted a lady from a white nationalist militia?

Trump praised Nazis. This is in keeping with his general admiration for strongman types. Orban, Putin, Xi, Un.

Maybe your whole thing that he's the candidate for liberty is kinda full of shit.

[shawn_dude]

[pedantry]
Orban, Putin, and Xi are all family names. Jong un's family name is Kim.
[/pedantry]

All of these men are evil.

[Randal]

Which of Harris’ lies did the moderators fact check?

They did fact-check her on one or two things.

Certainly didn’t fact check the Charlottesville lie.

That wasn’t a lie. Trump said what she said he said. They didn’t fact check mischaracterizations by either candidate, only outright factual lies.

Or the lie about full term abortions not being a real thing.

For full-term abortions to be a thing, you have to have examples of them happening. They don’t happen. That’s why it’s not a thing. Trump was the one lying about this.

Anyway, the moderators were biased against Harris in the only way that actually matters: Trump got like 5 more minues than she did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is it possible that the moon is made out of blue cheese?

Here is a list of 25 LIES that Heels Up Harris told.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/09/11/25-lies-kamala-harris-told-in-her-debate-against-trump/

There's actually more, like when she claimed she owned a gun, I'd have asked her what kind and what size bullets it fired. Any real gun owner could tell you at least the caliber.

I choked on the "middle class kid" -- she went to the richest high school in Montreal. More exclusive than the one that Donald Trump went to.

Why would anyone be opposed to a "born alive" law if born babies weren't being murdered? ABC lost all credibility telling that lie.

[not guilty]

"Why would anyone be opposed to a 'born alive' law if born babies weren’t being murdered? ABC lost all credibility telling that lie."

Uh, every state has a "born alive" law. They are called homicide statutes, which apply to all persons irrespective of age after birth.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you have a law against something, but affirmatively chose to have no way of knowing the crime has been committed save the perpetrator confessing on their own initiative, is it really illegal?

NY used to have a law requiring a third party be present during all post-viability abortions, to make sure that any infants accidentally born alive were taken care of. And implicitly to report it if the abortionist happened to make a point of smothering them after the fact. They repealed it. So that now, the only way NY can catch an abortionist making sure that an accidentally born alive infant doesn't survive is if they have an attack of conscience and confess to the crime. Several states are in this position now: Killing the baby after it's born is technically illegal, but they have decided to have no way of discovering the crime.

It's similar to state laws that only allow post-viability laws in cases of medical necessity, but avoid defining "medical necessity" or having any way of policing pretextual declarations of such, so that they have de facto post viability elective abortion, because the abortionist ALWAYS finds 'medical necessity' if you want the abortion.

[Sarcastr0]

You were told this was about palliative care like six times yesterday.

At this point you are a damned liar.

Which we already knew because you repeat and defend the eating cats racist lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, people repeated the excuse repeatedly. You seem to have this weird idea that making an excuse for something proves you're right.

[Sarcastr0]

It sure is enough to put your ‘this law can only be for killing babies’ bullshit to rest.

But it won’t rest because you don’t engage with what you don’t want to believe.

And you want to believe unhinged shit about the left. From camps to baby murder.
It's kinda fucked up. Do you note how the liberals on here really don't like the right but don't go in for this kind of weirdness?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I like how you're pretending all those VA politicians didn't have to walk back their original statements or original bills and only act as if their concessions to shame and pressure were the starting point.

We have Gov. Northram on video and same with that state representative who sponsored the bill. We have their original statements.

You're such a gaslighting liar.

[not guilty]

"If you have a law against something, but affirmatively chose to have no way of knowing the crime has been committed save the perpetrator confessing on their own initiative, is it really illegal?"

Uh, yes, Brett, it is.

"It’s similar to state laws that only allow post-viability laws in cases of medical necessity, but avoid defining “medical necessity” or having any way of policing pretextual declarations of such, so that they have de facto post viability elective abortion, because the abortionist ALWAYS finds ‘medical necessity’ if you want the abortion."

Au contraire. If a state criminalizes performance of a post-viability abortion with an exception for medically necessary procedures, that state can still prosecute unnecessary post-viability abortions. The viability of the fetus and the absence of necessity would simply be essential elements of the offense which the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

[Brett Bellmore]

" If a state criminalizes performance of a post-viability abortion with an exception for medically necessary procedures, that state can still prosecute unnecessary post-viability abortions."

Not if the abortionist simply making a pro-forma declaration of medical necessity legally settles the matter.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

And that's exactly why the weaseled in the "mental health" exception to infanticide.

You can legally kill the baby in VA if you believe it endangers the "mental health" of the mother. A field of pseudoscience filled with quacks, ideologues, and of course, Leftists.

[not guilty]

"You can legally kill the baby in VA if you believe it endangers the 'mental health' of the mother."

What statute(s) provide that, JHBHBE? Please cite by number.

[David Nieporent]

Is it too late to post-birth abort JHBHBE?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

... is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-74/

[not guilty]

Is anyone else unsurprised that JHBHBE lacks the integrity to quote the statute in full? It is a damn sight different from "You can legally kill the baby in VA if you believe it endangers the “mental health” of the mother." To-wit:

§ 18.2-74. When abortion or termination of pregnancy lawful after second trimester of pregnancy.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of §§ 18.2-72 and 18.2-73, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman in a stage of pregnancy subsequent to the second trimester provided the following conditions are met:

(a) Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.

(b) The physician and two consulting physicians certify and so enter in the hospital record of the woman, that in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.

(c) Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Mea culpa, I misspoke on the "you believe" bit.

If "three other people believes".

I also love how precise and rigorous "impairs mental health" is.

How about you? Do you think "impairs mental health" is a good enough reason for infanticide?

[not guilty]

"How about you? Do you think 'impairs mental health'” is a good enough reason for infanticide?"

Unless a pregnant woman elects to seek my input, my personal opinion is not germane to anyone's abortion decision.

I do believe as a matter of public policy that a state which prohibits post-viability abortion should include an exception for serious impairment of the mother's health, whether physical or mental.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

President Trump never ask you for your shitty biased legal opinions but that hasn’t stopped you from sharing them.

> should include an exception for serious impairment of the mother’s health, whether physical or mental.

You seem to have a higher standard than Virginia. Bully for you.

[not guilty]

“Not if the abortionist simply making a pro-forma declaration of medical necessity legally settles the matter.”

That is not the case, Brett. As the maxim goes, no man can be a judge in his own case. Whether the fetus was viable and whether the abortion was medically necessary would be questions for a properly instructed jury.

By way of analogy, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) makes it unlawful for “any person” knowingly or intentionally to distribute or dispense a controlled substance, except as authorized by the Controlled Substances Act. Registered physicians can be prosecuted under § 841 when their activities fall outside the usual course of professional practice. United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975). Authorities (and juries) are not required to credit a criminal defendant physician’s “pro-forma declaration” that his prescribing controlled substances are within usual course of professional practice.

[Nelson]

Please stop interfering with Brett's demonization of those who dare to believe something he doesn't. It gives him hives.

[not guilty]

Brett's comments frequently remind me of what Mark Twain (may have) said: “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Not if the abortionist simply making a pro-forma declaration of medical necessity legally settles the matter.”

The reasoning here is simple, folks: Late-term abortions are the only “issue” where the anti-choice groups poll well. Therefore, late-term abortions is what the anti-choice groups want to talk about. Therefore, it's irrelevant everything they say about them is lying.

Meanwhile, we have Kevin Drum to describe life back here on the Planet Earth:

1. There are only seven states where abortion is legal in the third trimester.

2. There are only 14 clinics in those states that perform abortions in the third trimester. They are expensive and time consuming.

3. Based on extrapolations of CDC surveillance data, there are probably only about 1,000 third-trimester abortions performed each year. The vast majority of these are between 24-28 weeks.

4. There are no records for this, but the number of abortions performed in the last two months of pregnancy is almost certainly close to zero and exclusively done in cases of severe fetal abnormality or danger to the mother.

5. Needless to say, no abortions are performed after birth anywhere in the country.

Now you know. I encourage everyone to click the link, as it includes a helpful graph as well.

https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-late-abortions-in-the-us/

[Martinned2]

If you want to know how to spin this nonsense so that it is almost coherent, Balkinization is your friend: https://balkin.blogspot.com/2024/09/post-birth-abortions-warning-nsfw-and.html

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"But there’s more substance to the other side’s arguments than that rhetorical dismissal suggests."

His conclusion. Doesn't sound like he considers it nonsense. Maybe you should've read the whole thing before linking it?

I like this part:

>. The bottom line, then, is that the “post-birth abortion” argument is actually about euthanasia: “Killing babies” is the rhetorical equivalent of “killing Grandma.” And serious arguments for and against allowing euthanasia are typically pretty complicated and nuanced.

You see that? He acknowledges the Left is pro-euthanasia, but it's so nuanced that he's just gonna pretend the Left isn't pro-euthanasia because, well, it's just so nuanced that the common man wouldn't understand it!

[Nelson]

Tell me, Brett. How many times has this infanticide conspiracy happened in the last year? Five years? Fifty years?

Making something up then claiming it's true because, according to you, they are all master criminals who haven't been caught is farcical. There has never (in 50 years) ever been a case like you describe. Ever.

You're an engineer. Would you ever believe someone who's math was, "This potentially works the way I say. Every time it's been tried it's failed, but believe me, it really is the way I say it is."?

[David Nieporent]

If you have a law against something, but affirmatively chose to have no way of knowing the crime has been committed save the perpetrator confessing on their own initiative, is it really illegal?

How are all homicide laws enforced, Brett? Do we require everyone to be with a chaperone at all times? Is the failure to implement such a requirement described by any sane person as "affirmatively choosing to have no way of knowing the crime has been committed save the perpetrator confessing on their own initiative"?

[ducksalad]

Didn't mean to duplicate your argument. You typed fast and to the point while I drank coffee and rambled.

[ducksalad]

Brett, this seems like a weak argument:

NY used to have a law requiring a third party be present during all post-viability abortions, to make sure that any infants accidentally born alive were taken care of…They repealed it….the only way NY can catch an abortionist making sure that an accidentally born alive infant doesn’t survive is if they have an attack of conscience and confess to the crime. Killing the baby after it’s born is technically illegal, but they have decided to have no way of discovering the crime.

Suppose some government required mandatory cameras in bedrooms, ostensibly to catch incest and marital rape, and then later repealed it.

By your argument, that would mean that: (a) the “only way” incest and martial rape could be caught is confession, effectively meaning there is no way to discover it, and (b) the government’s real intention was to legalize incest and marital rape.

But of course that’s nonsense. In most ordinary criminal cases, the evidence is not the result of a mandated surveillance or mandated witness law. It’s the usual old fashioned incidental witnesses and circumstantial evidence. And on the second part, there are plenty of benign motivations to not requiring cameras and/or witnesses: it’s onerous, it’s intrusive, or the crime is rare enough that the costs outweigh the benefits.

And yeah, it means that sometimes someone will get away with something. That’s a built-in cost of not having a police state. I think in other contexts you have enough respect for freedom to understand that wanting to be left alone is not equivalent to wanting to commit a crime.

[Randal]

If you have a law against something, but affirmatively chose to have no way of knowing the crime has been committed save the perpetrator confessing on their own initiative, is it really illegal?

You just described all murders, dumbrett.

[hobie]

So you don't like candidates that lie a lot? Ed....I don't know how to break this to you. Maybe you should sit down first

[Nelson]

LOL!

[Magister]

This is a more pathetic list than yesterday's "it's not true if Donald Trump denies it", and Dr. Ed 2's misogyny does nothing to polish the turd.

I choked on the “middle class kid” — she went to the richest high school in Montreal. More exclusive than the one that Donald Trump went to.

From Wikipedia's article on Westmount High School

Despite being located in one of the wealthiest suburbs of Montreal, the school attracted a diverse mix of students from all neighbourhoods and racial backgrounds. A long-time teacher at the school noted that most wealthy families would send their children to private schools, so the school received mostly students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

That seems a stark contrast to the private schools that Donald Trump attended.

[David Nieporent]

Here is a list of 25 LIES that Heels Up Harris told.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/09/11/25-lies-kamala-harris-told-in-her-debate-against-trump/

Is it even possible for you not to be a misogynist asshole? I assure you that the reason you are a failure in life is not because of women.

And, no, it is not a list of any lies, as was already discussed in the Monday thread. The fact that Donald Trump denies something does not make it a lie. And, as I explained, a prediction cannot be a lie.

[ducksalad]

a prediction cannot be a lie.

The gentlemen who said "Read my lips, no new taxes" and "If you like your insurace, you can keep it" breathe a sign of relief.

But yeah, technically those were broken promises rather than lies.

[Magister]

I don't recall "Read my lips, no new taxes" being called a lie, even after the pledge was broken.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" was a stupid thing to say, only correct with the implicit condition that your insurance company continue to offer your health care plan. It would not have been true if no change to federal law had been made without making that condition explicit. A correct but not very persuasive statement would have explained that existing plans were grandfathered and not ended by the legislation. The egregious part is that they should have expected that insurance companies would drop non-compliant plans in favor of subsidies from compliant plans and to avoid marketing expense.

Predicting likely things is not a lie. Predicting all but impossible things while willfully ignoring the things that make them so might be considered a lie; the implicit "there is reason to believe my prediction that ..." would be the lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

Republicans certainly thought it had been a lie, which is why Bush the elder was a one term President. Not his only lie, of course.

We have testimony from people in the Obama administration that they knew for a fact that you wouldn't be able to keep your policy.

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance

In fact, the ACA regulations were written so as to make SURE you'd lose your policy. So, not just a lie about expectation, but also intent.

I think that's kind of why Politicfact made it one of the rare Democratic "Pants on fire" rulings.

[Magister]

I never liked George H. W. Bush much, but I think he believed it when he said it, so broken promise rather than lie.

Insurance companies were allowed to keep offering policies they already had, but clearly the incentives would be to go for the subsidies. The lie is in the omitted qualifications and the prediction of something that was pretty clearly not going to happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're more forgiving than I am. Bush made a LOT of promises, and he was pretty systematic in breaking them. That says "lie" to me. Essentially he ran promising to be Reagan's third term, then set out to undo much of what Reagan had accomplished once he was President himself.

For instance, Reagan reined in the BATF. Bush sicced them on gun owners again. He promoted the people responsible for Ruby Ridge! Waco was planned on his watch, even if it got executed a little while into Clinton's first term.

[Magister]

Presidential candidates promise a lot of things, and some don't happen for reasons beyond their control. I'm not seeing any other significant campaign promises that he broke, but I'm willing to read other sources. "Read my lips: no new taxes" was as significant because he was going beyond his opponent, who stated he would only raise taxes as a last resort.

[ducksalad]

Maybe you live among gentler people than I do. I’ve seen “Read my lips…” on multiple lists of biggest/worst/most famous lies of all time, and as Brett says, many of those lists were made by Republicans. But like you I classify it as a broken promise.

On the “If you like your insurance….” my personal opinion is that it was less dishonesty than Obama’s arrogance and not listening seriously to people outside his rather narrow personal Overton window.

Obama pulled a Trump: he thought his plan was so bigly magnificent, the best ever, that everyone’s gonna be so happy like you wouldn’t believe, never been any plan so great. Not one, ever.

Despite all the Democrat BS about my-body-my-choice, he totally failed to understand that some people weren’t longing to have their medical choices curated by the feds; weren’t longing to have their cash for occasional minor visits converted into mandatory monthly bills for life; weren’t longing to pay for services that violated their religious beliefs or were biologically impossible for them to use; and weren’t interested in Obama’s general proposition that medicine is collective rather than individual.

And BTW when Obama changed my plan with new federally imposed coverage mandates and qualifications that did not count as "keeping my plan". The very clear promise was that I'd get to keep what I liked, not what he thought was new and improved.

[Magister]

Republicans call lots of things lies that aren't.

Grandfathered plans could stay the same. That insurance companies wouldn't bother to was predictable, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Grandfathered plans could stay if not changed at all, but they wrote the regulations so even the slightest change to the plan guaranteed it would lose its grandfather status. That was intentional, they weren't forced to do that.

[Magister]

If they change your plan, then obviously you could not keep your plan, with or without the ACA.

[grb]

David Nieporent : “And, no, it is not a list of any lies, as was already discussed in the Monday thread”

That’s pretty obvious, but let’s be generous and accept The Federalist’s list – where doom&gloom predictions are “lies” and someone can make his (or her) opponent a liar just by denying what he said a few weeks earlier.

But where would that standard leave Trump? He had many more grotesque predictions than Harris. Yes, if you frantically weasel about what constitutes a “lie”, you can build-up Harris’ numbers. But perform the same exercise with Trump and his list explodes. At that point you’re probably in triple-digits.

[windycityattorney]

I like how Trump repeatedly claims had he won re-election, then the war in Ukraine wouldn’t have happened. Does he explain why? No. Had he won, Israel wouldn’t be fighting Hamas.

Trump predicted if Harris wins Israel is not going to exist in 2years. That the woman married to a Jew hates Jews AND Arabs. I could go on and on…but there is no way to prove Trump’s claims about the past. Just like when he says he had the greatest economy in the history of the world and if he wins, he will do even better. How??? **Crickets** Trump will end the war in Ukraine simply be being re-elected! But Harris is the one leaving policy discussions bereft of substance.

Trump couldn’t even say he wanted Ukraine to prevail. Despite being pressed twice to answer a yes or no question. “i want the war to end.” Anybody fact check the ‘millions’ of people who died in that war? Trump knows the numbers. The media won’t report the truth!!

[Life of Brian]

And, no, it is not a list of any lies, as was already discussed in the Monday thread.

Um, had you actually looked, the list Ed linked to was things she said in the debate on Tuesday, many of them brand-new whoppers to my knowledge. If you really discussed those on Monday, I'd love to borrow your crystal ball/time machine.

[grb]

Life of Brian : "If you really discussed those on Monday, I’d love to borrow your crystal ball/time machine"

(calm level voice like talking to a child) : You know, LOB, there are two things you're not considering :

(1) The Monday thread had many post-debate comments. The one Nieporent refers to was one.
(2) And his logic would still stand regardless.

Maybe put in a little more thought before your next bit of snark?

[Life of Brian]

(1) The Monday thread had many post-debate comments. The one Nieporent refers to was one.

Cool story, bro, but I'm not going to play "go fish" for one particular alleged necro post in Monday's ~900 comments when you can't be bothered to link to it. A bit of control-F work doesn't reveal that article, list, or several of the new claims she made on Tuesday being discussed, but I'm sure you'll be happy to correct me.

(2) And his logic would still stand regardless.

Whatever "logic" you think your fellow Gotcha Boy may have been expressing, it can't possibly apply to the many items in the list of 25 that 1) weren't based on a denial by Trump, and 2) weren't predictions by Harris.

Feel free to try again.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t need to read whatever you don’t want to read.

But then don’t engage someone talking about the thing you don’t want to read.

[Magister]

Trivially easy to find, searching for "prediction" in the most recent Monday thread.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/09/monday-open-thread-70/?comments=true#comment-10719287

I am astonished that Life of Brian has never noticed that comments can be made several days after a post appears. But we can all take comfort that Life of Brian will stop posting in this thread at the end of Thursday.

As to the Federalist's list, some of them are predictions, such as #3 ("sales tax" being Trump's tariffs) and #5 and #8; most of them appear to be denials by right wing sources, distortions of what neutral sources say, misrepresentation of what Trump said, or just flat assertions. I'm happy to respond to specific elements of that list, tedious though it will be, if you want to identify even one you believe is justified.

[Randal]

Life of Brian’s whole schtick is intentional ignorance. It’s super boring because he's a total vacuum.

[Life of Brian]

Well, thanks for at least taking a crack at it. Now I understand why my searches didn’t land — I searched for things like “federalist” and “25-lies” — you know, fairly unique strings that should have landed the article in question. That’s of course not going to turn up a Breitbart article about a different list of 21 lies — oh, I’m sure there’s some overlap, but that brings us right back to my original point that David was just trying to take the lazy way out without engaging with the actual material. (He did the same thing in the post you linked to, you’ll notice — claiming he read the entire list but then trying to lazily and disingenuously cram the entire thing into a single “Trump denies” bucket, which I addressed above. And no, your one-sentence lazy brushoff and attempt at fetch-me-a-rock burden flipping isn't really any better.)

You’ll note that David himself hasn’t even tried to square the circle and has just moved on to littering other parts of the thread with his fact-starved “nuh uhs.” I’m sure he appreciates y’all working so hard to try to clean up his messes, but I seriously doubt he’s going to date you.

[Magister]

Life of Brian valiantly attempting to not look like a fool, but failing. No defense for even one thing on the list, despite having read them in order to write

it can’t possibly apply to the many items in the list of 25 that 1) weren’t based on a denial by Trump, and 2) weren’t predictions by Harris.

[Life of Brian]

The article itself clearly and patiently explains the basis for each untruth and even provides sources for its rebuttals. You basically saying “I read them; they looked stupid” doesn’t suddenly impose a burden on me to dig in and “defend” them.

Please do lay out your specific rebuttals of each in detail, and I’ll be happy to respond in kind.

[grb]

Life of Brian : “The article itself clearly and patiently explains the basis for each untruth and even provides sources for its rebuttals”

Well, let’s pick one and look, shall we? The Federalist list calls Harris a liar for saying the root of the Afghan withdrawl lay in Trump’s Doha agreement with the Taliban. Given that agreement had Trump out-doing Neville Chamberlain in craven appeasement and betrayal of an ally, there’s truth in Harris’ comment. So how does The Federalist refute it?

Answer : It doesn’t. The Federalist claims her comment is refuted by (I can barely type for laughing) “a report recently released by Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee”. So this proof is a piece of partisan hackery issued by the GOP alone (not the full committee) as an election year stunt. Not very impressive, huh?

And it gets worse when you actually read the report, which is political spin taken to dizzying heights. It admits Trump’s Taliban giveaway was harshly crticized within his own administration, but insists DJT’s agreement was “contingent on the Taliban meeting a series of conditions outlined in the agreement”. It dances around Trump’s role with this quote :

“Several former senior Trump administration officials with whom the Committee Minority spoke have acknowledged decisions by then-President Donald Trump to reduce U.S. force levels below 8,600 troops while the Taliban had not fulfilled the conditions of the agreement, undermined the conditionality of the agreement, damaged the morale of Afghan forces, and emboldened the Taliban. However, these officials noted President Trump did refrain from reducing troop levels below what his military advisors recommended would be the minimum amount necessary to achieve their mission and prevent a collapse of the Afghan state despite personally favoring such a withdrawal at the time.”

Which is horseshit of the highest order. Trump didn’t stop cutting troops at 8,600. By the time he left office, the U.S. force was down to 2,600. And Trump never cared in the slightest whether the Taliban honored any comments. Per Trump’s deal, the U.S. had to cut their forces by two-thirds within four months. All troops had to be withdrawn in just over a year. Per Trump, the U.S. had to immediately close five military bases and end all economic sanctions on the Taliban. Per Trump, we pledged to get the U.N. to lift their restrictions against the Taliban as well. Per Trump’s agreement, we forced the Afghans to trade 5,000 Taliban prisoners for 1,000 government POWs. Per Trump, U.S. military aircraft were banned from attacking the Taliban more than 500 meters away. Per Trump, the U.S. couldn’t launch airstrikes against Taliban units unless they were actively fighting.

The United States had conducted 8000 airstrikes in the 14 months before the agreement. That number dropped to 800 in the 10 months after. And Afghan Gen. Sami Sadat described some of those new Trump rules : Taliban fighters had to be actively shooting within 150 meters of a checkpoint for U.S. aircraft to engage. If Taliban forces were 500 meters away, or stopped shooting when U.S. aircraft arrived, the Afghan security forces were on their own.

The Taliban started betraying their commitments while the ink was still wet on the pact. Attacks on Afghan troops steadily climbed after Trump’s deal handcuffed U.S. forces. In under two months after Trump’s Munich, Taliban attacks increased 70% over the previous year. More than 900 Afghan security forces were killed in that period, up from 520 a year earlier. Taliban casualties dropped to 610 in the period down from about 1,660 in the same period a year earlier. Yet Trump still kept withdrawing troops, closing U.S. bases, and banning U.S. airstrikes.

And after Trump left office? When the GOP’s hack report claims his Doha Agreement should have been voided because the Taliban (suddenly) weren't angels? DJT kept pushing a full withdrawal and criticizing any delay by Biden in pulling out the last pittance of a force he (Trump) had left behind.

And that’s one of the Harris “lies” in The Federalist list. In fact, every word she spoke was true.

[Josh R]

Please do lay out your specific rebuttals of each in detail, and I’ll be happy to respond in kind.

The list is mostly about opinions expressed by Harris that therefore can't be lies. What do you think is a statement of fact that Harris objectively got wrong?

[Randal]

Ok I read the dumb list. Not a single one is a lie.

Now Brian, your turn. Which one of them do you defend as a factual lie?

Compare: “They’re eating the dogs!”

[Life of Brian]

The Federalist list calls Harris a liar for saying the root of the Afghan withdrawl lay in Trump’s Doha agreement with the Taliban.

And there we go. To try to make your point you 1) butcher the Federalist's actual argument ("'Donald Trump, when he was president, negotiated one of the weakest deals you can imagine,' Harris claimed. That isn’t true."); 2) attempt to buttress your straw man with nearly two screenfuls of your rather frothy take not on the agreement, but on your oh-so-very-objective take on Trump's implementation of it (capped by the howler that Trump "kept pushing for a full withdrawal" after he left office -- that being right in the midst of Impeachment II and the J6 kangaroo debacle, I really don't understand how you could suggest with a straight face that Trump's position on much of anything put any realistic political pressure on Biden); and 3) don't support any of the froth with a single citation to anything.

It's frankly a weird topic for you to pluck out of that list, given that it seems to me to be one of the structurally weakest attacks she thew out that night: both she and Biden have repeatedly tried to straddle the fence and have it both ways (including right there in the debate, right before the disputed claim): "I agreed with President Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did." But of course the consequences of how he decided to pull off that withdrawl were ghastly and reprehensible, so she then has to engage in the same sort of contorted pretzel logic you're engaging in here to somehow try to cast the withdrawal as a praiseworthy act on their part while blaming the bad outcome on Trump.

So anyway, if you care to provide some actual objective, contemporaneous support for the notion that the Doha agreement was "the weakest deal you can imagine" please feel free. Frankly it looks to me like you're taking a page from the Biden/Harris playbook and trying to rewrite history because they needed a scapegoat after they bungled the actual withdrawal.

[Josh R]

Donald Trump, when he was president, negotiated one of the weakest deals you can imagine.

It's an opinion, so it can't be a lie.

[Randal]

So anyway, if you care to provide some actual objective, contemporaneous support for the notion that the Doha agreement was “the weakest deal you can imagine” please feel free.

No problem! I’m imagining a bunch of possible deals, and the Doha one is one of the weakest. Done.

You can’t call something like that a lie. “Your mom has one of the smelliest snatches I can imagine” is an opinion. It’s not the same as even “your mom has a smelly snatch,” which even that is fairly an opinion, given the imprecision of “smelly.”

Same with calling Trump’s deal “weak.” That’s Harris’s opinion. It cannot be a lie.

[grb]

Life of Brian : “you …. butcher the Federalist’s actual argument”

No I don’t. The Federalist’s “actual argument” does nothing more than point to the GOP’s hack House report and I describe that fairly. Simply put, the report’s Republican author’s concede the deal was weak but claim implementation was perfect while Trump was prez and gosh-darn awful with Biden. Their hook is the deal was only good if the Taliban fufilled its obligations, so Biden was wrong.

But U.S. military power was gutted in Afghanistan immediately after the deal was signed & the Taliban NEVER followed their committments – even as Trump cut out force down almost nothing and took away air power support for our Afghan allies. Because he didn’t care. Like Neville Chamberlain, Trump wanted a piece of paper to wave about and gave away everything for nothing in return to get it.

As for the deal being grotesquely weak appeasement of the Mullahs, read the terms. That’s obvious. The Taliban clearly knew they’d get whatever they wanted every time. Hell, they car-bombed Bagram Airfield during the negotiations and that didn’t slow Trump’s giveaway a bit. The restrictions on U.S. air power were bizarrely craven.

I also note LOB saying this : “howler that Trump “kept pushing for a full withdrawal” after he left office.” But that’s just because Brian is deeply ignorant about everything he speaks. Wanna citation? Trump on 26June2021 :

“I started the process. All the troops are coming back home. They couldn’t stop the process. 21 years is enough. Don’t we think? 21 years. [The Biden admin] couldn’t stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop.”

Or Trump on 19April2021

“I wish Joe Biden wouldn’t use September 11 as the date to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, for two reasons. First, we can and should get out earlier. Nineteen years is enough, in fact, far too much and way too long.”

https://www.ibtimes.com/what-donald-trump-said-april-about-pulling-out-us-troops-afghanistan-3274760

In short, the only howler is LOB’s ignorance. And this is relevant because the House reports claims everything was peachy with Trump reducing the U.S. presence to a toothless skeletal force without air power, but it was only the last withdrawal that was wrong.

[Bddogs]

She lied when she said that she supports the 2nd Amendment. She lied when she said that she doesn't support open borders.

[Randal]

You don’t seem to understand the concept lying. It doesn’t mean anything you find surprising or that doesn’t fit within your simplistic worldview.

[Bddogs]

No you understand it quite well. You're doing it as we speak.

[myself]

It's not even that. Their "fact check" is basically a mixture of quote mining and them claiming the moon if make of cheese and Harris is a liar for saying it's a lump of rock.

[NOVA Lawyer]

[deleted] redundant of Magister’s comment.

[Bddogs]

The Democrats don't know anything but lying. She's a despicable piece of shit. Trump did not do a good job by not calling them out, but that doesn't excuse the moderator's bias.

[Sarcastr0]

Pulling ABCs license is dictator shit Brett. Did you miss that part in your unhappiness Trump was held to the standard we hold normal candidates for once?

[Dr. Ed 2]

So is trying to jail your opponents.
i say we play by their rules.

JAIL ABC...

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You people are entirely predictable and utterly beyond redemption.

You aren't mad Trump lied; you're mad he got caught. You didn't identify anything Kamala lied about, so you're just pissed that your man-child got played like a fiddle.

[Brett Bellmore]

Dr. Ed conveniently linked to a list of those lies.

Even if you disagree with the list, the asserted lies HAVE been identified.

[Sarcastr0]

He linked to The Federalist, whose ideas of lies are 'she said she was middle class but professors at Stanford can't be middle class' and 'Trump doesn't love Project 2025, he said so and you should trust him.'

Those aren't lies, those are weak-ass spin in defense of Trump.

Did you click on the article at all? Because even before I did I knew the Federalist was going to offer some weak tea. They're too insane to be very good.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment. I especially how's it's full of obvious lies presented as fact.

Classic!

[Nelson]

This from a guy whose screen name claims Jesus wasn't from the middle east, he was magically transported from Scandinavia.

[grb]

High "religion" from the Nazi Child.

[Randal]

Voltage!

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Even if you disagree with the list, the asserted lies HAVE been identified"

Tell me, Brett: If Trump's lies were counted by the same weak-ass standard The Federalist used, how many?

Over a hundred at least.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't claim Trump told no lies. I contradicted your claim that no lies by Harris had been identified.

[grb]

You evade my point. Sure Harris told a few lies – she’s a politician after all. But not the 30-40 grotesque lies told by Trump. In order to produce Harris “lies” in bulk numbers, The Federalist had to stretch the definition of a “lie” beyond recognition and justify “lies” on the most tenuous of grounds.

But what would happen if the same lax standard was applied to Trump? As I note above, you’d probably tally lies in triple-digits.

[Randal]

It amuses me that none of the lies she actually told made it onto the Federalists' list. If you tell a lie in the forest and nobody notices, does it count as a lie?

[grb]

Randal : "If you tell a lie in the forest and nobody notices, does it count as a lie?"

OK: I'm going to veer off into the Tree Falling in the Middle of a Forest issue, because it's the only one of history's great philosophical problems I've solved. I've made no headway on (say) the principle of individuation or sorites paradox, but absolutely nailed this Tree Thing - despite the fact it's baffled generations of college kids as they do bong hits in the dorm. So:

1. If you define sound as the vibrations which - traveling thru a medium like air or water and reaching a sentient being - produces a neurological response, yes it does.

2. If you define sound as the neurological response, no it doesn't.

I'm kinda reluctant to publish my findings in the leading journals (though a Nobel Prize would look fetching on the mantlepiece). Why spoil the fun of generations of college kids to come?

[Randal]

One of my favorite Simpson's moments is when Bart solves "What's the sound of one hand clapping?" for Lisa.

[Randal]

Brett, if I point at you and say “That’s a butt-ugly woman!” would you say that I identified a woman?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So your source of Kamala's "lies" is a website full of right-wing lies?

"9. Ninth Month Abortions Don’t Exist
Harris also used her time on the debate stage to assert that “nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion.”

“That is not happening. It’s insulting to the women of America,” Harris claimed.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, shows that thousands of abortions are performed after 21 weeks gestation. The CDC’s findings do not include reporting from at least four abortion-friendly states (California, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New Jersey), which suggests the number of late-term abortions in the U.S. is likely much higher."

Tell me Brett: How many weeks are in nine months? What is the duration of a full-term pregnancy? Is it twenty-one?

It is remarkable how fucking stupid you can be.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“That is not happening. It’s insulting to the women of America,”"

That's actually pretty common left-wing 'reasoning': A statement reflects badly on some group, so screw evidence, it has to be treated as false.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"...so screw evidence,..."

The "evidence" used to claim Kamala's statement was a lie references abortions after 21 weeks. Is a 21-week pregnancy full-term? How about 22? 25?

How embarrassing for you.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Incredibly embarrassing for him. I guess he has given up completely on integrity. Which, given he insists on sticking with Trump, was inevitable. It's still sad to see though.

[Randal]

Brett, you're who's trying to screw the evidence.

[Moderation4ever]

The fact is that the moderators did a pretty good job. They followed up well with both candidates. They kept the debate moving. They did fact check Trump but only on a few of really egregious lies. To those who quibble about the fact checking of Trump also know that Trump lies most of the time. If they fact checked Harris to the degree that Trump people want, then to be fair then they would have to fact check Trump on all his little lies and the debate would stall to nothing.

[SimonP]

Right. The right-wing trolls for some reason think that Trump should be free to lie at will or that Harris should be forced to use all of her time debunking his lies, with no involvement from the moderators. Or, alternatively, that every little political spin be checked, in real-time, by the moderators. These people didn't want a "debate." They wanted a format where Trump could bulldoze Kamala and viewers would do the typical check-out-and-leave-early bit they do at Trump's rallies.

[Ilya Snowman]

Yeah, that MUST be it…

Keeping discrediting yourself and your country.

Meanwhile, the bigger picture is that you had an all-but policy-less debate with overtly hostile 'moderators' and the current VP incapable of defending her current administration's policies.

The reason why your lot comes across as evil buffoons is because that's what you are.

[Reallynotbob]

Trump repeatedly received bonus minutes at his request to respond to Harris. Trump didn't spend any of those opportunities talking about his policy proposals.

[Moderation4ever]

This should also be noted that the moderators gave Trump extra time to dig himself in deeper, clearly they were against him.

[Randal]

I noticed this at the time… at first I was like Kamala! Fight for more minutes! But then I realized she was the smart one.

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the closing statements. Kamala’s was all about her upcoming administration. Trump’s was also all about her upcoming administration. He has no message, really, at all. He even forgot about fighting illegal immigration by the end, he was so stuffed with bait.

[David Nieporent]

Trump repeatedly received bonus minutes at his request to respond to Harris. Trump didn’t spend any of those opportunities talking about his policy proposals.

That is not true. He explained that he had the concept of a plan.

[SimonP]

Not some of your better work, Frosty. I really can't be arsed to respond to your petulant sniping here. Workshop it a bit more and get back to me, yeah?

[CountmontyC]

So should Harris agree to another debate with moderators that are from the conservative side? Say from Fox News if they promise to be just as unbiased as the ABC moderators were?
If not why not?

[Moderation4ever]

Sure, why not? I am sure that the Harris campaign would ask for some of the journalist from Fox as moderators. I don't think Harris would agree to Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram, if that what you're asking. Also remember that Fox hosted a 2020 debate with Chris Wallace as moderator. Don't think that one helped Trump.

[CountmontyC]

Why not Sean Hannity? He would be just as unbiased as the ABC moderators were. We could add in Harris Faulkner as well.
And take note that Chris Wallace was a notorious never Trumper who left for CNN shortly thereafter to head their streaming service ( that lasted all of one week).

[Voize]

Maybe Shepard Smith will come out of retirement.

[Reallynotbob]

Could get Megyn Kelly back.

[Voize]

Maybe not, we wouldn't want blood to come out of her wherever like the last time.

[OtisAH]

Well, Brett, I’m sure they would have fact-checked Harris if she claimed “They are eating the dogs…” (“they” are not); it is legal in some states to murder babies (it is not); or that Trump actually won in 2020 (he did not). These, and only these, were the subjects on which Convicted Felon Donald Trump was so unfairly targeted for real-time fact-checking. So stuff your phony concern and crocodile tears.

[David Nieporent]

There were so many other lies that they didn't fact check. Just stick with abortion: Trump's claim that all (!) legal scholars, liberal and conservative, wanted Roe overturned.

[Reallynotbob]

Don't forget all the professors at Wharton that support his economic plan (wrong) and all the journalists who sided with him on Charlottesville (Hannity, Ingraham, Watters).

[bernard11]

Stop whining, Brett.

They fact check Trump because every other word out of his mouth is a lie.

And in fact, they often gave Trump, but not Harris, some extra time, because he didn't respond initially to their question.

Trump is a fucking joke - eating cats - and you can't wait to kiss his ass.

[Ilya Snowman]

Do you think the rest of the world believes those characterisations anymore? Even those who despise Donald Trump?

Do you think they even definitively refuted the pet eating business?

Are you an obese American who's going to be too fat for the ovens?

[Bddogs]

Harris lied when she said she supports control of the border. She clearly doesn't. She also lied when she said she doesn't want to overturn the 2nd Amendment.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Brett: "You know, in theory the moderators could have chosen to fact check BOTH candidates, instead of just the one they didn’t support."

You're pulling a Bobby Knight, trying to work the refs hard for a favorable decision down the road. We'll see how successful that is.

[Reallynotbob]

The obvious way to avoid fact-checking is.... damn I forgot.

[hobie]

He should have said the other lie that all the hayseeds like to append to their arguments: that women want abortions all the way until birth. I wonder if any woman in the entire history of the United States has ever elected to have an abortion right before birth?

[Brett Bellmore]

You're really silly enough to pretend that, in a country where some women are murderers, no women ever gets an abortion that late in pregnancy? How stupid is that?

[hobie]

I'm trying to wrap my head around your statement. Are you implying that some women somewhere murdered her fetus by, I don't know, sneaking up on it with a kitchen knife? Or are you saying some woman murderer somewhere, looking for her next victim, gazed upon her own belly and rushed to the nearest doctor?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually I'm coming out and saying it: There are women who, at 9 months, decide they don't want to be mothers, and kill their babies at birth. Happens more often than you'd think.

[hobie]

Sigh...Brett, I hate to break this to you, but killing a baby after it is born is not an abortion. It's just plain old homicide.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pointing out the idiocy of claiming that no woman would ever want an abortion late in a pregnancy for reasons other than necessity, when there are women who literally murder newborn infants.

The range of human motivation is much wider than you apparently find it convenient to acknowledge.

[Randal]

Have you moved your own goalposts from "gets" to "wants"?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sometimes they use dumpsters instead of toilets.

'Liberals' are always going on and on about diversity, then they'll claim "Nobody wants to do that!"

Well, I guarantee, SOMEBODY wants to do that, whatever that is.

And sometimes they want an abortionist's help in doing it.

[Moderation4ever]

So, can you back that up with any real facts?

[Nelson]

No.

[SimonP]

I'd ask whether you are silly enough to think that abortion policy should be shaped by what some hypothetical group of psychopaths, whose existence you only logically infer, might conceivably do in fringe cases - but of course we know the answer to that question.

