Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

No one up yet?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Some people have lives.

[Nelson]

Speak for yourself.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, we are up, Mr. Bumble. Perhaps some are still in awe of VP Word Salad Kamala’s interview with Stephanie Ruhle yesterday. Here is a representative answer.

And assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we and the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing.

Like Jeopardy, maybe you can figure out the holistic question. /smh

Keep Talking, Kamala.

Early voting is underway in VA, SD: Choose wisely!

[Mr. Bumble]

Say the secret word and win $100.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Heels Up is just plain stupid.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed doesn't make things up.

[Riva]

If you want people who make things up, I refer you to the J6 committee, that made it their cause to lie about President Trump. "Then-President Donald Trump gave clear instructions to Pentagon brass days before the Jan. 6 riots to 'do whatever it takes' to keep the U.S. Capitol safe, including deploying National Guard or active-duty troops, but top officials did not comply because of political concerns, according to transcripts of bombshell interviews conducted by the Defense Department's chief watchdog that shine new light on government disfunction ahead of the historic tragedy" see, justthenews.com, Bombshell transcripts: Trump urged use of troops to protect Capitol on Jan. 6 , but was rebuffed.

[Sarcastr0]

Can’t imagine why people call you a bot built to post old talking points regardless of their relevance to the conversation.

[David Nieporent]

And literally has never said one thing that didn't first appear on MAGA social media or some other MAGA outlet (like, in this case, justthenews.)

No matter how untrue. For instance, Trump did not in fact gave clear — or any — instructions to the Pentagon before J6 to do anything — let alone "whatever it takes" — to keep the U.S. Capitol safe. It's just a flat out lie by Solomon. Trump didn't say one word about the Capitol. Again, he asked for troops, if needed, to protect his own supporters, not the Capitol. Trump was obsessed with the imaginary Antifa threat. This has been known for several years now; there's no bombshell.

[Riva]

Sorry but I guess I have to explain some things to the bat shit crazy crowd. The article links to a transcript. You know what that is, right super lawyer? I have to ask given you seem never to have heard of separation of powers. And of course, there’s your bat shit crazy views.

[David Nieporent]

The article links to multiple transcripts. None of them say what MAGA claim they say, though. Indeed, the testimony expressly rejects the idea that Trump gave any sort of order. If MAGA wasn't actually the antimatter to literacy's matter, they'd know that. But they'd still lie, because that's what they do.

[Riva]

Can you losers honestly address anything? The transcript in question upon which the article is based is plainly noted as General Milley’s and the link to the transcript is clear. And the article itself has a number of quotes. What a bunch of pathetic lying clowns.

[David Nieporent]

And Milley does not remotely say what MAGA claims he said.

[Riva]

Lying seems to be reflexive for you losers. Truly repulsive.

“The President just says, ‘Hey look at this. It’s going to be a large amount of protesters come in here on the 6th, and make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event,’” Milley told the inspector general in one of two interviews he did in spring 2021 during a probe of the Pentagon’s response to Jan. Milley confirmed a second time during the interviews that Trump was clear in his wishes. “It was just what I just described, which was, ‘Hey, I don’t care if you use Guard, or soldiers, active-duty soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe,” the general told the IG. Other witness confirmed actions to undermine President Trump’s orders.

As House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk notes in the article, “President Trump directed senior DoD leaders to ensure events on J6 be safe. They ignored his guidance, prioritized optics concerns over security, and pushed a flawed narrative in their IG report,”

[David Nieporent]

It’s going to be a large amount of protesters come in here on the 6th, and make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event,’”

Yes. That's literally exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. He wanted the protesters protected. Not the Capitol.

[Riva]

He wanted everyone to be safe you bat shit crazy loser. You clowns never know when to give up the lie, from Charlottesville to J6, even the absurd McDonald’s job lie. Maybe in a way understandable, you can’t exactly point to the Biden Harris 4 year nightmare or Harris’ insanely incompetent price caps and tax orgy plans.