Most women who seek abortions are doing so pre-viability. Most women who seek abortions post-viability are seeking to end pregnancies where their life or future fertility is at real risk, or the fetus is unlikely to survive birth or is destined to live a brief, tortured, and expensive existence after birth. And if there are any women who are trying to abort healthy fetuses in the last month of pregnancy, when they have no health-based need to do so, a lot of those women are unlikely to find doctors willing to assist.

So what remains? A handful of psychopaths? If we need a law to address them, then a law protecting abortion access in line with Roe v. Wade would be perfectly sufficient. Criminalize abortions of healthy fetuses post-viability that are unnecessary for the life or health of the mother. Done.

[Randal]

Also, women who want a voluntary abortion late in their pregnancy also wanted it early in their pregnancy, but we're unable to get one for whatever reason.

There's nobody deciding in the ninth month that they want an abortion. You (Brett) have zero evidence that there are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And even if it has never been done before, why is that a reason for it to be legal?

[Sarcastr0]

You think the debate was illegal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You can't read.

[Sarcastr0]

I did indeed fuck up the threading.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You can't have a discussion without insulting someone with whom you disagree. Try harder. You used to be better.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, as Sarcastro likes to point out, I'm a piece of shit.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Okay then, you can both go to your rooms right now!

[Nelson]

It isn't legal. That's the point anti-abortionists refuse to understand. The idea that it's legal is a fantasy. It isn't true. It never has been true. It never will be true

The fact that such a ridiculous and transparent falsehood is perpetrated by (and accepted by) a large number of conservatives is mind-blowing.

I would have thought no one could be stupid enough to believe it, let alone say it out loud, but a distressingly large number of cultural conservatives are and do.

[Randal]

And even if it has never been done before, why is that a reason for it to be legal?

Because it would be a pointless law? Or I guess it would have exactly one purpose: virtue signaling.

Do you sit around wondering why we don't have laws against feeding your baby plastic or naming it Nastysulfurbreath McGee?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, why would anyone oppose a "born alive" law if no one would ever violate it? Appease the hayseeds and make them look like idiots and all of that.

[Nelson]

Why should pointless legislation, which is already adequately covered by every homicide law in the country, be passed?

How many duplicate laws would you like to put on the books? Maybe one that says killing a child between birth and one year is illegal, plus one that says killing a child between birth and two years is illegal, and on until eighteen?

[Reallynotbob]

For what it's worth, "just enforce the existing laws properly" is practically the NRA mating call.

But I can see how that approach is inconvenient in this instance.

[Riva]

I guess you never heard of Kermit Gosnell. And if you were really curious, you could check out the Minn. Dept of Health statistics. Before that prick Walz removed reporting requirements and legal liabities for failing to provide life saving care if the baby happens to survive the abortion, at least 5 babies left to die. And to deny the reality that late term abortions occur is to disbelieve federal government reporting. You’re not spreadind misinformation, are you?

[Nelson]

Kermit Gosnell? You mean the guy who was prosecuted for murder? That guy?

Your fellow travelers called and asked you to stop helping.

[Riva]

Gosnell was convicted of murder for killing infants born alive, with scissors. If only he had let them die in Walz’s Minnesota, than he’d be in the clear.

[not guilty]

"Gosnell was convicted of murder for killing infants born alive, with scissors. If only he had let them die in Walz’s Minnesota, than he’d be in the clear."

Kermit Gosnell was arrested in January of 2011 for crimes that occurred between 2008 and 2010. During that time period, how did Pennsylvania's laws differ from Minnesota's laws?

When has killing infants born alive ever been legal in Minnesota? Please cite your supporting authorities, Riva.

[Riva]

First, it happens. This site provides a link to Minnesota Dept of Health records. https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2024/09/11/abc-debate-moderators-fact-check-ignores-what-tim-walzs-state-can-do-to-infants-born-alive-after-attempted-abortions/
You can reject the site but the records are the states.

Second, killing the infant? in Walz’s Minn, the abortionist scum would say “we’re not killing the infant, we’re making it more comfortable until it dies.” In 2023 Walz signed an omnibus bill that removed language mandating that medical workers “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant” and replaced it with language instructing them to “care for the infant who is born alive.” And that same legislation repealed requirements mandating that abortion providers report live births. The rep who sponsored the bill commented that “comfort care” was more appropriate than “agressive care to keep the infant alive whether or not the parents want that.” (See above article, which is not the only source online)

[not guilty]

Riva, you wrote upthread “Gosnell was convicted of murder for killing infants born alive, with scissors. If only he had let them die in Walz’s Minnesota, than [sic] he’d be in the clear.” You have completely failed to support that hyperbole.

Nothing in your linked Daily Caller article sets forth relevant legal authorities, except that one paragraph briefly recites:

A previous Minnesota law required that “all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child” for infants born after failed abortions. Walz’s bill removed language mandating that medical workers “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant” and replaced it with language instructing them to “care for the infant who is born alive.”

How on earth does caring for an infant who is born alive encompass killing an infant with scissors?

What care is appropriate in a given situation is a decision for parents and medical providers to decide on a case by case basis. It is not difficult to imagine cases of severe illness or abnormality where providing comfort care to the infant would be more humane than prolonging suffering. The point is, state legislatures and governors are ill equipped to deal with extreme cases. Government is a blunt instrument.

By way of analogy, would you equate medical providers' complying with a noncommunicative, terminally ill patient's Do Not Resuscitate directive issued by the next of kin and homicide?

[Riva]

WTF? I wrote IF ONLY HE LET THEM DIE IN WALZ”S MINN. In other words you buffoon, NOT snipped away their lives with a fucking pair of scissors, although letting them die is also fucking monstrous. And what care is appropriate? The care that was mandated by law before that creep Walz assumed power, care to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.

[Josh R]

Do you oppose end-of-life palliative care?

[not guilty]

Riva, do you really expect anyone to believe that your juxtaposition of Kermit Gosnell with his scissors and Walz's Minnesota (where healthcare providers are required by law to “care for the infant who is born alive,”) was mere happenstance?

You were taking a cheap shot. Own it.

[Riva]

not guilty, it absolutely was not happenstance. If was quite intentional and illustrates the truly gross reality of Walz’s sick abortion agenda where a monster like Gosnell could conceivable have carried on his repulsive practices with the blessing of state government. I think you know exactly what I mean and this weird evasion is some attempt to distract from Walz’s morally indefensible position. Own it? fuck yeah I’ll own every word I’ve written that exposes that sick sack of shit Walz.

Josh R, I oppose the sick practice of late term abortions. To be clear, I’m not really a big fan of infanticide, in case I’m being too subtle for “not guilty.”

[Josh R]

You did no answer my question.

The law in Minnesota previously proscribed end-of-life palliative care for a newborn, even if the newborn had no chance to survive and the parents wanted only palliative care. Walz signed a modification that permitted end-of-life palliative care as an alternative to be forced to preserve the life of the newborn.

I again ask, are you opposed to end-of-life palliative care?

[not guilty]

"not guilty, it absolutely was not happenstance. If [sic] was quite intentional and illustrates the truly gross reality of Walz’s sick abortion agenda where a monster like Gosnell could conceivable have carried on his repulsive practices with the blessing of state government."

Wait a cotton picking minute here, Riva. You acknowledge that Minnesota law requires healthcare providers to “care for the infant who is born alive.” You acknowledge above that caring for an infant who is born alive does not encompass killing an infant with scissors.

What acts for which Kermit Gosnell was prosecuted in Pennsylvania could he have gotten away with if he had done them in Minnesota?

Have you forgotten the late Molly Ivins's First Rule of Holes? STOP DIGGING!

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Riva. What acts for which Kermit Gosnell was prosecuted in Pennsylvania could he have gotten away with if he had done them in Minnesota?

[Riva]

Not guilty "comfort care" is not life saving care. That was what the sponsor of the perverse abortion legislation understood. Life saving care was mandated BEFORE that sick bastard Walz changed the rules.

Sorry Josh R, but "palliative care" is not the issue, notwithstanding that you'd love to change the topic This issue is whether life saving care should be provided to victims of vile late term abortions who are born alive. Are you for late term abortions? Are you against providing life saving care to new born infants?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Palliative care is the issue, Riva bot. But your lying, fact-free, and integrity-free arguments have already been shown to be just that above by not guilty. You're here, but you're avoiding not guilty because he handed you your tinfoil hat.

[Riva]

Nice gaslighting although you seem not to understand that not guilty’s nonsense responses are on display for all to read if they want to give themselves a headache.

But, if you and all your little buddies want to support the vile late term abortion practices that Walz champions in Minnesota., go for it. Doubt that’ll play well anywhere. But at least have the courage to defend what you support, however repulsive it is. Walz’s sick late term abortion practices are not “palliative care.” They’re more accurately described as infanticide.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Riva bot demonstrates again it doesn’t know what the term gaslighting means.

Notice, Riva admits he cannot respond to not guilty’s takedown. It gives him a headache to read the truth. Poor Riva bot.

Maybe read Josh R who also explains it to you. Or does that give you a headache too?

[Riva]

No, it kind of makes me nauseous.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I now understand why you so infrequently expose yourself to facts. Apparently, the truth makes you physically ill. Condolences.

[Josh R]

Sorry Riva, palliative care is the issue. Let’s take an example to make the point.

A ten-year old boy is a victim of a car crash. He has no chance to survive. His parents request that no life-saving care be provided and he be allowed to die in as little pain as possible. The law permits the parents to make that decision.

Simialry, an abortion results in the birth of a baby that has no chance to survive. Again, the parents request that no life-saving care be provided and the baby be allowed to die in as little pain as possible. Prior to Walz signing the revised law, it was illegal for doctors to follow the parents’ wishes. Instead they had to provide life-saving care even though the baby was going to die.

[Riva]

“An abortion results in the birth of a baby that has no chance to survive.” No chance to survie? Apparently not in Walz’s Minnesota. And what a sick, perverse casual wink and a nod to infanticide. Unspeakably vile late term abortion fails to kill the baby as intended, so what’s wrong with letting him or her die? Monstrously soulless.

[Josh R]

Yes, no chance to survive as determined by science and medicine, no different than the victim of a car accident.

In the event the car accident victim will survive and live a normal life with life-saving care, the law does not allow the parents to withhold life-saving care. Ditto for a baby after an abortion.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In the event the car accident victim will survive and live a normal life with life-saving care, the law does not allow the parents to withhold life-saving care."

I've got to break it to you: In the event a car accident victim will survive and live an abnormal life with life-saving care, (Say they lose their legs, as a friend of mine did.) the law STILL does not allow the parents to withhold life-saving care.

[Riva]

You’re going to stretch this simpleton to his limits. Although who knows? Maybe the soulless creep would view it as justifiable to euthanize your friend?

[Josh R]

If they will be a vegetable, the law permits the parents to not provide life-saving care.

But hey Brett, do you see what Riva can't see: Minnesota law without the Born Alive Act protects all newborn babies (as a result of an abortion or not) the same as it protects all other people. You can't actively kill a newborn. You can't withhold life-saving care unless 1) the parents request it, and 2) the baby will die anyway or not live a "normal" life (e.g., be a vegetable).

What the Born Alive Act did was require life-saving care even when it makes no sense. All the modified Act that Walz signed into law does is retyrn to the pre-Act status quo.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"...the law STILL does not allow the parents to withhold life-saving care..."

Yeah, and you can make up hypotheticals all day in which either and infant or an adult will and must be given life-saving care regardless of what the parents want. This law allows comfort care, rather than preserving care, when the infant cannot survive.

The law, it is said, does not provide a remedy for every wrong. Here, some decisions are simply best left to physicians and patients/parents of patients. Are there edge cases? Yes. But both ways. Do the physicians/parents get it wrong sometimes? Yes. But both ways. Or are you against following DNR directives, etc.?

I know you want to paint it as extreme to give yourself license to support Trump, but it just isn't.

[Riva]

“You can’t withdraw life saving care unless…the parents request it” And what a shining example of parenthood they are given their first major parenting decision was to abort their baby near term. But aside from that, it is rather difficult to call Walz’s abortion policies anything but extreme when they literally countenance infanticide as related in the above example. I guess that’s why Harris goes silent when pressed on details. Even she knows it’s morally indefensible. She doesn’t care but understands all the same. Or rather, she understands it would be political suicide to openly embrace Walz’s obscene polices.

[Josh R]

You gave no example of Walz countenancing infanticide.

[Riva]

You have been defending his infanticide promoting abortion agenda throughout this comment chain.

[Josh R]

Still no example. Put up or shut up.

[Riva]

Read your own comments. One must truly have a hole in their soul to redefine infanticide as “palliative care.” We're done here. It makes me ill just to exchange comments with you.

[Josh R]

Since you still haven’t put up an example of Walz countenancing infanticide, it’s good to know you will now shut up (hint: not providing life-saving care as desired by the parents to a newborn who will die anyway is not infanticide).

[Riva]

As much as it pains me to have to respond to your bullshit, it must be noted that the new born's life was put in jeopardy because of the obscene late term abortion in the first place. Performing an abortion near term is itself a sick practice well deserving to be called infanticide. And that sick prick Walz's legislation removed language mandating that medical workers “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.” Now no efforts need be made to preserve life you soulless creep.

[Josh R]

Still no example of Walz countenancing infanticide and you will not shut up.

[Riva]

Ah, I see the problem. You don’t understand what “infanticide” means. That would be killing a newborn infant. That thing Walz’s law facilitates and soulless creeps like you support.

[Josh R]

Providing life-ending palliative care, instead of life-saving care, to a newborn infant whose life cannot be saved is not infanticide.

It's analogous to providing life-ending palliative care, instead of life-saving care, to a car accident victim whose life cannot be saved. That is not murder.

[Riva]

It hardly seems ethical, medically or otherwise, to assume ALL those born alive after botched attempts to snuff them out in the womb are lives that cannot be saved. The law Before Walz required efforts be made to save lives that could be saved. Walz’s perverted standards changed that and now require only comfort care, quite by the intention of the sponsor and the sick prick of a governor. I guess that would speed things, and save a lot of money in medical expenses, if we just assumed all seriously injured victims were lives that cannot be saved. If one wants to live in a nightmarish hell that devalues all life. Welcome to Harris Walz America.

[Josh R]

It hardly seems ethical, medically or otherwise, to assume ALL those born alive after botched attempts to snuff them out in the womb are lives that cannot be saved.

Of course it isn’t ethical. It’s not even legal to assume they are all cannot be saved.

The law Before Walz required efforts be made to save lives that could be saved. Walz’s perverted standards changed that and now require only comfort care.

You are factually in error. The law before Walz required efforts be made to save lives that could or could not be saved. The Walz standards changed that and now require life-saving care for those that can be saved and give the option of comfort care for those that cannot be saved.

[Riva]

You are making things up. The law before Walz said nothing about requiring efforts be made to save lives that “could or could not be saved.” Where was that in the text? It wasn’t. And would be an absurdly stupid thing to write into law because how the fuck could that be known? It required that efforts be made to save the life of the born alive infant. The new Walz standard REMOVED the requirement for life saving care, thus facilitating infanticide. Support infanticide if you want, that’s on your conscience, but at least have the intellectual integrity to own you views, however vile.

[Josh R]

It required that efforts be made to save the life of the born alive infant.

Indeed, that was the text of the law, without an exception for when there was no chance of survival.

The new Walz standard REMOVED the requirement for life saving care, thus facilitating infanticide.

No. When the baby can survive, the existing murder statutes still apply. A doctor can no more refuse life-saving care for a baby who can survive after an abortion than he can for refusing life-saving care for a baby who is the victim of a car accident but can survive. Either way, he can be charged with murder, and nothing Walz did changes that.

[Riva]

Again, you are literally making things up. Prior to Walz, the law required all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice “to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.” Now, there is no duty to provide life saving measures and reasonable measures has been redefined as “car[ing] for the infant who is born alive.” That was the whole frigging point of the law. That sick prick Walz wanted the abortionist not to incur any liability. Now what? Manslaughter or negligent homicide charges are going to be brought against the abortionist when he acts consistently with the new “reasonable measure” standard of care? Spare me your bullshit.

[Josh R]

Now, there is no duty to provide life saving measures

Yes, there is for a baby who will survive because of the murder statutes.

[Riva]

Under what Minnesota statute would an admittedly piece of shit late term abortionist be charged for murder for acting consistently with state law?

[Josh R]

Either Murder in the third degree or manslaughter in the second degree. Hint: by not providing life-saving care to a baby who will survive with such care, he is not acting within the law.

[Riva]

In Minnesota, Walz’s Minnesota, a state that made abortion legal in all circumstances, for any reason, with no restrictions, until the moment of birth, an abortionist would be accused of an “act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind” or culpably negligent by providing care consistent with state law? State law that allows physicians to refuse life-saving care to infants born after failed abortions? Uh no, soulless clown. And a cowardly soulless clown in fact. At least Princeton’s Peter Singer, as warped as he is, has the intellectual courage to admit he embraces infanticide. Show some guts.

[Josh R]

State law that allows physicians to refuse life-saving care to infants born after failed abortions?

As explained to you multiple times, state law does not permit a physician to refuse life-saving care to infants born after failed abortions who would survivie with the life-saving care.

[Riva]

And as explained to you multiple times, the text of the law clearly does allow a physician to withhold life-saving care to infants born after failed abortions. And this understanding is also reflected in the public comments of the sponsor of the legislation. And neither the governor nor attorney general in Minnesota, nor any responsible public official to my knowledge, has every adopted your spin. In fact these officials only drone on about protecting all abortion all the time, restricting any limitations, and even extending protections to abortionists accused of violating other states' laws. Your interpretation is your own and you're wrong.

[Josh R]

And this understanding is also reflected in the public comments of the sponsor of the legislation.

Citation?

[Riva]

I’ve already provided a link, and multiple quotes in this interminable comment chain, including the sponsor. We’re not doing this all over again because whatever AI tool you're using couldn't provide you with a response. This matter is closed.

[Josh R]

Your citation claimed an article in the National Catholic Register (NCR) reported the bill’s sponsor said:

“comfort care” is more appropriate for infants born alive during abortions than “aggressive care to keep that infant alive whether or not the parents want that”

That’s a misquote. The National Catholic Register article reads:

“comfort” care is appropriate in many such situations rather than what she called “aggressive care to keep that infant alive whether or not the parents want that.”

What a big difference “more appropriate for infants born alive during abortions” and “appropriate in many such situations” is. Moreover, the NCR srticle goes on to quote the sponsor as saying:

These laws that were passed […] to demonize doctors, to give the false impression that anyone delivers a child alive and then just lets it die: That just doesn’t happen.

[Ilya Snowman]

Once sees in the news, periodically, that women in US give births in toilets and either leave the child in the bowl or it into the rubbish bin.

What's the difference between that and seeking out a procedure involving medical staff?

Not that I'm pro-life. After all, how can anyone talk to you Americans for even two minutes and still believe in the inherent sanctity of human life?

[Reallynotbob]

Where are you from, again?

[Michael P]

Springfield residents are coming out of the woodwork (and onto YouTube) to defend the accuracy of the reports that you call lies.

Six states, plus DC, allow abortions until the child is born. ABC could have checked that fact with... ABC three months ago: https://abcnews.go.com/US/state-state-breakdown-abortion-laws-2-years-after/story?id=111312220

[hobie]

Looks like your boys are stepping in it again with the grieving father Nathan Clark from Springfield. Is that one little Ohio town going to be Trump/Vance's undoing?

[Michael P]

Hayseed Hobie, proud defender of unlicensed illegal-immigrant drivers who kill kids in car crashes in countries. Your mother must be proud to have such an amoral hack as a child.

[hobie]

Exploiting dead soldiers for political gain. Exploiting dead children for political gain. Is this a good idea? [Checking notes]...[slowly looks upward at Michael P]...[frowns, slowly shakes head]

[Michael P]

Harris hack hobie recognizes that Harris-Biden policies caused got those soldiers and children killed, and per his usual decision process decides that only a Trumpian monster would want fewer dead soldiers or children.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Your desperation is palpable.

[Frank Drackman]

Only reason Hobie's Mammy didn't abort him is she thought he was a Turd and flushed him into Lake Erie

[Reallynotbob]

(Pssst. Frank. That's not where babies come out.)

[hobie]

He's a self-proclaimed doctor. Surely he knows what hole does what

[hobie]

I wonder if there is a certain governor responsible for bussing all these rapacious kitten-eaters across state lines?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Springfield residents are coming out of the woodwork (and onto YouTube) to defend the accuracy of the reports that you call lies."

No source = presumptive lie from habitual liar Michael P.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant...

[Reallynotbob]

What if you found a way to bring the sunlight inside the body....?

[Nelson]

“Six states, plus DC, allow abortions until the child is born.”

And yet, even that doesn’t cover what Trump (and anti-abortionists) claim: that babies are being killed after birth by doctors.

Do you fools really think no one notices when you say irrelevant things and pretend they are relevant?

[David Nieporent]

Six states, plus DC, allow abortions until the child is born.

And? What does that have to do with the claim that there are abortions after the child is born?

[Zarniwoop]

Here’s some excellent “live from Springfield!” reporting on the cat situation:

https://youtu.be/PBa-eLIj55o?t=474

(The Daily Show)

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's unfortunate that Kamala still has to show that she can handle an event like that on her own, without her VP candidate with her, or without journalists jumping into the debate on her side.

[Michael P]

She has needed adult supervision for her entire career. Why stop now just because she wants to be President?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah the debate was really a bad sign for Harris.

Come on, this is pathetic.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hey, it was three against one.

[Martinned2]

Cry harder

[Ilya Snowman]

Why should they cry? What if they take more productive action instead?

What will you do then, Ingsoc?

[Nelson]

And who made Trump say batshit crazy things in a rambling way? Was that Harris or the moderators?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Poor Trump babies. Crying over how hard it is for Trump to answer simple questions without tripping over his fragile ego being mocked.

"It’s unfortunate that Kamala still has to show that she can handle an event like that on her own..."

It's unfortunate your head is so far up your own ass that you can't see that Trump demonstrated he cannot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I agree he cannot. But Kamala can't either.

[Nelson]

And yet, she did.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInch — You know what Harris did to Trump? She took advantage that he is a predictable mental mess, to play him like a fiddle. The method she used was just the inverse of the method Putin would use. Harris baited Trump into idiocy with goads; Putin can bait Trump into idiocy with flattery.

Either way, why would anyone support a bait-prone idiot for the Oval Office? You really ought to think this one through.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure, he's a giant douche. She did a good job of exposing that. But she's a crap sandwich, and she did nothing to show that she isn't.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Sure, he’s a giant douche. She did a good job of exposing that. But she’s a crap sandwich, and she did nothing to show that she isn’t."

That's the double-standard of a misogynistic retard, folks.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Jason's so stupid he thinks I'm exhibiting a double standard. Wow.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You hold Trump and Harris to different standards. Your hypocrisy is plainly legible for everyone to read week after week, regardless of your lies and denials.

Keep trying though. It's a great benchmark to keep track of what a piece of shit you are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It doesn't get any less stupid when you repeat it, dumbass.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're the idiot Twelve. Congrats on admitting Trump is unfit for office. But it's stupid to say Harris demonstrated anything similar. She demonstrated that she can handle blowhard bullies with aplomb.

You just admit that there is no level of douchery that you won't support so long as it has an R by its name.

[Bddogs]

She also lets a tiny peckered-Jew bust in her.

[not guilty]

Bddogs, how do you claim to know the size of the Jew's pecker?

[Nelson]

Experience.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And what fact check? With the cats, for example, all they did was claim that the city manager said something different than Trump.

It's unfortunate that the profession of journalism has been reduced to regurgitating the statements of bureaucrats.

[not guilty]

My point above was Trump's silly and outrageous threat of reprisal against ABC.

Isn't it peculiar that no Trump supporting commenter has addressed that?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Because who cares? It's a Trumpism.

If that were Biden, the DOJ/FBI would already have arrested the journalist.

[Michael P]

While the FCC could treat ABC similarly to RKO, it would be a lot more straightforward for the FEC to take action. The FEC could also take action against Google, Amazon and others for their illegal contributions to Harris's campaign.

[shawn_dude]

Here go the MAGAts again... trying to shut down the free press because it doesn't comport with their own dream world.

[Commenter_XY]

It (taking ABC license) would be checked by an APA challenge, NG. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

That is not a defense of Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

It is an acknowledgement of the practical impossibility a POTUS Trump even doing such a thing.

[Martinned2]

Wouldn't it be better to have a president who doesn't even want to?

[Nelson]

Not to Trumpkins. They revel in the crazy.

[Riva]

Is this what Harris meant when she condemned divisive insults? It's hard to tell with all her divisive insults.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t know, the President can cause a lot of trouble. Who knows what he can pull off, or what a mess he could make trying to pull it off?

Why don’t you care?

[Riva]

Anything to distract from the one obvious conclusion from the "debate." Harris is fundamentally unlikable. She can drone on all night long with her scripted, rehearsed comments. The more she speaks the more people dislike her.

[Nelson]

As opposed to the eminently likable Donald Trump? Tom Hanks and Dolly Parton can only hope to be as likable as Trump.

[Riva]

I appreciate that you and other lunatics here may not like him. I was referring to normal people.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh know Riva thinks Harris is unlikeable.

If it's that easy to debate via scripted comments, how did Trump fail so hard?

[David Nieporent]

OMG. If Harris has lost Riva's vote, then she's lost the vote of bots everywhere!

[Riva]

Oh, I think we’ll still see the ballot harveters try to bring truckloads of unverified mail in ballots. And we have millions of illegals out there now too. All hope is not lost for you but I don’t think you can pull it off this time. Because, I don’t even think the unverifed mail in ballots really like her either. But based on your comment, she has the bat shit crazy vote locked down, if anyone wants the vote of someone who believes it's possible to conclude that the killing of one's political rival would benefit the country.

[Sarcastr0]

Aand there's the galloping pivot.

Jeez. Looks like the Dems got this sewn up. Might as well not vote.

Not that bots can vote.

[Riva]

Keep trying, but I think your bat shit crazy little buddy has you beat in the obnoxious bat shit crazy insult category. Not sure what you can do? Maybe try some AI tool to get your very own original bat shit crazy insults?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd like to see him sue ABC for libel.

[OtisAH]

Oh my god, I actually agree with this! I absolutely would love Love LOVE to see Convicted Felon Donald Trump sue ABC for libel.

[Nelson]

Right? That would be amazing.

[David Nieporent]

Especially if he did so in a state with a strong anti-SLAPP law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In theory, an antiSLAPP law wouldn't apply because he was personally defamed.

[David Nieporent]

What fucking "theory" is that, Dr. Ed?

[Nelson]

The "Dr. Ed knows more law than the practicing lawyer" theory. Aren't you familiar with it? I read it here all the time.

[Kazinski]

He didn’t say or threaten to do anything, he said “they should”.

Nut I agree, he shouldn't have said anything, it musdys the waters when Harris Walz is the censorship ticket.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Threatening the free press is what all the cool authoritarian kids do...

[Ilya Snowman]

What would Kamala's father do regarding the American corporate media's licenses to broadcast? Have you read any of his work?

Why don't your blue team cheerleaders address THAT?

[Nelson]

I don't know because I don't care about what her father thinks.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Twelve — Regurgitating the statements of bureaucrats is an indispensable part of journalism. I think your objection is actually to some other parts of the job, like investigations to show whether bureaucrats and politicians you approve of are actually lying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I must have missed that part of the cats fact check.

[Nelson]

There have been many, many, many checks at this point. Even Fox News can't figure out how to spin it into not being a lie.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm sure it was a lie. And reporters can point that out off-line. Or Kamala can point that out during the debate.

But if a candidate says something and the moderator chimes in to say, "well, somebody else said something different", they're not helping anybody.

Stay out of the debate, and clear up any issues later. Especially if you're only doing to one side.

[shawn_dude]

Who's to say they weren't prepped for calling out outrageous lies for both sides but only needed to actually do it for one?

So far, the only "lies" Kamala has been accused of boil down to things that are objectively true based on recorded facts--like Biden winning the 2020 election fairly.

This whole "both sides" excuse is just a false equivalence wrapped up in a whine.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"With the cats, for example, all they did was claim that the city manager said something different than Trump.

It’s unfortunate that the profession of journalism has been reduced to regurgitating the statements of bureaucrats."

Yeah, they should have to account for all the cats in Springfield themselves!

Do you cry like this when they ask doctors for medical information? You really are a moron.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yeah, they should have to account for all the cats in Springfield themselves!"

Or they could shut their traps and let the candidates debate.

Talk about being a moron.

[Martinned2]

So you're complaining that the media isn't letting your guy campaign by lying a lot?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I’m saying that debate moderators shouldn’t be jumping into the debate on the side of one of the candidates.

If the media wants to do some reporting on its own time about what, if anything, is going on in Ohio, and contrast that with what Trump said, fine. That’s they’re job.

But regurgitating the fact that somebody said something different than Trump in the middle of the debate? That’s not even a fact check. Let his opponent do that sort of thing, and report on it afterwards.

[Martinned2]

That sounds awfully like a simultaneous claim that immigrants do eat pets, and that it doesn't matter if they didn't because Trump should be allowed to say they do regardless. Both of which are, to put it mildly, troubling.

How about a campaign based on the truth? Have you considered that as an option?

[Nelson]

No, he hasn't.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The candidate should be allowed to say whatever they want during the debate. If the opponent thinks the other candidate is lying, they can make that case.

That's what the debate is for.

But if the moderator thinks the candidate is lying, they can make their case in a different forum. They should stay out of the debate.

 

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The "making ludicrous factual assertions without having any credible evidence" thing doesn't bother you at all?

When did Republicans stop believing that truth was important? Sad.

[Sarcastr0]

Actually, a moderator letting candidates tell racist lies is doing a bad job.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why should the moderator censor the candidate? They didn't censor Kamala when she lied.

Let the candidates make their case against each other. That's what the forum is for.

If others want to refute what the candidates are saying, they have a forum for that.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha pointing out someone is full of shit, when they are, is not what censorship means.

Do you live in some kind of post-truth world where facts no longer matter?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Seems they have indeed made that bold leap.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Haha you said, "a moderator letting candidates tell racist lies is doing a bad job."

Not letting people say things is what censorship means.

[Sarcastr0]

Not letting someone lie includes speaking to let viewers know it is a lie.
That is not censorship by any definition.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Not letting someone lie includes speaking to let viewers know it is a lie."

But speaking doesn't let viewers know it's a lie. The candidate could be correct and the moderator could be lying, mistaken, etc.

In order to show that it's a lie, you have to present facts, evidence...

Oh ffs. Again, if you think the moderators should join the debate on behalf of one of the candidates, just say so.

[Sarcastr0]

You ignore the actual context in the hopes you can argue from hypotheticals.
But that's not what happened here. So now you act like assertion is argument, and cited correction is debate.

It's like you think the truth has no quality that distinguishes it from a lie.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So now you act like assertion is argument, and cited correction is debate."

Lol. Assertion and cited correction are ways of debating.

The most you can claim is that it's not debating when the moderators do it, but that proves too much for your claim.

"It’s like you think the truth has no quality that distinguishes it from a lie."

Of course the truth can be distinguished from a lie. One way to do it is by debating.

Again, if you think the moderators should join the debate on behalf of the candidates, just say so.

[Randal]

In order to show that it’s a lie, you have to present facts, evidence…

Which is exactly what they did. They didn't just assert that Trump was wrong. They provided evidence in the form of a cite.

I.E. the exact thing you were complaining about earlier...

With the cats, for example, all they did was claim that the city manager said something different than Trump.

Otherwise known as "presenting facts, evidence." Furthermore...

Not letting people say things is what censorship means.

But they did let him say it! Much to his own detriment, of course. Then they let him say "But I saw it on TV!" He wasn't censored. He was corrected.

You really are flailing on this one, even more than usual, tiny pianist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I.E. the exact thing you were complaining about earlier…"

Yes, I was complaining about the moderators joining the debate on the side of Harris. Nice work, Sherlock.

"But they did let him say it!"

Sarcastro says they didn't let him say it. Of course, I suppose if not letting him say it mean correcting him during the debate, then it could also mean correcting him after the debate, in which case we all agree that moderators shouldn't let candidates lie, or make weak arguments, or whatever.

"You really are flailing on this one, even more than usual, tiny pianist."

No, you just don't read so good.

[Randal]

So wait. You've retreated all the way to "they should've corrected him, only later?" How much later? Before the next commercial break? Right after closing arguments? Why does it matter?

[NOVA Lawyer]

This thread shows how far Twelve has lost it. Facts no longer matter for him. It is sad and pathetic. Especially to then try to claim that pushback with truth is "censorship." FFS, Twelve, you're actually not as moronic as that line of argument suggests. Why are you choosing to be a moron to defend a douche?

Twelve used to have semi-reasonable arguments and now he’s reduced to whining that a racist lie was called out real-time by journalists during a debate. And, yes, it is the job of moderators to ask follow-up questions which can include “what you just said is a lie, here’s the evidence, can you provide a truthful answer?”

“They’re eating the dogs!” was an outrageous, racist lie that is precisely the thing that should get pushback and follow-up questions in a well-moderated debate.

[Randal]

Kamala didn't lie, you'll find, is the difference.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I didn't find that at all.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has managed to find a lie by Kamala that would require pushback. Things that have been proposed include her claim that Trump said he wanted to terminate the Constitution (he did say it), that Putin would be in Kyiv right now if Trump was President (it's a prediction, not a falsehood and there are good reasons to think she's right), that the trade deficit didn't jump under Trump (it did, whatever you think of the significance of that fact), and other things that weren't lies.

So you can keep saying she lied, but it's pretty empty three days later and none of you have identified a lie that should have been fact-checked in real-time.

[Nelson]

"jumping into the debate on the side of one of the candidates"

Identifying blatant lies isn't "jumping in". It's pointing out that a batshit crazy thing that Trump said was patently false.

Pop quiz: How many of you assumed that the Hatians he was talking about were illegal? Because they aren't.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Identifying blatant lies isn’t “jumping in”"

Yes it is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And in any event, they didn't identify a blatant lie. The moderator chimed in with a rather weak counterargument, that the city manager denied it.

The proper forum for having that argument with people other than Kamala is outside of the debate, where it was exposed to be a blatant lie.

[Randal]

As the publishers of the debate, I think they've got legal and moral obligations to ensure that the factual content is truthful.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're wrong about the legal obligation, and as for the moral obligation, they're setting themselves up for failure.

[Randal]

Why do you think there's no legal obligation? If Fox News has a guest come on who slanders away, they could be liable for defamation if they fail to clean it up. Why would a debate be any different?

[Zarniwoop]

If the media wants to do some reporting on its own time about what, if anything, is going on in Ohio, and contrast that with what Trump said, fine. That’s they’re job.

Here's some excellent reporting, "Live from Springfield!" along with good discussion about what the media's job should be.

https://youtu.be/PBa-eLIj55o?t=474

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You don't want to double-down on the abject stupidity of pretending the city manager isn't an acceptable source of what is or isn't happening in his city?

You just want to soil your pampers about Trump not being permitted to blatantly throw out racist lies? Because that's the kind of thing a giant pile of shit would cry about.

Oh, right. It's you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There are lots of acceptable sources about what's happening in the city. Let the candidates make their cases, and if a moderator or anyone else thinks he has evidence that contradicts something that the candidate says, they can make the case in a different forum.

And I notice you don't seem to have a problem with Harris being allowed to blatantly lie.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what you think a debate is for, but your purely platonic space to measure pure power to persuade will not help to select a good President.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As I said, a debate isn't a forum for the moderators to debate one of the candidates.

If a journalist wants to debate a candidate, they can try to set that up.

[Sarcastr0]

Pointing out a lie is not debating. Neither is it censorship.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Pointing out a lie is not debating."

On what planet?

Now you're claiming that when Kamala responded to Trump by saying he was lying, she wasn't debating?

You'll just say anything, won't you?

[Sarcastr0]

Debate is about argument. Mere assertion and contradiction is neither debate nor argument.

You need some remedial Monty Python, I think.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Mere assertion and contradiction is neither debate nor argument.

Participants in debates seem to do both of those things a lot.

You're forced to make up your own idiosyncratic definition of debating in order to uphold an untenable position.

Again, if you think the moderators should join the debate on behalf of one of the candidates, just say so.

[Randal]

No, Sarcastr0 is right. Debates aren’t about factfinding. A conservative friend of mine wanted to “debate” the efficacy of ivermectin against COVID recently. That’s not a debatable question. It’s a factual question.

That the right has lost the distinction between opinion and fact is one of the top reasons our politics are so fucked.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The fact that you've already made your mind up doesn't make an issue non-debatable, it means that a debate isn't helpful to you.

But if you haven't made up your mind, and you're watching a debate between two candidates, having a moderator argue with a candidate about it probably isn't very helpful in terms of assessing the candidates.

[Randal]

If you haven't "made you mind up" about a factual issue, you need research, not a debate.

You don't go into a debate not having made your mind up about whether Haitian immigrants are eating dogs and cats in Springfield, hoping for an adversarial analysis of the issue. What you need in that case are facts. It's not susceptible to debate, and the moderators happen to be journalists who can provide those facts.

Maybe you don't trust the journalists, but that doesn't mean facts are up for debate. It just means you don't trust the people who have the responsibility of bringing the facts. Notably you aren't making that argument. Instead you're making the imminently retarded right-wing "facts are unknowable" argument. Shove it up your epistemic closure.

[Randal]

Hm I'm eminently worried that I may be imminently retarded.

[myself]

What sources? A single random Facebook post claiming an event that no one has managed to corroborate? Or a bunch of conservative randos posting a picture of someone who may or may not be Haitian and may or may not be in Ohio?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Don't demonstrate that Trump is a racist, lying sack of shit! WAAAAH"

You're a fucking child crying about how his team got caught and the umpires wouldn't allow cheating.

I addressed the alleged lies of Kamala already. Perhaps you'd like to jump on the bandwagon of pretending a pregnancy only lasts 21 weeks?

Are you that stupid? Let's find out!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You’re a fucking child crying about how his team got caught and the umpires wouldn’t allow cheating."

And you're a stupid piece of shit who doesn't understand what a debate is.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one that doesn't know what a debate is or what it's for.

You advocate for debate to be a rhetorical exercise, and that the truth will be determined by who can sell it better.

There's a reason no one else wants that - it'd be useless for the electorate.

Moderators enforce the rules. Among them, that facts matter.

You may not think that's a rule these days, but that's on you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“You advocate for debate to be a rhetorical exercise, and that the truth will be determined by who can sell it better.”

So do you. But you want the moderators to try to sell their version of the truth during the debate along with the candidates. That’s not what the debate is for.

If the media want to argue that one of the candidates is lying, or making a weak argument, or whatever, there are appropriate forums for that.

Unless what claiming is that whatever the moderators say is the truth, and that certainly isn't a rule.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A debate is a rhetorical exercise whether you want it to be or not.

Moderators aren't capable of injecting truth into the debate, they are only capable of injecting their own rhetoric.

[Randal]

their version of the truth

I think you'll find that there's only one version of the truth.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I think you’ll find that there’s only one version of the truth."

Perhaps, but it's not accessible during a debate. There are only competing claims during a debate. And nobody is there to hear the moderators' claims.

[Randal]

You’re simply wrong about that. The truth is accessible. The moderators accessed it.

You aren't claiming the moderators were wrong. That would be an interesting scandal. Correctly correcting the candidates is what they’re supposed to do. Don’t lie if you don’t want to be corrected. It’s not hard.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Moderators aren’t capable of injecting truth into the debate, they are only capable of injecting their own rhetoric."

The dogs and cats and pets episode proves you wrong. They did inject truth in the debate. Pointing out there is no credible evidence that what Trump said was happening wasn't rhetoric it was truth.

And it's pathetic that you are more upset that Trump got goaded into angrily spewing stupid, racist lies than that the moderators followed-up as moderators are supposed to do in a debate than that Trump angrily-spewed stupid, racist lies.