[Riva]

To put it another way, sworn testimony supports the report that President Trump gave orders to secure the Capitol. Bat shit crazy TDS supports Nieoporon.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Trump didn’t say one word about the Capitol. Again, he asked for troops, if needed, to protect his own supporters, not the Capitol."

Is there any evidence to support this? Just looking at the quotes here, for example, you quoted, "It’s going to be a large amount of protesters come in here on the 6th, and make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event,’" which doesn't support your claim that his desire for safety was limited to his own supporters.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You could start by testing critically the proposition that Trump intended protection for avowed enemies he was about to urge his MAGA mob to fight against, or they would not have a country anymore.

At some point absurd Trump-protective apologetics have to end. The guy is neither benign nor sane. Nor was he 4 years ago. And there is no one with the education and mental acuity of an average sixth-grader who thinks otherwise.

But mysteriously, plenty of folks who do accurately understand Trump, and the threats he creates on purpose, both support him, and pretend repeatedly that there are benign explanations for conduct they know has been anything but benign. The only plausible solution to the mystery is that those Trump supporters approve what Trump does, despite what they know.

Where does such crazy-looking motivation come from? Hatred for the politics and people Trump intends violently to target. Do not be one of those hate-filled Trump supporters.

[Kazinski]

Was it a flat out lie by the Pentagon inspector general too?

Read IG report starting at Page 27.

On page 29 the question was askedat the Whitehouse staff meeting on 1/3/2020:

"Does anyone else need support, because we could mobilize the entire national guard?"

[Riva]

Well I can see that’s triggered you. But not sure I follow. Do you concede that President Trump clearly took efforts to secure the Capitol but was undermined by the political machinations of others?

[santamonica811]

Now do the far funnier 14,828 times Trump has sounded like a stroke victim, with his rambling and shambling about pretty much everything and anything that's not related to the actual topic and/or question that has been asked. From sharks vs batteries, to eating our dogs (Trademark!!!), et al. I'd give the exhaustive list, except I'd run out of internet ink...plus wear out the keys on my keyboard.

Keep talking, Trump.

[Michael P]

Do it yourself. You'll look like a fool because his rambling and occasional missed word is still a lot more insightful and relevant than words salads.

In related news, Joe Biden had an interview yesterday where he agreed with me that it has been the Harris-Biden administration and that Harris has "responsibility on everything" their administration did. When Walz tells us that things don't have to be this way and we can't afford four more years of this, "this" is his running mate.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's nice to see that sane Republicans still exist.

[Commenter_XY]

He does, sm811. Some of his talk is hilarious. Some is atrocious. It is invariably entertaining. And he holds press conferences and answers extemporaneously!

Maybe Kamala should try that....holding a press conference and answer questions extemporaneously. Naaaah. Too risky, right? 🙂

[Moderation4ever]

It is too risky. Trump is allowed a lot more leeway than any other politician of either party. Biden was call senile, while Trump is just "Trump being Trump". Many Republicans have also found out they cannot spout stream of consensus as Trump does without getting called on the carpet.

[ducksalad]

The Stream of Consensus. A mythical river where no one seems to be able to disagree? A self-help audio recording that is an endless loop of affirmations? The murmuring at a conference of European Union technocrats?

[bernard11]

So Trump's word salad is entertaining, while Harris' sensible, if slightly jargony, statement is incomprehensible to you.

Figured out what's going to happen to the Jews if they don't vote for Trump? Do you give a shit?

[SRG2]

IT's the Trump exception. Trump can misspeak, misremember, deliver paragraphs of word salad where some of the words don't even exist except in his utterance - but that's different.

Hard to tell whether it's stupidity or dishonesty, or both.

[Nelson]

That is actually an answer about urban planning, where affordable housing and mass transit are near each other to maximize low-income peoples' ability to reach employment outside of their immediate area.

Compare that to Trump, who was campaigning in Georgia and said he was in the competitive state of Louisiana ... twice.

It's almost like 80-year-olds aren't mentally sharp enough to be President.