Your values seem quite comfortable with angrily-spewed stupid, racist lies and less comfortable with truth as a thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. No, the moderators didn't "inject truth" into the debate.

The moderators injected their own talking points. Truth was uncovered like I said it should be, but the media and others discussing the issue after the debate.

Tough luck, losers.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Twelve: "No, the moderators didn’t 'inject truth' into the debate."

But also Twelve: "Truth was uncovered like I said it should be."

And the truth that was uncovered (which, Twelve seems hesitant to admit, is that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH were not stealing and eating pets as bizarrely claimed by Trump) was the same "not truth" (?!) that the moderators injected into the debate.

Sigh. Twelve seems to think truth is not an independent quality, but can only exist as an outcome of investigative journalism. FFS Twelve.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Like Trump, everything you say is an admission. LOL

Cry more about how you want Trump to be allowed to lie with impunity because you have no morals yourself. You can't even bring yourself to admit that it was a lie (talk about a low bar to at least pretend you have some kind of redeeming quality and you still can't meet it!), so how about you go get some lessons from Joe_dallas on how to fuck yourself?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Soon, expect the Supreme Court to hand down a decision that Trump must be allowed to lie with impunity, and without correction.

[Ilya Snowman]

'Yeah, they should have to account for all the cats in Springfield themselves! Do you cry like this when they ask doctors for medical information? You really are a moron.'.

Says the moron who is trying to rationalize shoddy, dishonest American journalism.

[Nelson]

"all they did was claim that the city manager said something different than Trump."

No, they said there was no credible evidence that it was true. Which normal, honest people usually require before they make wild accusations against an entire group of people based on a crazy accusation that one guy in a town hall claimed.

And, to be clear, it continues to have no evidence to support it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, they said there was no credible evidence that it was true."

And that's a great point to make if you're debating someone who makes an unsubstantiated claim.

But you keep claiming the moderators weren't debating Trump.

What do you call it when one person claims that another person's claim is unsubstantiated, during a debate?

[Nelson]

A fact check. And a spot-on, accurate, unambiguous fact-check at that.

[bernard11]

all they did was claim that the city manager said something different than Trump.

First of all, the city manager did in fact say it wasn't happening. That was not an idle claim by the moderators. The police chief said the same.

So on the one hand we have the manager and the police chief, and on the other an insane rumor started by some random RW blogger, that the Trump campaign was too incompetent to check.

Just a difference of opinion, right, TiP?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Just a difference of opinion, right, TiP?"

Sure. Like any other contested claim made during a debate, it's a claim that can be tested debating, presenting facts, evidence, arguments, etc.

Which is what the moderators were doing.

If you think the debate moderators should join the debate on the side of one of the candidates, just say so.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Debate moderators have a duty to follow-up, particularly when a candidate has just angrily-spewed stupid, racist lies.

You, apparently, think moderation could just be done by a jeopardy style board that has questions written and then the viewers are just left with whatever the candidate said. You should understand, that's not what any reasonable person thinks a debate moderator does. Of course, they will occasionally ask follow-up questions, particularly when a douche goes on an angry rant spewing stupid, racist lies.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I like how you clowns after narrow down the scope to specifically "Springfield, Ohio" when there are rampant reports all over Ohio of those very things.

[not guilty]

Uh, it was Donald Trump who specified Springfield, Ohio, unprompted, during an unhinged, rambling rant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ1h7oM2i80

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1832773191976014217

You are a racist if you deny that black man's lived experience. He says these things are happening in Springfield. But the White city manager denied his lived experience.

You are a racist and you support racists.

[David Nieporent]

I know that our resident Nazi is just trolling, but just for the sake of the historical record: the person in that link did not say that he experienced any of those things. He just asserted it was happening.

[Nelson]

Wait, he used "some guy said" as evidence? Imagine my surprise.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Well, he did point out that he saw some guy "on TV". Which is helpful in understanding how this wannabe president processes information and truth.

[Kazinski]

Actually I watched a clip on Twitter of a city counsel in meeting in Springfield where someone was complaining about the Hatians eating ducks and pets.

I don't think you or ABC want to go too far out on that limb.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Rewatch what that moderator did at the debate.
He started out by quoting the city manager “No credible reports”, then that got morphed into “No reports”.

The first one is subjective, as there are obviously countless reports.
But, every low-rung Democrat just believes the “No reports”. Even on this board, these idiots are claiming it isn’t happening at all based merely on a statement from a politician.

That’s all they needed to reject all the evidence. A politician said “No, what you see and read isn’t real” and they are all dutifully “debunking” any claim otherwise.

They do similar things with George Floyd, J6, BLM, Antifa, government education system, Global Warming, President Trump, 2020 election stealing, the efficacy of the State, and even history, biology and science itself.

All it takes for a Democrat on this board to ignore everything they know and everything they’ve seen is for some bureaucrat or politician to say “We never said vaccines make you immune or stop the spread of a disease. Vaccines reduce how long you stay in a hospital if you get sick, and you can still spread the disease.”

[David Nieporent]

He started out by quoting the city manager “No credible reports”, then that got morphed into “No reports”.

The first one is subjective, as there are obviously countless reports.

Nazis are illiterate, and thus don't know the difference between reports — "I saw this happen" — and rumors — "Oh, yeah, this is happening."

There are Facebook/Nextdoor rumors of roving gangs of traffickers kidnapping women from WalMart parking lots. There are no actual reports of that happening. (There are reports of it almost happening, by which I mean someone posts, "I was really scared because I saw this guy several times while I was walking down the aisles, and he looked at me weirdly.")

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They thought (think?) Qanon was credible, so this really isn't much of a stretch...

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz: A more telling indicator; Gov DeWine just sent a boatload of state troopers, and emergency aid money to Springfield, OH. I am sure the Governor sends troopers to OH cities, and millions in emergency aid for shits and giggles. Just another Thursday in OH, right?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/ohio-gov-dewine-sending-troops-2-5-million-to-springfield-due-to-surge-of-haitian-migrants/

Does anyone think Springfield OH is unique? A one-off? LMFAO. 🙂

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Commenter_XY, you heard the city manager say "No credible reports".

That's all they needed, no other facts or videos, or reports or anything will pierce the command from the State.

[SimonP]

What do you think this shows? Did you bother to read the link you provided?

DeWine is recognizing that the surge of legal Haitian immigrants in Springfield is putting pressure on public services. Sending state troopers to assist with traffic enforcement and money to shore up those public services is... a normal way to address that exigency, isn't it?

The lies just keep coming with you people. No one is contending that migrants aren't causing stress in various communities where they've surged. But MAGA is claiming that places like Springfield are being taken over by illegal immigrants who are seizing and eating dogs and cats. Some link showing that an unlicensed migrant got into an accident, and a statement by the governor that public health and translation services need support, does not establish your narrative.

This is just another iteration of pizzagate. You people are idiots, insane, malefactors, or some combination of the three.

[Nelson]

Hey, they can be forgiven for not recognizing what good governance looks like. They don't care about that as long as they can force people to live by their religious and social beliefs, liberty be damned.

If you want to read a well-written article about the benefits and challenges that the influx of legal immigrants has brought to Springfield, OH:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/haitian-immigrants-fueled-springfields-growth-now-us-presidential-debate-2024-09-11/

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter, I never want to hear you talk about blood libel again, because guess what you're doing?

[Commenter_XY]

No problem Sarcastr0, you have the blood libel market locked up already. Armchair helpfully provided receipts. 😉 (what a dumbass, do you step on rakes a lot? looks that way to me)

I posted a link that accurately described the response of a Governor to a specific situation in an OH town that is recently in the news. That really is some blood libel, huh. You're pathetic.

[Sarcastr0]

You posted a link in service of something it is not relevant to.

That something being a bloody accusation against a minority group.

I'd say you should know enough how bad that is to be ashamed.
But your accusations against me show you're well beyond that kind of self reflection now.

[Kazinski]

Now how is that a blood libel?

There are actually billions of people that live in countries where eating dogs at least is fairly common.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not blood libel by the strict definition.
But it's the exact same bigotry technique - 'make up bloody tales about a minority group' is bad, and cats and not babies doesn't change why it's bad.

[Ilya Snowman]

It could be worse: they could be Scouse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-22toakr9o

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, the rake-stepper on-er (yeah, Sarcastr0) is still smarting for being called out on pushing a blood libel against Israel by Yours Truly - correctly, I might add - for his expressed views last November. Armchair helpfully provided receipts.

The fact is, the OH Gov did send in state troopers, did send in 2.5MM in emergency aid, and did so to address the Haitian illegal alien population and the problems they bring, to Springfield, OH. There is no getting around that.

If the Gov is full of shit, the Legislature will call him out on it. It is not like the OH legislature is bashful.

[not guilty]

IMO "blood libel" is a phrase that should not be used casually or metaphorically, akin to Holocaust or lynching.

[Sarcastr0]

Your definition of blood libel is so wrong it includes like 42% of American Jews.

You should work harder not to resemble this:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You realize that we all saw the "receipt" and realized it was nothing more than your typical "You can't criticize Israel without hating Jews" bullshit, right?

[David Nieporent]

I am sure the Governor sends troopers to OH cities, and millions in emergency aid for shits and giggles.

Um, DeWine also called the cat-eating stories "crazy."

[Commenter_XY]

Who is saying anything about cat eating stories? You are, David, not me.

[Sarcastr0]

From the OP: "Trump could have chosen not to lie in the first place about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio eating dogs and cats and post-birth abortions, but I surmise that simply not lying never occurred to him."

To review, you're on the side defending this.

[Josh R]

Apparently, Trump was supposed to wait for the moderators to challenge him on the pet-eating story. Then, he was supposed to neither confirm or deny the story and pivot to the stress on services caused by migrants.

Oops.

[not guilty]

Trump's mention of immigrants eating dogs and cats came out of the blue as part of a response that had no bearing on the question he was asked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ1h7oM2i80

[shawn_dude]

Republican governors are pretty well known for doing stupid, tax-wasting stunts in support of conservative talking points. See DeSantis and Abbott for prime examples. It would surprise exactly no one if DeWine wanted to reinforce a racist, anti-immigrant meme in this same way. Or, maybe he's a good governor and sent the support to Springfield in case the MAGA crowd locked, loaded, and bussed themselves over there to solve the imaginary problem of black immigrants themselves.

[NOVA Lawyer]

In fact, DeWine confirmed the racist lie was a racist lie. The providing extra support was a thing governors are supposed to do when a relatively small town has a large influx of people and needs help with traffic control, basic services, etc. DeWine's offer of support had nothing to do with pet eating, notwithstanding the lying liars in this thread implying otherwise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump should sue for libel -- not to win, but to embarrass.

[not guilty]

Why would Donald Trump want to put his reputation at issue in any civil suit?

[Nelson]

It's gracious that you grant Trump some reputation left to lose. That's very ... optimistic.

[OtisAH]

Of course not to win. There’s no libel. But to embarrass himself by filing another stupid, pointless, groundless lawsuit? Absolutely on board. Let’s make this happen!

[Nelson]

Why would be want to embarrass himself? I mean, besides the mountain of evidence that he like it.

[apedad]

"Trump should sue for libel — not to win, but to embarrass."

Dr Ed: Leftists suck because of all their Lawfare!

Dr Ed: Trump should use Lawfare!

[David Nieporent]

Trump should sue for libel — not to win, but to embarrass.

Um, Trump is perfectly capable of embarrassing himself without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers.

[Zarniwoop]

But he hires those lawyers anyway!

[Nelson]

It's surprising that you think he pays his lawyers. You an NG are being very kind today.

[David Nieporent]

It’s surprising that you think he pays his lawyers.

Well, he does — just not with his own money. He pays them with his donors' money.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Sometimes. Other times he just stiffs them.

[Krayt]

It seems like a weird thing to claim, but even if true, who cares? Cultures around the world eat all kinds of stuff we would consider weird, including cats and dogs.

Now if these were thefts, that's something else, but that's a separate issue.

Anyway, America's weird sensibilities got export of horse meat banned IIRC.

[Commenter_XY]

Funny you say that, because NYC Chinese strip joint restaurants and street meat vendors do love those stray cats and dogs... (I am just teasing!!!)

I sometimes offer my friends with bad mannered pets a free ride with Fido (or Felix) to the nearest Chinese strip joint restaurant for drop-off. The facial expressions are priceless. 🙂

I have wondered how horsemeat tastes. I recall from history books a factoid that Truman was sometimes called 'Horsemeat Harry'.

[SimonP]

I sometimes offer my friends with bad mannered pets a free ride with Fido (or Felix) to the nearest Chinese strip joint restaurant for drop-off. The facial expressions are priceless.

I'm going to guess that these "friends" probably don't invite you to events where you'd mingle with various other of their friends. "Oh, that's CommenterXY. He's fun, but sometimes he comes up with this racist shit out of nowhere. We don't invite him to cookouts any more."

[Bwaaah]

I'm going to guess that you have a limited sense of humor with thin-skinned sensitivities, and you're one of the "you shouldn't say that" sourpusses that sometimes uselessly darken informal discourse.

Fortunately, most people probably enjoy Commenter_XY in the humorous spirit in which he speaks, and not the darkness in which a few curmudgeons like you stew. Racism is not a problem of off-color humor; get over yourself.

[SimonP]

I’m going to guess that you have a limited sense of humor with thin-skinned sensitivities, and you’re one of the “you shouldn’t say that” sourpusses that sometimes uselessly darken informal discourse.

Why would you conclude that?

I have a Persian friend. He's fun, and always a good hang, but he tends to get drunk/druggy and start describing things as "ghetto." Which doesn't bother me, but it tends to upset my Dominican friend from Harlem, and they get into huge fights over that sort of thing. So we don't invite them out together any more.

Do you see how this works, Bwaaah? Or are you going to contend that, just because you might laugh off a comment over Chinese restaurants serving dog, you'd feel comfortable inviting that dynamic into a situation where you don't know how other people would react? Or do you just have so much ideological conformity within your social circle that you have no need to worry about such things? Or do you rather ostracize the people who would have a problem about such jokes?

[Bwaaah]

Your drunk/druggy friend sounds like an asshole, and not because he used the term "ghetto." But I get your dead seriousness about words.

[SimonP]

Your drunk/druggy friend sounds like an asshole, and not because he used the term “ghetto.”

That is... pretty much the only thing I've said about him? What makes you think he's an "asshole"? The fact that he's Persian?

But I get your dead seriousness about words.

Yeah, you'll believe whatever the fuck you want, because if it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what I'm like, then you can't compute. I literally just said that I don't "police" the words that my friends use, and their use of certain language doesn't irritate me.

My primary point - to CXY - was that his stupid, lightly racist joke might explain why he doesn't have as many friends as he used to.

[Bwaaah]

"That is… pretty much the only thing I’ve said about him? What makes you think he’s an “asshole”? The fact that he’s Persian?"

You didn't just indicate he gets drunk/druggy. You indicated he drinks enough for his behavior to change such that he repeatedly pisses off your friend with derogatory remarks. He sounds like an asshole who may have a drug problem.

But all you could come back with is an implication that I'm begin racist. Typical nonsense.

[SimonP]

He sounds like an asshole who may have a drug problem.

Again, you seem to have a hard time reading what I write rather than importing into what I write a... shall we say, "fuller" rendition of the things I'm saying.

There's nothing going on here besides a perfectly ordinary level of drinking and drug use for a gay man in NYC, going to the club on the weekend looking to get laid. He makes an offhand remark when he's getting lubricated, it rubs the other friend the wrong way, and they're both stubborn. Like I'd imagine CXY would be, after a few Bud Lights and some pot.

[Ilya Snowman]

'Do you see how this works, Bwaaah?'

Yes, you're a prissy little totalitarian shit---and a mediocrity who fails to see the irony of referencing ideological conformity within social circles in this context, since you think your preferred speech and sensitivity norms are, and shall be, supreme, universal, and true.

Could be worse, though: you could be Scouse.

[Commenter_XY]

Simple Simon's humor meter needs total recalibration (nevermind fine tuning), Bwaaah.

[Sarcastr0]

Older generations’ jokes becoming cringey and out of touch with modern sensibilities has been a thing for a very long time.

There is no objective humor meter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is incorrect. Young people who are offended by Blazing Saddles, for example, are objectively wrong.

As are people who are offended by Weird Al's Cat's In the Kettle (at the Peking Moon).

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If you ever make a comment that's actually funny, we'll see how his humor meter works.

[Commenter_XY]

I'll work on new material.... 🙂

[Bwaaah]

LOL. Alpheus W. Tonepolice swoops in for the rescue!!!

C_XY: Before you test your material on these guys, try a funeral first. Just because somebody died doesn’t mean the room is filled with petulant, humorless speech police.

But these people don’t think of themselves as speech police…they’re the people who just happen to know what good behavior looks like (unlike you). They’re what Barack Obama called “the grownups in the room.” I just think of them as grownups, and teach young people to be suspicious of them. (Naturally, young people are. Listen to these grownups and what’s important to them.)

For these people, there is power in words, because that’s pretty much the center of their positions: words. They’re talkers who believe in so little, so they focus on protecting words. They also focus on protecting darker-skinned people, but only because in their words, there’s something implicitly different ([D]ifferent?) about “People of Color.” (When you center your world on words, you can come up with shit like that and still believe yourself.)

By the way, C_XY…if you haven’t seen the “Kill Tony” comedy shows on youtube, check ’em out. Kill Tony is a beautiful commitment to laughter, and definitely not for anybody who hurts easily. (I confess that my skin necessarily grew thicker in order to handle the boundlessness of the humor there. I have been reminded that it’s truly OK to laugh, especially when nobody is watching.)

For those of you who find C_XY offensive, I suggest staying away from Kill Tony. You’d probably be so offended by the mere presence of some of the show’s guests that you couldn’t rightfully let yourself laugh anywhere near *those* people. (No decent grownup should.)

By the way...ever since I was a kid, I've been suspicious of grownups. I'm still not seeing reasons to feel otherwise.

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah...I will definitely check out the Kill Tony comedy show on YT.

Appreciate the grownups comment. I personally never saw the point of 'growing up'. Whatever the hell that means, and it means many different things to different people. That 'growing up' phase is nothing more than a mindset shift to: waiting to die, gracefully. Screw that, I'll do it my way, LOL. Alpheus can...well bless his heart, he can [Bwaah, fill in blank here with something from Kill Tony comedy show].

As for the Commentariat...Free speech is just that. Sometimes it blows hot. Sometimes it is bitingly cold. It is occasionally controversial, many elbows get thrown, and every once in a blue moon...it is libertarian. I will say that I really do appreciate the continued focus of Professor Volokh on free speech (and all the other stuff too). Freedom of speech (and thought) is the issue of our time and I greatly appreciate his emphasis there. He is doing great work there.

Best 2024 one-liner YTD, courtesy of DMN (I will never refer to you as Beetlejuice! LOL): "Trump treats the Seven Deadly Sins as a To Do List" - Ok, that was truly hilarious, mostly because there is actually an air of faint plausibility to it.

I just wonder if any of these fine lawyers try the recipes. They are quite healthy. Lawyering is hard work.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Commenter, I look forward to reading your new material and laughing.

Bwaaah: blah blah blah blah these people blah blah blah blah blah these people blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

But I do support your right to blah blah to your heart's content.

[Ilya Snowman]

Have you not been to China? Haven’t you eaten dog before? Are you going to deny that it’s not regularly available in China to eat?

‘We don’t invite him to cookouts any more”‘. It could be worse: you could be Scouse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-22toakr9o

You’re not ‘guessing’ anything. You’re a prissy little totalitarian shit whose sensitivities delude you into thinking you can police what counts as acceptable and funny, let alone that you’re some sort of epistemic or moral authority. Don’t worry, though: no one wants to eat you and your HIV.

[Sarcastr0]

Secondhand rumors about another race.

Super credible. Certainly enough to call the police and whatnot liars.

[bernard11]

I'll go as far as Mike DeWine went, anyway.

[Martinned2]

Predictably, all the replies to this comment were Trumpist explanations of why their hero didn't LOSE BIG TIME!

(And no explanations of why he invented polling results with North Korea-style numbers as part of his explanation of why he didn't LOSE.)

[ThePublius]

According to a Reuters poll, he didn't lose. Ha, ha.

[Martinned2]

Reuters said that 90% of people thought Trump won the debate?

"I think it was the best debate personally that I've had...She wants to do another one because she got beaten tonight...The polls are indicating that we got 90%, 60%, 72%, 71%, and 89%."

[Riva]

If only there wasn't 911 audio of a call reporting Haitians carrying away ducks. But this is really a distraction. Plenty of other ill effects of Harris' open border out there. Ask the people of Aurora Colorado. In fact, if you don't like them, ask the residents of Martha's Vineyard. They didn't seem to like an influx of illegals either.

[Nelson]

What, the pet ducks? Or the kind of ducks that hunters kill all the time.

Apparently when a hunter kills a duck with a shotgun while wearing camo, it's OK. But when a legal immigrant does it ... hoo boy, that's a crime.

[Riva]

Where do you live, Gaza? Usually, in this country, hunters don't descend on a park pond and open fire on the ducks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe they can be enlisted to control Canadian geese.

[David Nieporent]

Apparently when a hunter kills a duck with a shotgun while wearing camo, it’s OK. But when a legal immigrant does it … hoo boy, that’s a crime.

The hunters are white, so it's OK.

[Mr. Bumble]

Black men can’t hunt?

[Martinned2]

If they did, I think the US would have a lot more gun control.

[David Nieporent]

Black men can’t hunt?

Sure they can, but then racist Republicans will claim that this is a reason to kick them out of the country.

[Frank Drackman]

they hunt each other all the time

[CountmontyC]

There are laws and regulations as to when and where hunting and killing wild ducks is permitted. Any person of any color or immigration status is expected to obey these laws. In Salem,Oregon I recall about 10 years back a bunch of white high school boys being arrested and charged with throwing rocks at and stomping to death several ducks at a local park. So unless these Haitians were properly licensed and followed the laws on catching and killing the ducks they broke the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, we had a problem with wild ducks where I work; Somebody had fed a few, it got around, and next thing you knew they were rushing the door any time somebody went in or out.

We finally had to whack a few, to scare the rest off, which was actually OK with the DNR, so long as we handed over the bodies. Couldn't keep and eat them, THAT would have been illegal.

[Nelson]

So Trump was actually outraged because some Hatians were hunting without a license, but he accidentally said "cats" and "pets" instead of "geese"? That seems ... unlikely.

[CountmontyC]

The post I was responding to did not mention cats. It only mentioned ducks and implied that the only reason that someone could be upset about the killing of ducks by the Haitians was racism.
Would you care to comment on the actual substance of my post or would you prefer to continue to deflect?

[David Nieporent]

Bot isn't programmed to know the difference between "ducks" and "cats."

[ThePublius]

NG, the jury is still out on Springfield, OH, and based on testimony of residents, I am convinced that where's there's smoke, there's fire. Watch this - if not the whole thing, scroll to 1:20 and watch a couple of minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZADwzk5D2U

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you've been out in front believing this story with all your might for a while now.

No new evidence, and plenty of people who would know saying otherwise. But the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

[Nelson]

"Some guy said" is a reason to believe it, but "no evidence found" isn't a reason to disbelieve it. That's insane.

[SimonP]

Pubes, just gotta hold it a bit longer. Wait for the media cycle to die down, and then we can forget you ever asserted there was a "fire" to this "smoke," when it turns out to be a big nothingburger. Just gotta wait for the next media cycle scandal. Hold!

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m going to try to treat this more sympathetically than some of the other posters here (more, perhaps, than it deserves).

When you’re considering. an extraordinary claim that supports your worldview, especially if you want to use it to convince other people, that’s when it’s most important to be skeptical and make sure that it is actually true.

“The Biden-Harris administration resettled immigrants in a small town where they’re now abducting and eating the residents’ household pets” would, if true, be a pretty big argument that they’re not handling immigration well. It’s also something that is going to sound very improbable to most people who hear it (because it is). So if you want to deploy it, you really need to 1. Make sure that it’s true and 2. Be prepared to prove it in the face of people denying it.

Here, Trump and his partisans seem to have stumbled on 1. But Trump also has problems with 2. even when he’s saying outlandish things that are true, like Harris supporting government-funded sex changes for criminals and illegal immigrants.

It’s almost like he’s not a very good candidate.

[Nelson]

Almost.

[Riva]

Ok, now tell me about Harrris' great post-debate bounce and how she converted all those undecided votes. Oh wait...nevermind.

[Sarcastr0]

Going to try for the 'it doesn't matter' push.

That could very well be. It's the best argument you folks got. I'm kind of surprised you're not in the gutter with the dog eating mods hating ABC rage pit.

So well done, good point - there's a decent chance none of this will materially move the needle.

Still, I'd rather be Harris than Trump coming out of the debate.

[Riva]

Oh it mattered, somewhat. It helped President Trump. By all means, keep her talking. Here's hoping for a press conference. Nothing from her except a scripted inteview with her weird father sitting next to her.

[Sarcastr0]

This is common on the right at this point.
It's a virtue to come off as unhinged; someone tells them their opinion seems normal, and they feel obligated to double down.

[Riva]

Does that mean she’ll be brave enough to finally have her first press conference since the coup and ouster of ol’Joe? Somehow I don't think she will, if the history of coups tell one anything.

[SimonP]

Riva, just calling Walz "weird" is not going to stick. That's not how it works. The person has to be weird. They have to go off rambling about illegal immigrants eating dogs and cats when asked an unrelated question. They have to fail completely at relating with people normally at events arranged by their own campaign. It is not "weird" to laugh. It is not "weird" to quietly support the person you're running with.

The truth is that you people realize that Trump/Vance are deeply embarrassing representatives. These are not people you'd want at your dinner table or attending your church, interacting with your kids and friends. They're weird in the same way that celebrities are weird - which makes sense, because in many ways, that's all they really are, these manufactured personalities that are designed to elicit a response from you.

[Riva]

Not weird? Have you ever actually looked at him?

[Kenneth Almquist]

The CNN flash poll showed Harris’s numbers among people who watched the debate go from 41%/50% favorable/unfavorable before the debate go to 45%/44% favorable/unfavorable after the debate. The margin of error for this poll is 5.3%, making the size of the improvement unclear, but it seems clear that the debate helped her.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/11/politics/election-poll-trump-harris-debate/index.html

[Riva]

Not even sure who CNN was polling. Undecideds? Because there was a shift against Harris in other reports.

[SimonP]

Not even sure who CNN was polling. Undecideds?

You have the link, Riva. You can check it yourself.

You may prefer to ignore the take-away of the CNN flash poll while emphasizing the significance of a Reuters focus group of 10 people (eight of them white). But any rational person can look at the breakdown and see Trump continuing to perform predictability on the questions of immigration and the economy (even if frustratingly so - he has no credibility on these issues). These lend credence to the slight bump in favorability it shows for Harris.

[David Nieporent]

Just to reiterate: about 90% of the MAGA universe is whining about the debate. Winners don't complain about the refs. Everyone who isn't pure sycophant is saying how poorly Trump was prepared and did. They may take shots at Harris, but they're not claiming Trump did well. That's limited to the Pravda auditioners like Jesse Watters.

[Life of Brian]

Winners don’t complain about the refs.

Was this the JournoList coordinated line for the day or something? Good grief.

And aside from being a pretty sad attempt at a taunt, it's not even correct. If a ref makes a flagrantly bad call, you better believe whatever team it was called against is going to raise holy hell right then and there -- even if they do go on to ultimately win the game in spite of it.

And that's very much akin to where we are right now, given that this debate is one "play" in the broader contest of the election, not a self-contained boxing match as many seem to want to recast it.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm doubtful that Haitians are eating Cats, mainly because they're too lazy to do much of anything, you'd have to have some UN Group or Christian Missionaries come in, Bring the Cats, Kill the Cats, Cook the Cats, and even then they'd complain they tasted like Cats.
But Hispanics, Immigrants from "CHY-NA" Asia, Arab countries? Ever been to May-he-co? Korea? or Saudi Arabia? not many Cats (or dogs) around

Frank

[Estragon]

Moved

[Joe_dallas]

https://pjmedia.com/rick-moran/2024/09/11/police-report-describes-haitians-carrying-dead-geese-down-the-street-n4932444

cats, dogs, geese

Biden and the border czar bussed and flew the migrants across the country. 2x - 3x increase in illegal immigration under Biden-harris administration

Aurora CO -
Springfield.
etc

[David Nieporent]

Um, the photo in that pjmedia article is of someone who there's no reason to believe is a Haitian and who isn't in Springfield. And geese, of course, are not cats (let alone dogs).

Aurora has already been debunked, too.

[Joe_dallas]

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/09/11/pro-life-activist-proves-late-term-abortions-happen-all-the-time-n4932443

Debunked?

[David Nieporent]

1) That literally proves exactly zero. I guess a sample size of one hypothetical call demonstrates your mathematical chops, though.

2) It also has literally nothing to do with the discussion. The abortion claim by Trump that people are calling a lie is about post-birth "abortions," and the actual topic of my comment was about killing geese.

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, your link describes one anecdote about one woman, who admits that she lied claiming to be 34 weeks pregnant, calling one clinic about one hypothetical procedure. It says nothing whatsoever about the frequency of actual late term abortions.

Did you think no one would click on the link?

[ThePublius]

"Aurora has already been debunked, too."
Bullshit!

https://kdvr.com/news/local/aurora-whispering-pines-the-edge-at-lowry-apartments/

[Sarcastr0]

"After meeting with tenants from both complexes last week, Coffman said he agreed with interim Police Chief Heather Morris “that a Venezuelan gang is not in control of either of these two apartment complexes,” although he said he believes there were “gang-related problems … that caused the property managers to flee.”

Coffman said went to the complexes unaccompanied on Sunday “without incident” and visited every floor throughout all nine buildings."

Does racism cause illiteracy?

[ThePublius]

"Aurora has already been debunked, too."

Ha, ha, you useless tool! It's been confirmed, affirmed, by the Aurora PD!

[Voize]

CNN has a debate fact check report that by my count tallies 21 false or unsupported statements and 4 misleading or incomplete statements by Trump. For Harris the numbers are 1 and 8.

Me I would have counted at least one more Harris assertion as false rather than misleading, she said in 2020 that Biden wouldn't end fracking and now claims it was a statement of her own position, but even so the count underscores that Trump gets more fact checker attention because he tells more whoppers.

[ThePublius]

So, you believe CNN? Ha, ha, ha!

[shawn_dude]

Wow. That's a self-pwn.

[Voize]

So, you believe CNN? Ha, ha, ha!

I said I disagreed with them about one, but yes I think they applied reasonable criteria and applied it to both sides.

As contrasted to that Federalist list, that exclusively targeted Harris and was mostly disputing opinions, predictions, even gestures. If they examined Trump under the same microscope they would still be working on his list.

[myself]

Classic Trump, proposing to use the power of the Presidency to do something awful... but far too incompetent to follow through on his threats.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If he wasn't such a coward, he'd be President right now.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell this week began objecting to a reporting practice of the NYT and other media which he refers to as, "sanewashing," Trump. In a nutshell, O'Donnell's objection is that Trump's disjointed, fictionalized, and ignorant remarks get cleaned up in media reporting.

Editors scrutinize those remarks, says O'Donnell, for possible rational meaning, then publish the editors' made-up and more-coherent paraphrases as if Trump had said them, instead of what he actually said.

There are many examples to show O'Donnell's critique is accurate. The process has been perversely influential. So much so that a corollary expectation—perhaps even more ill-advised—has arisen that the most egregious of Trump's delusional and incompetent utterances simply get bypassed in news reporting, or played down, as if they were either insignificant, or proper subjects for tacitly apologetic explanatory coverage.

Nothing Trump says should be reported in paraphrase. Everything must be taken literally. In every case, every word of Trump's responses to cogent and relevant questions must be accurately presented between quotation marks. The media practice to sanewash Trump must end. When Trump lies, the lies must be reported for what they are, without attempt to supply them with cogency or context that does not come from Trump himself.

Let Trump and his minions do the explaining. Then publish literally what their outlandish and often contradictory accounts say.

Americans do not benefit when journalists present rationalized and cleaned-up substitutes. Not even when they do so on the basis of an unproven presumption that contenders for high office must not be crazy.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I think that would be a good standard if consistently applied across party lines.

Then everyone would see how utterly fucking stupid most national level politicians are and how utterly corrupt and shitty our federal institutions are.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, I'd love it if they consistently just reported precisely what politicians actually said. Instead of cleaning it up, or reporting paraphrases with a few of the original words dropped in like some precious spice you have to economize on.

It's often insanely difficult, when the media paraphrase Trump, to find out what he REALLY said. They treat in context quotes like a vampire does sunlight. They burn...

[Jerry B.]

Don't expect that from the Washington Post. They "summarize" things that Trump said without a link to the actual speech, and when you find it, it's really quite different.

[Kazinski]

Someone should Sanewash Lawrence O'Donnell.

[Sarcastr0]

Dunno what you're talking about, but it says a lot the parity you're trying to draw to Trump here.

O’Donnell isn't trying to run for President.

[Martinned2]

I think he's simply trying to say that Lawrence O'Donnell is wrong, and that Trump actually speaks perfectly coherently.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, dear, that's sadder than I thought.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Their desperation is palpable.

[Krayt]

Walking things back, "carrying his water", "what he meant was (some very strained but marginally more reasonable interpretation)", any number of phrasings. Hardly new for media.

But if it's correct, good, do your job as a journalist and point this out. Keep it up, with all politicians.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The fact that Biden was having a "senior moment" at the first debate should not distract us from the fact that even half-conscious he was more coherent than Trump.

[Michael P]

Let's find someone halfway credible who says that "even half-conscious he was more coherent than Trump". There's a reason that other Democrats had to stage an intervention after that debate. America saw what Kamala Harris and others were desperately trying to hide.

[Martinned2]

Since Brett wanted more direct quotes, with context, let's play a game of Who said it?

He did beat Medicaid (ph). He beat it to death. And he’s destroying Medicare, because all of these people are coming in, they’re putting them on Medicare, they’re putting them on Social Security. They’re going to destroy Social Security.

This man is going to single-handedly destroy Social Security. These millions and millions of people coming in, they’re trying to put them on Social Security. He will wipe out Social Security. He will wipe out Medicare. So he was right in the way he finished that sentence, and it’s a shame.

Answer here: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/read-biden-trump-debate-rush-transcript/index.html

[Joe_dallas]

the Social security system has not been financially/actuarially sound for quite some time.

[bernard11]

Non-responsive, Joe.

Whatever the financial state of Social Security, it's not due to Biden bringing in immigrants and putting them on Social Security.

Trump is full of shit, as usual.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, THAT isn't going to hurt SS for a few decades yet, at which point it will probably just be bouncing the rubble.

[Joe_dallas]

It doesnt change the fact that the Social security is not financial sound, no matter how often the left denies the insolvency of the so called trust fund

[bernard11]

IOW, Joe, you're still trying to change the question.

Trump claimed Biden was putting immigrants, presumably including illegal immigrants, on Social Security, and that is going to "wipe out" SS, and Medicare too.

So three questions:

1. Do you believe that?
2. If so, why do you believe it?
3. Do you understand that these immigrants are net payers into SS?

[Joe_dallas]

On a prior thread you claimed your financial skills were superior - yet you get the financial situation of the social security system and the effect of the immigrants paying into the system completely wrong.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants are low wage earners, assuming of course that they are actually paying into the social security system, so what they are paying into the system during their working years will be relatively little.

At the same time, they will become entitle to future benefits. Being on the low income scale, their future benefits will be heavily weighted in their favor as a percentage of what they are paying in. That creates a huge unfunded liability, an unfunded future liability that is much greater than what they are paying in.

As somehow with superior financials skills, how did you make such a big omission in your analysis?

[bernard11]

I didn't address that because, like you, I have no data to support it. We have no idea what immigrants pay, in total, into Social Security. We have even less idea what they are likely to pay in over the next few decades. Who knows, some might prove quite successful, and pay in a good bit. Isn't Elon Musk an immigrant, from Africa, no less?

But you, and Trump, I guess, are talking about illegal immigrants.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants are low wage earners, assuming of course that they are actually paying into the social security system, so what they are paying into the system during their working years will be relatively little.

At the same time, they will become entitle to future benefits. Being on the low income scale, their future benefits will be heavily weighted in their favor as a percentage of what they are paying in. That creates a huge unfunded liability, an unfunded future liability that is much greater than what they are paying in.

In fact, illegal immigrants are not eligible for SS benefits. Not to mention that someone using a false SS# pays and doesn't collect anyway. No benefits, no liability. Curious omission by you. Sort of destroys your complaint, Mr. Analytical Genius.

So maybe you could stop complaining about "omissions" when your approach is to make shit up.

Anyway, if you think Trump was referring to long-term effects, you're nuts.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What’s incoherent about that? It may or may not be wrong or stupid, but it’s perfectly clear what Trump is saying.

[bernard11]

It's definitely stupid, Noscitur, and worse than wrong.

"Wrong" would be if he sat down and did the calculations in good faith, and came up with result, and it was shown that he had made some errors that led to his results being incorrect.

It is in fact a deliberate lie intended to smear his opponent and panic people into voting for Trump to save their SS. Those who repeat it are just as bad.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Be that as it may, surely you agree that it's coherent? You don't have any trouble whatsoever understanding what he's claiming that Biden did, do you?

(To be clear, I'm not saying that makes it all right! Just that captcrisis and Martinned's specific accusation here is off base.)

[Martinned2]

I know what he meant because I'm working backwards from the assumption that Trump is a racist shit. That way I can piece it together. But the quote as such is a rambling incoherent mess.

[Frank Drackman]

So why did they drop him like a scalded Cat? (See what I did there?) and it wasn’t right away, took almost a month

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey, remember a few years ago when all of our Betters were gonna Build Back Better after the Great Reset?

How'd that work out? Speaking of our Betters, I guess Rev. can officially be listed as MIA.

Can't say that I care that much.

[Nelson]

My area has had almost nonstop infrastructure projects. Philly is building a huge park over I-95 to connect a tiny strip of poorly-used land between the highway and the river (Penn's Landing) to the rest of the city. The potential for commercial growth on the riverfront is huge. My town has a dangerous on/off merge for I-95 (70 accidents a month) that is finally being redesigned with flyover ramps to make it safer. Maryland has similar safety-enhancong projects down I-95 and New Jersey made needed repairs on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. And that's just in my region.

And I agree on Rev. He was a grey box for me and people's responses made me glad for it every day. He won't be missed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Three Libertarian Congressional candidates are excluded from the Iowa ballot because the party held its precinct and county conventions on the same day, instead of waiting an extra day.

This was based on a challenge from Republicans.

So…explain again how the only reason for ballot access restrictions is to avoid ballot clutter?

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/11/libertarians-lose-iowa-supreme-court-appeal-wont-be-on-iowa-ballots-2024-election/75167333007/

[Krayt]

The reason for paperwork is to reduce clutter (assuming it is even actually a problem. I naively assume government only takes action to address actual problems, which, BTW, are not supposed to include "getting in the way of me and my cronies").

But the paperwork is not a hoop of flaming daggers to jump through so you can reduce clutter via casualties.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's not pretend excuses are reasons. The paperwork actually IS a hoop of flaming daggers. That the favored parties get to bypass if they feel like it.

[shawn_dude]

Republicans are using ballot shenanigans to boost their chances in elections. Libertarians are likely to vote for Republicans if there is no libertarian candidate to vote for (and often enough, even if there is.)

So yeah, this tactical sense on the part of the GOP both because it helps them and because the people it hurts most are still too worried about pwning the libs to care.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You realize that *both* parties do this ballot-exclusion stuff, right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Huntley & Brinkley are gone. ABC News is just a legacy of past glory and why should they be entitled to more White House access than Larry, Moe, & Curley?

January 6th has established the concept of Trespass in Congress -- a Republican Speaker of the House could decree that anyone working for ABC be arrested if on Capitol Hill.

Why not?

Journalists have no more constitutional right to be there than anyone else.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Journalists were supposed to be the public's guard against the tyranny of the State. That's why the Press had such an elevated status in our constitution.

What we have today is what happens when journalists become journolisters and tools of the State. We're one generation away from Democrat Tyranny and all the poverty, misery, and mass murdering that history has shown comes with being governed by the Left.

[Mr. Bumble]

Huntley & Brinkley were on NBC.

[Martinned2]

Do you know who complain about the refs? LOSERS!

[Frank Drackman]

You're obviously no nothing about sports, there are Shitty Refs all the time, the winners are just as happy when they get shit-canned as the losers, because they could be on the wrong end of their fuck-up-ed-ness

[David Nieporent]

a Republican Speaker of the House could decree that anyone working for ABC be arrested if on Capitol Hill.

Why, so can I, or so can any man. Fortunately, though, "decreeing" things doesn't make them so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anyone notice how the charade of a purported debate didn't change anyone's mind?

The undecided are still undecided.

[Martinned2]

I don't think anyone was expecting the debate to change your mind...

[Mr. Bumble]

...or anyone else's.

[Martinned2]

Nobody who cares enough about politics to watch a debate is going to change their mind because of it, that's true. But it might have indirect effects, based on how the debate is discussed in the media and at the proverbial coffee machine. Even people like me, who didn't watch the debate, will have heard by now how badly Trump tanked.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you also hear about Harris' continued lying during the debate?

[Martinned2]

That only happened in your partisan fever dreams.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you know this because you didn't watch the debates but got your information from the MSM, right?

[Martinned2]

I get my information from a wide range of reliable sources. I also get information from watching a bunch of highly partisan Trumpists trying to convince me he won the debate, and failing at it.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Reliable Sources" like Mr. Potato Head on CNN?

[Martinned2]

I haven't watched CNN in years.

[Frank Drackman]

He's more like Humpty Dumpty

[David Nieporent]

I don’t think anyone was expecting the debate to change your mind…

His what, now?

[ThePublius]

That may not be entirely so. A Reuter's poll showed that after the debate, of 10 undecideds, 6 went for Trump, 3 for Harris, and one remained undecided.

[Martinned2]

That sounds like a focus group, not a poll.

[SimonP]

Reuters "polled" a group of 10 people. 8 white people, 2 Black; 4 women, 6 men.

Does Trump winning a red state 60/40 feel like it deserves a victory lap?

[Life of Brian]

Where'd you get "red state" from? The article mentions FL, NV, and CA.

And you may have overlooked a few of Reuters' words about the sample: "Four of the voters are women and six are men; eight are white and two are Black. All have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates in the past."

Seems to comport well with the overall gut check that Reuters isn't going to try to deliberately engineer a pro-Trump result.

[SimonP]

Where’d you get “red state” from?

From the fact that the group's demographics track typical red state demographics. It's not exactly a surprise when you poll a mostly-white group of men and women and find that a majority of them like Trump. That's how white people have consistently voted for the past two presidential cycles.

All have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates in the past.

So here's a good example of how two people can read the same thing and draw different conclusions.

I read this statement as saying just what it says: "all have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates in the past." I don't know how long ago that past was; I don't know if that past includes cases like Obama-Trump votes or Clinton-Bush votes; I don't know if we're talking about people who might be willing to cross party lines for some elections but tend to stick to their "home" parties for big ones. It is, in other words, the sort of statement that you make in order to deflect criticism while obscuring relevant detail.

But you're easily led by the nose, so of course you assume that the statement must be talking about people who have voted for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in relatively recent election cycles. And I know that you assume this because you treat it as self-evidently relevant.

Seems to comport well with the overall gut check that Reuters isn’t going to try to deliberately engineer a pro-Trump result.

In other words: "This aligns with my priors and so I accept it without question."

[Life of Brian]

Wow, that sure was a bit stream of words to deflect from you reading "8 white and 2 black" and writing "red state." Talk about priors.

But keep going: your theory that Reuters is somehow all of a sudden in the tank for Trump is based on what, exactly?

[SimonP]

Wow, that sure was a bit stream of words to deflect from you reading “8 white and 2 black” and writing “red state.” Talk about priors.

Of course, the reason you respond this way is that, if you were to validly point out that the average red state is more racially diverse than the group that Reuters interviewed, it would hurt your overall point. You'd be admitting that the group is even more white than reliably-red states. So of course the fact that the group breaks 6/4 in favor of Trump is no surprise at all.

But keep going: your theory that Reuters is somehow all of a sudden in the tank for Trump is based on what, exactly?

I didn't say that, and I don't believe that to be the case. I just said that Reuters has presented us with a group of ten people that are not representative of the voting public, and described them in a notably obfuscatory way. Why they did that, I couldn't speculate; you're the conspiracist here.

[Bwaaah]

Keep going. SimonP finds your argument compelling.

[bernard11]

And you may have overlooked a few of Reuters’ words about the sample:

And Reuters' may have overlooked a few things as well. There is no reason in the world to think this was anything like a random sample. As Martinned suggests, calling this a poll, rather than a focus group of some kind, is silly. Indeed, the article says they interviewed the participants, not that they polled them. They don't even bother to tell us how the individuals were selected.

[Commenter_XY]

DE2….Ok, I’ll bite. How does that work, in practice?

What, the Speaker says to the Sargeant at Arms…”Yo, go arrest that ABC cretin and toss their lying ass into the Capitol building jail cell to whenever”?

And the SaA responds, “You got it, Mr. Speaker. Toss their lying ABC ass into our clink until whenever.”

(was meant in response to DE2 above)

I don’t think that scenario is particularly realistic with the current Speaker.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yes, he's too busy passing Democrat priorities.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The current Speaker may not remain Speaker.

And yes, it would be "arrest that trespasser for trespassing."
Perfectly legal, perfectly Constitutional, at least according to Federal Judges in DC.

[Commenter_XY]

I asked you how that works in practice, DE2. Do you know?

Make it easy for you: Pretend Creulla de Pelosi is Speaker once again. How does Speaker Cruella do that?

I don't think your scenario is realistic with Cruella as Speaker, either.

[David Nieporent]

Why on earth do you think Dr. Ed would know how something worked in practice? (To be fair, since he made this up entirely, he's the only one who could know how it works in his head.)

[Commenter_XY]

David, I believe in second chances. What can I tell you? 🙂

[Dr. Ed 2]

The most dangerous lie is that Jan 6th was the worst assault since the Civil War.

What about the 1960s when the 101st Airborne were bunking in the White House basement?

What about the various times bombs went bang inside the capitol?

What about the time the Puerto Rican Separatists SHOT CONGRESSMEN ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, nearly killing one.

What about Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy?

What about 9-11 when Flight 93 was headed to destroy the Capitol?
If it had taken off on time, it probably would have reduced the Capitol to a pile of ashes — but 1-7 was worse?!?

This lie is dangerous.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the several times Democratic allies have broken into the chambers to try to stop proceedings, which are probably more analogous to J-6 than any actual attempt to kill people.

[apedad]

The issue is not whether it was the "worst" assault; the issue is that it happened during the LAST ELECTION, i.e., recent history and people today are right to ask, "How could that have happened and how can we prevent it from happening again."

And I'm glad you acknowledge that it was an assault.

And also, it's poor form to rank tragedies and disasters.

[Michael P]

If the point is that it isn’t the worst assault, leftists should stop arguing that it is. Especially if it's poor form to rank them.

[Martinned2]

Are they?

[Michael P]

Yes. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/harris-says-january-6-was-worst-attack-on-democracy-since-civil-war/ar-AA1qm9yI

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/democrats-voting-rights-filibuster/618964/ if you want the supposedly-not-a-vegetable using the same line.

[Martinned2]

Wow, you've convinced me. They definitely said what Ed said they said.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Far be it from me to get in the way of a good Dr. Ed slagging, but… that does seem like a fair characterization of what Harris said?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Apedad, if you really were Federal law enforcement, you KNOW that tragedies and disasters are rated so as to evaluate future risks.

While a hurricane could theoretically go up the Penobscot River and hit Bangor, Maine -- Miami and New Orleans are considered at higher risk....

I acknowledge that Jan 6 was an assault I'm just not saying by WHOM... I think it was like a dozen different arson investigators trying to catch perps in a sting -- on the same patch of woods, in a drought. And a dozen little fires quickly become one big one that isn't so easy to put out...

And the fact that it happened after BLM's Summer of Fun is more relevant than anything else -- and why does no one count the cops (etc) injured during that?!?

[apedad]

Disasters are rated for technical reasons (crowd size, building damage, security controls, etc.) but not for moral reasons, i.e., which was worse which YOU addressed.

[Moderation4ever]

Everything you mention is important, but also evades the point. Most of what you mentioned were attacks addressed at individuals or buildings while January 6th was directly aimed at our democracy and an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. This has not happened since the American Civil War. So, your list is not really equivalent events and statement about January 6th holds.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Aimed at our democracy"?!?

Trying to MURDER RANDOM CONGRESSMEN isn't?

What is more likely to terrify people into resigning from Congress -- some windows getting broken and having their beer stolen -- or seeing their colleagues murdered????

Be serious,

It's just a building -- they have a replacement at Mount Weather...

[Martinned2]

You used the word "random" right there. In all caps even.

I don't think the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords was necessarily random, because the killer was clearly a nutcase with a well-established adherence to all sorts of right-wing conspiracy theories. But it wasn't an attempt to interfere with the functioning of the US government either.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think Dr. Ed is referring to this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_United_States_Capitol_shooting

[Noscitur a sociis]

an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. This has not happened since the American Civil War.

In what way was the civil war an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

There was a foiled plot to prevent Lincoln from assuming the Presidency. Among many other sources, it was reviewed in detail in the Amar & Amar amicus brief in Trump v Anderson.

[David Nieporent]

In addition to that, of course, is that it was an attempt to prevent the winner of the presidential election from assuming the presidency over half of the country.

Democracy inherently requires that losers of elections accept the legitimacy of those elections. (By that I don't mean the factual question of who won — that wasn't in dispute — but the right of the winners to govern.)

[David Nieporent]

The most dangerous lie is that Jan 6th was the worst assault since the Civil War.

That is not what was said. What was said was that it was the worst assault on our democracy since the Civil War. There have been terrible attacks on our country — 9/11, Pearl Harbor — but those were not attacks on our democracy. They were not attempts to subvert the government.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court of Missouri has ordered the Secretary of State to certify to local election authorities that Amendment 3 to the State Constitution (which would protect a right to abortion prior to fetal viability) be placed on the November 5, 2024, general election ballot and shall take all steps necessary to ensure that it is on said ballot. https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/SC100742%20-Coleman%20v.%20Ashcroft%20%20%209-10-24_FINAL.pdf?courtCode=SC&di=201805

That order reversed a Circuit Court ruling by Rush Limbaugh's cousin which had ordered the referendum removed from the ballot. https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/JUDGMENT.PDF?courtCode=19&di=3287306

[not guilty]

Missouri is not the only state where abortion rights opponents have fought tooth and claw to keep abortion related referenda from the voting public. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/09/missouri-officials-tried-everything-to-keep-abortion-off-the-ballot-they-just-lost/

Despite all the yap and yammer by the blastocystophiles, returning control of abortion to the states was never the true objective. Busybodies’ control of other folks’ bodies was and is.

[hobie]

Lawfare! amirite?

[Mr. Bumble]

Federalism.

[Martinned2]

Instead of one big never-ending abortion fight, there are now 50+ local abortion fights that never end.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I am personally fine with whatever the people of MO decide for themselves. And, I am glad this is being addressed by the people within the States across the country, through our constitutionally defined processes. Abortion won't be the politically painful, divisive issue it once was. That is good for the country, to not have this issue tearing away at us.

Just as Justice Alito predicted would happen in his opinion in Dobbs.

[Martinned2]

Abortion won’t be the politically painful, divisive issue it once was.

What is it about the last two years that makes you confident in that prediction?

[Commenter_XY]

M2, the world did not end, despite Dobbs. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, nothing changed at all wrt abortion restrictions or access. For the remainder, the people within the states are deciding the question, following a constitutionally defined process (their state constitutions). This is exactly what Justice Alito said would happen.

Why am I so confident? It is happening right in front of our eyes. Ballot questions are being voted on by the electorate in several states. When the people decide things for themselves, as they are doing now, they are more accepting of result, and of the correct process to use to change it.

[not guilty]

"Why am I so confident? It is happening right in front of our eyes. Ballot questions are being voted on by the electorate in several states. When the people decide things for themselves, as they are doing now, they are more accepting of result, and of the correct process to use to change it."

Proponents of abortion rights are promoting ballot referenda in the states, while abortion opponents are fighting vigorously to exclude these questions from the ballot. It's all about who will control pregnant women's bodies.

Prohibiting abortion, whether by lawful means or otherwise, has become Samuel Taylor Coleridge's albatross around the neck of the Republican Party.

[bernard11]

Proponents of abortion rights are promoting ballot referenda in the states, while abortion opponents are fighting vigorously to exclude these questions from the ballot.

IOW, all that talk about wanting to return it to the states is a bunch of lies. If abortion opponents wanted it decided at the state level why would they oppose even having referenda?

Does the right have an honest bone in its body?

[Commenter_XY]

Strange, I thought that talk (or debate, if you will) on a controversial issue of the day like abortion, within a constitutionally defined process (like voting), was a healthy development. People express their viewpoints, they have a vigorous debate, and then the electorate decides. The behavior NG and you describe sounds pretty normal to me.

The matter was decided, bernard11; abortion restrictions will now be decided by the people themselves (who have to live with the restriction). That is not bad. Remember: Their body, their choice.

The choice made in NY wrt abortion restrictions can be different than the choice made in MT. That is Federalism at work.

I repeat: For the majority of Americans, nothing changed wrt abortion access or restrictions in the wake of Dobbs.

[bernard11]

Strange, I thought that talk (or debate, if you will) on a controversial issue of the day like abortion, within a constitutionally defined process (like voting), was a healthy development.

You miss my point. But before I even get to that let me point out that it is often a poor idea to put individual rights to a vote. So the assumption that that is the best way to approach the abortion issue is not as automatically correct as you assume.

But let that slide, and say we take your position on the importance of having it decided by debate and vote. Get this through your head:

Abortion opponents are not trying to win these votes. They are trying to stop them.

IOW, they are not interested in knowing what the will of the people is. They are afraid of finding out. So your whole idea falls apart.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, I understand all of that.

My response: Call their bluff, and find out the will of the people. That is the only response, to me. And the MO Supreme Court did just that.....The onus is on the People to decide. The question is on the ballot.

You seem to think I do not want people within the states to decide the restrictions they want to live with. Quite the opposite. I absolutely want the people to affirmatively vote, within their state constitution defined process, if that is what they want. That is the elegance of Dobbs, to me. The people of MO will decide for themselves the parameters of their state defined abortion rights. I applaud this, it is completely consistent with 9A and 10A; MO is deciding what this means.

[OtisAH]

The world didn’t end in 1973 either, dipshit.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, it did for about 60 million who never got a chance to experience it.

[Frank Drackman]

mostly Afro-Amurican BTW, and 1/2 of those would have had Vaginas and Uteri, and eventually Feti of their own, so the number of missing peoples is more like 90 million, most of them Afro-Amurican BTW, heck, if it wasn't for Roe v Wade (The Reverend) Al Sharpton would have been the first Black (and man, is he Black) POTUS in 2005

[Nelson]

"When the people decide things for themselves, as they are doing now, they are more accepting of result"

Under Roe, each person got to decide for themselves, which made everyone in the situation much happier than now, but made complete strangers very angry.

Now the State gets to decide for them, which no one likes (unless you're one of the angry strangers).

Additionally, given the efforts of Republicans to stop all the ballot initiatives, they aren't accepting what the people are deciding for themselves. Did they really think that if it went to the states that people would suddenly embrace government coercion?

Republicans decided abortion was the hill they were going to die on and they are getting it in spades.

Hopefully they reap what they sowed and the GOP is forced to go back to being a party that supports individual liberty and rejects minority moralistic culture wars.

If you don't like how someone else lives their life, tough. Your opinion doesn't (and shouldn't) matter. Whether gay marriage or transgender adults or abortion or gay adoption or drag queens, your disgust and condemnation is (and should be) irrelevant. You live your life and let others live theirs.

That, and a return to fiscal responsibility, would make the GOP unstoppable.

[Commenter_XY]

Under Roe, nine unelected Justices made a decision. That was the problem.

[Sarcastr0]

This is how rights jurisprudence is supposed to work.

You can argue abortion or privacy aren't rights, but Justices deciding you can't make laws regulating certain things is part of their job.

[Riva]

No, in our constitutional republic it is not the job of the justices of the Supreme Court to make up new constitutional rights just because they may favor a particular policy. You want to amend the constitution? go for it but you’ll have to do it by the proper constitutional amendment process, not by judicial fiat.

[Sarcastr0]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[not guilty]

"No, in our constitutional republic it is not the job of the justices of the Supreme Court to make up new constitutional rights just because they may favor a particular policy. You want to amend the constitution? go for it but you’ll have to do it by the proper constitutional amendment process, not by judicial fiat."

The irony of that comment coming from a defender of SCOTUS creating presidential immunity from criminal prosecution from whole judicial cloth is breathtaking.

[Riva]

The “whole judicial cloth” thing would play better without the executive vesting clause and 200 plus years of separation of powers precedent. The only thing unprecedented in the matter was the abusive Biden Harris lawfare that brought the immunity case to the Supreme Court.

[Sarcastr0]

'separation of powers precedent'

I really hope you haven't been to law school.

[Riva]

And Sarcastr0, you should be careful if you want to give the judiciary such power, one could just as well argue, and more convincingly in fact, that the unborn fetus, especially after viability, has a better claim to a right to life under the 9th amendment than a mother has to snuff out its life. Now you’ve got me thinking, this may be the way to go.

[Riva]

Not sure I follow you Sarcastr0, have you never hear of the separation of powers? Or do you not know what precedent means? You’ve already in over your head with the 9th amendment. You should go play and let the adults discuss things.

[shawn_dude]

" the world did not end"

It also did not "end" when Roe was decided. The literal end of the world is pretty much the highest possible limbo bar to set under which any tragedy can easily pass.

Figuratively, many women feel their worlds have "ended" as they've been forced to carry dead or dying babies through to sepsis risking their own lives for the religious comfort of people who have no stake in their welfare.

[bernard11]

the world did not end, despite Dobbs.

Not for you, anyway. Is the world possibly ending the only negative effect we should consider?

[hobie]

Oh it's going to be painful alright...come Nov 5th

[Commenter_XY]

hobie, it isn't about one election. That was my point. It is about removing abortion as a political canker sore on the body politic. That is precisely the outcome that Justice Alito predicted.

[Martinned2]

It's just not what has been happening, or will happen. In this election cycle the left will win a lot of abortion votes, and then in the next election cycle the Christian right will try again, and in between they will push for more conservative judges (or, as the case may be, "judges"). And so on and so forth. As long as one of the major parties in the US is subservient to the conservative Christians to the point that even Trump, who is about as religious as I am and who normally doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks about anything, feels the need to kowtow to them, this will never end.

[Commenter_XY]

M2, it is now 2024, Dobbs was decided in 2022. I'd say it takes a decade for the body politic to sort out what they actually want. It is not an overnight process, because elections are happening all the time in America. The people will make tweaks and changes along the way. That seems normal, to me.

Ask me in 2032 whether abortion as an issue has anything like the divisiveness it had circa 1972-2022. It won't. The people within the states will have sorted it out by then.

[Martinned2]

I will take that bet. In 2032 any state that has abortion restrictions that are tougher than Roe/Casey will still be arguing about it.

[Commenter_XY]

M2, hypothetically, if 45 states have 'resolved' the issue by 2032, and abortion is not a political canker sore on their body politic, and only 5 states are still duking out abortion restrictions at the ballot box, I am fine with that.

I'd call that a huge victory for the country. Not a fail, in the slightest.

[Nelson]

"Ask me in 2032 whether abortion as an issue has anything like the divisiveness it had circa 1972-2022. It won’t."

Of course it will. The same people who made it a divisive issue in the first place keep losing when it's put to a vote in the states.

Do you really think the side that manufactured 50 years of cancerous political discord will just stop after they lose in all 50 states? Be honest.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I disagree. There will always be a contingent on the extremes (maybe 30% of the electorate in total, split evenly at extremes) that will agitate for their preferred choice (no abortion ever vs abortion anytime). That has always been the case.

After a few election cycles (3-4), the people arrive at a consensus. A lot of this is trial and error. Guess what? That is how it has been done since 1789.

[Josh R]

What will the consensus be in 2032?

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, if I knew that answer, I'd make trillions of dollars. My crystal ball is cloudy, at best.

I do think in very general terms, we will see most of the country coalescing around some abortion restrictions. Examples: I reasonably foresee a ~15 week limit (meaning, you can go get an abortion if you want, no questions asked up to ~15 weeks). That is very similar to Europe and Asia. After that, life of mother only, or severe genetic abnormality that will result in death of child (like trisomy 16, 18; NOT trisomy 21). I foresee parental notification (with a judicial bypass). Beyond this, what is there really?

I think from a scientific perspective, it may be possible in the not so distant future to transplant a living embryo from a human to a 'artificial uterus' (ala Aldous Huxley). That might moot the question of abortion, entirely. Can't discount that.

[shawn_dude]

63% of Americans support Abortion in "all or most cases."

The "body politic" had already figured this out. Making us fight over this again was all about political opportunism and a complete disregard for the high level of political consensus over abortion that existed at the time.

[Commenter_XY]

Nobody ever promised that the exercise of democracy within a Federal Republic framework would be neat and orderly. Quite the opposite, when you read what Founders actually said.

Yet, it works (since 1789).

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem here is that when you do a deep dive, and ask those people detailed questions, you find that by "all or most cases" those people actually by that that they favor 1st trimester elective abortion, and medically necessary abortions after the 1st trimester. NOT elective abortion end to end!

America’s Abortion Quandary

"A majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but many are open to restrictions; many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances"

Here are the actual numbers:

2% no answer
19% Legal in all cases, no exceptions.
6% Legal in all cases, but there are some exceptions. (Yeah, people unclear about what "all" means.)
36% Legal in most cases

So, adding up "no exceptions", "a few exceptions", and "plenty of exceptions", you get 61%

Then you've got

27% Illegal in most cases
2% illegal all cases, with exceptions. (Yeah, again, people who don't know what "all" means.)
8% Illegal in all cases, no exceptions.

So, the truth is, you've got 8% who want it absolutely banned, 19% who want it absolutely legal, and 71% who want some sort of restrictions.

So, what sort of restrictions?

You've got a clear majority favoring parental notification.

You've got strong support for abortion being legal in cases of medical necessity, but this might drop if you get into the weeds of what really qualifies as "medical necessity".

You've got strong support for abortion in cases of rape. But not broken down by trimester, significantly.

And you've got iffy support for abortion if the baby is likely to have severe disabilities.

A clear majority say that the stage of pregnancy should matter in determining if abortion is legal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Page 8 is where you hit the real meat.

Support for elective abortion being legal absolutely collapses at the end of the 1st trimester.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah abortion sure is out of our politics!

Alito is so partisan he loses majorities in this conservative Court because he won’t budge his personal takes. He may not be the height of wisdom.

[hobie]

Slavery, integration, miscegenation, gay intercourse, travel, privacy, bodily autonomy. If these universal rights are left to the states, then we'd have the confederacy all over again. As it stands, we have a new confederacy with women as the chattel. If you want to be part of a Republic, there needs to be fundamental rights across the states. Otherwise a black man could take a wrong turn into Arkansas and end up enslaved, or a pregnant woman ends up having complications in Florida

[Martinned2]

Fun rhetoric aside, there is of course an interesting question here about what is and isn't a fundamental right. There is no right to abortion in the ECHR (although occasionally the Polish do get in trouble), and most European countries don't have a constitutional right to abortion. They just have a statute that governs it.

The French recently adopted a constitutional right to abortion, but I think that's better thought of as a political manoeuvre ahead of the elections. The AP tells me that that makes France the only country in the world with an explicit right to abortion in its constitution: https://apnews.com/article/france-abortion-right-constitution-parliament-vote-versailles-d6ce4fb3a6a7288033f58235b65f570e

[Nelson]

"It is about removing abortion as a political canker sore on the body politic."

Do you really think, as more and more states put abortion on the ballot and anti-abortionists keep losing, that they'll say, "Oh, well. The people have spoken and we lost. Let's all just go home.".

The only way that abortion will ever stop being an issue is if everyone accepts absolute restrictions. Anything less and the anti-abortionists will keep it in the political discourse, praying (literally) for the day when people will decide that they shouldn't make their own decisions. Which will never happen.

One side's position is "I want to be left alone to make my own decisions" and one side's is "I will force you to do what I want". Do you honestly believe that the coercive side will ever stop?

[Commenter_XY]

I am leery about 'only' way, or 'always' or 'never'. It generally isn't the case.

In the scenario you posit, the anti-abortion adherents have had months, if not years to persuade the electorate. And then lost the vote. And...? So they try again, using a constitutionally defined process, to persuade the electorate to their view. That is how democracy works, Nelson.

Why is this problematic?

[not guilty]

Why is leaving abortion rights to plebiscites or the whims of state legislators problematic? As Justice Robert Jackson opined in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

For half a century the freedom to decide whether to bear or beget offspring was part of the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Then within a few years after Mitch McConnell started playing Calvinball with Supreme Court nominations before Antonin Scalia's body was cold, that constitutional liberty was cruelly snuffed out by six black robed wardheelers.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), is every bit as grotesque an infringement of individual liberty as Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Each glorifies state power at the expense of personal autonomy.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm sorry, but our laws are not frozen in amber, are they?

For the 150 years prior to Roe, the country did Ok without SCOTUS involvement. Then SCOTUS involved themselves and made a mess of it, with specious legal reasoning (RBG agrees with me, lol). SCOTUS has reconsidered their rationale, and discarded it.

I really like the Jackson quote; not at all being sarcastic - it is a great quote. It is a wonderful statement on the importance of 'federal humility', and the rights of the people (to me).

We do not agree on equivalence of Dobbs to Buck v Bell.

[not guilty]

Dobbs and Buck differ in degree, but not in kind. Let me illustrate with a hypothetical.

The nut graf of Dobbs is:

A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a "strong presumption of validity." . . . It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. . . . These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, . . . the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability. . . .

142 S.Ct. 2228, 2284 (2022) (citations omitted).

That rational basis analysis is an invitation to mischief. Suppose out hypothetical state legislature were to require, on pain of criminal penalties, that no person under the age of 21 shall give birth. (FWIW, that is less restrictive of liberty than what Carrie Buck was subjected to.) The legislature could rationally believe that adult women's bodies are better suited to endure pregnancy and childbirth than younger females. The legislature could rationally believe that the law would promote chastity among immature females. The legislature could rationally believe that girls (and boys, for that matter) who avoid becoming parents are more likely to stay in school to further their education, thus becoming more employable and less likely to support themselves through illegal activity. The legislature could rationally believe that teen mothers and their offspring are more likely to require public assistance than women over 21.

"[A} State has a valid interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its programs. It may legitimately attempt to limit its expenditures, whether for public assistance, public education, or any other program." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 633 (1969).

If rational basis is the test, the statute that I hypothesize would be hunky-dory.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I think I'd like to see a state legislature try to pass that out of committee = Suppose out hypothetical state legislature were to require, on pain of criminal penalties, that no person under the age of 21 shall give birth.

But in this hypothetical, suppose a 20-year woman is raped, and chooses to keep the child. State is in a bind.

Q: What decision gave us 'rational basis review'

[not guilty]

"But in this hypothetical, suppose a 20-year woman is raped, and chooses to keep the child. State is in a bind."

Not really. In my hypothetical the State arrogates to itself the decision of who should or should not give birth, as the Commonwealth of Virginia did for Carrie Buck and as numerous states have now done in the wake of Dobbs. The 20 year old woman could avoid incarceration by aborting or by traveling to another state to give birth.

[not guilty]

A trial judge in North Dakota has ruled that based on the State Constitution, that state's abortion ban is unconstitutionally void for vagueness and that pregnant women in North Dakota have a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability exists under the enumerated and unenumerated interests protected by the North Dakota Constitution for all North Dakota individuals, including women -- specifically, but not necessarily limited to, the interests in life, liberty, safety and happiness enumerated in Article I, section 1 of the North Dakota Constitution. https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ND-RRWC-v-Wrigley-SJ.pdf#:~:text=09-12-2024%2010-58-15%20AM.%20STATE%20OF%20NORTH

I especially like the judge's reasoning at ¶50:

And make no mistake: If the government is permitted near-unlimited power to tell women when they are prohibited from having an abortion, the government also has the same near-unlimited power to tell women when they must have an abortion. The Court recognizes that the laws at issue in this case do not go there. However, in determining whether certain laws infringe on North Dakotan's liberty interest in procreative autonomy, the Court is ever mindful in recognizing that the government can and often will use its power both ways. In other words, if the government can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term where it would not otherwise be the woman's choice, it is not farfetched to assume the government can then also force a woman to have an abortion where it would not otherwise be the woman's choice.

[Commenter_XY]

State judge interprets state law. Seems unremarkable. 😉

But I also agree with the inverse reasoning he mentions. That is what governments do...push the envelope of scope of authority.

[SimonP]

Abortion won’t be the politically painful, divisive issue it once was. That is good for the country, to not have this issue tearing away at us.

It's almost like you're not paying attention.

But here's the question. What you've said about abortion rights could also be said of any number of constitutional rights. Why shouldn't states decide gun rights, through their democratic process? Why shouldn't they decide who gets to get married, and to whom? Why shouldn't states get to decide for themselves whether they want to pursue affirmative action as official policy?

This talking point about returning abortion to the states falls apart with the slightest bit of scrutiny. Why should our fundamental rights and freedoms depend on where in the country we should happen to be? The Supreme Court's holding in Dobbs wasn't really about returning anything to be decided at the state level. It was about deciding that certain fundamental rights aren't, in fact, protected by the U.S. Constitution. It wasn't a decision about defusing a contentious political issue. It was a decision about how women's rights to bodily autonomy isn't sufficiently important, as a constitutional matter, for those rights to be uniform throughout the country.

That's what you have to grapple with.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

“Everybody get out of our bedrooms… just leave your wallets b/c you gotta pay for everything we do in here”

— The Modern Left

“You can only shit in 1 gal of water, and your showers cant be more than 1.2gpm flowrate”

“You have to allow your children to shower with adults of the opposite sex or it’s illegal discrimination”

“You have to let us teach your children to give blowjobs and that they are inherently evil if they are White”

"Parents have no right to stop us from forcing your child to march in a Gay Pride Parade!"

— Also The Modern Left

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anyone remember Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction"?

The local CBS stations got held liable for that.

So why not hold the local ABC stations liable for this?

[not guilty]

Based on what regulation(s), Dr. Ed 2?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Use of the public airwaves in the public interest.

That's also what they technically used with Jacksons boob.

[Krayt]

I hate to say this, but politicians love to use the argument that, since airwaves are (fairly) finite, they don't get the honor of being fully free speech, unlike newspapers and so on.

"We want to force stations with a highly profitable 3 hour Rush block to have a 3 hour low profit left wing block instead of some right wing also-rans that are still more profitable than them."

This didn't happen, but not for lack of trying. The use of broadcast licensing to threaten is as old as radio. As they control regularly renewable licenses, this helped give rise to the term, "regulation by raised eyebrow", where such may just be held up, so cows the stations into compliance.

Whether this is horrible or cool depends on whose cat is being eaten.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Based on what regulation(s), Dr. Ed 2?"

The same one they used against Jackson.

The one against exposing boobs on TV.

[not guilty]

What local ABC stations have exposed women's breasts, TIP?

[OtisAH]

I think he meant showing Convicted Felon Donald Trump on live television? I have to agree, that’s pretty profane.

[Martinned2]

I think most non-Trumpists would agree that that Janet Jackson situation was bullshit, so I'm not entirely sure who you're trying to convince.

[Krayt]

What was bullshit? That it was a malfunction? Yes, that was bullshit. The hyperbolic overreaction? That was BS, too. The US has mental problems. In Europe, most women don’t even own bikini tops. I’ve seen plays on TV on Sunday afternoons with full frontal of women and men, and I don’t mean cable TV.

[Martinned2]

All of that.

(Except this bit. On that you might have been misinformed. "In Europe, most women don’t even own bikini tops.")

[Krayt]

A woman in the Netherlands told me that in those terms, and her friend agreed.

The UK doesn't count as Europe as far as beaches go. Most beaches are even nude if you walk a mile.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Jesus. Get a passport.

Americans sure say some funny things...

[apedad]

I think we can all agree that we would NOT want to see a Trump costumer malfunction like Janet's.

Although the photos of the hair blowing in the wind and the baldness are hilarious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

i can think of better breasts to expose.

[Martinned2]

But can you think of a bigger boob?

[Nelson]

*rimshot*

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I can. Quite easily, M2. 🙂

[John F. Carr]

CBS and its stations won in the end because the FCC had not previously enforced indecency rules under similar circumstances. It cost a lot of legal fees. Next time, if there is a next time, they will be on notice that a half a second of nipple is all it takes.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/wardrobe-malfunction-case-finally-ends/

[hobie]

Let's see so far today Ed's gotten after Kamala for sex and Janet for sex. I'm waiting for Taylor Swift. And not so long ago was Fanni's sex life.

You know, Ed? You seem to have a pathological problem with female sexuality. How come? Looks like females are just not your cup of tea

[shawn_dude]

That's not a path FOX News wants us to go down...

[Michael P]

https://open.substack.com/pub/rajivsethi/p/a-failed-attempt-at-prediction-market makes an interesting argument that most of the post-debate swings seen in at least one prediction market were a now-failed attempt to manipulate the market to make money from a derivative about the prediction market itself.

[Martinned2]

Yes, it turned out that the underlying prediction market had too much liquidity to be moved even for the limited period that they needed to make a profit on the derivative market.

[Krayt]

That was always the problem. Prediction markets are eerily accurate, but as soon as people realized they were a thing, obviously would soon become a target for manipulation and cease to have value.

See also innumerable web sites with trolling operations. Historically, news capture to slant and lead the readers is a thing. This should not be surprising.

Trolls, polls (compare public vs. “internal polls” the parties both do to get the actual state of reality. In 2016 I knew something was up when, the day before the election, Clinton, Trump, and other high officials were all campaiging in Michigan, one of the least purple states likely to go red. They had accurate internal polling severed from leading manipulation questions of public release polling.)

[not guilty]

[duplicate comment deleted]

[hobie]

[Mr. Bumble]

Found this on Instapundit and thought I’d pass it on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/nyregion/battery-park-city-beach.html

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Battery Park City is a charming area. I like the library.

[Bwaaah]

That was gone long before the redevelopment of the Hudson River waterfront in Manhattan. The river water was pretty skeevy then.

More recently, the Gansevoort Peninsula was opened (around 12th Street) with a small sandy beach and wading steps into the river. That and miles of recreational space up and down the riverfront (such as Little Island just to the north of the peninsula and the Downtown Boathouse for free kayaking to the south) make for great strolling and activities along the west side of Manhattan.

[Sarcastr0]

Quite the frenzy this morning.

For all the denials and theories and threats, I think we all know why.

[Brett Bellmore]

Chief thing *I'm* enraged about at the moment is the FAA doing the dirty to SpaceX. A two month delay in their flight testing for transparently pretextual reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah of course, Brett. You'd like to talk about anything other Trump coming off like the unraveling racist grandpa he is.

I don't trust your appeals to incredulity, based on SpaceX's posting their grievances as though that's gospel.
Seems like some weak deflection from the issue at hand today, which is unhinged rage-lying is not Presidential, and neither is coming back the next day and swearing to use the Presidency to get revenge.

[hobie]

I wonder, Sarcastr0. I have a wealthy friend who is a MAGA adherent. He has all the same strange obsessions that the rubes here do, so I consider him a barometer of their thinking. Lately he has been obsessed with space travel and aerospace stocks. In particular, he's convinced that Musk will be creating a white-only utopia on the moon and that he needs to get in on that. I don't know where they're getting these marching orders, but it may be that Brett's preoccupation is genuine

[Brett Bellmore]

It couldn't be that there are no marching orders, but instead we're living at an important moment in history, and not blind to it?

" In particular, he’s convinced that Musk will be creating a white-only utopia on the moon and that he needs to get in on that."

Are you sure you're listening closely? Musk is proposing to colonize Mars, not the Moon, and has said precisely nothing about "white-only".

[Nelson]

He didn't claim that Musk said it, he said his friend has become convinced of it

[Brett Bellmore]

And it's sufficiently different from anything Musk has said, that I doubt any Musk fanboy would get it that wrong. But I could easily believe that Hobie's motivated hearing would get it that wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is an open thread, the issue at hand is anything I feel like commenting on. And I am hugely more interested in space than politics, and follow it closely. It's been an obsession of mine since I was a child watching the Apollo program, and got my first pair of glasses and went out that night to see stars (And the Moon as more than a vague blur!) for the first time in my life.

The excuse for the delay is, in fact, pretextual. The interstage, for instance, is going to land in a slightly different location than originally, which does nothing to alter the minute chance that it will hit a fish. They're going to dump a bunch of potable water into a retaining pond, for which they already have a permit. Crap like that.

Imagine if we'd had this sort of politicized bureaucratic nightmare at the dawn of aviation: "We're sorry, Orville, but you changed the color of the lacquer you used on the fabric of the wings, we're going to spend six months investigating how this changes the odds of you hitting a seagull during your test flight. Maybe think twice about what you write in your next letter to the editor, eh?"

In the long run, what SpaceX is doing right now is vastly more important to the future of the human race than the election. Indeed, a good deal of the long term importance of the election is how it influences the bureaucratic environment our conquest of space has to negotiate.

[Sarcastr0]

You commented in response to my post, Brett. My post about the debate.

You can post about whatever you want, but that's just obvious deflection.

I don't have the expertise to evaluate this, so if I wanted an opinion I'd go and read what both sides are saying and hopefully a third party as well.
You didn't do that; you read what one side was saying and got real indignant.

That's your style, which is more about self-validation than reality.

[Stephen Lathrop]

"Our conquest of space!"

Yikes!

[SimonP]

In the long run, what SpaceX is doing right now is vastly more important to the future of the human race than the election.

If you really believe this, then you must have some concern over Musk's management practices and how his political dalliances with kleptocrats threatens this project.

There's nothing wrong with an innovative company taking risks and making gobs of money. It's an American tradition. GE, Ford. Hell, I'd throw in a number of telecom, oil, and banks in there, too. And in a lot of ways SpaceX usually behaves like those companies would.

But if you're concerned about the future of the human race and see SpaceX as part of that future - it's hard to look at the way that Musk manages Twitter and Tesla, and see SpaceX's market dominance in its space, and not be genuinely concerned. Do we really want that guy to have monopolistic power over the space industry? This guy, who Trump wants to put in government?

All I want, in SpaceX, is a C-suite of leaders who are focused on innovation and making money, while remaining largely indifferent to politics. Is that too much to ask?

[Brett Bellmore]

You go to war with the Musk you have, not the Musk you wish you had.

[SimonP]

Oooooor you try to encourage competition in the space so the entire U.S. federal government is not beholden to the whims of a ketamine-fueled, kleptocrat-loving manchild.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can encourage competition all you like, but Musk, for all his faults, appears to be the sort of once in a generation guy you can't just encourage into existence.

I mean, look at BO: Better funded, couple year head start on SpaceX, and they STILL haven't put their first ounce into orbit. I was so hopeful for them, too.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think it is at all established Musk is a once in a generation mind.

You're basically complaining about the mods on his behalf just like Trump.

[SimonP]

You can encourage competition all you like, but Musk, for all his faults, appears to be the sort of once in a generation guy you can’t just encourage into existence.

What a colossally moronic thing to say. I honestly am surprised that you think even more highly of Musk than you do Trump - who can himself do no wrong, in your book.

[Dan Schiavetta]

SpaceX has finally got its act together but it's amazing how bumbling they were trying to do things that NASA got right sixty years ago in the era of punch cards and slide rules.