[Michael P]

You're not reading her word salad holistically.

[Nelson]

Would you prefer she said "symbiotically"? Or "integrated"? Or some other term commonly use in Transit Oriented Development?

Or are you so eager to claim that she made "word salad" that you can't understand the concept she is describing?

Transit Oriented Development is back in vogue these days as a structural way to increase opportunities for lower-income people in urban areas. It's a good plan, successfully implemented in countries as diverse as Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark

You may disagree with the policy, but her advocacy for federal government incentives to help cities implement TOD is pretty clear.

Trump, on the other hand, thought he was in Louisiana when he was in Georgia.

[Michael P]

I would prefer she not try to obscure her lack of substance with meandering jargon.

Speaking of which, has she even read the Book of Ecclesiastics (sic)?

[Nelson]

How exactly is an answer that explains her support for federal incentives for Transit Oriented Development a "lack of substance"? It's a substantive statement about a substantive issue.

"Holistic" isn't jargon. You aren't a native English-speaker, are you?

[Michael P]

She didn't mention "Transit Oriented Development". She mentioned transit and spending and housing, with only the vaguest connections between them. Your protecting what you want to great onto her words.

As for "holistic", let's check with her Holistic Thought Advisor from May, when it was socially acceptable to point out the obvious: https://youtu.be/r1RmWKA5Vaw

[Nelson]

“She mentioned transit and spending and housing”

So she hit every element of TOD, but didn’t use the phrase “Transit Oriented Development”. In your world that makes a response that answered not only the need for more housing (in a capitalist way, no less), but the preferred method of accomplishing that task, into “word salad”?

What, she didn’t use enough buzzwords and clichés for you? Using the same, relevant word several times means she loses points? Knowing what she’s talking about, but doing it in an awkward way means she loses points from the judges?

Contrast that with the alternative. He always has detailed knowledge about his policies, never rambles or repeats words and phrases, and never lies? Please.

It’s a clear contrast between form and substance. Trump is as deep as a puddle and intentionally chooses ignorance over knowledge, but he can really fire up the rubes. Harris is wonky and lacks charisma, but she actually knows what she’s talking about. One of them wasn’t fit for the office the first time around, the other will take the job seriously.

[Commenter_XY]

N, post the question. See if the answer holistically addressed the specific question asked. Kamala simply cannot speak extemporaneously, for whatever reason, and it is obvious to all.

Re: age...Just compare POTUS Biden to Pres Trump. Age has affected each man quite differently, physically and mentally.

Physical: Pres Trump is a scratch golfer; POTUS Biden can't swing a club anymore, let alone drive 270 yds. See recent break 50 YT video.
Mental: Pres Trump is running for POTUS, holds campaign rallies daily, and simultaneously runs a billion dollar plus enterprise. POTUS Biden gazes mindlessly at the water, sitting on a beach; his single debate performance eliminated him as a candidate.

[Nelson]

"Age has affected each man quite differently, physically and mentally."

Of course. Biden as in New York and thought he was in Washington DC. Trump was in Georgia and thought he was in Louisiana. And thought Louisiana was a competitive state.

"Pres Trump is a scratch golfer"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! Even generally honest people lie about their golf game. This is Donald Trump. He also says he is 6'3" and 215 pounds like Derwin James, the starting strong safety for the Lps Angeles Chargers. I know when I see Trump, I think "there goes someone who is built just like an All Pro athlete!".

"Pres Trump is running for POTUS"

Yes, that is the problem, not proof that there isn't a problem. Biden was running for POTUS, too.

"holds campaign rallies daily"

No, he holds rallies periodically and almost every time he says something that shows his mental frailty and confusion.

"simultaneously runs a billion dollar plus enterprise"

If you think it's a billion-dollar enterprise, you should probably brush up on what earnings are. You should also check out how much involvement he actually has in the Trump Orgainization (which notably acted criminally when he was actually running it).