[Brett Bellmore]

When a complex project doesn't involve some mistakes, engineers get nervous. In fact, if you're not occasionally screwing up, you're not advancing the art; I'd suggest you read To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design It's a very engaging book.

Nasa pulled off some amazing stuff 60 years ago, (On a huge budget!) but they bumbled, too, sometimes big time. Remember Apollo 1? SpaceX's screwups are nothing out of the ordinary, but their successes have been game changing.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Odd that SpaceX couldn't seem to learn from NASA's mistakes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not so odd for something as complex as space launches.

I can identify two clearly avoidable mistakes they made. Early on, they nearly had a booster implode while being transported because they didn't have it properly vented for air transport. I don't think this is something NASA experienced.

The launch pad erosion due to not having a deluge system is a perfectly fair complaint. That was a genuine screw up.

What did you have in mind?

[Mr. Bumble]

"...but their successes have been game changing."
Like Polaris Dawn!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget Apollo 1.

NASA lost a total of 17 people -- 3 + 7 + 7.

SpaceX hasn't lost any -- yet. And Boeing stranded two, and in what shape did their empty capsule arrive home?

Furthermore, NASA was dealing with splashdown somewhere in a square mile (or more) of ocean, and using buoyancy. Space X is landing upright on a landing pad, a wee bit more difficult.

[John F. Carr]

In the 1960s the Ranger program did not successfully return closeup pictures of the moon until the seventh launch.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Denials of what?

[Krayt]

I note this rapid sequence:

Before the debate, Harris is plowing ahead.

Right on it, and immediately afterward, “Harris is stalled!” supposedly driven by actual polling.

Then yesterday, as typified by Drudge — still available! — he’s lost it all. May flee the country. Seize his passport!

3 days, 1 2 3.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you taking Drudge as a barometer of mainstream opinion?

[Krayt]

Just the last bullet point for Drudge. One of many conservative-friendy outlets that got on Trump's shit list.

The first two were mainstream i.e. CNN. The post-Biden/post-convention bump hwas roaring until the debate, then it stalled on and right after. Then the next day, Drudge, and, from what I see around here, other outlets, too.

[shawn_dude]

The last time Trump got so thoroughly pissed on it was in a Moscow hotel and recorded by Russian spies.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Harris can't win. Until the debate, she was unprepared, uninformed, not good in debates. Now we hear that she was "practiced", "coached", "scripted". In other words: competent, prepared, did her homework.

[Martinned2]

You're forgetting about the earrings...

[Dan Schiavetta]

With the electrolytes in her hair gel acting as an antenna. You know how inventive black women are with hair!

[Frank Drackman]

If you had pubic hair on your Hai'd you'd get inventive too.

[Michael P]

Those words are not synonyms. Someone can make an argument without blindly repeating talking points. A seriously prepared person doesn't need to spend her opponent's speaking time on making faces.

Her non-responsive answers showed instead that she was just repeating what she was primed to say without really understanding the specific topics or the underlying arguments either her position or Trump's.

[Krayt]

Don't you hate politicians who don't really understand their topics?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wait, you people are believing she did well?

Are you for real?

[Nelson]

I believe the consensus is that she did fine, but Trump did awful. The "she didn't win the debate, he lost it" scenario.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol no it isn't

[shawn_dude]

This gives Trump too much credit and not enough to Harris. It's possible for both candidates to do poorly (see: Biden.) Harris' facial expressions, her direct, physical approach to Trump to shake his hand, and other non-verbal factors were excellent. She clearly manipulated Trump to set him off on tangents and insane complaints.

[Armchair]

The debate proved one thing to me.

If we want a media that does its job and concretely investigates and reports on abuses by the presidency...we need to elect Trump.

The Media will do that to Trump. They won't to Harris. It will be more of the same coverups.

[Martinned2]

That's amazing logic! "The US needs to elect a president who will do lots of crime so that the media will investigate the crime that the president does."

So far what the US got out of electing a president who does lots of crime is a Supreme Court judgment that says that the president is allowed to do crime. I wouldn't say that's an improvement.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well put.

[Armchair]

That of course isn't the logic.

The logic is, you want a division of responsibilities. You don't want the media and the administration "on the same team"

If Trump, for example, were to undertake actions that would ban Twitter or Facebook...the media would raise holy hell.

But if Harris did the exact same actions, the Media would be quiet, putting out articles that supporter her.

[Martinned2]

The logic is, you want a division of responsibilities. You don’t want the media and the administration “on the same team”

If you can't find Trumpist media in the US, I'm afraid the problem is you, not the media.

[Armchair]

You do have some more neutral media. The NY Post is right in the middle of the ideological scale, for example.

But if "just" the Post reports on something, it can often get ignored or suppressed. If ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN all report on something...it's much harder.

[Martinned2]

The NY Post is right in the middle of the ideological scale, for example.

If you think that the print equivalent of Fox News is "in the middle of the ideological scale", that's a pretty good marker for where you fall on the ideological scale.

[Armchair]

A Paper that tilts right in one of the most liberal cities in America is basically centrist.

[Martinned2]

Even the minor premise of that argument is wrong. The city that elected Michael Bloomberg and Eric Adams as mayor is not one of the most liberal cities in the US.

[Ska]

2020 presidential election votes by country clearly show NYC is heavily Democrat supporting. Bloomberg and Adams have nothing to do with it, that’s cherry picking. I could also point out that DeBlasio, hated by most, won reelection. NYC is absolutely one of the most liberal (in the US sense of party support) in the US.

Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx are 80-90% Democrat voting. Queens is 70-80%. Staten Island, the least populated city county by multiples of two or three depending on your comparative borough, is the only Republican leaning borough, and SI votes 50-60% Republican, not 80% or higher. SI is also an outlier culturally. People don’t talk about SI the way they talk about the rest of the city.

[Martinned2]

That's fair. And to control for the possibility of a Trump factor, Obama trounced Romney by 80/20 or more in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York#Results_by_county

(In Staten Island Obama won 51/48.)

[Martinned2]

Of course it's still fascinating that New York City, in this century, had Giuliani, Bloomberg, De Blasio, and Adams as mayor. A law & order Republican, a centrist Republican, a left-wing Democrat, and a redneck Democrat. It's all over the map.

[Ska]

Only when it comes to mayor. Koch... I was too young to really get it when he was mayor, but my recollection is that he was adequately liked by residents. Dinkins was a disaster. Giuliani was good for the city, though I'd imagine after the last 20 years there may be less people willing to admit it. Bloomberg was adequate (though I'll always be pissed about his changing the number of terms so he could be mayor again). De Blasio is thoroughly hated, and again, train wreck. Adams is turning out to be bad; not a total debacle, but not a good enough performance.

I think it's a cycle of moderate (for NY liberal) does OK, Democrats push in a progressive, the progressive is a train wreck and is replaced by a Republican leaning mayor to clean up, who gives way to a moderate, who gives way to a progressive that ends up being a train wreck.

Adams is not meeting expectations, and as of now his next opponent will be a progressive train wreck (Lander). Adams is disrupting the cycle by being an ineffective moderate. Adams' competition was really weak, Adams himself is a weak candidate, and that just means 2025's election will feature weak opponents but most voters are Democrats so Adams will have a tough time against a more progressive Democrat opponent.

[Sarcastr0]

NY Post is centrist.

Amazing.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks."

Maybe he means it's more or less in the center of the right wing?

[Ska]

I think it's fair to call the Post appealing to middle class and blue collar readers, but centrist? Nah, that's not accurate no matter where it's based.

I don't know what paper is centrist. I'd say the WSJ, which is center right, is a lot closer to the center than NYT/WaPo, but it's still not centrist. It leans right.

[grb]

Ska : "I’d say the WSJ, which is center right, is a lot closer to the center than NYT/WaPo, but it’s still not centrist. It leans right."

But is a great newspaper & always an interesting read. Mind you, that's its reporting. The editorial page is a rabid fever-dream morass of right-wing fantasies & lies.

[Ska]

I get the Journal and the Times. I'm with you; I look to the Journal's reporting first.

[grb]

Ska : "I get the Journal and the Times"

I get the Times & WaPo. Are we the only two people keeping the newspaper industry afloat?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low-biased news reporting combined with a strong right-biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to anti-climate, anti-science views, and occasional misleading editorials."

Husband subscribes to the NYT and the Economist; I prefer the FT:

"Overall, we rate the Financial Times Least Biased based on balanced reporting and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check."

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, the print equivalent of Fox news WOULD be in the middle of the ideological scale relative to the electorate, if not the media.

The media in this country happen to be quite a bit to the left of the general population.

A Tale of Two Elections: CBS and Fox News’ Portrayal of the 2020 Presidential Campaign

Take a look at figures 2 and 3: CBS's coverage of Biden was 11% negative, and 89% positive. Their coverage of Trump was 95% negative, and 5% positive. Diametrically opposed coverage!

For Fox? Biden got 59% negative and 41% positive coverage. Trump got 58% negative and 42% positive coverage: Practically identical!

Now, you might claim that Trump was just so awful compared to Biden that 95% negative coverage was just being neutral, and Fox giving Trump the same sort of coverage Biden got was enormously biased.

But look at the actual voting that year: Biden got 51.3% of the popular vote, and Trump 46.9%; The electorate were close to split down the middle.

So, the electorate thought that they were roughly the same. Fox treated them roughly the same. CBS treated them wildly differently.

And from this you conclude it's Fox that's out of tune with the electorate, and not CBS?

[Sarcastr0]

This is a prime example of trying to reduce a subjective into an objective and failing.

I know social/political science loves to try and climb this mountain; I don't think they're set up to succeed.

I mean look at your utter lack of baseline in positive/negative coverage. You need to assume the candidates are the same for those numbers to be useful.
Which is not an assumption you can make.

Brett's into it though, but I don't think the real world is.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is a prime example of your being allergic to this thing called "evidence".

I DID provide a baseline: The election outcome. My point wasn't that Fox was middle of the road relative to some hypothetical Platonic ideal. My point was that they were middle of the road relative to the ELECTORATE.

While the 'mainstream media' are far to the left of that same electorate.

[Martinned2]

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/07/31/believe-eyes/

[Sarcastr0]

Your position is that an objective media would set their level of coverage by the current support of the electorate.

That's...awful.

And doesn't come at my main issue which is this positive/negative tagging is not actually reducing the subjective to the objective just because now there's numbers.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, Sarcastr0, I no more believe in objective media than I believe in the Tooth Fairy. Even if the media never lied, (As if!) they'd still be biased in terms of what they chose to cover or bury.

I believe the best we can hope for is a distribution of biased media, so that one biased source will tell you about things another biased source would rather you didn't know, and one outlet can expose another's lies.

I think it's pretty pathological that the major media outlets in this country now cover only half the political spectrum in terms of bias, from left-wing to merely center.

And you think the center outlets are extreme right-wing, because they're to YOUR right.

[Martinned2]

Why would a TV station that supported the GOP candidate in the last 100 out of 100 elections be centrist by any metric?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because Fox isn't a media outlet created by the right. It's a media outlet created by a pragmatic moderate left-winger, Murdock, who liked money and knew that the right wing was an unserved market. As such it's never been much more than centric in terms of it's coverage, and from a right wing perspective looks more like a case of bad mimicry than actual right wing.

What you perceive as extreme right-wing is just their deviation from the left-wing consensus.

But even that bad mimicry was suffering lately, on account of Murdock's kids taking over, and not being nearly as pragmatic about the matter as he was.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ... and from a right wing perspective looks more like a case of bad mimicry than actual right wing."

The reason Fox looks like a "bad mimicry" is because that's an accurate description of the entire Right. Your politicians are reality-TV grade hucksters, your leader is a sleazy conman buffoon, your issues are made-up garbage like the transexual threat, CRT in the public schools, or immigrants eating pets.

The whole of the Right is hollow at its core, deeply cynical, and geared more to delivering WWE-style entertainment to the base than actual policy.

And you, Brett, consume every bit of phoniness like it is mother's milk. Oh, you sometimes claim the rightwingers who keep you entertained with carney sideshow theatrics "betray" your deepest ideology, but it's all posturing. As with deficit spending, you'll always vote for the cartoon fireworks over substance every time.

[Brett Bellmore]

You think you’re disagreeing with me, but how often have I said that the GOP was engaged in a bait and switch scam on it’s voters?

I keep saying it: The dog caught the car back in '94, and the usual "fight the good fight and lose" scam fell apart when it was possible to win, and they STILL arranged to lose. The GOP has been consumed by an internal civil war ever since, between the voting base who actually believe, and the political establishment that have been scamming them all along.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "... between the voting base who actually believe ..."

Two Questions:

1. What voting base "who actually believe"? The rightwing voting base I see is at the Trump speeches, slapping their knees with glee to his bullshit lies and phony rhetoric. The only thing they "believe" in is the entertainment value of their carney huckster. That, and they near-orgasmic joy in watching him wipe his lard ass on any civic, political, or social standard that comes within reach.

2. What "political establishment that have been scamming them all along"? Because all the crudest scams are from Trump. From Mexico paying for the wall, to the Magic Tariffs that will rain trillions in free money on the country, Trump is the one who treats the GOP's voting base like a bunch to ignorant loser dupes.

And yet you love him all the more for it, don't you? Here's something funny: I read an interview somewhere with someone who's a shaky Trump supporter. But (this person said) I refuse to vote for someone who sees me with contempt.

He meant Harris, but was unable to see the irony in his words. Because you can 100% guarantee that Trump looks on this person as a contemptible loser much more than Harris. (Of course, if the phony act is enough, point taken)

[SimonP]

So now run this analysis with the understanding that much of what might be coded as "negative" Trump coverage actually helps him politically, while the same is not true of Biden (or Harris).

Take all this stuff about being a "dictator on day one." No newspaper I read portrayed those statements as "positive." But Trump supporters love the idea - they want a strong leader who takes decisive, immediate action, to hell with the consequences. So it was basically just a lot of earned media for the Trump campaign, who (at the time) was running as the "strong" candidate, against a "weak" Biden.

That's how a lot of this stuff scans. Trump says something preposterous; it's repeated verbatim in the headline, which gets shared across social media and is often all anyone ever reads; the story itself offers criticism. It might code as "negative" coverage, but it is what Trump wants. That's his whole earned-media play.

[hobie]

Does anyone other than the MSM do investigative reporting? These little flashmob sites you get your news from need to start doing their own leg work, otherwise your complaint lacks legitimacy

[Martinned2]

On this side of the ocean I pay for Follow The Money, which only does investigative reporting. https://www.ftm.eu/

If you prefer a more capitalist model, Hunterbrook Media is a fun endeavour: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/is-hunterbrook-media-a-news-outlet-or-a-hedge-fund

[Sarcastr0]

This is cult like behavior.

'The debate made me JUST WANT TRUMP MORE!'

Yes, we all know what an utter tool you are, you don't need to signal any further.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment!

Of course the debate should've made EVERY SINGLE PERSON reject Trump in the awesomeness of Kamala and the perfectness of the moderators!

Only cult members could still support Trump after that debate!!! HE GOT DEMOLISHED BY THE POLISH!

[Armchair]

Well, at least he's not implicitly supporting the terrorists in 9/11 like he did on the last post.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're once again demonstrating how full of shit you are, and utterly unconcerned with being truthful.

It's a habit of degenerate slime such as yourself, C_XY, Joe_dallas, and Michael P.

[apedad]

AC, how is electing Trump going to get the media to do its job?

I mean aside from Trump attempting to trash the First Amendment.

[shawn_dude]

LOL
Let's elect the guy that says the media is the "enemy of the people" so that we can have great investigative journalism! That would be the same guy that idolizes Putin and Orban--both of whom set out to destroy independent media and prevent factual reporting that put the government in a poor light.

Yeah... that's how we get a better media. Sure.

[apedad]

Court could clear the way for Americans to legally bet on US elections

A federal judge in Washington has struck down a decision by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to prohibit a company from offering what amounts to bets on the outcome of Congressional elections.

No U.S. jurisdiction has authorized betting on elections, and several states explicitly ban it.

But such bets are readily available to gamblers who use foreign web sites; the practice of elections betting is widespread in Europe.

https://www.courthousenews.com/court-could-clear-the-way-for-americans-to-legally-bet-on-us-elections/

So, where are we on betting on elections?

I'm (luckily) not a gambling person so I wouldn't do it but I can't see any strong reasons why it should be illegal.

[Martinned2]

I have £20 bet on Trump to win the election, with a payout of £48.10, and another £2 on the GOP to take the Senate, with a payout of £2.68.

So yeah, I bet, but modest amounts.

[Commenter_XY]

The Senate bet is a lock; you'll win that one.

The jury is still out on the POTUS race.

Is there a bet on the House? What does 2 bet net you for democrats taking the House?

[Martinned2]

My BetExchange App currently only gives me odds for the Senate, but here is Oddschecker: https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics

[Josh R]

Whoever agreed to those bets is a fool. Trump is not a 2.4-to-1 underdog (Polymarket has him at 49%). The GOP is favored by quite a bit (75% at Polymarket) to take over the Senate and you got odds that they are an underdog (?!).

[Martinned2]

I made those bets a long time ago. And the amounts I listed are the total payout, i.e. including the amount I put in. (I never know what's the most intuitive way to explain gambling odds.) So the odds I got for the Senate had the GOP as favourites.

[Josh R]

That makes more sense.

You are getting about 1.4-to-1 odds on Trump, or you have a good bet if Trump has at least a 42% chance to win (you are getting better odds than you can get at Polymarket).

You are getting 0.34-to-1 odds on the Senate, or you have a good bet if the GOP has at least a 75% of taking the Senate (you are getting the same odds that you can get at Polymarket).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Why Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices Make Sense

Term limits are good policy and can be implemented by statute."

by Diane P. Wood

(Diane P. Wood is a law professor and served as a federal appeals court judge.)

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/why-term-limits-supreme-court-justices-make-sense

I have been wary of this approach. I still question if it will meet judicial review with the current Supreme Court.

Still, it's starting to grow on me regarding the basic legitimacy of the whole thing. Judge Tatel in his new book (Vision) also briefly alludes to the issue and appears to support it.

[hobie]

Harlan Thomas can't last forever. President Harris may get the chance

[Krayt]

The legislative route is a little too tricky by half, and is not in the spirit of the constitution at best, like lawsuits to recast all the ERA ups and downs over the decades, picking and choosing so it insta-wins. What should be open and obvious to all, the states and The People clearly speaking and telling ths federal government its form, becomes a manipulation fest of motivated parties more suitable for a Ferenghi homeworld episode of Star Trek.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Doing this by stetute is trillion-dollar-coin level nuttery. If proponents of term limits want to make the substantive case that it’s a good idea, they ought to focus on that and jettison the lunacy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The case is made including in the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court Report (it lists a variety of possible approaches).

If people think it’s a bad idea, they ought to substantively say why.

Some do though like the many explanations put forth on this website, sometimes in very assured tones, the case is not quite so clear-cut as all that.

The other approach is to call former Judge Diane Wood et. al. “nuts” for supporting it. That's it. It's so stupid, that would do it. That’s a way to go. Less convincing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I did not call her nuts, nor do I think that. I called the idea nuts which it is. Lots of smart people can believe and support nutty things (again, see the trillion dollar coin): that doesn’t make it any less nuts. And

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Picking a nit. Yes, I meant you felt she was supporting a nutty idea. One so stupid it isn't necessary to refute.

[Bob from Ohio]

"good behavior" is the substantive why

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They are still a judge under the proposal. The good behavior rule is not necessarily violated. A justice right now can retire and — without being confirmed again — serve on a lower court.

A person very well might carp that is dubious. Why should Sotomayor, for instance, without a separate confirmation, possibly change the ideological balance on a lower court, a factor senators use when providing consent?

[ThePublius]

Just to lighten things up, and introduce an entirely different topic:

Is anyone here active in, or interested in Amateur Radio, a.k.a., Ham radio?

I am a new licensee, in my retirement, and a retired electrical engineer. I've always been fascinated by and interested in it, and now I have the time and money to pursue it.

Anyone else? Any interest from a legal or regulatory perspective? Public service or public safety? "Prepping?" Purely technical?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've considered getting into packet radio. I've got a friend over in TN who I could chat with, I might even set up a bbs.

Only difficulty is that I'm located in a hole, basically, and the packet radio frequencies are close to line of sight. I'd have to get some serious height on my antenna. Perhaps I could put a repeater up in my son's tree house.

How was the license test?

[ThePublius]

Well, you could see if there's a nearby repeater, and use that.

There's no longer a code requirement for an amateur radio license. There are three levels, with increasing frequency and power privileges: technician, general, and amateur extra. For context, I'm a EE with some radio knowledge. I studied for six days, and used hamradioprep.com. I took all three tests in one shot and passed them all. So, I have the highest level, amateur extra, and was assigned a cool callsign. 🙂

I'm in the process of refurbishing some "vintage" gear, i.e., vintage for me, 1970's style stuff, and erecting an antenna. I live on a postage-stamp city lot so I don't have a lot of antenna options, so went for a wideband whip that I'll install on a mast on the gable end of my house. The whip is about 24'. I'm also going to deploy a SW listening antenna, a "Loop On Ground" antenna, which will be stapled to the back yard lawn.

I'm in the process of putting my electronics bench together, and converting my office into a combined office/workshop/electronics lab.

[Brett Bellmore]

My academic background is a combination of EE and biology; I was aiming for a career in medical instrumentation. But I had to drop out in my senior year to nurse my mother after a bad auto accident, and ended up becoming a mechanical engineer via apprenticeship, instead.

I'll discuss this with my son, he's expressed some interest in ham radio. Maybe we can both do it together!

[ThePublius]

That would be a wonderful experience!

[Bwaaah]

I got my no-code Technician's Class license in the nineties, and was obsessed with Amateur Radio for a few years there. It was really interesting and great fun.

I set up a 2-meter packet radio node, and through repeater hopping, was able to communicate with a truck driver ham I knew who lived about 250 miles away.

The ubiquity of consumer wireless communications over the past couple of decades seems to have doused some of the ham interest, but all the technical fundamentals are as interesting now as ever. If you can get your hands on an ARRL Handbook, it's one of the coolest technical compendiums that I know of, in a class with the Merck Manual and the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

I still take detours into the radio world from time-to-time. Software Designed Radio (SDR) was one of those forays a few years ago. I paid hundreds of dollars for a Yaesu 2-meter mobile radio in the nineties, and now thirty years later, you can get an incredibly capable handheld for under $20 (e.g. Baofeng UV-5R).

Antenna design, radiation patterns, signal propagation are fascinating (and challenging) aspects of engineering. You got me excited just for having mentioned Amateur Radio. It's Serious Fun, and for having gotten started, you'll probably find it as interesting as I did.

There are great ham videos posted on youtube. The whole field is a hands-on experimenter's paradise. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did (and still do).

[ThePublius]

Thank you!

[Bwaaah]

(Woops...meant "Software Defined Radio," not "Software Designed Radio")

[Ska]

I can’t help you, but my dad was all about it. It wasn’t for anything other than a hobby. Our license plates were his call sign, and I still can hear in my mind him using the phonetic names for it (the old phonetic names with Wilma and Baker). He even tried to get me to learn Morse code.

I remember two things from Morse code:

… – – – …

and the far less useful

.- … …

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"Seems like some weak deflection from the issue at hand today, which is unhinged rage-lying is not Presidential, and neither is coming back the next day and swearing to use the Presidency to get revenge."

What sort of gaslighting universe does this clown live in?

Oh yeah, Washington D.C. A town full of psychopaths and midwits.

[Frank Drackman]

What do you expect? it's the District of Colored Peoples

[Moderation4ever]

What I don't see being talked about is how the two Presidential debates have been an eye opener for the inadequacies of the two original candidates. Both old men aging rapidly. The first Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden showed us the real limitations of our aging President. The debate showed that Joe Biden could not handle the Presidency for an additional four years and that he must step aside. The second debate, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, showed us the real limitations of our aging ex-President. The debate showed that Donald Trump is unprepared and lacks the mental ability to again handle the Presidency. We don't have an upper age limit for the Presidency and the voters must decide that limit. The debates have been valuable in helping show the need for that limit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I fully agree that we need an upper age limit for public office. This would require a constitutional amendment. Maybe once both Biden AND Trump are out of the way, the major parties could agree on it?

The chief difficulty is that the Congressional leadership on both sides is fairly elderly, you'd probably have to delay it actually kicking in far enough out that they'd be personally unaffected.

[Krayt]

It’s ironic the same folk who get outraged at term limits for Congress (how dare you limit my choices!) like the idea for SC justices, and for the same reason conservatives wanted term limits on Congress.

But you’ll never convince senators on the quasi-eternal gravy train to self-evict.

[Moderation4ever]

When the issue of term limits first came to the public attention, I was skeptical. But I think that current condition support the idea of term limits. Too many public office holders are simply staying on too long. Some of the reasons are the jerrymandered districts and the great political divide. I now think if we cannot get more competitive elections we need term limits.

[Frank Drackman]

You say you'll change the Constitution, well hey, you know,
we all want to change your head.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree it will be pretty hard to get real term limits, but would also support the effort.

[Frank Drackman]

Problem is, you have to get 2/3 of the peoples who need to be term limited to vote for an amendment to limit their terms. Even if you go the Constitutional Convention Route, you still have to get 38 State Legislatures of (mostly) non term limited peoples, to call for the Convention. I'm surprised there are any decent peoples left in House/Senate, pay sucks, you have to either maintain 2 homes or live full time in the District of Colored Peoples, jump whenever some constituent has a problem with their VA rating, and deal with annoying "Interns" (who all should be put on a Black List of Peoples not to hire, who would voluntarily be a Butt-boy for a Politician, for no Shekels? at least in Medical Internship you got paid something, and you had to do it to get your license

Frank

[Magister]

I think that having to reappoint Supreme Court justices, perhaps every ten years, in the same way that Senators and Representatives have to be reelected at six and two year intervals would be fine, and very different from Congressional term limits. I don't think anyone wants members of Congress elected once for life, even if it sometimes seems to work that way.

[Martinned2]

Nooo! Re-appointment of judges is very bad. Any proposal with term limits only works if the judge can't be re-appointed (at the same level) ever again. Anything else gives the judge an incentive to pander to the people who will decide on the re-appointment.

[Magister]

The US president is a different party pretty regularly, and the Senate is at least currently fairly evenly balanced and changes control from time to time this century, so who would a given Justice pander to over 10 years? For lower courts, there seems to be some measure of pandering in the hopes of eventual judicial promotion, and pandering by those hoping for their first judicial appointment. (Or one could never allow the same person to be appointed at multiple levels, at the expense of never having experienced judges at higher levels, but you did specify "(at the same level)".)

(I think Clarence Thomas pandering to elected people, just by not accepting exorbitant gifts from Harlan Crow, might actually be a good thing.)

[Krayt]

Yes. There may be more rollover of political control of justices (which one side currently fantasizes will be one way) but the furiosoty of battles will increase, and both sides maintain facetious claims it is not about politics.

[Commenter_XY]

Not so fast = I fully agree that we need an upper age limit for public office.

In the next 20 years, life expectancy will increase a lot. Just think about the advances in genomics that are almost here. I don't see the need to introduce a new Constitutional limitation based on age.

[Brett Bellmore]

I sure hope you're right about that, and I rather think you probably ARE right, though it's likely not going to come in time for those of us who are already old.

But it would still be worth it even in a world with eternal youth, just to assure a decent amount of turnover.

[Commenter_XY]

Imagine how the liberalistas would react to Justice Thomas being on the bench for a century. 🙂

[not guilty]

"Imagine how the liberalistas would react to Justice Thomas being on the bench for a century."

For all we know, Clarence Uncle Thomas may live long enough to achieve that.

Hey, he's stout enough to survive his own "lynching."

[Commenter_XY]

"Hi Tech Lynching", is the quote, if memory serves.

It would be nice to see Justice Thomas going to age 90. Justice Stevens called it quits at 90, I think. Just imagine what a Justice Thomas could produce with another dozen years on the bench, NG.

[not guilty]

In 1969 the Senate rejected the Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynesworth. He went on to serve another 20 years on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1987 the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork, who continued to serve on the D.C. Circuit.

If the Senate had rejected Clarence Thomas's 1991 nomination to SCOTUS, he would have remained a life tenured judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Nice work if you can get it!!

To call that a lynching is preposterous. Furthermore, trivializing the horror of what lynching involves is outrageous.

[Bwaaah]

Good "lynching" joke! I remember when those weren't funny.

Did you hear the joke about the black Supreme Court Justice? It has to be told with two punchlines now, and only one of them is funny.

I, for one, always wipe off the top of a Coke can before drinking from it. The memories still cause an itch in my throat.

I'm not a lawyer. So I don't run into many lawyers in my real life (away from here). But you know what I find most interesting about the real life people I've met who criticize Clarence Thomas? NONE of those people has ever read one of his opinions!

I have to go now. Ginnie Thomas farted, and ProPublica just published an in-depth hard-hitting story about it. I can't wait to smell it!

[Krayt]

If life expectation is extended indefinitely, or even just a long time, like hundreds of years, I recommend an official program to terminate dictators for life.

We don't need to experiment with a world where guys like Hitler, Stalin, or Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan live forever. Sorry if that makes international relations difficult.

[shawn_dude]

I agree with C_XY, the effects of aging aren't uniform and medical advances are already extending our lives.

[Ska]

Considering this is a legal blog:

I'm not an attorney; I'm an accountant with a tax practice at a large firm. Among my immediate colleagues we're 2/5 attorneys, 3/5 CPAs; some are both. We have mandatory retirement at 62, but retired partners may stay on as Senior Advisors or similar roles. At law firms, what's the norm? And how many retired attorneys stay on with an equivalent "of counsel" title?

Point being it seems that working past retirement age is normal enough for some professions. Considering how many attorneys are in these government roles, do they similarly think working till they're approaching 80 years old is normal?

[Commenter_XY]

Surgeons are the ones that scare the hell out of me....you want an 85 year old geezer passing the gas for you, or holding the scalpel to open you up?

[shawn_dude]

This falls into the same trap you originally tried to wisely avoid...

I'd be happy to have an 85yo surgeon, who, due to advanced medicine, has the mental capacity of a 50yo, providing diagnosis to the surgical robot that will do the actual surgery. Technology is going to change the way we see age.

[Martinned2]

This is an amazing paper about the effects of (otherwise not publicised) SEC investigations on stock prices: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4941708

But it's also an excellent example of what EU data protection law means by "indirectly identifiable". Just because a particular data point doesn't have someone's name and social security number attached, doesn't mean you can't make that link in some other way.

[John F. Carr]

A town where I used to live considered buying a service that tracks trips based on cell phone identity. It was based on radio receivers rather than data mining. The problem was people were driving into towns where they didn't live. You could prove this egregious offense by showing that a phone with SIM ID ABC123999 entered on Concord Avenue on the west side of town and exited 15 minutes later on Concord Avenue on the east side of town. A commuter! Arrest him! I never heard of the plan being carried out. You can't yet give somebody a ticket for driving through town and traffic obstruction schemes did not depend on having highly detailed usage patterns.

[Krayt]

Don’t little popcorn towns along travel routes love to entice passers-through to get gas, eat lunch, pick up trinkets, maybe even spend the night?

"Gtfo intruder!" usually isn't part of their vocabularly, though there are a few Mormon towns out west...

[John F. Carr]

Rest stop towns and speed trap towns pop up where population density is low. For a long time I have lived in the suburbs of Boston where population density is high.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump held his own in a 3:1 fuselage.
That's far better than Spread & Accept Harris ever could.

[Martinned2]

Stay classy Ed!

[Mr. Bumble]

I think you mean fusillade.

[ThePublius]

I'm sure you meant "fusillade," not fuselage.

But yes, it was certainly 3 on 1. Not fair, at all.

[Sarcastr0]

This is just what every side says when they lose a debate. Because that's how it feels when you lose a debate.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, we all remember Biden blaming the moderators for his loss in the June debate.

[Martinned2]

Not Biden himself, because he's more classy than that, but basically: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/moderators-blame-biden-debate-disaster-1235934839/

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like those complaining were mostly other media outlets.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, liberals absolutely whined about the moderators, Bumble.

Then they got back to business, which I don't expect the right to do.

And y'all pulled the same whining in 2020. 2016 both sides thought they'd won each debate, so you heard it less.

But hoooooly shit 2012. Candy Crowley ring a bell?

You may not realize it, but you're singing a very old song.

[Frank Drackman]

I actually preferred Barry Osama to Willard

[Frank Drackman]

I'd leave out the Queer male moderator, but I'd do a 2 on 1 with Common-Law and the Chick Moderator, especially when they were in their umm, "Prime"
Seriously, Lindsay could have been Common-laws younger (and hotter) sister, I'll believe Amurica doesn't have a "Race Problem"(It's actually only 1 Race that's a "Problem") when the DemoKKKrat's nominate someone that looks like Stacy Abraham

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

However you want to characterize the tilt of the moderators, it certainly is exactly what just about anyone with any background would have expected.

So… why the fuck did Trump agree to it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because it was either agree to Democratic moderators, or no debate at all, and he thought he was better off with the debate, even having to debate 3 against 1.

[Sarcastr0]

So calculated. So brave.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Because it was either agree to Democratic moderators, or no debate at all

Why?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "....even having to debate 3 against 1"

Hilarious. All this whinging snowflake victimhood whining over fact-checking three of Trump's most grotesquely absud lies. Hell, the moderators still let another plus-minus thirty lies go.

I'm curious on any number of points:

1. Should they have - say - let the post-birth lie go, even though it is crudely offensive and completely false?

2. You yet to produce any Harris lie its equal. The Federalist list is laughable as a whole, but even taken on its own terms has nothing so black-is-white egregiously false. Care to provide an example?

3. So Trump tells 30--40 lies by normal standards and maybe 100 by The Federalist standard. What would you have the moderators do? Correcting every Trump lie would be stopping the debate after his every breath, since that's the frequency of his lying.

4. But I image your position is this: It's soooo unfair to note Trump's lying, even just three times out of thirty-five. Just like its soooo unfair to charge Trump with a crime, even though he's a lifelong criminal. Just like it's soooo unfair to criticize Trump's sleaze, brat child behavoir, or ethical lapses - even though a normal politician (or human being) would have gotten 3X the bad press on any given offense.

All of which is valid in its own terms. If you ignore everything Trump says, does, or performs, then the reaction to it must therefore be inexplicable & excessive. QED!

[Bob from Ohio]

"why the fuck did Trump agree to it?"

Ego. He thinks he is always the "smartest man in the room" and can handle anything.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Plus, he's not afraid to cry like a girl about it afterwards!

[shawn_dude]

Dude was deftly manipulated by a smarter opponent who sent him spiraling into rants about crowd size and dogs for lunch.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To be fair, it probably wasn't that hard to do...

[Martinned2]

In Mexico the reform of the judiciary is about to pass: https://verfassungsblog.de/why-institutional-reputation-matters/

AMLO's key tool for bringing the courts to heel? Elected judges. I wonder where he got that idea from...

[Bob from Ohio]

From the richest and most powerful country in the world?

[Martinned2]

Which country might that be?

[OtisAH]

Welcome to another edition of Eugene Volokh’s House of Desperation and Flopsweat Emporium. Today’s specials include endless streams of sputtering mouth-breathers twisting and turning, spinning and flipping, in their sad attempts to turn Convicted Felon Donald Trump’s dogturd of a debate loss into Convicted Felon Trump’s debate victory filet mignon, made of dogturd. All the greatest hits will be played by our house favorites, Brett and the Expanding Waist Band, plus some more recent hits like “I haven’t seen evidence they’re *not* eating the dogs” and “The Moderator Blues,” 2024’s exciting reimagining of the standard “Media Bias Media Bias Media Bias!”

[Sarcastr0]

For those trying for readability out there, I recommend temporary muting of some of the more voluminous commenters, just because there’s a lot of repetition out there and ain’t nobody got time for that.

For less partisan chat (food, history, media) perhaps migration to the daily thread is the answer.

[Frank Drackman]

You obviously don't realize nobody gives a fuck about your recommendations.
I recommend you cross your legs, hold your nose and fart (It's called a "Valsalva Maneuver") you could clear out your mind.
I know I've said that before, it's from a Clint Eastwood Movie, somedays I'll try and talk in nothing but Cline Eastwood quotes

Frank "Go ahead, make my, umm, bed"

[OtisAH]

Does Rev. Kirkland know you’re flirting with Sarcastro, piece of shit?

[Frank Drackman]

He's dead, Jim.

[John F. Carr]

A chief petty officer on USS Manchester was demoted after being convicted at court martial over an unauthorized Starlink terminal on a ship at sea. She and her fellow chiefs couldn't be without internet for that long. I gather she was an E-8 who had been selected for promotion to E-9 and wound up an E-7 instead.

She created a security risk and lied about it. I am puzzled by the Navy's choice to keep her in service. Why no dishonorable discharge?

We also learned from this incident that the Navy has trouble tracking its own ships' emissions. I'm sure the Russians and Chinese have the ability to detect Starlink.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/09/03/how-navy-chiefs-conspired-to-get-themselves-illegal-warship-wi-fi/

[apedad]

Yeah, some type of discharge, e.g., Less than Honorable Discharge, should have been issued instead of just a demotion.

At least her name is out there and she (SHOULD!) have trouble getting a civilian job.

[Bob from Ohio]

If they kicked her out, what about all the other chiefs who conspired with her? I understand she was the senior NCO but they all agreed to do it.

[Commenter_XY]

The bigger question is....How many more Command Senior Chief Grisel Marrero's are there in the USN?

Security risk is right.

[Bob from Ohio]

"keep her in service"

This?

"Navy continues to struggle in recruiting as other services near goal"
By Diana Stancy for Navy Times Wednesday, Apr 17, 2024

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"We also learned from this incident that the Navy has trouble tracking its own ships’ emissions."

That's not how that works. EMCON is achieved by turning off the systems you know about because you know how the ship was designed and what systems need to be shut down.

They don't send out dinghies of men with walkie-talkies and ask "can you detect us?"

[shawn_dude]

LOL "can you hear me now?"

[not guilty]

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has endorsed Kamala Harris for President. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/12/alberto-gonzales-kamala-harris-endorsement-00178746

George W. Bush's Vice-president Dick Cheney has previously endorsed Harris. I wonder if other Bush administration Republicans will follow suit. (Bush himself says he will not endorse any candidate. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/former-president-george-w-bush-won-t-make-formal-election-endorsement-office-says/ar-AA1qaUrz?ocid=BingNewsSerp )

[Martinned2]

Bush not endorsing either candidate is as good as a Harris endorsement.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts' top court has a case to decide who keeps the engagement ring after a breakup. Is it an unconditional gift, is it a conditional gift to be returned to the donor, or does the disposition depend on who is at fault? The ex-fiancee, who says the other man was just a friend and nothing happened, says she is fighting for the ring out of principle even though she doesn't want to wear it. I understood from news coverage that she claimed to want to keep it, not sell it. So she is spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to punish her ex. His lawyer told the court it should adopt a conditional gift rule that does not consider fault. Her lawyer told the court the conditional gift rule was "highly gendered" and asked that the ring be an unconditional gift.

A lesson for any law school students tempted to go into domestic relations.

Also a lesson for potential spouses: don't get engaged to a crazy person without a prenup. Based on press coverage I suspect both parties in the ring case are crazy.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/massachusetts-court-weighs-fate-70000-engagement-ring-2024-09-06/

[Martinned2]

They probably are, but it's still an interesting question.

Isn't the answer, in an English-speaking country, that the gift of the ring is not based on any contract, because there is no valid consideration? Therefore the gift is final, no?

I mean, in other circumstances you can make a valid contract whereby A gives B something of value, and in return B promises A to use it in a certain way. But surely a promise to marry isn't valid consideration (anymore)?

[John F. Carr]

Engagement ring law is the last relic of the otherwise abolished contract to marry.

[Commenter_XY]

^ This

[Magister]

I thought the etiquette approach was that whoever breaks off the engagement doesn't get the engagement ring. The legal outcome would of course be different. Apparently some places it's conditional on the marriage happening, and other places it's unconditional.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2018/02/07/engagement-ring-proposal-wedding-etiquette/1075393001/

The question and this particular case underline the stupidity of spending a ludicrous amount of money on an engagement ring.