Joe Biden is too old to be President, and he was WAY too old to run for a second term. So is Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

You play golf? Go see Bryson DeChambeau's YT video with The Donald. He is a player. And why not? He owns 16 or 17 golf courses around the world.

And the question.....? Did not think it would be posted. 😉

[Estragon]

You are delulu. If you think that puff piece showed a scratch golfer I am writing you off as a deplorable. Oh, wait…

I am a legit 6.7 going into today, fight me

[Commenter_XY]

I know you are an intelligent human being, E. Dartmouth? If you actually think that the DeChambeau video is staged or fake, that is crazy. He has quite a following.

The Donald is a Player in his late 70's. No, not PGA level. Ok, ok - scratch golfer was a stretch. But...You can't fake his drives, or chips shown on that video.

Hell, it gives me hope, E. I watch him play and get encouraged. Why? I plan to play into my 90's. 😉

Best courses played might be a great, fun Monday topic.

[Estragon]

It’s not fake in that he’s actually out there playing golf. But that does not show a scratch golfer on this plane of existence. There is no way that dude shot 5 under at a course that was about to host a pro event. From any tees. Just on the basis of the rough and the greens alone, it is not possible. You and I both know you are trolling. Golf is hard!

That’s what makes it so ridiculous— if he had come out and said that he shot mid 80s that would still be impressive! But no, he’s gotta keep up with Kim Jong Il and his 8 holes in one in a round.

6-7 birdies? Putting every single thing out? It’s risible.

[David Nieporent]

holds campaign rallies daily,

Trump virtually never holds campaign rallies. He's down to a tiny fraction of the number he held in 2016. (2020 is an unfair comparison because COVID.)

[bernard11]

runs a billion dollar plus enterprise.

He does nothing of the sort.

[KBeckman]

I can't honestly believe how anyone can see him as competent when it comes to business.

[Nelson]

Why, because Treasuries have outperformed him on ROI? Because he has multiple bankruptcies? Because his businesses have literally been judged to be fraudulent?

Those are just the elements of a great businessman. It's four dimensional chess.

[Estragon]

“Pres Trump is a scratch golfer”

Cmon, you claim to be a golfer yourself. That’s ridiculous. Do you actually believe the guy shot 67 to win the club championship at Bedminster? With that swing? And no gimmies? It’s absurd. If Arnold Palmer himself came back from the dead at age 78, he’d have trouble shooting 87– let alone 67. Just look at the scores the LIV pros turned in at Bedminster in the same month. You are extremely credulous or trolling.

[Magister]

No surprise that Commenter_XY quoted Harris starting in the middle of a sentence but capitalized the word to make it look like where the sentence started ("And assistance ..."). On the comparison of Trump and Biden; physically, Trump cheats at golf, and when did Trump last ride a bicycle? Physically and mentally, it's doubtful either man would be able to go four more years as president, but only one of them actually left the race because of that.

It does look like Harris answered the question, even if MAGAmites don't like the answer.

The question:

For people who want to buy a home, yes, getting a $25,000 kicker would be great, but it's not just affording a home. We don't have enough in this country.

(Harris comments "You're absolutely right.")

And one of the main problems are regulations and rules, strict, strict rules at a local level.

How does the federal government cut through all that red tape and get down to, I don't know, the suburbs of Pittsburgh and say, we're going to have to build some affordable housing here? How do you connect the two?

Harris answers:

So, you're absolutely right.

So, across our country, people rightly are concerned about the cost of housing. So it's homeownership, to your point. We need more supply. That is, without any question, part of the solution.

Creating more supply under my plan includes creating tax incentives to work with the private sector and homebuilders. Part of my goal and the plan would be to create three million new housing units for rent and for ownership by the end of my first term. It includes also what we must do to cut red tape. You're absolutely right.

It takes far too long and there's too much bureaucracy associated with homebuilding. And I say that as a devout public servant. I know that we have to reduce the red tape and speed up what we need to do around building. And that is going to require working from the federal level with state and local governments.

And it's going to be different in different places, depending on the needs of that community, the needs of that local government, that municipality, but working in consultation and coordination and also around incentives that we can create.

For example, some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.

[Nelson]

So a completely relevant answer about housing? And in favor of increasing supply?

Why would Trumpists be upset by such a clear, topical, and capitalist answ ... oh, yeah. I get it now.

[bernard11]

Why would Trumpists be upset by such a clear, topical, and capitalist answ

Because they read, listen to and worst of all believe all the MAGA lies coming out of the RW media,

[jb]

Indeed. Unless you really hate the word "holistically" for some reason, it's a somewhat bland but fairly reasonable answer to how to think about the federal government's role in creating affordable housing.

[ducksalad]

Yes, that word is the problem with what she said. Her answer wasn't (particularly) incoherent by current standards. But "holistic" is a fancy way of saying we're going to wing it without any well-defined criteria or goals.

[Magister]

It's a way of observing that parts are interconnected and a system has to be dealt with as a whole. If you build houses with no regard to jobs, services and so on, it's not going to do much for the housing shortage.

[Nelson]

Wait, candidates answering questions directly while showing a grasp of the intricacies of the subject? What the hell is that about?

You're supposed to make up lies demonizing disfavored groups to bring attention to issues. If your answer doesn't result in threats and racism, how can anyone tell that the issue is important?

[ducksalad]

OK, have it your way.

"Holistic" is Kamala's shorthand for "There are intricacies which I grasp perfectly, but you people aren't smart enough and my time is important, so you just need to stop asking questions and vote for me."

Do you think that's better?

[Nelson]

Holistic is a synonym for integrated. Or synergy. Or interconnected. All of which are the central premise of TOD.

You understand that the (using her word) "holistic" part is the most important part of the whole policy proposal, right? The idea is that housing, transit, and retail all work together to increase both employment opportunities and livability for the residents.

It's a highly successful model that has been used around the world and decreases (or even eliminates) the need to own a car, which for most people is a budget-straining purchase and expensive to maintain.

So a relevant word. What's your complaint? That she used it too often?

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, owning a car is "the problem".

[Sarcastr0]

*needing* to own a car is the problem.

[Nelson]

"Yes, owning a car is “the problem”."

No, owning a car isn't a problem for anyone except for fringe leftists. But cars are expensive to own and maintain. If you can't afford it and don't have access to mass transit, it severely limits your job and income opportunities.

TOD makes employment and advancement easier for low-income workers. It also makes it unnecessary to own a car for daily tasks like grocery or retail shopping, as well as activities like going out to dinner.

I'm really not sure why anyone would object to TOD policies. They have a decades-long record of success both domestically and internationally. There doesn't seem to be a notable downside.

It's a capitalist solution that increases housing supplies while increasing low-wafe workers' opportunities. What's the problem with that?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That is actually an answer about urban planning, where affordable housing and mass transit are near each other to maximize low-income peoples’ ability to reach employment outside of their immediate area."

See, how hard was that?

[Nelson]

We all know her opponent is known for concise, policy-driven statements that don't ramble, repeat words, leave the topic, or abuse sentence structure.

You are criticizing a topical answer that took less 30 seconds, but Trump's meandering, empty, five minute long answers are just fine? Really?

[SimonP]

If I read/listen to Kamala with the same willingness to read into it whatever I want - the same way MAGA does with Trump - then I have no problem at all making sense of this.

At least Kamala isn't promising to install loyalists at the top ranks of the military.

[Bob from Ohio]

"holistic "

Word of the day on her desk calendar. She's just trying to educate her self!

[Brian Thomas]

Well yeah, it's a lot easier to make a quote sound like nonsensical word salad when you start the quote in the middle of the sentence. This is the full sentence where that quote came from:

["For example, some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits] and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people."

It's like you're not even trying to be honest with yourself. It's kind of sad that you'd rather lie to yourself and pretend like you've made a good point by chopping off the first half of a quote, declaring the rest "word salad," and deluding yourself into thinking it is "representative" of what she actually said.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Your defense to word salad is "...some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits..."?