[Krayt]

Logically, it’s a gift to the fiance. Dear Abbey has spoken! If the fiance dumps him, she is honor-bound to return it. If he dumps her, she gets to keep it. This is not that far from the old school Breach of Promise.

After the marriage, she gets to keep it either way, though I would suggest an honor return if she leaves him soon into it, because she cheated.

And sure, the “conditional gift” is completely “gendered” i.e. old school. And? She accepted it, joyously roleplaying that ancient, traditional female role.

[Krayt]

Pardon me, not even roleplaying!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Also a lesson for potential spouses: don’t get engaged to a crazy person without a prenup. "

Got that right. My first wife was bipolar, and I found out after I'd proposed but before we married. Then I went and did the stupidly chivalry thing and married her anyway. Bad mistake. Inside of a year she'd cleaned me out, divorced me, and left me suicidal.

But she did agree to give the engagement ring back, and a few years later I found use for it.

[apedad]

You recycled the engagement ring?!?

Did your 2nd spouse know that?

[Brett Bellmore]

She found out afterwards, and wasn't entirely happy about it, but accepted my explanation that I only had one heart, and had reclaimed it from my ex and given it to her.

[Martinned2]

That's a great line! Kudos! Did you come up with that on the spot?

[Brett Bellmore]

It was actually how I felt about it, which is why I'd demanded the engagement ring back.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ohio law is that an engagement ring has to be returned no matter who is at fault. If the wedding occurs, then the ring is her property.

[Commenter_XY]

No wedding? No ring.

Simple.

[John F. Carr]

A disadvantage of the unconditional gift law is, the donor of the engagement ring has to pay gift tax. It is not an intra-family gift when it is given. If the ring becomes hers only when the wedding is formalized it receives more favorable tax treatment as a gift from husband to wife.

If the Supreme Judicial Court retroactively changes engagement ring law there may be a lot of back taxes and penalties owed by the type of person who spends five figures or more on a ring.

[Bob from Ohio]

The next woman to declare that value on her tax return will be the first.

[John F. Carr]

It's not the woman who owes tax. Whoever gives a valuable item as an unconditional gift owes gift tax. Often nobody will be the wiser. A woman who thinks she has been wronged could turn in her ex-fiance after they break up. He gave her a $70,000 ring. If that was an unconditional gift he owes the IRS about $13,000. See instructions for IRS form 709.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, the first man to declare that value on his tax return will be the first.

[ReaderY]

Well-intentioned laws often have unintended consequences that can undermine, or even result in the opposite of, their original intentions.

One special case I want to discuss is when the law tightens regulation of one area, but leaves an adjacent area unregulated, resulting in people changing their behavior to move more into the unregulated area. This is can result in less net regulation overall, and can achieve the exact opposite of the law’s intended purpose.

I’ll disuss 3 examples:

1. Tightening of labor regulations for employees has tended to result in a decrease in the number of workers classified as employees and an increase in the number classified as comparatively unregulated independent contractors. This has resulted, overall, in fewer protections for workers.

2. A recent law tightening requirements for soy-free foods has resulted in many manufacturers deliberately adding soy to previously soy-free products to escape the burden of the requirements and avoid liability. This has tended to make life harder for people with soy allergies than before.

3. The Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan decision required public figures to show “actual malice” to prove defamation. “Actual malice” has been interpreted as requiring plaintiffs to show that defendants uncovered contrary information but ignored it, with no concept of negligence or even gross negligence. Under this interpretation, “actual malice” can be defeated by not investigating at all, thus ensuring contrary information won’t be uncovered. The result is that people can spread completely spurious lies off the top of their heads with no fear of liability, while the law punishes only people who conduct some sort of investigation that happens to be inadequate. i believe this state of affairs has resulted in undermining legitimate joirnalism, the exact opposite of what the Sullivan court intended.

[Martinned2]

S. 230 has a similar effect to Sullivan, of course. As long as you don't do any moderation, you're safe. But some moderation can expose a company to legal liability. So you end up either doing no moderation, or lots, even if the solution the company its customers would land on in a hypothetical perfect information negotiation is somewhere in between.

[John F. Carr]

Section 230 was meant to overrule a court decision that imposed liability for imperfect moderation.

[Martinned2]

Yes. "No liability" and "lots of liability" are both imperfect solutions from the POV of the company and its median customer.

[Zarniwoop]

S. 230 has a similar effect to Sullivan, of course.

I think I see where you’re going with this, but I agree with John F Carr on the particulars: it’s Stratton Oakmont, Inc., v. Prodigy Services Co. that would be analogous to Sullivan in the sense of generating unwanted/unintended consequences, and s.230 was enacted to fix them.

[Brett Bellmore]

And would have, if that "or otherwise objectionable" hadn't been interpreted so broadly as to transform limited moderation into complete editorial control.

[Zarniwoop]

that “or otherwise objectionable”

What are you responding to here? I can’t tell what you think you’re talking about or referring to.

Seriously, what are you quoting? No one else in this entire VC thread has – anywhere! – used the phrase “or otherwise objectionable”. Per a word search, I did try!

[Noscitur a sociis]

He’s quoting § 230 (specifically subsection (2)(A)). I believe his position is that users should be able to sue providers for removing content if the content isn’t objectionable enough, is surely not an outcome that could lead to problems, especially since so many federal judges share Brett’s outlook on what is and isn’t objectionable.

(This isn’t even the part of § 230 that is relevant to what Martinned is talking about, but that’s a different issue.)

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks for explaining the non-sequitur!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, my position is that "Ejusdem generis" applies here. But the courts treated that "or otherwise objectionable" as an open ended license for the platform to moderate away anything they felt like just by saying THEY found it offensive.

The reason I brought it up is that I think Section 230 WOULD have fixed such problems as there really were with Stratton Oakmont, Inc., v. Prodigy Services Co, if the moderation permitted had actually been limited to the sort of content generally regarded as "offensive".

As it is the result was that the platforms got effectively total editorial control over user content, without liability for their editorial decisions.

[Voize]

his position is that users should be able to sue providers for removing content

Creating actionable liability in that situation would require more than just deleting or reinterpreting "or otherwise objectionable".

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is the (regrettably-often repeated) exact opposite of the truth. What you’re describing was the framework some courts had adopted before the passage of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was expressly designed to change that so that things would no longer work that way: that’s pretty much the whole point of it.

[John F. Carr]

At a smaller scale, my city's Board of Aldermen had the habit of prohibiting daytime parking on streets where residents complained about nonresidents parking. It took close to a year for a petition to turn into an ordinance. One street would get the prized "no daytime parking" rule and the cars would move over to the next street. Those residents would complain and a year later they would get their own parking restriction.

I voted for incumbents probably twice in all the years I lived there. Once was for an Alderman who publicly stated this process was not working.

Many of the cars were attracted to train stations. City officials claimed to support mass transit. In practice it was supposed to be reserved for people who lived next to the train station.

[Martinned2]

Well, part of the point of mass transit is that you build dense housing near each station.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development

[John F. Carr]

The suburbs of Boston grew up long before modern urban planning, and even before postwar urban planning. Some people find it more convenient to drive to a station and ride into the city than to drive into the city. Those people are not welcome.

Around a decade after I gave up on traffic committee meetings the city started to accept denser development in places. This is a contentious subject in the region with a lot of local variation.

The state has the power to force development or open parking on neighborhoods near train stations. There is not enough legislative will to do so. What has been done to encourage multifamily housing near mass transit has not forced reguatory compliance, much less actual housing.

[Zarniwoop]

Which phases og T development are you referring to, though?

I went to HS in Belmont, and college in Cambridge, in the 80s/90s. I recall that places like Arlington were vehemently opposed to the T expanding past Alewife into Arlington Heights, because of NIMBY worries that "the wrong people" would move to Arlington.

Info per one of the leaders (supporters?) of the anti-expansion movement, who was a partner in an old-money Boston law firm. Dated his daughter for ~5 years starting when we were both students at the 'tvte in the 90s. Despite our differences (many!) he's a decent guy. Too lazy to look up support but I'm sure it's out there.

But the upshot is that the 1980s are certainly not prior to modern urban planning.

[Krayt]

2. A recent law tightening requirements for soy-free foods has resulted in many manufacturers deliberately adding soy to previously soy-free products to escape the burden of the requirements and avoid liability. This has tended to make life harder for people with soy allergies than before.

This is idiotic. Such regulations should only apply if the manufacturer advertises, or brags on the package it is soy free. A product that incidentally has no soy should not be burdened.

[ReaderY]

The problem is companies that had previously advertised they were soy-free but concluded they couldn’t meet the new requirements at reasonable cost. Deliberately adding soy and removing the claim permits these companies to avoid liability. Apparently the law attempted to give consumers clarity by requiring food manufacturers to either (truthfully) say they have soy, or declare themselves soy-free and meet the requirements. Adding soy, so the claim they have soy becomes truthful, is the easier way to comply.

[Zarniwoop]

This is exactly correct. Foods that were previously (actually!) soy-free started having soy deliberately added - in trivial amounts, but non-zero - in order to avoid compliance costs.

And the net effect of that was that people with soy allergies saw their food choices slashed.

[shawn_dude]

This makes no sense. There isn't a binary here. You can have zero soy but be manufactured in a facility that processes soy. This would make the food unacceptable to people with allergies. I've seen notices on food that indicate the food is manufactured in a place with various allergens. That should be sufficient.

[Kenneth Almquist]

New York Times v. Sullivan required public figures to show that the claims were made, “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” If subsequent rulings have protected even the most extreme form of “reckless disregard,” where the defendant made no effort whatsoever to determine whether the claims were true before spreading them, I don’t think that’s the fault of the Sullivan majority.

[Frank Drackman]

Have to admit I'm surprised Common-Law owns a gun (Or is it the one the "Second Gentleman" held to their Au Pair's head when he raped her?)
Of course we knew Sergeant Major Pepper-Waltx owns one, I mean, he carried one in a Wah?
So she's going to buy back her own gun? And why does she need one surrounded by Secret Service Agents armed with (actual) "Assault Weapons"?
Actually, that's a bad example, with todays DEI Fuck-up SS Agents, she should be carrying that bitch up her Cooter

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

I don't get it, I'm an "N" of 1, watched the Debate by myself, didn't watch any of the "Spin Rooms"
I thought "45" crushed that Jaundiced (in the old days, Afro-Amuricans would describe her skin tone as "High-Yellow" and it wasn't said approvingly) Bee-Otch.
Oh, Haitian's aren't eating Cats because some "City Manager" in Ohio says so? The VA said Agent Orange didn't cause Cancer (Or Diabetes, or Heart Disease, or Parkinson's) for 50 years, Ex-Squeeze me if I don't take what the Government says for Fact.
"January 6th was the worst attack on Amurica since the Civil Wah?" She really said this shit on September 10? I think "45" didn't Be-otch slap her for that for the same reason you don't Be-otch slap the retarded baby that keeps you awake on your cross country flight.

Frank

[Paladin_44]

"...and "N" of 1"...
Therefore zero degrees of freedom.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in important news:
MALLOWMARS ARE BACK!

[Krayt]

I'm angry McDonald's is introducing their giant Big Macs Grand Arch things everywhere except the US. Canada? Portugal? Are these even real places?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Kamala Harris noted during the debate she (along with Tim Walz) owns a gun. I was not aware of this though it is not new:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/kamala-harris-gun-owner/index.html

It is not that surprising. Lots of Democrats own guns. Democrats are not "anti-gun" per se any more than people who support regulation of speech (which is allowed) are "anti-free speech" per se. The question is what regulations are allowed.

https://www.vox.com/politics/371304/what-kamala-harris-gun-ownership-reveals-about-american-politics

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, they're for guns for them and not for the Hoi Polloi, and if I had a Phalanx of Automatic Weapon Toting SS Agents protecting me, I'd probably not own as many guns either.
and as far as what regulations are allowed?
None, Zero, Null, Zilch, Zippo (I still have some Zippo Lighters, will they be "Regulated"?)
it's what "Shall not be Infringed" means, and regulations, by definition,
are an Infrigement

Frank

[John F. Carr]

Until recently, being a VIP in a deep blue state made it much easier to get a permit.

[shawn_dude]

There are 5,286,269 registered Republicans in California (as of Oct 2023). That's more than the combined total population of several "deep red" states.

Calling California a "deep blue" state is inaccurate.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Being a VP (in any State) makes it pretty much irrelevant whether you have your own gun or not...

[M L]

Lots of Democrats want to ban guns for regular people, or enact "regulations" that are tantamount to bans or tend to defeat the purpose of a right to bear arms, all while having zero respect for the rule of law or compunction about following the Constitution.

Like Jimmy Kimmel, a disgusting and evil man, whines about gun control when there is a shooting, but would never actually want to give up his armed security, it's just the regular people that he would like to see defenseless at the mercy of brutal murderers and rapists.

Aside from the so-called "elites," millions of mentally ill Democrats go into orgiastic fits of self-righteousness every time there is a shooting, "I'm so sick of the NRA and Republicans causing this!" always ignoring that nothing they say makes a scintilla of logical sense but is just a mindless "do something" impulse and programmed response.

[apedad]

Mother of child brides testifies in polygamist sex abuse trial

The mother of two underage girls married to religious leader Samuel Rappylee Bateman testified Wednesday in the trial of two Arizona men accused of aiding and participating in Bateman’s child sex abuse ring.

Julia Johnson, a former member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, told 15 jurors Tuesday morning that four of her daughters were given to Bateman in spiritual marriages in 2020. Two of them were 10 and 14 when Bateman married them and began having sex with them.

https://www.courthousenews.com/mother-of-child-brides-testifies-in-polygamist-child-sex-abuse-trial/

This is some of the fuckiest fucked up shit we have in America.

[Nelson]

I'm shocked that a religious organization allows such immoral behavior. Shocked, I tell you!

[not guilty]

As Voltaire said:

Once your faith, sir, persuades you to believe what your intelligence declares to be absurd, beware lest you likewise sacrifice your reason in the conduct of your life.

In days gone by, there were people who said to us: “You believe in incomprehensible, contradictory and impossible things because we have commanded you to; now then, commit unjust acts because we likewise order you to do so.” Nothing could be more convincing. Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. If you do not use the intelligence with which God endowed your mind to resist believing impossibilities, you will not be able to use the sense of injustice which God planted in your heart to resist a command to do evil. Once a single faculty of your soul has been tyrannized, all the other faculties will submit to the same fate. This has been the cause of all the religious crimes that have flooded the earth.

[Magister]

Voltairage!

[Nelson]

Well played, sir.

[John F. Carr]

I knew somebody who was prostituted by her father starting at age 12. I never heard he claimed any religious right to do so. It was just one of those things people do that you don't understand. I never met him.

[Nelson]

I’m not talking about individual religious people. I’m talking about religious organizations. Individuals, religious or not, have a bottomless capacity for evil. People, as a whole, kinda suck.

Religious organizations claim to be a force for good, but constantly get caught out protecting evil people who do evil things because they are part of the organization. And the more conservative the group, the more likely they are to cover up, apologize for, aid, and abet evil. Witness Wahabists, the Catholic Church, Hasidic Jews, Mormons, the Amish, etc.

The only way to find goodness and decency from an organized religion is to look to the individuals who believe in the actual tenets and live them every day.

The Catholic faithful who love their neighbor, cares for the poor, and believes in the limitless capacity of God to forgive are a force for good. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has run an organized international pedophile ring for well over 100 years.

Look at the good that Catholics do in their communities. It’s laypeople, volunteers, and the faithful who operate shelters, soup kitchens, and sanctuaries, not Father Kidfucker, Bishop Cover-up, or Cardinal Hypocrite.

Unfortunately, the faithful of virtually all religions don’t hold their organizations to the same standards of decency and don’t-be-evil that they require of themselves.

[MoreCurious]

Just a reminder: Covid is still out there. A day or two after returning from a cross-country flight I developed suspicious symptoms. A store-bought test was negative, but my doctor had me come to his office (actually the parking lot outside his office) for a more accurate test, which was positive. I will start a five-day course of Paxlovid today.

[Moderation4ever]

Seems the most frequent cause for Covid today is having been on a flight. I am going on a trip this fall that will involve airline travel. I am very careful to wear a mask in crowded section of the airport and on the flight itself. That strategy has worked to date and I hope it continues.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the recycled air and low humidity; Low humidity makes people more vulnerable to respiratory infections, and the recycled air in tight confines speaks for itself.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Airline CEOs said under oath that airplanes were very safe from Covid. Hmmm

[Commenter_XY]

Get well.

[Zarniwoop]

My fave debate moment was Trump finally saying “I have concepts of a plan” to repeal&replace Obamacare.

Starting around 12:22 is footage of Trump’s promises over the last nine years to come out with the plan real soon now - sometimes 4 weeks, sometimes 2:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6phBoRvpc

(Jimmy Kimmel’s commentary starts at 11:57, but no need for that if all you want is the TRUTH! straight from DJT’s lips)

Does anyone think Trump actually has a concrete, workable plan? Or has he been telling the same lie for nine years because people still fall for it?

For anyone who thinks that Trump has a concrete, workable plan to repeal and replace, when is the last time you read “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”?

[Zarniwoop]

No one? No one thinks Trump has had a plan for the last nine years? Surely the tape doesn’t lie, and all those times since 2016 that he says he had a plan he’d be releasing “in a few weeks” were absolutely truthful, the best possible truths?

Or is it that his “concept of a plan” is just weak, sad trash talk designed to give gullible fools some thin veneer of cover and self respect when they’re being conned … and liking it, and asking for more?

The silence says so, so much. Thanks everyone! Point to Harris.

[shawn_dude]

This is like the abortion issue... great for riling up the base but no one seriously wants to actually get rid of Obamacare as that would be less useful and the results could backfire.

[Zarniwoop]

Ope, just saw this (I didn't write it myself!)

There once was a man with no plan
Who assured us through his fake tan
"Oh just you wait,
Things will be great!
Just like the casinos I ran."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

John Yoo still hasn't come over to the bright side to be clear.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/12/alberto-gonzales-kamala-harris-endorsement-00178746

Bush himself has said he is done with politics.

[Estragon]

The whole Haitians eating pets thing is unfortunate on a number of levels, but in particular my heart goes out to Gregory Gourdet who was just recognized in the culinary world for his incredible Haitian restaurant! Sucks to reach the pinnacle only to encounter this age-old bigotry. I’m guessing he’ll have the last laugh— a reservation is nearly impossible to come by

[Krayt]

I find it interesting to look down on Trump over this. Which I do not disagree with. But if you seek bigots, also look in the mirror.

If you liked banning eating cats and dogs, that’s you.

If you supported laws disallowing the exporting of horse meat, that’s you.

“That’s different!”

No it isn’t. Korea banned street vendor dog meat during the Olympics for fear of western countries looking down on them and Korean culture.

“That’s clean, pure, honest looking down on them!”

This is not a Trump apologist post. This is an everyone else is a facetious ass post. Since you consider it an ethical defect, perforce you look down on people who do it. But try to thread the needle to keep a clear conscience over it.

[Estragon]

I do indeed view repeating risible and demonstrably false rumors in this context as an ethical defect. I offer no opinion on any person’s honestly held culinary preferences at this time, other than to suggest that had RFK eaten less dog, he might not have ended up with brain worms

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you think that guy who is on video complaining about it to the Springfield city council a liar?

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : " (gibberish) "

I think anyone dumb enough to fall for the eaten-pet story is a gullible fool. Which describes you, Nazi Child. Of course, we could take the word of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R):

“This is something that came up on the internet and the internet can be quite crazy sometimes,” DeWine said. The GOP governor added that city officials, including the blue collar city’s mayor, Rob Rue, have maintained there is no evidence to support the activity is taking place. “I think we go with what the mayor says. He knows his city,” DeWine said.

[Nelson]

Yes.

This has been another episode of simple answers to stupid Nazi questions.

[Zarniwoop]

The most relevant graphic on "where do you draw the line?" with regard to acceptable meat choices:

https://9gag.com/gag/aRKeyVM

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

We can imagine what's to the Left of the Apocalyptic Crisis line.

[Zarniwoop]

Well, you do seem dumb enough to imagine eating rocks.

Personally, I’d rather explore the far right of the graphic by “bang[ing] a “Hot Vegan Chick”.

But you chose your preferences, I’ll chose mine. Not gonna kink shame you.

[shawn_dude]

Love the graphic.
Some quick takes...

Dog meat eaters raise only large dogs for this purpose (at least in South Korea when I lived there.) Small dogs are always pets. Pet dogs and food dogs are treated very, very differently.

My first meal at Lackland AFB was fried rabbit. It looked like fried chicken until I realized the bones were too thin. It was delicious. I've since had rabbit at numerous French restaurants and would happily do so again.

There wasn't a guinea pig on the graphic! Peruvians would be aghast.

In Key West, chickens run rampant across the island. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two gets snatched up for dinner every so often but these aren't pets.

On Alameda island in the San Francisco bay, they have wild turkeys roaming around. Scared the pants off me one day as they can be territorial and I've never been chased down a city street by a turkey (or any other fowl) before. My coworker, who lives on the island, says no one would ever consider nabbing one for Thanksgiving.

https://foragerchef.com/rabbit-chasseur-with-wild-mushrooms/

[Zarniwoop]

On Alameda island in the San Francisco bay, they have wild turkeys roaming around…. My coworker, who lives on the island, says no one would ever consider nabbing one for Thanksgiving.

A friend of mine in the vicinity of Oakland was on a conference call during the lockdowns, and noticed a small flock outside. Excused himself, checked that his hunting license was valid, and dropped a tom with a headshot from a .22. Elder kid was excited to help dress it (and have an excuse to leave her on-line school for the day). Partner was also excited to help cook it when she got home. It was reportedly tasty.

I was never surprised that he had a rifle and a license, just that he wouldn’t (or didn’t) get in trouble for shooting a turkey in that area.

[shawn_dude]

You seem to miss the actual bigotry here. It's not about whether individuals look up or down on the eating of certain animals. It's that most Americans consider eating certain animals barbaric and associating that to an entire people is to associate them with barbarism. It's just another iteration of implying non-white immigrants are criminals and rapists--practically a Republican party plank these days.

As for Koreans... you are somewhat mistaken. You should read up on that more. While it is true that some Koreans still eat dog (< 20% have even tried it), it is also looked down upon by fellow Koreans even more so today than it was when I lived there in the mid-80s. It isn't "Korean Culture" at all. Kagogi is an after-effect of the Korean war and the starvation that followed. Dog meat will be illegal in all of South Korea by 2027 for reasons that have nothing to do with the Olympics or what non-Koreans think about eating dog meat.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Portland is so lawless that pets are the only meat left. Liberals really did a number on that city!!

[dwb68]

The debate will cost Trump the election, so long as Harris maintains her media-keep-away strategy. Its working for her, she wont change it.

People need to focus on down ballot races. With a GOP Senate and house, she cant do all that much damage. If anything, Biden has pushed so hard, he's helping the Supreme Court dismantle the administrative state.

Of course, I would prefer if Trump were a real candidate capable of prosecuting the case against her, but he isnt, and we saw it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've said often enough that, while I understood on a psychological level the Republican urge to unite behind Trump in response to the lawfare, it was a stupid mistake.

The Democrats spent years demonizing Trump, and organizing their lawfare machine. The smart thing to do was to switch candidates as late as possible, so all that effort would be wasted and they'd have to start over from scratch.

A pity Trump was too narcissistic to see that, and screw the Democrats over by playing statesman and endorsing DeSantis. He could have gone out a respected elder statesman. Instead, even if he wins he'll probably be remembered as the second President to develop dementia in office, and his whole 2nd term will be consumed fighting Democratic state level efforts to throw him in jail.

[Roger S]

So you are saying to let the Dems use lawfare to knock out whomever they do not like?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I believe Brett is saying that Republicans should have nominated and united around a good candidate instead of the worst candidate.

[Roger S]

Trump is hated because he is America First, and because he fights back against those trying to destroy him. That is the core of it. Yes, the Repubs could find someone who is not hated as much, but he would not be up to doing the job.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump is mentally deranged, a complete asshole, a whining bully and a crook.

He's just better at it than you.

[Nelson]

Trump is hated because he is a terrible person, which infects every other aspect of his existence. He takes the irrational belief in his own prowess that most born-on-third-base trust fund babies have and combines it with a complete lack of morals, a delusional vision of his (lack of) accomplishments, and a voracious appetite for praise and attention, forming a toxic, insecure narcissist who would sacrifice anyone and anything to his ego.

He is a businessman whose ROI on the half a billion dollars his father left him has underperformed treasury bonds, a huckster who has defrauded people from Trump University students to family-owned construction firms in NYC, and a President who didn't (and still doesn't) understand the most basic concepts of macroeconomics (like tariffs drive up prices for consumers).

He has almost no redeeming qualities as a human. He has no sense of loyalty to others, nor concern for people's welfare, nor moral sense, nor principles, nor honesty, nor kindness, nor decency.

Non-MAGA voters hate him because he was a terrible, divisive, vindictive, erratic, and ineffective President. So far GOP voters' distaste for Ds has been stronger than their distaste for Trump. But after Crazy Uncle Don showed up to the debate, does he still have the support of the "hold your nose and vote" contingent in the GOP?

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump was far from the worst candidate even among the primary contenders. My argument is that he was the one the Democrats were best prepared to face, having laid the foundations for endless legal assaults against him, and that even if he HAD otherwise been the best candidate, nominating him was a poor tactical choice.

[Zarniwoop]

I think Haley was exactly correct when she said that the first party to kick their doddering old guy to the curb would win.

Had to look it up, the exact quote is "The first party to retire its 80-year-old candidate is going to be the one who wins this election."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Winning is everything and presidents should be interchangeable…except when your party has nominated Bush, McStain, and Romney!?! DeSantis is a neocon pretending to be America First. Rubio is too brown and Tim Scott is too black and Haley is probably a neocon like DeSantis.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, there's that psychological flaw in action: Because the Democrats treated Trump badly, you have to support him even if the rational thing is to switch candidates. You're letting the Democrats force your choice!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They were demonizing DeSantis until he dropped out. They demonized George Bish for crissakes.

The Democrats going berserk is just the norm now.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

DeSantis killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden…and so did Bush. Oh, and over a million Americans died from the bioweapon attack Trump failed to stop.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, they were demonizing DeSantis, and would have done the same to anybody who got nominated. The difference is that they'd put in a lot of hard, expensive work preparing to tie Trump up in legal knots, the very ones he's tied up in now.

And they hadn't prepared yet to do that to DeSantis.

[Nelson]

That's because Ron DeSantis is an equally shitty human being and George Bush got us into an unjustified forever war instead of focusing on the people who attacked us (turning that into another forever war).

But since Trump has also demonized DeSantis and Bush, doesn't that make it hard for Trumpkins to condemn Ds for doing rhe same thing?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Democrats did that.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/396095

Do you think any of our military leadership in DC would ever accept responsibility for their failures as this Israeli general has done?

On October 7th, at 06:29, we did not perform as I expected of myself, as my subordinates and commanders expected, and as the citizens of the country that I so love expected of me.

Personally, I failed by not adequately understanding the need, and therefore I didn't adequately reflect the need, that in the special reality on the Gaza border, we as a system are held to a different risk management which stems from the small margin of error that in the region.

I did not point out that there are, in fact, two Nukhba commando divisions on the Gaza border, minutes away from Israeli communities. And with enemies that constantly meet the might of the Israeli intelligence and internalize it, you can not rely on SIGINT deterrence for operational preparedness, and certainly not build on the fact that at the H-Hour we would manage to get the 'golden intelligence' report. 8200's responsibility for its part in the intelligence and operational failure is all on me.

I know that I worked with the utmost awe and despite this, I am deeply sorry. Sorry that I did not perform the task as you expected of me and as I demanded of myself. I know and pain that I can't fix what was done. I bow my head.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'm pretty sure the Pentagon has declared anyone critical of them to be a sign of being a domestic terrorist

[shawn_dude]

If the Commander in Chief cannot admit losing an election, why should our military not follow his lead?

[Commenter_XY]

Whatever the cause, the zero accountability culture in our leadership (civilian, military) is an unwelcome development for America.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think quoting a general in Israel has established a lack of accountability in the American military.

[Nelson]

I remember when the military accepted the righteous condemnation for the Iraq War, clusterfucking every "nation building" mission ever, and the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Oh, wait ...

[M L]

What stuck out to me after watching the debate.

1. Harris dodged almost every question, maybe every single one. Repeatedly they would ask a question and she would just ignore it and go into a non-responsive spiel about how she is going to give everyone free money and a bunch of platitudes. Maybe a smart strategy, probably really is in smaller doses at least. But no surprise, 80 days or whatever and she is still avoiding the media and any unscripted appearances, running on vibes. She only just recently put a few sentences of “policy” up on her website. This is so different from Trump who just repeatedly walks right into the pit of vipers on live TV. Trump was more responsive to the questions at the debate too, though not answering every one.

2. As usual, Trump failed to capitalize on easy opportunities – like pressuring Harris to answer after she dodged questions. He is easily distracted and irritable. This is all nothing new, not surprising, same as always. But he doesn’t help himself with that and if he could somehow improve, it would help him. Of course it’s very easy to be a hindsight critic, though. Probably many other Republicans and conservatives could do better in this specific way, but there are other reasons why they’re not the ones up on that stage and aren’t even close to being the ones up on that stage.

3. Of course the mods were totally biased, not just in arguing and debating and contradicting Trump, and pushing their usual contrived misinterpretations, but also in pressing him for answers when he wasn’t responsive whereas they didn’t press Harris for dodging every single question. I posted a good summary yesterday of 21 main false claims by Harris that mods didn’t “fact check.” Personally, this is all pretty unsurprising, kind of overblown as a talking point, and not really my hobby horse. But I do think people see it.

4. Interesting to see how the media learns and adapts. Almost the entirety of the screen time was split screen, eye level head on with the candidates, so that their differences in stature and so on would not be shown. The few times they did a brief broader view was at such a harsh downward angle, it was almost like drone footage flying overhead. The walking around, town hall format of the famous last Trump-Clinton debate won’t happen again, probably ever.

5. On the whole, I don’t think this debate moves the needle much. But I give Harris the edge in that debate. She stuck to her lightweight “vibes” tactic and it seemed workable. She was coached by Hollywood acting coaches according to Tulsi Gabbard, you could see her putting on this act which will probably sell OK to the people disposed to buying it. Relatedly, I think Gen Z is checking out of electoral politics. Maybe sort of like when a boomer would be all into the Oscars or something and millennials didn’t get it, now zoomers think politics is just a bunch of nonsense covering up corruption and don’t get into it.

[Josh R]

It's vibes plus bait Trump, and it worked.

[Kazinski]

Worked how?

Polls look pretty much the same to me.

[Both Sides]

With the caveat that I think it's entirely possible that the debate won't move the poll needles all that much, I think "40 total hours and just over a dozen business hours after the debate ended" is probably too soon to judge whether that's actually true.

[Josh R]

She won the debate.

Will it make a difference in the end? Likely not, but losing the debate is a worse outcome. And, it’s too early to know what the polls are doing in response to the debate (but, I don’t expect any movement).

[Roger S]

Harris ignored every question, and just recited prepared remarks. She did not really debate. We did not learn much about her, except as her handlers choose to present her.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That’s a conspiracy theory and you are in a cult! Everyone saw how amazing and perfect Kamala was! Even her contorted faces were amazing!

Sincerely
Sarcastr0

[Nelson]

"Harris ignored every question"

Apparently this is your first time watching a debate. You think politicians answer the questions posed to them. That's so cute.

[M L]

Remember Time Mag, "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election" ?

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

This guy contemplates they'll do it again in 2024.

https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1833564765320581614

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They already are.

Normal people call it "stealing an election" they call it "fortifying an election".

These people are the same ones that subvert elections all over the world for reasons they believe are just. Why wouldn't they also do that here?

[Sarcastr0]

That long-ass tweet is all drama no substance. It takes the most dramatic bits from an article written in an overdramatic tone that describes things that are actually anything sinister nor are they a conspiracy except in the most pedantic of senses:

“They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. ”

But sure, lay the foundation to once again delegitimize an election you might lose.
That’s the kind of post-democracy losers your ilk are.

Hope you fail, but if you succeed I’m sure you won’t like the result you’re pushing for as much as you think.

[apedad]

" . . . got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time."

Wait.....is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I have to ensure my outrage is pointed in the right direction.

[Nelson]

Using a phrase that I'd never heard before, but instantly loved: that depends on whose cat is being eaten.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hear that you Krazy Konspirator Kultists!

They told you themselves what they were doing was for our own good! And only crazy MAGAts don't believe what people say!!! You're harming our Sacred Democracy if you don't believe what the elites tell you to believe about their actions!!

Get on board with the Right Side of History you bigot! Didn't you see that awesome debate!!!

[Josh R]

TL/DR. From what little I read, the "conspiracy" was people working together to defeat Trump at the ballot box. Isn't that what elections are supposed to be?

[Nelson]

Yes, unless the Ds win. Then it's a problem that needs to be addressed by smashing up the Capitol.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I really enjoyed Kamalas repeated insistence that we close the book on the past and move to a new future.

Do you think someone should tell her she’s integral to that past ? I mean she was a Senator and then Vice President.

[Krayt]

Bush the Elder famously ran on making "A kinder, gentler nation."

Wait, was it a nasty nation previously? Was it nasty during the previous 8 years you were VP? Why? And why didn't you do anything about it?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Bush the Elder was a globalist piece of garbage. Just like everyone else in DC.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you think Fauci's greatest legacy, other than becoming super wealthy as a career civil servant, is that under his watch America's public health plummeted to crisis proportions with nearly a 1500% growth in chronic disease and illness under his watch?

[Magister]

What was he supposed to do? Fauci on a Couchi?

[Magister]

Oh no, all the Fauci on a Couchi were recalled because of JD Vance.

[Krayt]

Covid aside, what crisis? Life is longer and healthier than ever before.

Our worst health problem is capitalism has yielded too much cheap, fattening food. This is a novel problem to have historically, which is lousy with studies of insufficient nutrition and starvation.

There's a reason grown men don't run around at 5'4" anymore, in even the better-off countries.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>Covid aside, what crisis? Life is longer and healthier than ever before.

"Currently, some 50% of the US population has a chronic disease, creating an epidemic, and 86% of health care costs are attributable to chronic disease." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077778/

>Our worst health problem is capitalism has yielded too much cheap, fattening food.

lol oh you poor summer child. Maybe communism can save us! By not giving us ANY food..

[Nelson]

"Currently, some 50% of the US population has a chronic disease"

Obesity is a chronic disease. How exactly is Fauci (who was the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, not the Surgeon General) responsible for Americans being fat and not exercising?

[Don Nico]

National security advisor Jake Sullivan has said recently that Iran is positioned for a nuclear breakout. It has the both the feedstock and the centrifuges to produce enough weapons grade uranium for 9 nuclear weapons in one month.
Yet the candidates were not asked about how they would deal with a nuclear Iran or the upset apple cart in the Middle East.

[Joe_dallas]

Raising a good point

Supposedly, the JCPOA was supposed to delay / curtail Iran's nuclear program. The so called "inspections" allegedly claimed there was actual curtailment, yet Iran ' restarted the program when trump backed out of the agreement (non ratified treaty?)

It always struck me a dubious that funneling cash, paying ransoms, etc was actually going to curtail the nuclear program. Naive belief - neville chamberlain naivity?

[grb]

Joe_dallas : "... yet Iran ‘ restarted the program when trump backed out of the agreement ..."

Leave it to Joe_dallas to be amazed (amazed!) that Iran stopped following an agreement once Trump sabotaged it.

Which vies for one of the most moronic decisions Trump ever made. His own administration certified Iran was following the pact and its nuclear weapons program was completely shut down. Trump didn't have the slightest clue what to do after destroying the agreement and therefore did nothing. But he didn't think about that before and didn't care about it after. He just knew there were people like Joe_dallas so braindead stupid they'd find junking the pact yummy red meat. So for that bit of pandering to imbeciles, a nuclear Iran.

Take a bow, Joe....

[Nelson]

"Trump didn’t have the slightest clue what to do after destroying the agreement and therefore did nothing. But he didn’t think about that before and didn’t care about it after."

You can cut-and-paste this onto pretty much any issue and have it be accurate. He does things for perception, not results.

He trashed NAFTA, "replaced" it with basically the exact same agreement, and bragged about how much better it was.

I mean, come on. He's been saying that he will repeal and replace Obamacare with something [insert vague synonym for "really good" here] for nine years (and repeatedly tried to when he was President), but even now he only has "concepts of a plan" (my favorite laugh-out-loud line of the night).

That's what he is. That's what he does. He's an empty suit, full of bullshit and bravado and lacking any substance whatsoever.

[Zarniwoop]

What grb said.

Did you expect Iran to keep following the agreement once Trump unilaterally nuked it from orbit, over the objections of every other signatory*? Did any sane person expect Iran to keep following the deal?

It was dumb for Trump to peevishly withdraw, and the result is entirely predictable. "Art of the deal", my posterior orifice.

*Signatories: the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, United States - plus Germany (collectively the "P5+1"), together with the European Union.

[Don Nico]

That may all be true.
BUT what is the US going to do about it as our policy remains to deny nuclear capability to Iran?
Moreover, Israel has begun to press the administration on exactly this question according to the IDF minister of defense.

One likely ploy by Iran is that it will let it be known that it will not take the final step, if the US eases some of its sanctions.

[Zarniwoop]

That may all be true.
BUT what is the US going to do about it as our policy remains to deny nuclear capability to Iran?

I honestly don’t know: what diplomatic “art of the deal” leverage does the US have with Iran after Trump? Why would Iran trust the next deal that the US offers? Will Iran as gullible as the building contractors Trump regularly stiffed? I bet most of those contractors demanded 110% payment up front if Trump wanted their services ever again….

Trump didn’t just torpedo the JCPOA; he fuxxored our capacity to enter in to future deals and have the terms be relied on by the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, I can understand why Iran might conclude it’s logical to build a bomb at this point, because they can’t trust the US to keep a deal. Especially if Trump is elected again.

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately, the US is likely to be blackmailed by Iran or pushed into a corner by Israel. A serious candidate better have an idea what to do as the choice is now upon the US.
The fact is that the Iranian oil income has doubled in the past year. Iran will "trust" the US gradually backing away from sanctions as no actual trust is required, just the demanded compensation.
Did trump put the US in the box? At least, mostly.

[Martinned2]

No one can trust the US to keep a deal, because the Senate won't ratify anything more controversial than "sliced bread is great", and the American people can't be relied upon not to elect dangerous lunatics. This isn't just a problem for the current administration's policies towards Iran and the rest of the Middle East, but also Taiwan, Japan, and lots of other places. Why do you think Japan has decided to expand its army so much?

[Commenter_XY]

Is a nuclear armed Iran an existential threat to the US? Yes or No.

If the answer is yes, then what of NK...same answer? I note we live with a nuclear armed NK, and have for some time.

Living with a nuclear armed Iran will soon be a reality (if it isn't already). Now, if other countries in that region of the world have a shared interest in not dealing a nuclear armed Iran, and needs some help...I'd certainly hear them out with a bias to give them what they think they need to remove the threat (nuclear armaments).

The US needs to think through the implications of current Iran policy, and subsequent actions. Because NK is aligned with Iran. So is China. I understand the rationale to attempt to engage with Iran (2008-16, 2021-24), but the attempt was always doomed to fail because you are dealing with the wrong players (e.g. mullahs).

[Martinned2]

Every additional nuclear power is a bad thing.

Thinking about international relations in black & white, “Yes or No” terms is not helpful. That’s what children do. “If you’re not with us you’re against us”, “Axis of Evil”, and all that nonsense.

[Don Nico]

"Every additional nuclear power is a bad thing."
Agreed, Martin. However, in the end, prudential decisions must be made.

[Nelson]

"BUT what is the US going to do about it as our policy remains to deny nuclear capability to Iran?"