[Nelson]

Wait, she answered the question relevantly and succinctly, but repeated one word, and that's your definition of "word salad"? What would you characterize Donald Trump's speaking style as?

[Mr. Bumble]

Nathan Wade joins the Rev. Kirkland on the missing persons list.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3163315/nathan-wade-subpoenaed-congress/
NYC Mayor Eric Adams indicted by Feds. Why? Indictment sealed so far.
not guilty waiting with baited breath for Jack "Killer Eyes" Smith
180 page "evidence" brief.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3164915/judge-greenlights-jack-smith-evidence-filing-trump-jan-6/

[Dr. Ed 2]

He's a dirty cop.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He was complaining about the illegals. He had to go.

[Bwaaah]

He's staffed his administration with second-rate opportunists. But that wouldn't explain why the White House would let the Democrat-run DOJ eat one of their own. I suspect it was indeed his non-silent struggle with the Biden alien train. Still, Adams has been pretty nice about the aliens considering how challenging and messed up it the huge influx has been for NYC. (Thank goodness for endless support dollars from Washington and our endless ability to print them without any effect on our economy. Right?)

Alternatively, he's Black and he's a cop. I think when they weighed love of Black vs. hate for cop, the decision got easy.

[Sarcastr0]

Can't be that the DoJ prosecutes crimes and he did one.

Gotta be some Bellmore-esque wheels within wheels.

Alternatively, he’s Black and he’s a cop. I think when they weighed love of Black vs. hate for cop, the decision got easy.
MAGA Dems Bad knee jerking.

You probably live in Staten Island.

[David Nieporent]

But that wouldn’t explain why the White House would let the Democrat-run DOJ eat one of their own.

Um, the White House does not get involved in prosecutorial decisions.

[Mr. Bumble]

...of course they don't.

[Bwaaah]

[wink] [wink]

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol

[SimonP]

You people are certifiably insane.

Adams ran a dirty ship. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. He filled the top ranks with his friends and family, handed out no-bid contracts like they were candy, spent most of his time partying with lobbyists and donors, probably doesn't even live here.

He was chafing under the migrant influx, but so has been every other big-city mayor. He was a "cop," but he was voted in fair and square by the NYC electorate. It is utterly bizarre that anyone here would line up in support of him, like he's some anti-immigrant hero. You people just really love political corruption, huh?

[John F. Carr]

Think of the indictment as an attempt to remedy the longstanding underrepresentation of minorities in white collar crime.

[Mr. Bumble]

+1

[Bwaaah]

[Bwaaah]

Another advance toward greater “equity.”

[GiuseppeGregucci]

It's indisputable that Obama and Biden were gay lovers in the Oval Office. The only question is, who was the pitcher and who was the catcher? Was Obama pitching his chocolate love deep into Biden's butthole, or was Obama grabbing the edge of the desk while Biden plowed him good and hard, leaving a massive load of creepy old man cream to drip out in front of Michelle?

[hobie]

Biden DOJ:

Hunter
Menendez
Adams

[Bwaaah]

Yeah...Biden DOJ got caught in court trying to let Hunter off the hook...ended up having to eat his own son to save face for the Party.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody "got caught," nobody was letting him off the hook, and it was Trump's appointee, not the Biden DOJ.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Um, it was both.

[Bwaaah]

That's the way I remember it. A deal that neither could explain to the judge.

[John F. Carr]

Reportedly campaign finance violations (Adams).

[Sarcastr0]

Indicted for them? Gotta be foreign money I'd bet.

[Commenter_XY]

Turkey

[John F. Carr]

The Turkish language has a suffix serving the role of "reportedly" in my comment. Add -miş to the verb in a sentence and "Adams kicked a puppy" becomes the somewhat less defamatory "They say Adams kicked a puppy." If you don't use the suffix people might think you mean you saw it happen.

The indictment will be formally announced today. They say. I haven't seen it.

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Carr, you are right.