What can we do? Trump proved over and over that he wouldn't live up to any international commitments if he didn't want to (or woke up with gas or didn't get his Diet Coke fast enough). Unsurprisingly, other nations have been hesitant to make new agreements with us as long as Trump is a viable candidate for President. And it can't be done without international agreement.

Trump wrecked out credibility as an ally and a partner in international affairs. Until the world is assured that he can't bring faithlessness back to international relations, we're stuck.

[Don Nico]

Going back to past blame, does not absolve the next administration of having a clear idea of what to do.
Iran is a huge thorn in the side of US Middle East policy. Silence from the candidate is not golden.

[Martinned2]

A reasonable case can be made that the US should do a comprehensive deal with Iran. There's no reason to put all Middle-Eastern eggs in the Saudi basket. Offer to treat Iran like we treat Saudi, no sanctions, lots of oil revenue, in return for no more weapons to Russia, no nuke, and no attacks on Israel.

[Commenter_XY]

The mullahs will refuse that deal.

[Martinned2]

They want to stay alive and in power as much as any dictator. And the deal I've set out does not require them to change anything about how Iran is governed.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Your deal would have to include no nukes, no more destabilizing activities in the Middle East, no more attacks by Houthis on shipping, etc.
Even so, you are asking the mullah to give up what they consider a "sacred value." Therefore, it is very highly unlikely

[grb]

Don Nico : “BUT what is the US going to do about it as our policy remains to deny nuclear capability to Iran?”

There are no good options remaining. Any military option short of full invasion & regime change will delay the inevitable months at best. It took Obama years to piece together the coalition that forced the original deal, and that’s now hopeless too.

Don Nico : “Moreover, Israel has begun to press the administration”

Of course, Netanyahu campaigned within the U.S. to support Trump’s dumbass withdrawal. The former’s support was important but hardly decisive. There were enough Joe_dallas types in the GOP’s base to prompt DJT’s self-destructive action. But Netanyahu’s position was still bizarre. Unlike Trump, he’s not stupid. And his campaign included a wierd dog-and-pony show where the Israeli leader claimed Iran was cheating with documents captured by the IDF from a warehouse. But all those documents dated 12-15yrs before Obama’s pact.

Don Nico : “One likely ploy by Iran is that it will let it be known that it will not take the final step, if the US eases some of its sanctions”

Probably the best case scenario, but I think that ship has sailed.

[Commenter_XY]

This guy, Jake Sullivan has such a stellar record....on his watch:
UKR and ISL both blew up;
the USN is currently being thwarted by the Houthis (e.g. Suez traffic severely reduced) and I would call that losing from any perspective;
and, the Chinese are intimidating the Philippines, a treaty ally.

If he is the man making the strategic decisions for America, he is incompetent.

[Nelson]

Apparently you don't understand what "advisor" means. He isn't the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Navy or the Commander-in-Chief.

Advisors, by definition generally and in the American system specifically, don't make decisions, strategic or otherwise.

So your argument is "Jake Sullivan was in the government when these things happened, so he's responsible"? That's not a credible criticism, even by the looser standards of the American right.

[Don Nico]

Yes, he is only an advisor. BUT he is on the inside track and has the ear of POTUS each and every day.
And he does have full access to all intelligence and policy discussions about national security affairs.

[Commenter_XY]

And Sullivan is an arrogant, pompous ass. It complements his incompetence, perfectly.

[Martinned2]

What do you suppose he could have done about any of those things that he didn't? It may surprise you to learn that the US doesn't control everything that happens in the world...

[Kazinski]

Kind of missed, with all the debate hoopla (Yes Kamala did better than expected, Trump was the same as he ever was), so far was a mixed inflation report.

"Headline CPI was in line with expectations as it rose by 0.2% m/m, 2.5% y/y in August (Jul: 0.2% m/m, 2.9% y/y). However, core CPI re-accelerated as it rose by 0.3% m/m (from 0.2% m/m in Jul) while compared to 12 months ago, it stayed elevated at 3.2% y/y. Shelter costs was the key factor driving inflation as it rose in August at the fastest m/m pace since start of 2024, while core services inflation also accelerated on a m/m basis in Aug, for the second month in a row.”

The fed is still probably going with a .25% rate cut, but a half point rate cut is probably off the table.

[Commenter_XY]

One mistake that the Fed made back in the 70's was Burns, and then Miller letting up on the brake too soon. Their misjudgment added years of high inflation.

This is a case where I would rather keep rates higher for longer and kill the inflation vampire.

[Nelson]

I agree. People in government got complacent when two decades of artificially low Fed rates didn't spike inflation. Citizens got used to artificially low mortgage rates and car loans.

The pressure is on to cut rates, but I'm with you. When you have your opponent on the ropes, don't let him get a breather or he could rally.

[Commenter_XY]

I also believe doing nothing (leaving rates alone) won't impact the election, either way. That is a net plus. It would be one less factor for voters to think about.

[Bored Lawyer]

I see the usual suspects are engaged in the usual Sturm und Drang over last night's debate. I didn't watch it, and from the reports I have seen, I did not miss anything.

One thing that I find really strange is the big emphasis on animals that some immigrants allegedly ate in Ohio -- anything from cats, ducks, geese to seagulls. My reaction to that is -- so what? So some people eat weird animals. Bothers me very little.

Much more bothersome are reports that a Venezuelan immigrant gang has taken over an apartment complex in Colorado, and now I read just today a second one. That bothers me much more. That's another sign of the general breakdown of law and order.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So racism doesn't bother you, and you get your news from idiots.

Got it!

[Bored Lawyer]

It's not racism, that's made up BS. And I got it from National Review, which is far more reliable than you.

But at least you have earned muting. Bye-bye!

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, it's a racist rumor, denied by the complex' residence, the police and from an unsourced unclear video.

I didn't read NRO, but I read the NY Post about it, and NPR, and a few other places (including some back and forth on here last week).

It's nothing. And it's fuel is an attempt to goose the election with some racism, that blatant.

The GOP is truly pushing some ugly, ugly stuff lately.

Of course you've heard of a second one. After the first rumor got so much credence from racial grievance-mongers, this is not surprising.

[ThePublius]

Read this:
https://kdvr.com/news/local/aurora-whispering-pines-the-edge-at-lowry-apartments/

[Sarcastr0]

"After meeting with tenants from both complexes last week, Coffman said he agreed with interim Police Chief Heather Morris “that a Venezuelan gang is not in control of either of these two apartment complexes,” although he said he believes there were “gang-related problems … that caused the property managers to flee.”

Coffman said went to the complexes unaccompanied on Sunday “without incident” and visited every floor throughout all nine buildings."

[Nelson]

Wait, it isn't even controlled by a gang at all? Shit, I just assumed it was true because it isn't uncommon for gangs to control housing units. I thought the dishonesty was in the selective outrage, not the story itself.

[Bored Lawyer]

Colorado governor Jared Polis and local progressives have tried to downplay the chaos and violence that’s descended on Aurora, pushing back on Mayor Mike Coffman’s claim that the CBZ apartments have been “taken over” by gangs. But, according to Cindy Romero, who used to live at the Edge apartments, that’s exactly what’s happened.

“They want to say there’s no takeover. I don’t know what your definition of ‘takeover’ is, but there were no managers, no owners, the housekeepers were being harassed, and these guys changed the locks to the outside of buildings.”

“I saw them breaking down doors and taking pictures, then showing the apartments to different families like they were real-estate agents.”

“They had their own electricians, locksmiths, and plumbers, and they cooked in my building for like 50 people like six days a week. They partied all night until breakfast then went to bed. They carried guns and terrorized every lease holder until they moved. I was the last [lease holder] in my building.”

“That’s a takeover.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/poorly-managed-aurora-apartments-offered-easy-target-for-nonprofit-driven-migrant-takeover/

Sorry, your gaslighting and racism-calling does not impress.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The NRO article is paywalled, but your summary indicates a single source.

Meanwhile, major media organizations have looked into it and the "takeover" narrative is false and promotes bigotry against Venezuelan immigrants.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/11/politics/colorado-apartment-complex-battleground-immigration/index.html

[Sarcastr0]

Never thought you would be one to stoop this low, Bored.

And I don't just mean pushing a racist canard - learn what gaslight means!

You’re a practicing attorney, for fuck’s sake.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, truth hurts, doesn't it? A woman was driven out of her home, but we should believe CNN? F--- off.

And I know what gaslighting means. It has undergone a linguistic shift to mean argument by misdirection and misleading.

Language changes over time. Deal with it.

[Randal]

And I know what gaslighting means. It has undergone a linguistic shift to mean argument by misdirection and misleading.

Obviously, it hasn’t completely shifted. Feel free to (mis)use it that way though, I find it funny. You’re losing your mind because people are pointing facts out to you! It’s an admission of a cult mindset.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Lying that Haitian immigrants are killing the pets of citizens and eating them is absolutely racist.

Perhaps you should actually cite your sources, so that people can more properly make fun of your gullibility and stupidity, or more accurately call you out for deliberately spreading racist rumors like a piece of shit.

[Nelson]

You're right, it isn't racism. It's xenophobia, which is a different but equally ugly beast.

And if the National Review didn't point out the fact that the Hatian story was nonsense, it does negatively impact their credibility. It sounds like a batshot crazy story because it is.

[bernard11]

One thing that I find really strange is the big emphasis on animals that some immigrants allegedly ate in Ohio — anything from cats, ducks, geese to seagulls. My reaction to that is — so what? So some people eat weird animals. Bothers me very little.

I think you missed the whole point. First, the big part of the story is not that they ate ducks. It's that they stole and ate pets, and that they took ducks and geese from a park and ate them also.

Now, This didn't happen. It was made up by some RW blogger. Then JD Vance pushed the story, not bothering to check it, and ignoring statements by the city manager, the police chief, and the (Republican) governor that it was a total fabrication.

And of course the RW media and Trump himself, not to mention many of our cultists, continue to push it, or at least defend it despite it having no credibility whatsoever.

Why? Because the image of scary black immigrants stealing your cat and barbecuing it gets people angry, at blacks, and immigrants, and especially black immigrants, and so might induce some more irrational votes for Trump. (There are no rational ones.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

"...and so might induce some more irrational votes for Trump."

Well, votes and bomb threats. I leave it to you to decide if that's just an unintended, but entirely predictable, side effect or intended effect of spouting racist lies about a relatively powerless outgroup.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He didn't miss the point, Bernard. He's doing exactly what all the Trump fuckwads are doing and trying to deflect, rationalize, and minimize the outrageous conduct of their messiah yet again.

Why? Because not a single one of them has the minimum amount of integrity to just speak the truth anymore.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Because not a single one of them has the minimum amount of integrity to just speak the truth anymore."

This.

[Nelson]

"One thing that I find really strange is the big emphasis on animals that some immigrants allegedly ate"

A few of the many problems with the cat-eating thing are that 1) it's not true, 2) it was part of a diatribe against illegal immigrants, but Hatians in Springfield are legal immigrants, 3) when it was pointed out that there was no evidence of it being true Trump doubled down by claiming he had "seen it on TV" when the only video is of a man in a town hall making an unsubstantiated (and disproven) claim. The geese and ducks are about conservative efforts to say "well, it wasn't cats it was geese", but their "evidence" is a picture taken in Columbus (not Springfield) of an American (not a Hatian) carrying a dead goose. As a lawyer, bored or otherwise, I would think you can see how doubling down on lies in the face of exculpatory evidence is a bad thing in a court, never mind in the temperament of someone who wants to be President.

"Much more bothersome are reports that a Venezuelan immigrant gang has taken over an apartment complex in Colorado"

Criminal gangs controlling housing units is a terrible, but not uncommon, problem in America. Have you always been bothered by it, or is it just that the gang is allegedly made up of Venezuaelean immigrants? If it was controlled by one of the American gangs, would that make it better?

"That’s another sign of the general breakdown of law and order."

You mean the thing that's been happening for at least 100 years (see: Al Capone In Chicago) is suddenly a sign of the breakdown of law and order? But violent rioters smashing their way into the US Capitol wasn't?

[M L]

The interest burden of the public debt of the U.S. government has topped $1 trillion already this year, the first time interest costs have crossed the trillion dollar threshold.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Given this is a concern and given Trump's track record and his proposals, this, undoubtedly, means you are voting for Kamala Harris.

Via Kevin Drum:

This kind of wonky analysis seems even more pointless than usual this year, but just for the record here's an estimate from the Penn Wharton Budget Model of how much each candidate's economic proposals will affect the national debt...Trump's proposals blow up the debt by 5x more than Harris's.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Democrats control the deficit better than Republicans; during my lifetime they twice even made it disappear and got us surpluses. It's practically an iron rule of American politics by now.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Exactly right.

It's a no-brainer who to vote for if the deficit/debt is high on your priority list.

[Don Nico]

"It’s a no-brainer ..."
Do you really expect either of the candidates to stop deficit spending?
Vote for whomever you choose, the national debt and the annual debt service payments will continue to increase.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The magnitude of deficit spending matters, however. Of course, being a Trump supporter, you have to pretend it doesn't.

[Nelson]

Don, remember the First Rule of Holes. It applies to deficits as well as well as it does anything else.

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately Clinton's balanced budget will never be repeated in your lifetime or mine.

[Sarcastr0]

No one saw it coming in the 1980s either.

No one knows the future. Use that to be optimistic; why not?

[Martinned2]

Why is that bad? You realise that more than 75% of US public debt is held domestically, right? This is money that the US pays itself.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I didn’t watch the debate. I’m not big on debates. I kept track of the commentary. Checked the summary and analysis. Also, watched a few clips.

The first debate was uniquely important since it showed President Biden looking very bad. He had a strong State of the Union & looked fine in various other contexts. The debate, not so much.

It also brought out talk that behind the scenes he was starting to look his age. How true that was overall is not as important as the general assumptions. And, he eventually dropped out.

This debate was important for Harris since she had more to lose. Trump had a low bar and his supporters generally aren’t going anywhere. She met the test well. This included controlling the debate and triggering Trump. Control is a very important part of Trump’s m.o. He looked weak.

Some of this, again, is about appearances and reactions, including of the media. Fox News analyzed that it was a bad debate for him.

I question how far this will move the needle but Trump has a narrow path to possible victory. A little bit of movement matters.

The fact-checking of the moderators also was important. Provides a possible precedent. This was seen as “unfair” — which is silly. Trump kept on making stuff up and they corrected it. They also repeatedly gave him more time to respond. Not exactly unfair.

A debate these days is not like the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, which had some theater as it was. Talking about “sound bites” or such is not saying much. That’s what a debate generally is. You have certain stock answers, which you have to provide artfully.

Harris hit the points overall while Trump did things like saying he had a “concept of a plan” and various other risible things. It didn’t go well. If I was Harris, I would hope he doesn’t do another one. Why risk a possible problem?

[Bored Lawyer]

Like Congressional hearings, debates have devolved to nothing but Kabuki theatre. They are a waste of time.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't agree.

First, I generally question when people reference some prime past. Debates and hearings always had some theater.

Second, they provide some insights. Last night surely did.

Hearings have value too. They can provide information, give a sense of nominees and other people who show up, and provide a chance for the people's representatives to interact.

There is theater involved but again that's the nature of politics. Always was.

[Mr. Bumble]

They are and have hardly been debates, Lincoln/Douglas was a debate.

[Nelson]

"debates have devolved to nothing but Kabuki theatre"

So assuming your analysis is true, how does it make Trump shitting the bed look any better?

[grb]

My office does an all-you-can-eat crab fest every year (with open bar) & I’m just back, satiated & belly-full.

(I offer that just to gloat)

[Bored Lawyer]

But how many CATS did you eat? 😉

[Sarcastr0]

First time I did a crab fest I tried to treat it like an ordinary all you can eat thing. I got so frustrated I was never filling up.

Took me until the next one to realize that's not a bug, it's a feature. If you want to fill up, that's what the potatoes, corn, and sausage is for.

[ThePublius]

Your crab eating skills are poor.

[Estragon]

“In psychiatry, the tendency to conspicuously and rigidly repeat a thought beyond the point of relevance, called “perseverance,” is known to be correlated with a variety of clinical disorders, including those involving a loss of cognitive reserve. People tend to stick to familiar topics over and over when they experience an impairment in cognitive functioning—for instance, in short-term memory.”

I think that this may be part of the explanation as to how we ended up with an answer of “tariffs” to a question about the costs of childcare

[Nelson]

Nikki Haley may have been prescient when she said the first party to ditch its 80-year-old would win the White House.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>BREAKING: ABC whistleblower allegedly will release an affidavit claiming the Harris campaign was given sample questions that were “essentially the same questions that were given during the debate,” as well as assurances that Trump would be “fact-checked” and she would not.

President Trump is right. This should be criminal. This undermines our democratic process.

Now Seattle Times is getting on the bullshit train in “fact checking” Trump’s claim about CHAZ, saying it never happened.

Democrats are the real threat to our nation. Not President Trump the Good.

[Reallynotbob]

Link or it didn't happen.

[Bored Lawyer]

It originates on X. Sounds like made up BS.

[Armchair]

They would NEVER give democrats the debate questions...

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donna-brazile-wikileaks-fallout-230553

[Zarniwoop]

JeebusHBE is too much of a wimp to even link to that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://twitter.com/thehoffather/status/1834265224322646423

Of course, a newspaper wouldn't LIE about something Trump said! They are noble journolisters who would NEVER do that!

How dare me endanger our Sacred Democracy that Dies in Darkness by questioning our 4th Branch of Government, the infallible Mainstream Press!

Will you ever forgive me for not properly worshipping elites?

[Sarcastr0]

How could you link a to Jew?
I thought you hated those guys!

[Zarniwoop]

Put up or shut up, coward.

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : " (gibberish) "

Does anyone keep a running tally how often the Nazi Child makes a fool of himself in any given comment thread? (Certainly more times than I have fingers and toes).

[myself]

Which one?

[Sarcastr0]

He's proud of it:
"I mostly comment on this board while I’m taking shit. I skim not study.

I like to keep my inputs/outputs consistent. Lower cognitive load.

Read shit, take a shit, talk shit, reply to shit. I keep the big brain stuff for more important matters."
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/23/lets-go-brandon-t-shirts-can-be-barred-from-middle-school-on-grounds-of-vulgarity/?comments=true#comment-10698877

Read him, but don't bother to try and debate with him or hold out any hope he's not lying.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment!

You continue to make big contributions to the conversation!

Your fingerwags, gaslighting, bootlicking and tut-tutting make such greater contributions than my comments!

How many of my other comments are in your memorial? Are you saving them for future historians? Or for you to reread over and over again while you're crying alone at night?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Muted him a while ago.

[Nelson]

Grb, it's safer to approach it the other way. Assuming it's bullshit and being startled when it isn't will net you many, many fewer surprises than assuming it's true and being startled when it isn't. Too many surprises in too short a time could cause an arrhythmia.

Stay safe. Assume the Nazi is full of crap.

[David Nieporent]

It of course is a complete fabrication, but it also is not and should not be "criminal," and — unlike trying to violently attack the people counting votes — does not "undermine our democratic process."

[Randal]

Now Seattle Times is getting on the bullshit train in “fact checking” Trump’s claim about CHAZ, saying it never happened.

I always forget how small your brain is, Chuck.

Seattle Times didn't say "it never happened." They said a) it was just six blocks, not a "large percentage of Seattle," and b) there were in fact arrests, convictions, and long sentences. Two things Trump lied about in the debate.

[Reallynotbob]

Are we gonna talk about Trump copying Regan's "there you go again" line?

Maybe he prepared for the debate by watching reruns.

[Zarniwoop]

Also tried (and flubbed the timing) using Harris’s “Im talking now” line against her. Made it sound too rehearsed/planned, and deployed it ineffectively.

[John F. Carr]

Alberto Fujimori has died. His final years were spent being convicted and pardoned for various abuses of power as president of Peru.

[ThePublius]

I didn't even know he was sick!

[Armchair]

Poll from the forum.

Do you have any real doubt that Covid-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019, sparking the Covid-19 pandemic?

[Frank Drackman]

The Novel Corona Virus originated in the City with the Novel Corona Virus Institute?

[David Nieporent]

Do you have any real doubt that Covid-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019, sparking the Covid-19 pandemic?

Yes. That doesn't mean I think it couldn't have happened. But there's been no direct evidence found to support that theory — basically nothing more than the circumstantial evidence that the first identified cases were observed in the same city as the lab — and therefore I certainly harbor doubts.

[Armchair]

There is substantially more than just the "coincidence" that the first cases identified were in Wuhan.

1. The unusual biology of the virus itself.
2. The unusual biological structure of the virus.
3. The fact the "natural" animal carrier still is yet to be identified.
4. The fact that evidence that could have exonerated the WIV has been destroyed and/or withheld
5. And more.

Perhaps you're unaware.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/

[Dan Schiavetta]

As with most Republican Congress "findings", this is trash. House Republicans are foot soldiers of Donald Trump and will find whatever facts he wants them to find. They even go behind the backs of their Democratic colleagues to give the Trump White House documents that are supposed to be confidential. And no, this does not happen with Democrats, nor did it used to happen with Republicans.

[Nelson]

I miss the old Republicans with morals and integrity and a sense of pride. I could, and did, vote for them. I still do, locally. The rot is hasn't made it from the head down to my area. Mostly.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This seems like a strangely aggressive framing. I am very confident that a lab leak is the most likely explanation, but do I have any real doubt? Of course, and it's hard to see how you couldn't, given the state of the evidence.

[Armchair]

The focus in on the "real" doubt part. Not so much the "any" part.

[Commenter_XY]

It was a lab leak. Whence? China.

[Armchair]

Poll for the forum, #2.

Given that statehood is essentially an irreversible decisions, do you believe that a supermajority of citizens (>60%) approving of statehood in a given territory should be required to grant statehood?

Or is just "50%+1" enough for you?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It was good enough to Brexit!

[shawn_dude]

I presume you're referencing Puerto Rico as it's really the only one in a position to do that?

[Commenter_XY]

Whatever the constitutionally defined process is, within that territory seeking statehood, is what guides the process for the territory. It is up to the territory.

[Nelson]

I like the norms and standards version of Commenter XY. I find myself in agreement with him more often than not.

I share your position, XY.

[David Nieporent]

Whatever the constitutionally defined process is, within that territory seeking statehood, is what guides the process for the territory. It is up to the territory.

That is not really correct. Congress has to admit a state. A territory's vote is non-binding. If Congress says, "50.1% is good enough for us; we're making you a state" then the territory becomes a state at 50.1%. If Congress says 60% is required, then 50.1% isn't enough. Hell, Congress can decide that 40% is sufficient.

[Zarniwoop]

Looks like the first decent-quality post-debate polls are starting to come out:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4877164-harris-leads-trump-debate-poll

Vice President Harris widened her lead over former President Trump following Tuesday’s presidential debate in a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The poll, which took place Sept. 10-12, found Harris up 5 points over Trump, with Harris at 47 percent support and Trump at 42 percent support. Another Reuters/Ipsos poll, which occurred late last month, found Harris at 45 percent versus Trump’s 41 percent support among registered voters.

Harris was seen by many as having a successful debate Tuesday night; 63 percent of registered voters in a flash poll said the vice president performed better on the debate stage, while only about 37 said the same about Trump.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found the vice president came out on top in the recent debate, with 53 percent of voters who said they had heard about the debate choosing her as the winner. Only 24 percent of this group chose the former president as the debate’s winner.

Meanwhile, Trump is probably still bloviating that he won, 90% to 10%. Sad.

[hobie]

President Harris may have a chance to nominate two Supremes. I know Harlan Thomas wants to hang on for the gravy train, but even he has to realize by now that he will be viewed as the most corrupt justice of our lifetime. So no amount of hanging on will rehabilitate his reputation

[Nelson]

Samuel Alito said, "Hold my beer.".

[Krayt]

Wow, 830 posts, not bad for a TOT. As usual, 99% are echo chamber regurgitations, like kids playing Rock ’em Sock ’em Robot, ie. a fighting toy made by someone else with an ulterior motive, money, for kids to be preoccupied with.

Anyhoo, I googled “what drug was the yellow submarine”. It gave me an answer in a Beatles context. I never heard if it, and have no idea if it that was right. Irrelevant.

To quote Angela Basset, to James Woods at the end of Contact, “That’s not what interests me.”

Woods: Continue.

Basset: What interests me was not the answer.

Woods, closes laptop: Continue

Basset: What interests me was Google said, “An AI overview is not available for this search.”

I doubt it’s because it’s an obscure question the AI engine hasn’t gotten around to, yet. Most likely since it mentions drugs, they have the holy hell scared out of them to let AI do its thing, lest they recommend this or that drug as cool, or declare the Beatles drug addicts dependent on it.

Woods: Now that is intersting, isn’t it?

[hobie]

One of my favorite movies. Zemekis leaves a lot of easter eggs in his films and that one didn't disappoint.

Anyway, way back in the day, yellow pills were often associated with speed

[Nelson]

Hmm. I guess because it was a submarine, I assumed a depressant of some sort. I figured it was a cultural reference of their era that I didn't catch. Or a nod to the yellowing of rolling paper as you smoked a joint (a submarine shape).

Or so I've been told. I would never *checks DARE pamphlet from the 80s* poison my body with drugs.

[Bwaaah]

That *is* interesting.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Are the usual MAGA apologists around here comfortable with Laura Loomer, a proudly "pro-white nationalism" and "proud Islamaphobe" being a close advisor to Donald Trump?

You get upset about "fine people on both sides" as indication of sympathy to people like Laura Loomer, but here she is, in the flesh, by his side. What's your excuse for his close associations with white nationalists this time?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-toxic-ties-conspiracy-theorist-212027663.html

[Nelson]

$5 says someone goes with "Laura Who-now".

[Sarcastr0]

I watched the debate. Well, most of it.

You mention crowd sizes in the most obvious bait ever and Trump doesn't even know to try to resist the bait.
He got baited over and over and over again, starting from the handshake. He got emotional.
Did Trump get any of his talking points off?
Harris was in control of the debate from the outset. She had a strategy, she executed it. Trump was an easy target, but still I like Presidents who execute plans.

I don't know if he's degraded since his Presidency or what, but being a child who fails the marshmallow test over and over is not who you want as President.
Iran, North Korea, certainly Putin. They'll run circles around him.

We'll see if the needle moves, but it was a damming performance. Trump was bad on the facts. Not enough people are talking about how he was worse procedurally.

He'd be perhaps our most manipulatable President ever.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"They’ll run circles around him."

As they did the first time the American people were stupid enough to put a man this obviously out of his depth and easily manipulated into the most powerful office in the world.

Putin had him giving an international press conference praising Putin and trashing the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Putin had him trying to convince other western leaders to let him back into the G7 (to again make it the G8). Putin had him defending the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and saying that Crimea really always belonged to Russia anyway.

Kim got love letters and the huge propaganda coup of a meeting with the President of the U.S. while giving away nothing.

Iran got closer to a nuclear weapon with less oversight because, apparently, no oversight and no limits are better in Trumpworld than some oversight and some limits. Oh, and Iran got to keep everything they got for making the deal even as Trump let them off the hook for any obligations. Brilliant!

[Commenter_XY]

Heading into the weekend....Russia launched their counteroffensive in the Kursk area. Simultaneously, Pres Putin issued a direct threat of war to the US, and our NATO allies, regarding the use of Storm Shadow missiles and ATACAM missiles against Russia. There are only two countries in the world that can credibly make a threat like that; and, Russia is one of them.

This is an extremely serious situation. The American people are to believe that POTUS Biden is the man making the big decisions, and guiding our response to RUS from the beaches of DE? You know, the feeble-minded man just removed from the Democrat ticket two months ago because he could not debate coherently. We (America!) stand at the precipice of war. It sure would be nice to know who is making the strategic and tactical decisions for our country, because it is not POTUS Biden. Does anyone believe VP Harris is making the big decisions here....lol, AYFKM?

UKR is not a vital US national interest. And, UKR is not America's fight. I said this in February 2022; it is now September 2024 and those basic truths remain. UKR is militarily exhausted, they have fought valiantly, but they will lose territory in a war with RUS (who has plenty more military resource). The stakes have now changed. The ante has been 'upped'.

What else has changed is that there are hundreds of thousands dead between UKR/RUS, and millions more displaced in a UKR 'diaspora' inside Europe. And the US military industrial complex (the one Ike warned us about) has done splendidly; record profits. Everyone is buying American weaponry. The wrong people are doing well; when you stop and think about it, does that trouble you?

There will be a strong temptation to cut off Russian resupply efforts to their counteroffensive, using those missiles, by attacking depots and bases and infrastructure located 150+ miles inside RUS. Militarily, for UKR, that is the right thing to do to win the war and keep their counteroffensive going. RUS just told us that action guarantees a response on US and NATO soil.

Here is a poll....How many American lives are we willing to sacrifice for UKR, with whom we have NO treaty obligation, NO shared history, and very little shared culture?

My answer is 0 (zero).

I would love to hear from anyone who has an answer > 0, and make that case. Please.

[Bwaaah]

“How many American lives are we willing to sacrifice for UKR?”

I have never heard anybody supporting this war indicate a willingness to die for Ukraine. Their strategy is to just pay for the weapons so that other people die in the endeavor (although they don’t say that either).

Americans now fund the use of offensive weapons to kill Russians in Russia, and pretend we are not at war with Russia. How long can Russia put up with that deadly, inhumanly detached charade? How many Russians will they let die before we get taught the meaning of “skin in the game.”

This is what happens when cushy intellectuals believe their romantic stories of justice while they actually fund the deaths of people, of pawns, in their lore. Their notions of justice only exist in their lore.

I fear that our policy in Ukraine is just another result of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It shows how detached its advocates are from the realities of war, the dangers of escalation, and the materiality of strategic interest.

I don’t think this will end until we’ve experienced sufficient loss, probably “our own” deaths, to shake away the hubris of cushy American intellectuals and their tidy, dangerously simplistic, geopolitical analysis. (“Ukraine is a sovereign nation and Russia invaded them and Putin is a Trump-like demon and so we must stop this aggression.”)

[NOVA Lawyer]

"they actually fund the deaths of people, of pawns"

This shows you understand nothing or are a Putin troll.

Ukrainians have the right of self-defense. Ukrainians made the choice to fight rather than capitulate. Ukrainians have chosen to reject whatever terms have been floated (all of which involve giving away large portions of their sovereign nation). Ukrainians are people with agency, not pawns. We are helping, along with other western democracies, to fund a democratic nation's self-defense. Reagan would have understood this. Romney does. It is only with the introduction of Trump that Republicans suddenly fail to understand the strategic importance of defending democracy.

Furthermore, and decisively, the decision to help Ukraine has been made. Walking away now will just embolden Putin to further adventures in eastern Europe and China in the Pacific. Either we, as a nation, can be trusted to be staunch allies once we make a commitment or we can't. You are arguing for we can't, because Putin has, for the umpteenth time, threatened to commit suicide.

You and Vance and Trump are weak. And at least one of you seems to actually have more sympathy for Putin's authoritarianism than for freedom, democracy, and self-determination. It's not a good look.

[Commenter_XY]

Fine NOVA, then could you please tell us how many dead Americans is Ok by you, to save UKR? I say zero...you say.....????

[NOVA Lawyer]

We have committed no Americans, CommenterXY. If Russia should attack us or a NATO ally, then we will, of course, have to defend ourselves. But Putin’s bluster notwithstanding, there is not a question of committing American lives to the defense of Ukraine. Ukraine is defending itself and we are supplying weapons.

American forces have fought plenty of wars where Russia/USSR and/or China supplied weapons to the opposing forces, but we weren’t at war with Russia or China. Goose, gander.

I know you want to capitulate to Putin’s saber rattling, but less cowardly people don’t let dictators dictate to America. Putin started a war with Ukraine, he can keep fighting Ukraine, he can make peace with Ukraine, or he can commit suicide by attacking U.S. or a NATO ally. I, for one, won’t support the U.S. being blackmailed into ignoring our international interests. And, yes, seeing through our commitment to Ukraine is in the U.S.’s interests, though you think we can walk away with no damage to our credibility and without emboldening Putin and China to further adventurism. You are naive.

But a Putin apologist is gonna do what a Putin apologist does.

[Commenter_XY]

I asked you for a number, NOVA.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I pointed out that the premise of your question is faulty. We aren’t being asked nor are we offering to commit American lives to the defense of Ukraine.

If you want to conflate Putin’s threats with committing American lives to the defense of Ukraine, that’s been happening from the start. Contrary to your assertion, nothing has changed. Putin keeps threatening to attack the U.S. or allies if the U.S. supplies X weapons or authorizes Ukraine to use it to attack X miles inside Russia and he will keep doing so. But actually attacking the U.S. is suicide and he knows that. You, apparently, don’t.

[Commenter_XY]

The premise is reality. You are in denial.

We have shipped ATACAMS to UKR, UK has shipped Storm Shadow missiles to RUS, and RUS has threatened the US and NATO directly if they are used within the interior of RUS.

I asked you for a number. Can't do it, huh?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"RUS has threatened the US and NATO directly if they are used within the interior of RUS."

Russia has made the same threat before and, as the U.S. and U.K. knew they wouldn't, they didn't act on it. Because Russia knows and we know the threat is baseless.

Russia can barely handle Ukraine. Russia will get destroyed by NATO. Which means the only way Russia could effectively strike out is suicide by nuclear armageddon. Putin isn't suicidal. And, in any event, the U.S. doesn't need to give Putin, Xi, and Kim Jong Un veto power over U.S. foreign policy and carte blanche to attack whoever they want because, if we try to help the weaker democracy, they will go nuclear. It's cowardly to give in to such threats.

How many democracies and lives are you willing to sacrifice to Putin to keep him (and Xi and Kim Jong Un) from threatening to destroy civilization?

[Commenter_XY]

No NOVA, RUS have not made the same threat before against NATO and the US. It is one thing to say there will be a response (we have heard that before); and something else entirely when they say the direct response will be on your soil (new).

We are not the world’s policeman. And we certainly owe nothing to UKR, who is not an ally by treaty, or otherwise.

Still can't do it = a number

[Bwaaah]

NOVA fails to rationalize American deaths as being a real prospect of the Ukrainian-Russian war that we help subsidize. He advances no contingency plan. I guess that’s where those “Oops” moments come from, like that one back in Vietnam.

It’s a just, sanitary war, C_XY. Let’s keep the narrative clean.

[Josh R]

Maybe it is better to call Putin's bluff and allow deeper strikes because not doing so will result in Putin winning the war and attacking a NATO member down the road? Or maybe it's not a bluff and allowing Putin to win is the better bet to avoid WWIII? Or maybe it's not a bluff but Putin won't outright win (a negotiated settlement will result in Russia gaining land, but Ukraine will have security guarantees)?

[Nelson]

Guys, if the choice is between sending in American troops or seeing Ukraine fall, we will watch with heavy hearts as Ukraine shifts from a military war against an invader to a guerrilla war against an occupier.

There is no scenario in which the US will send troops to fight Russia. Not with Biden, not with Harris, not with Trump.

[Nelson]

"RUS have not made the same threat before against NATO and the US"

Oh, so he's made impotent threats that he failed to follow through on, but he used different words this time so THIS impotent threat is different? Please.

[Nelson]

"NOVA fails to rationalize American deaths as being a real prospect of the Ukrainian-Russian war that we help subsidize."

Probably because between the current President and his two potential replacements, 100% of them strongly oppose American boots on the ground in Ukraine. It's not even a question.

[Josh R]

Of course we won't be sending troops. The question now is should we give permission to use NATO weapons deeper in Russia.

Commenter_XY argues we should not because of Putin's threat to attack NATO. I think it's a bluff, but I can't be 100% sure. Given the possibility of a Putin victory without deeper strikes, resulting in a greater chance of an attack on a NATO country, I lean towards giving permission. But, I don't have enough expertise or information (and neither does Commenter_XY) to make that call.

[Nelson]

"Of course we won’t be sending troops."

XY doesn't share your certainty.

"Commenter_XY argues we should not because of Putin’s threat to attack NATO."

If you've read XY's posts over the last three years, he argues that we shouldn't help Ukraine at all. And that the war will be over any day now. But mostly the first one.

"I think it’s a bluff, but I can’t be 100% sure."

Then you haven't been paying attention for the last 3 years. If Putin isn't willing to follow through on his threats when Finland, a country with which Russia shares a border, joined NATO, why would you be uncertain if he would attack if we removed one restriction on one category of weapons we have provided to Ukraine?

[Commenter_XY]

Nelson, Josh R...Two quick points (after reading through your thread above), and something to think about doing.

One, America already has troops and their equipment in the region: in the Baltics, in Finland, in Sweden, in Poland, in Romania, and the EU-5. American troops are today deployed very close to the borders of RUS.

And two, we are all interlocked by treaties (NATO) similar to a century ago (eve of WWI) and so is RUS (interlocked by treaties with CHN, NK, Iran).

I don't know about the two of you, but I am going to read what the Sec States and European FMs were saying ~110 years ago, and read what they were thinking would happen (vs what actually did happen). Seems relevant.

[Bwaaah]

[Nelson]

Unitl the American President is someone other than Biden, Trump, or Harris, there is a 0% chance of American soldiers in Ukraine.

I haven't checked. I explained in a different post why that statement is reasonable. Have you done the same?

Saying that Putin threatening the US and NATO (again. Drink!) changes anything is ridiculous on its face. He's done it multiple times before, he'll continue to do it until the day he dies. We killed his beloved Soviet Union. He is psychologically incapable of not threatening the US, despite the impotence of such threats.

But since you are allowed to use fantasy to pose a question, I'll use fantasy to answer. Our military the best in the world (truth), so we will send 100% of them to Ukraine, but won't suffer even a stubbed toe. How is that possibke, you ask? Because apparently we don't have to worry about making sane statements about Ukraine. My answer is barely more ridiculous than your question. Barely.

[Bwaaah]

"I know you want to capitulate to Putin’s saber rattling"

I fully endorse Ukraine's right to defend itself. Ukrainians aren't pawns in their war with Russia, but they are pawns in Democratic Party strategy. (There are very differing perspectives, reasons and risks between the two.)

But is that what you call Putin's actions? "Saber rattling?" I don't think that's saber rattling. That's military action to me...an offensive invasion...WAR. You try to sanitize the reality with your lame words.

A real example of "saber rattling" occurred prior to the war when, in response to expressions of interest in joining NATO, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party began to roll out a welcome mat for exactly that: induction of Ukraine into NATO. Discussions and announcements began about provisional moves toward Ukraine joining NATO...talk of bringing NATO, and it's troops, to Russia's border. No big deal about that, eh, NOVA? No implications of threat. Just a kumbaya moment for freedom-loving people, eh?

THAT'S saber rattling. THIS is war. Try to connect the dots, and include provisions for death and destruction as you do so.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Do try to keep up, Bwaah. CommenterXY is worried because Putin is threatening to either directly or through proxies attack the U.S. if the U.S. doesn't forbid Ukraine from using weapons received from the U.S. to attack X miles inside Russia. That is saber rattling.

I'll state it another way so maybe you can understand. Russia started a war with Ukraine. The U.S. and other western democracies supplied weapons and Russia started "rattling its saber" which is a euphemism for making threats of war...this time war against the U.S. and/or NATO.

You, apparently, are unfamiliar with the term saber rattling, because inviting a democracy to join NATO (which actually didn't occur with Ukraine, there was just talk of a future possibility), is not saber rattling. Saber rattling involves the threat of war. The U.S. was not, NATO was not, and Ukraine were not threatening war by contemplating an agreement of mutual defense. The key word is defense for the non-native English speakers like, apparently, Bwaah.

But thanks for revealing yourself as a Putin propagandist. Only Putin and his propagandists equate democracies doing democracy and contemplating mutual treaties of defense as the equivalent of threatening offensive war which justifies an invasion.

Go find work at Pravda, Bwaah. Maybe Putin will actually pay you for your sycophancy.

[Nelson]

That isn't a realistic scenario. We aren't sending troops to Ukraine. Period.

And so Putin is threatening the US and Europe? Seriously? They can't defeat a tiny country on their border who has conditions placed on their use of weapons that severely restrict their military effectiveness. If they started a fight with NATO, the speed at which a counterattack would reach Moscow would net them a speeding ticket.

And don't start with the "they have nukes" nonsense. Mutually Assured Destruction is a real thing that military officers understand. Just because our nuclear stockpiles have been massively reduced, that just means that we can destroy the world 20 times over instead of 1000. No one on either side believes that once the first nuke is launched, the other side won't respond in kind

Russia is throwing their soldiers into a meat grinder. They may have overwhelming numerical superiority, but when you lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers in three years, people at home start noticing that there is a sudden upswing in official reports of training accidents and tragic losses of soldiers everywhere except Ukraine.

Ukraine will never truly surrender. Until Russia finally gives up and leaves their territory, even a military victory will just result in a guerrilla war that keeps killing Russian soldiers. It's like a rerun show called "Afghanistan 2020s".

The only way Ukraine loses is if they officially accept Russia stealing their territory. They won't do that.

So tell me, apologist for warmongers, how does Russia actually win?

[Commenter_XY]

Who are you to say what is a realistic scenario, Nelson?

RUS is not leaving Crimea. They aren't leaving Donbas. The RUS Pres has issued a direct threat to the US, and NATO. Was that in your playbook in Feb 2022? I don't think so.

How about you take a swing at the question....How many dead Americans is acceptable in service of UKR? Just tell me the number.

[Nelson]

"Who are you to say what is a realistic scenario, Nelson?:

Well, we have had three years of the Ukraine war as evidence and the message has always remained exactly the same with no wavering: the US will not put boots on the ground. We'll sell them weapons, with restrictions, but American soldiers won't die in defense of Ukraine. That's a reasonable scenario.

Your turn. Why should anyone accept your premise as even vaguely reasonable? It's not like Putin hasn't issued threats multiple times over the last 3 years and failed to follow through every time. Russia can barely maintain a stalemate against a vastly smaller country. Why would any sane person think this threat will be different and that following through wouldn't be disastrous for Russia?

Like his autocratic doppelganger, Adolph Hitler, having America enter into this war would be the beginning of the end for Putin.

"RUS is not leaving Crimea. They aren’t leaving Donbas."

No, Russia doesn't *want* to leave Crimea. They don't *want* to leave Donbas. The thing about an invasion is you don't get what you try to steal if you can't keep it. The Russian will to keep Crimea and the Donbas is weaker than Ukraine's will to keep them. Russia's (not Putin's, Russia's) willingness to lose tens or hundreds of thousands more soldiers to retain either is a political time bomb. He's already two years into draconian laws to clamp down on dissent. Do you think he will suddenly face less dissent a year from now?

"The RUS Pres has issued a direct threat to the US, and NATO. Was that in your playbook in Feb 2022? I don’t think so."

Right. Who could have predicted that Vladimir Putin would threaten anyone? LOL!

Since he threatened us in 2022, it was in everyone's playbook. What, did you think in 2023 he would say, "Well, it didn't work in 2022 so I should give up making threats"? And then, after ignoring his own advice and threatening us in 2023, that he would say, "Damn, zero for two. Oh, well, I'll stop making threats."? One (of many) things Putin and Trump have in common is when reality tells them to go fuck themselves, they double down.

So yes, it was completely predictable that Putin would issue yet another empty threat against the US and NATO. It's impotent and will remain so as long as he can't even bully the 98 pound weakling in the neighborhood into surrender.

"….How many dead Americans is acceptable in service of UKR? Just tell me the number."

That's like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Not only is it a ridiculous exercise, angels aren't real.

Biden won't send American troops. Harris won't send American troops that has been forcefully and consistently repeated over and over with no wavering. If America ends up suffering another Trump Presidency, not only will he not send American troops to Ukraine, he's more likely to send them to support Putin.

I know for some God-unknown reason you want to see Ukraine lose and Russia win. But faking up a crisis that has zero chance of ever happening is pathetic, even for Russian apologists.

[Commenter_XY]

We have been threatened with retaliation on US soil. That is the change. You do understand that Putin does have that capability.

[Nelson]

Sure. "This guy has been full of shit and completely incapable of following through on any of his previous threats, but THIS one, which is even more unlikely than the others, is different."

I don't know what sort of disaster-porn jollies you're getting by acting like Putin isn't barely keeping his head above water in Ukraine, but it's deeply weird.

Ukraine has fought Russia to a three-year standstill with one hand tied behind their backs because their allies put severe limitations on the way they were allowed to fight with the weapons we provided. Putin is left praying that the gloves don't come off. He's in no position to credibly threaten anyone.

[Nelson]

Wait, is that your only argument in favor of your contention that Americans could die in Ukraine? That he used different words than the last however-many times he's threatened us? Wow.

And are you trying to insinuate thete could be a nuclear strike on the US because saying it clearly is even too nuts for the Putin Propaganda Parade?

[Martinned2]

And helping Ukraine is a signal to other dictatorships that might want to invade their democratic neighbours (cough - China - cough) that we stand by our allies.

[Commenter_XY]

UKR is not an American ally by treaty.

[Nelson]

And? So what? We have numerous non-treaty allies, state and non-state alike. Are you suggesting they don't count?

[Nelson]

Standing with allies and defending democracy was the old Republicans. The new GOP embraces fecklessness and embraces warmongers. Freedom isn’t worth fighting for and treaties don’t need to be honored in the new America First/Fuck Allies conservative coalition. Who cares if our allie can count on us or not? MAGA doesn’t!

Tell me, XY, should we treat Israel the way you want us to treat Ukraine? Because if we turn our back on one ally fighting for democracy in a region full of warmongering dictators, why should anyone believe we wouldn’t do it to another?

Trump is perfectly comfortable blowing up an alliance we’ve stood by since 1945. Why should we assume he wouldn’t walk away from one that’s three years younger if it serves him?

The alternative is to be a trustworthy ally and help our friends stand against tyranny and evil, whether it comes in the form of Putin and Russia or Khomeni and Iran. Why would you choose any other course?

[Commenter_XY]

You serious?....hamas killed Americans, and currently holds American hostages.

UKR is not an ally by treaty, or otherwise.

[Nelson]

So how many Americans are you willing to see killed in Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank? Because that's a much more likely scenario than American soldiers in Ukraine. Not very likely at all, but still more.

And yes, Ukraine is an American ally. Do you really think that if we don't have a treaty with someone they aren't our ally?

[Commenter_XY]

Sadly, imperfect execution by our military already resulted in servicemember injuries in gaza, or have you forgotten about that pier? ISR already have boots on the ground in gaza, no need for US boots to augment them; we can better help on the technology side anyway (and we have).

There is no treaty btwn UKR and America, and there is nothing that legally compels us to come to their aid. When there is a credible threat made by a country that has the means to carry it out, the evaluation changes Nelson. Sending weaponry to UKR is one thing, the Senate approved that appropriation with some explicit strings attached. Executing a foreign policy in a manner that brings the war directly to our soil (e.g. retaliation by RUS on NATO and US soil for use of ATACAM and Storm Shadow missiles deep inside RUS)....Maybe the Senate should talk about that. I don't think POTUS Biden is talking about it much, owing to severely diminished cognition. That is also a problem.

And FTR, UKR is no 'ally' of America. There is a difference between having bilateral relations with America and being an ally of America. UKR is the former, ISR is the latter.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You do understand that Russia currently holds American hostages and has killed American volunteers in Ukraine?

But, of course, that’s different than Americans killed in Israel or held hostage by Hamas because you boot lick for Putin and not so much for Hamas.

Commenter_XY is pathetic.

(Also, italicizing on US soil doesn’t change that that is an even more unrealistic threat, no matter how much scarier it is to you. There is as much chance of Putin attacking on U.S. soil as there is of Putin putting a Glock in his mouth and pulling the trigger on live television after yelling “Slava Ukraini!”)

[Nelson]

"as there is of Putin putting a Glock in his mouth and pulling the trigger on live television after yelling “Slava Ukraini!”"

LOL!

[Commenter_XY]

You know Bwaaah, all of these very smart people seem to forget Pres Putin gets a vote here. He stated what the problem was. He stated he would invade UKR. He delivered, and UKR is being destroyed, consequently.

Pres Putin has now threatened the US and NATO directly. He is not a man who fails to deliver on what he says he will do. He remains in power because he delivers.

It is the height of stupidity to discount what he has said.

[Nelson]

"Pres Putin has now threatened the US and NATO directly. He is not a man who fails to deliver on what he says he will do."

He has repeatedly failed to deliver on his threats against the US and NATO. He literally has a 100% failure rate.

Remember the horrible consequences he unleashed for Finland joining NATO? Yeah, me neither.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-set-join-nato-historic-shift-while-sweden-waits-2023-04-04/

[NOVA Lawyer]

Commenter XY, Putin propagandist 100% of the time.

Next, you'll regale us with stories of how many goals Putin scores, and effortlessly!, against pro-league all-stars. Go fuck off to Siberia.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : “Simultaneously, Pres Putin issued a direct threat of war to the US, and our NATO allies, regarding the use of Storm Shadow missiles and ATACAM missiles against Russia.”

If Putin is threatening NATO and the U.S. with eminent war, it must be a day ending in “Y”. He did so after our first support for Ukraine when the war began. He’s done scores of times since. And after every threat, a significant part of today’s Right falls back on the fainting couch with the vapors. I don’t think Putin’s threats are credible, but will listen to anyone make a case they are. It’s far more likely he’ll continue his actions of petty mischief against the West, but that was happening for years before Ukraine.

Commenter_XY : “What else has changed is that there are hundreds of thousands dead between UKR/RUS, and millions more displaced in a UKR ‘diaspora’ inside Europe”

Why do rightwingers who want to appease Russia and screw over Ukraine insist on weeping crocodile tears over UKR’s suffering? Every other thing they say & do signals they don’t give the slightest damn about Ukraine.

I also note your laughable smears against Biden. On his worse day, he’s still a more responsible & rational leader than Trump. As Harris noted during Trump’s humiliating debate fiasco, Putin can easily manipulate and twist the GOP’s addled man-child into knots. After all, we got a vivid demostration of how easy it is to make Trump say or do whatever you want. It’s like he’s a brainless puppet dangling from strings.

[Commenter_XY]

So what is the number of dead Americans grb can live with, in service to UKR? You say not zero. Fine. What is it?

[Martinned2]

.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : " ... the number of dead Americans grb can live with ..."

Generous of you not to ask when I'll stop beating my wife too. As I noted above, I don't think your question is remotely credible.

[Commenter_XY]

Really? Reality not credible enough for you, grb? RUS continues to grind it out, and make gains (measured by lives lost).

It doesn't matter whether you like/dislike, agree/don't agree with RUS and Putin. RUS (Putin) has stated unambiguously that retaliation for use of ATACAMS and Storm Shadow missiles inside RUS will come to our soil. When somebody (Putin) makes a threat like that, and they actually have the means to do it (he does), the smart move is to make sure we are up to the task. Nobody asked the American people if they were Ok with dying for UKR, who is not an ally by treaty, or otherwise. Are we? I do not think so.

[Nelson]

"RUS (Putin) has stated unambiguously that retaliation for use of ATACAMS and Storm Shadow missiles inside RUS will come to our soil."

Oh, no! The country that can't even win a war with a smaller country who isn't allowed to use their weapons effectively has threatened to attack the most powerful military alliance in history! Everyone should ... keep doing what you're doing. Russia doesn't have the ability to attack Kyiv, never mind Poland.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : “When somebody (Putin) makes a threat like that…”

Again, Putin has made a “threat like that” dozens & dozens of times since he launched his bungled war. They’ve all been empty noise. Care to explain why this time is different?

(Give it a shot. It would make a change from hyperventilating panic after Threat One or Threat Fifty. Do it for variety’s sake)

[Nelson]

"RUS continues to grind it out, and make gains (measured by lives lost)"

I'd keep that to yourself if I were you. Your buddy Putin doesn't like it when people point out how much better they are at getting their soldiers killed than Ukraine is. It's like mentioning crowd size (or hand size) to Trump. It REALLY pisses them off.

[Commenter_XY]

Nelson, we ignore the explicit warnings at our peril. Putin does not say things he will not deliver. I don't have a problem with RUS soldiers dying violent deaths; they made their bed. I do mind a lot when America gets dragged into someone else's fight.

UKR is not a vital US national interest.
UKR is not an ally by treaty.
UKR is more trouble than they are worth.

[Sarcastr0]

You make the same argument as the America First movement back in the day.

Combatting Russian imperialism is vital to US interest.
Projecting our power by not shrinking before saber rattling is vital to US interest.
Setting a global norm by defending the freedom of Ukraine is vital to US interest.

If Putin attacks US soil, you act like it’d be our fault. That’s some RT talking points right there.

Just like America First, you are wrong. Strategically, morally, patriotically.
Just as they were tools of an authoritarian regime, so you are a useful idiot for Putin's Russia.

[Josh R]

Putin does not say things he will not deliver.

He promised problems for Finland if they joined NATO. Promise not kept.

Are you in the camp we should not have been funding Ukraine from the get-go? Should we stop funding them now?

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, go look at my posts in Feb 2022, and my wager with Professor Post. What I said then is just as true today. I will summarize:

UKR is not a vital US national interest. They are not a NATO member, nor are they an EU member. There is no shared history, no treaty, and only limited cultural ties. UKR is corrupt AF, and has embroiled not one, but two POTUS' in controversy. Add to that, UKR enthusiastically supported the Nazi's; antisemitism runs deep in that country's hinterlands. Net net: They are more trouble than they are worth and the best move the US can make is finding a graceful exit ramp for everyone involved.

POTUS Biden (presumably) and his team did not listen to Commenter_XY back in 2022. So here we are. /sarc

America should quietly, without fanfare, find an exit ramp for UKR and RUS that both can live with. If we truly want to help UKR, then stop the killing.

BTW, do you really know what is happening in Finland? A once placid country politically is now roiling politically. I am sure that is coincidental, a random occurrence. Right?

[Josh R]

Your policy would have permitted a rapid Putin victory which I think easily goes against US national interests.

But, thanks for the clarification. At least I can dismiss your argument (we shouldn’t permit NATO weapons deeper into Russia) as anything but America First should butt out (as opposed to a serious argument that it would cause more harm than good, which it may or may not do).

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, borrowing old 'Soviet military speak'....The correlation of forces is extremely adverse for UKR. Sadly, UKR is going to lose more territory to RUS. The only question is how much. The UKR counter-offensive is now getting rolled back. The total amount of territory 'held' by UKR is <300 mi2. It is not enough, and UKR never had a 'breakout' deep into RUS with armor that is needed to change the direction of the war. UKR will not be able to hold RUS territory for months on end in a hope for a better negotiating position to end the war.

How much can be lost, you ask? Take a look at UKR on a topo map. Notice how the Dnieper cuts right through the country, all the way to Kiev. It is a natural topographical boundary. That is the next stop for RUS; meaning the Dnieper river. They have the capacity, and have the assembled manpower and armament to do it. Belarus is waiting to help. Note, I do not want to see that scenario unfold like a mutated protein over the course of 2025, but it is heading in that direction, Josh R.

This is not about whether UKR fights for a worthy cause or not. They do. UKR is not America's fight. I question the execution of a US foreign policy vis a vis UKR where the strategic objective apparently is to fight RUS down to the very last UKR soldier, to bleed RUS in order to forestall an invasion to a NATO country. Note I do not question this strategy, I question the execution (ostensibly, no American lives lost, so far; that is the part that Pres Putin said he would be changing, and why I find it disquieting and am posting about it!).

FTR, I have zero problem sending RUS soldiers fighting in UKR to an early death, the more the better. They shouldn't be there. As far as I am concerned, the Soviet communists of old ditched collectivism and went to being corrupt RUS totalitarian oligarchs. I detested the Soviets, and have no love lost for RUS, either. The problem I personally see is that RUS leadership is divorced from consequence, they do not feel the pain of their policy decision to invade UKR, in a very personal way. Change that leadership pain dynamic, and you will change RUS behavior.

If you truly want to help UKR (and RUS, btw)...help them find an exit ramp they can both live with to stop the killing. You might call that approach America First, others call that very same approach making peace where it is possible.

Let's not have a repeat of WWI. What I see in Europe, and Eastern Europe especially, rhymes historically with what Presidents Roosevelt (Teddy), Harding, Wilson saw a century ago. We can learn from that past experience.

[Josh R]

If you truly want to help UKR (and RUS, btw)…help them find an exit ramp they can both live with to stop the killing.

Of course. It may be best to permit deeper attacks in Russia to force a better peace deal for Ukraine and make it less likely Putin wins (which would put us closer to WWIII). It may not be best to permit deeper attacks because it is a greater risk of WWIII and Ukraine may have to live a peace deal that rewards Putin for his illegal conduct.

But, given your position that we shouldn’t have helped Ukraine from day one, I don’t trust your advise on this difficult decision. You were too anxious to let Putin win to begin with.

[David Nieporent]

If you truly want to help UKR (and RUS, btw)…help them find an exit ramp they can both live with to stop the killing. You might call that approach America First, others call that very same approach making peace where it is possible.

"If you truly want to help Israel… help them find an exit ramp they can both live with to stop the killing. You might call that approach appeasement of terrorists; others call that very same approach making peace where it is possible."

You would never accept that argument.

[Magister]

I think I just heard "No puppet! No puppet! You're the puppet!" but it could be an echo from the past.

[Nelson]

“There are only two countries in the world that can credibly make a threat like that; and, Russia is one of them.”

Really? Then there’s only one country in the world that can credibly make a threat like that. Russia will have to put this threat in line behind all the other threats that Putin has made and failed to deliver on. At this point it’s harder for a Putin threat to get a chance than it is to get a table at Monteverde. At least there the wait is only about 9 months.

[Commenter_XY]

N, all I can tell you is these things happened:

In 2014, RUS took Crimea, after warning the US (and NATO).
Then in 2022, RUS took 4 provinces of UKR. After warning the US (and NATO).
Now, RUS has launched a counter-attack to the UKR counter-offensive (a valiant effort by UKR that is doomed to fail), and are grinding down UKR. The UKR counter-offensive has been stopped, and will be rolled back. RUS have manpower resources; UKR does not. At this point, all of UKR east of Dnieper River is in serious trouble; you better break out a map and take a look at that.

Yes N, RUS have the capability. Do not underestimate RUS. We've been bumping heads with the Russians for a century.

[SimonP]

It’s not about “sacrificing” American lives for Ukraine. It’s about not sacrificing American lives for Poland, the Baltic states, etc., which are next on the plate if Russia is allowed to seize a chunk of Ukraine.

What you – and Trump, Vance, and others – don’t seem to grasp is that your very thoughtful suggestions for ending the war in Ukraine just-so-happen to align, point for point, with Putin’s demands for an end to the war. He is demanding territorial concessions over Crimea and the entire Donbas. He is demanding “neutrality” for Ukraine barring it from joining NATO or other “allied institutions.” And who do you think he’ll want to be responsible for monitoring the “demilitarized zone” that Vance is now proposing be drawn on Ukrainian soil?

If you’re not a Russian plant, then you’re a useful idiot. None of those concessions gives us any guarantee that Russia won’t regroup and come back for more later. We’ll face exactly the same questions later – and the same tiresome complaint over how Ukraine‘s national sovereignty isn’t our concern, so why should we stop Russia from going back on its deal and seizing more territory in Ukraine, or going further and seizing Georgia, Moldova, and chunks of the Baltic states?

Russia cannot continue this stagnating war indefinitely. Putin is pushing to continue it past our election because he knows that, if Trump wins or the U.S. otherwise falters, he wins. If he can make it past the finish line of another Trump inauguration, he knows that he’ll get a collapse of support from the Americans and an imminent collapse of support from the Europeans (which he is also attempting to engineer using his proxies within the EU). He also knows that Trump/Vance are amenable to his terms, since they are out there right now pitching for his terms of surrender like it’s a thoughtful take on foreign policy.

That’s where we’re at. So your argument here, then, is basically begging the question. The strategic calculations shift dramatically after a Harris win. Putin may not – probably will not – immediately lose if she does. But they’re not going to be interested in drawing the war out for at least another 2-4 years. A Harris win will put Ukraine in a much stronger position for negotiating what happens next. That’s why people like you are arguing against it.

Are you on the Tenet payroll, perhaps?

[Bwaaah]

“Are you on the Tenet payroll, perhaps?”

Absurd rhetorical questions like that demonstrate how deeply unserious your thinking is, and yet, how deeply serious you believe yourself to be.

[SimonP]

Absurd rhetorical questions like that …

If the question were absurd, you’d be able to point to the daylight between what CXY wrote and standard-issue Russian propaganda. But you can’t, and you don't, because there is no such daylight.

[Commenter_XY]

So, what is the number of dead Americans you are willing to sacrifice, Simple Simon. Try answering the question.

[Magister]

I much prefer sacrificing dead Americans to sacrificing living Americans, but I suppose that wasn't the choice you meant. But pretending that your policy preference on Ukraine will mean no American lives lost, or even just fewer than other policy preferences, really has no basis in the long run. Giving Putin this and he'll be back for more, and how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice when that becomes unacceptable? Or do you think Putin will never seek anything you don't find acceptable?

[Commenter_XY]

The red line is the border of NATO countries. That is the war tripwire. The US goes to war, kinetically, to defend NATO countries and repel a RUS invasion/incursion. Or countries with which we have a formal treaty, ratified by the US Senate.

UKR is not a NATO member.

BTW, in a conventional war, we would destroy RUS. And they know it.

[Magister]

The US has supported a lot of countries that are not NATO members, and which the US has no treaty with (in some cases, this would be to forestall the need to defend countries we are obligated to defend). I preferred the ones we did not send "boots on the ground" to, and some were misguided, but it's not like a treaty is a mandatory prerequisite.

[Commenter_XY]

M, just think about this for a moment. What have RUS just inherited with Crimea and the 4 former UKR provinces? Completely obliterated UKR infrastructure needing rebuilding, and the incorporation of the second-most corrupt people (exceeded only by Russia, lol) of europe into their economy. That is a booby prize, to me.

RUS have 100k KIAs, maybe more. America has none, ostensibly. My point is, keep it that way. We should not allow long range use of ATACAMs or Storm Shadow missiles into RUS; a red line has been set by our adversary. If we want to call that bluff, maybe consult Congressional leadership, first?

[Bwaaah]

[Bored Lawyer]

Further to the Aurora CO apartment takeover:

Aurora PD arrests 10 members of Tren de Aragua in connection with apartment building takeovers.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/aurora-pd-arrests-10-members-tren-de-aragua-connection-apartment-building-takeovers-statement

And I love this part. The Aurora PD released this statement:

"As for the perception and reality of public safety in Aurora, please understand that issues experienced at a select few properties do not apply to the city as a whole or large portions of it. TdA has not ‘taken over’ the city. The overstated claims fueled by social media and through select news organizations are simply not true."

Classic misdirection. The claim made was that a gang took over an apartment building (or maybe a second), not the whole city.

So, yes, the reports were true or substantially true. An immigrant gang took over an apartment building.

The deniers here can apologize, but I am not holding my breath.

[Commenter_XY]

BL, they will never apologize.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"So, yes, the reports were true or substantially true. An immigrant gang took over an apartment building."

I know that's what the Fox News headline writers want you to believe, but that's not what either the story or the statement by the Aurora PD says. Arresting gang members in connection with crime, even if at an apartment building does not mean they "took over an apartment building." (And most of the identified gang members were wanted for crimes unrelated to the various apartment buildings alleged to have been taken over.) It just means, yes, there are gangs, including TdA, and gangs commit violence, often in low income areas including in or around low income apartment buildings. That does not mean the gang "took over an apartment building."

Words mean things. Learn to read them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trump-debate-venezuelan-gangs-colorado-rcna170255

https://www.kktv.com/2024/09/11/aurora-police-share-details-documented-venezuelan-gang-members/

[Bored Lawyer]

"Two of the eight individuals who were taken into custody were involved in a July shooting at one of the specific properties in the city that have experienced issues with TdA activity. In line with these arrests, we can also now confirm that criminal activity, including TdA issues, had significantly affected those properties."

That's the part of the PD Statement, not Fox News.

Pathetic. Now you are going to quibble that "significantly affected" does not mean "take over," and we can get into some silly linguistic dispute. The gang dominated the building, and drove some residents out. That's alarming, whatever nomenclature you give it to dissemble and distract.

The Aurora story was true or substantially true.

[Magister]

The DC sniper in 2002 significantly affected the Washington DC area, but the snipers taking over Washington DC would be ridiculous hyperbole.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that "significantly affected" is vague enough that it covers the whole range from one tenant being scared, to a total takeover. So they deliberately used language which didn't settle the matter, though they undoubtedly know how big the problem really was.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thanks for explaining why Bored Lawyer's victory lap based on that statement is stupid.

One wonders if he makes pathetic arguments like this before judges.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"The Aurora story was true or substantially true."

One more MAGA commenter who doesn't understand "true".

"The gang dominated the building, and drove some residents out."

No evidence of that. A person who was a gang member committed violence at one of the low income apartment buildings. That is not dominating the building.

See Magister for a succinct explanation of your idiocy.

[Bwaaah]

Wow. Bored Lawyer is MAGA?

You're a Nazi.

Let's swing our dicks around like it's nobody's business!

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you have nothing to say, you know you can just say it, right?

[David Nieporent]

Not only does “significantly affected” does not mean “take over,” but it doesn't say that the gang “significantly affected” the building. It said that criminal activity, including TdA issues, had done so.

[Nelson]

"So yes, the reports were true or substantially true. An immigrant gang took over an apartment building."

I dont think there was any reasonable pushback on a gang taking over an apartment building. That's not uncommon in high-crime areas. The pushback, at least from me, was: why this particular incidence of organized gangs taking control of residential buildings?

It appears that the difference is the "Venezuelean" and "immigrant" parts (although I think I read they were illegal, not legal, immigrants). That is what seems to have roused the right wing into a frothing rage, not the "criminal gang" part.

[Bored Lawyer]

And in other news:

UMich Black Student Union exits pro-Palestine coalition over 'anti-Blackness'

The University of Michigan’s Black Student Union withdrew from a pro-Palestine coalition of student groups due to pervasive "anti-Blackness."
“Black identities, voices, and bodies are not valued in this coalition.”

https://www.campusreform.org/article/umich-black-student-union-exits-pro-palestine-coalition-anti-blackness/26320

It's almost like, ummm, apartheid.

[Estragon]

Anyone else want to self-identify as a “southern bourbon” still fighting the civil war?

Drackman- no need to respond, I already have you marked down.

[Bored Lawyer]

The Civil War was fought by whiskey bottles? Who knew?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I believe the term “Bourbon” was used to describe the Southern elites who took over to replace the Reconstruction governments. I imagine that the intended comparison was with the French ruling family (Bourbons) who were put back on the throne after the Napoleonic wars.

The stereotypical Bourbon upheld white supremacy and economic development (without pesky labor agitation), trying to guide the South into its new era without allowing blacks (or white workers qua workers) to have rights. There is a suggestion of antimodernism because of the Confederate nostalgia they promoted (cynics would say this was an effort to distract their working class white supporters, but it could also have been sincere).

I don’t know what sense Vance meant it, but I’m sure that in the coming days we’ll hear calm, rational discussion to clarify his points.

[not guilty]

I suspect the reference is to Talleyrand's comment, "They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing."

[Estragon]

JD would do well to bear in mind the fate of the OG Ohio copperhead, Clement Vallandigham. Karma remains undefeated.

[Nelson]

I didn't understand the reference, so I looked it up. Did a candidate to be Vice President of the United States really just align himself with the Confederacy and insinuate that it was the good side?

That can't be right.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If we can trust The Bulwark, he said:

“American history is a constant war between Northern Yankees and Southern Bourbons, where whichever side the hillbillies are on, wins. And that’s kind of how I think about American politics today, is like, the Northern Yankees are now the hyper-woke, coastal elites. The Southern Bourbons are sort of the same old-school Southern folks that have been around and influential in this country for 200 years. And it’s like the hillbillies have really started to migrate towards the Southern Bourbons instead of the Northern woke people. That’s just a fundamental thing that’s happening in American politics.”

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/jd-vance-and-the-southern-bourbons

The heroes in his telling are the “hillbillies,” not the Yankees or the Bourbons. And logically, under Vance’s analysis the hillbillies must have supported the Yankees in the Civil War because the Yankees won. But now, things are shifting and the hillbillies are changing sides.

It’s a sort of populist take, with the down home hillbillies being the decisive force in awarding victory to one or the other of the contending groups of elites in their frequent battles.

I’m not sure I accept this as historically accurate, but whether I agree with it or not, it certainly is more nuanced than the outraged headlines would indicate.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"the same old-school Southern folks that have been around and influential in this country for 200 years"

You don't think it's significant that he is throwing in with "old-school Southern folk that have been around and influential in this country for 200 years"? You know, since slavery? Those old-school Southern folks? Or the reactionary anti-Reconstruction ones (which, of course, in Vance's telling and reality, are the same racist ones)?

That's pretty bad, no matter how you cut it.

Also, it's not a very nuanced historical take. In fact, I'd say it would be hard to get much more simplistic.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Hillbillies as tie-breakers between Bourbons and Yankees. It's simplistic, but not simplistic enough for the headline writers.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The headline that reads: "JD Vance and the 'Southern Bourbons'"?

You don't expect the headline to be two or three sentences long, do you?

Or did you mean the subheading:

"Kind of weird to see yourself as part of a modern incarnation of the Civil War—and that you’re on the side of the slaveholders."

Which is the most literal interpretation of what JD Vance said. In fact, it is a stretch for it to mean anything other than that. The old-school Southerners who held power 200 years ago were, wait for it, slaveholders. And when they fought the "Northern Yankees", it was to preserve slavery. In Vance's telling, the North won that one because of the hillbillies. But then I guess the Yankees lost Reconstruction and Jim Crow because the hillbillies then joined with the old-school Southerners. Then, I guess, the Yankees won again with civil rights in the 1960s and 1970s. But, again, the old-school Southerners were on the wrong side in each of these battles. Allegedly, the hillbillies were right, once, but only when siding with the Yankees. What other major internal fights in the U.S. were fought between North and South?

You really can't bring up fights between the North and the South without invoking the three biggest inflection points of racial equality in U.S. history. Four if you count the negotiations to essentially include slavery in the Constitution, at least implicitly (3/5 and all). And the old-school Southerners were wrong every time.

And it's just coincidence that Vance is saying this days after racist fear-mongering about Black immigrants (documented, legal immigrants)?

Pull the other one, Margrave.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“And when they fought the “Northern Yankees”, it was to preserve slavery. In Vance’s telling, the North won that one because of the hillbillies.”

Yes, that is the literal sense of what Vance said. You realize, of course, that this contradicts the general media spin of his remarks.

For more details on his meaning, talk to someone who actually supports Vance. I'm not pro-Vance, I'm anti-lazy-media.

[NOVA Lawyer]

In what way?

His theory is that the hillbillies helped the Yankees win the Civil War, but he (and presumably he thinks the hillbillies) are throwing their lot with "old-school Southerners", i.e., the slave owners or their ideological heirs, this time.

It is deeply weird to align oneself with the "old-school Southerners" who held power 200 years ago. In America, that can only refer to the pro-slavery, anti-Reconstruction, pro-Jim Crow, anti-Civil Rights South. JD Vance is smart enough to know that.

Why would any non-racist throw in with that crowd, hillbilly or not?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Not sharing Vance's premises, I have difficulty following his logic.

But as for the "ideological heirs" of the slaveholders, who are they? If we're going to be literal and say "well-off white Southerners," then let's also be literal and say "the Democratic Party." If the latter changed in the interim, allow for the possibility that the former changed, too.

So who *are* the true heirs? Presumably those who want to subjugate and oppress people (including imposing new forms of forced labor on them, like debt bondage).

But you probably won't accept my analysis because it would apply to both parties.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"If the latter changed in the interim, allow for the possibility that the former changed, too."

You're doing yeoman's work cleaning up for Vance.

The problem is that the well-off white Southerners left the Democratic Party precisely because the Yankees (JFK, etc.) made the Democratic Party the party of civil rights. That's how the Democratic Party became the party of the "Yankees" and the Republican Party became the party of the "old-school Southerners".

I mean, you're probably onto what he and his supporters would claim. But it requires a lot of ignoring the actual history of, first, the people who were actually called Southern Bourbons or Bourbon Democrats, and second, the history of old-school Southerners. Given those are the terms he chose, what we're really left is either throwing in with overt racists or a convoluted story in which "old-school Southerners" are really the ones seeking liberty (but for only white people?).

At best, it makes a dog's breakfast of history. At worst, it's calling the dogs, but without even a whistle.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“You’re doing yeoman’s work cleaning up for Vance.”

Under your binary, duopolist view of the universe, attempting to take a nuanced view of anything is simply a sign of allegiance to J. D. Vance, the Devil, or Republicans, or whoever your bogeyman happens to be.

For one thing, the heroes in Vance’s quote are hillbillies, not Bourbons or Yankees. I don’t know exactly what that means, but I know it *doesn’t* mean he’s cheerleading for the people he calls Bourbons.

And for another thing: to normal, intelligent, people, of course, today’s “well-off white Southerners” are not automatically racists who want to reinstate slavery and Jim Crow. In fact, if you had more willingness to let reality sink into your duopolist binary bubble, you would realize that the white Chamber of Commerce types are not the focus of evil in the modern world and have even been known, during the course of the past generation, to take steps for what they regard as racial justice (alongside their colleagues of other races).

Who on earth knows what’s in Vance’s head? It’s very nondisprovable to say he’s a racist. I don’t know him, maybe he’s the Grand Panjandrum of the United Klans of America. I’m simply saying you need to expend more effort if you wish to prove this.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Under your binary, duopolist view of the universe, attempting to take a nuanced view of anything is simply a sign of allegiance to J. D. Vance, the Devil, or Republicans, or whoever your bogeyman happens to be."

That's a weird statement. I simply reiterated that you were putting a lot of work into developing a nuanced view of J.D. Vance's statement. That is true.

I didn't say, nor did I mean to imply (you've said you aren't a Vance supporter or something to that effect) that you were doing it because you shared his politics or were a Vance booster. I'm just saying, you've put in a lot of work to find the good in Vance's statement. No bogeyman on my end. And, frankly, I admire your effort to rationally discuss what he could possibly mean (as the literal meaning, as you seem to concede, is pretty fucking bad). It's good to have someone provide an honest, but not sycophantic take, which you have. Thank you.

"the heroes in Vance’s quote are hillbillies, not Bourbons or Yankees. I don’t know exactly what that means, but I know it *doesn’t* mean he’s cheerleading for the people he calls Bourbons."

Well, the hillbillies are the heroes, but he did kinda say he and the hillbillies are cheerleading for the Southern Bourbons now. I get maybe, you say, it's a grudging alliance rather than cheerleading. Could be, but not the most natural reading.

"to normal, intelligent, people, of course, today’s “well-off white Southerners” are not automatically racists who want to reinstate slavery and Jim Crow."

Of course, but today's well-off white Southerners are not "old-school Southerners that have been around and influential in this country for 200 years." He didn't say well-off Southerners. He explicitly tied it to the South of the slave era. He didn't say well-off Southerners, he explicitly invoked Southern Bourbons who were white supremacist reactionaries against Reconstruction. The word choices he made directly tied his present day "Southern Bourbons" to slavery and Jim Crow. I didn't do that, he did. And he's not an unintelligent guy, so I assume he knew what he was doing. And he said the hillbillies (and presumably he) were taking the Southern Bourbons' side.

"It’s very nondisprovable to say he’s a racist."

I'm not asserting he is racist. But I am asserting that, by his words, he pretty explicitly tied himself to racists. As you say, he's the hill billy, not the Southern Bourbon, but he is taking the side of the Southern Bourbon. To what end, I can't imagine. Does he think there are that many racists in the U.S.? And he did it in the same week he spread racist lies about legal Black immigrants in his home state. And the same week Trump is palling around with Laura Loomer who does say racist things (even MTG will tell you that) and has explicitly embraced white nationalism.

You're the fair one. Those are the facts. You tell me what to make of them.

I can't make out anything even neutral, much less good, from those facts. But you tell me, as you've been great (no sarcasm) at trying to be as objective as possible in interpreting J.D. Vance's Southern Bourbons remarks.

Is the most natural reading (200 years of "old-school Southerns"; "Southern Bourbons" who were reactionary anti-Reconstructionists) not what he meant and just all a ham-footed (to mix metaphors) mistake of his?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

All right, so long as I’m not getting tied to everything Vance says.

I’d have to listen to that entire podcast to figure out where he was going with that one quote. Since the outrage-bait articles didn’t include the context of his remark, I’m going to guess that the context makes the remark seem less outrage-worthy.

In an era where even the neoconfederates disavow slavery and try to pass the blame onto others (e. g., Yankees), I don’t see the political payoff of a modern politician supporting slaveholders (at least not antebellum U. S. slaveholders – powerful slaving regimes of the present day are a different story).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Since he’s written a book on hillbillies (not necessarily a flattering book), then if I can squeeze in the time I might take a look at that book and see if he’s commented on this issue before. It might be enlightening and give a broader context to his comments than some context-free outrage-bait.

I notice that even on this learned forum, I could discern only one person (myself) who had previous knowledge of what a Southern Bourbon was. How much less likely are the hoi-polloi to get the reference. If Vance is trying to be dog-whistling demagogue, he's choosing a really egghead-ish way to do it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Just to be clear, from Wikipedia (so, you know….but still):

The term [“Bourbon Democrat”] was occasionally used . . . in the 1870s to refer to the regimes set up in the South by Redeemers as a conservative reaction against Reconstruction.

For clarity, the Redeemers were explicitly white supremacists. So, JD can’t really invoke the term “Southern Bourbon” without invoking white supremacy.

And JD Vance made clear he was throwing in with the Southern Bourbons (white supremacists) and hillbillies. I mean, complain about the media all you want, but that’s literally what JD Vance said.

Now, I’m sure he meant something far less racist. *eyeroll* But what he said is what he said. I’m sure if I talk to one of those people with a Trump decoder ring, they’ll be able to better tell me what his words meant than their literal meaning, but, frankly, I’ve seen enough. I’m not interested in what the purveyor of the great pet eating lie, or his supporters, have to say.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What's with the Wikipedia? You can check one of my own earlier comments on this subthread for the Southern definition of Bourbon:

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/12/thursday-open-thread-208/?comments=true#comment-10722835

I was seeing headlines where Vance was said to have supported the Confederacy, the opposite of what his remarks suggested, so naturally I was a little skeptical of the narratives telling us what he *really* meant.

[NOVA Lawyer]

As your Wikipedia quote points out, the term Bourbon was explicitly a label of reactionary white supremacists. Odd that Vance would invoke it either of himself or of the part of the duopoly (your term and his implied view) that he supports.

"I was seeing headlines where Vance was said to have supported the Confederacy, the opposite of what his remarks suggested."

As your quote from Wikipedia indicates, "The stereotypical Bourbon upheld white supremacy" and was nostalgic for the Confederacy. Sure, I suppose he isn't saying he is a Southern Bourbon, and so isn't nostalgic himself for the Confederacy, but he's making common cause with the ideological/political heirs of slaveholders and white supremacists? Again, he chose the old-school Southerners from 200 year ago and Southern Bourbons as the two things to define the group with which he and his hillbillies are allying themselves.

Why would anyone intentionally tie themselves, even as 3rd party ("hillbilly") supporters, to that legacy?

(Even if Vance implies he supported the North in the Civil War (as the hillbillies were on the winning side), but then he/they must have supported the South in the post-Reconstruction era, because they did win that as Jim Crow proves.)

It's weird. At best.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow! The thread that won't die.
Need a better way to navigate when they become this long.

[grb]

What's the record anyway?

[Magister]

The longest previous I could find was 2023/03/30 with 1162, mostly driven by the Nashville shooting. So this one appears to be the new champion with 1185 or more.

[grb]

Hmmm ....... If it's a record, there'd be everlasting glory in having the last comment.