[Nelson]

That's the starting point, but this is much bigger than just foreign money. It's a wide-ranging corruption investigation that seems to he reaching back to when he was with the NYPD.

It shouldn't be a surprise. Adams, like Menendez, has been connected to corruption and foreign influence for years. Kudos to Biden's DOJ for aggressively going after corrupt public officials even if they are in the President's own party. And kudos to the White Hiuse for keeping out of the way.

This is how the DOJ is supposed to work.

[hobie]

Lawfare!

Office holders should be removed by election, not the courts!

This is just the government depriving the people their preferred candidate!

See how tired and dumb these hayseed arguments are?

[John F. Carr]

The Adams indictment is now online.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69197933/united-states-v-adams/

1. Conspiracy related to counts 2-5
2. Wire fraud (false claim of entitlement to matching funds)
3. Solicitation of a campaign contribution by a foreign national
4. Solicitation of a campaign contribution by a foreign national
5. Bribery (luxury travel benefits from a Turkish official in exchange for NYC's regulation of the Turkish House)

[Bob from Ohio]

"NYC Mayor Eric Adams indicted by Feds. Why? "

Because he attacked Biden's immigration policies once Gov. Abbott started sending illegals to NYC.

[Kazinski]

He's a dirty politician:
"New York City mayor Eric Adams was indicted on federal criminal charges on Wednesday evening, following a sprawling federal probe into allegations that Adams received illegal campaign contributions from foreign governments in 2021."

The government was Turkey.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Another episode of “you fucked up – you trusted us!”

Votes for 3rd party candidates Cornel West and Claudia de la Cruz will be thrown away on Georgia, even though they’re on the ballot, thanks to the state high court.

“This is another instance at which the candidates followed the instructions of the Secretary of State, and yet were kept off the ballot even though they submitted enough signatures.”

https://ballot-access.org/2024/09/25/georgia-supreme-court-says-votes-for-cornel-west-and-claudia-de-la-cruz-cant-be-counted/

(nb - Presidential elections are special cases because the people have no constitutional right to vote in Presidential elections; it's a matter of grace conferred by the legislature, and since the greater power includes the less, the legislature could issue a ballot limited to the Turd Sandwich Party and the Giant Douche Party. But just because the legislature has the power to do this sure don't make it right.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"...the legislature could issue a ballot limited to the Turd Sandwich Party and the Giant Douche Party."
Isn't that what they've done?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A douche is actually useful.

[Bwaaah]

Kind of makes it look like it's all for the benefit of a giant douchie turd sandwich (and everybody's gonna eat one).

[AmosArch]

If a 3rd party candidate is expected to hurt Harris then their votes are tossed like Cornell West and Cruz. If a 3rd party candidate is expected to hurt Trump then their votes are counted like RFK even if the candidate themself disagrees with this. This is the 'rule of law' and 'democracy' the Dems want to protect from trump.

[Martinned2]

You've figured it out! Georgia is conspiring against Trump, because it's full of Dems!

[Frank Drackman]

The shithole of Atlanta is

[Nelson]

Stop injecting logic into his conspiratorial grievance. It ruins the flavor.

[ducksalad]

One thing you should keep in mind: Trump now believes he can gather part of the black male vote that is unhappy with Democrats. Cornell West would be competing for that same group.

So, the Republican-appointed (8 out of 9 justices) state SC rules against West. On the pro-West side was the Republican Secretary of State – but that’s Brad Raffensperger, who has been targeted by Trump ever since he failed to cooperate in that famous phone call.

Georgia Democrats filed a challenge against West, which is how this whole thing started.

If one wants to assign corrupt motives, one can be assigned to every single player in this mess. And despite what it might look like to you from Europe, Georgia is actually a swing state, which is why this fight is so ugly.

[Martinned2]

Exactly, and because it's a swing state the idea that Democrats control it enough to be able to rig the election at the state level is profoundly dumb.

[Mr. Bumble]

Democrats control most of the large population areas (cities) so rigging isn't so hard. Trump lost GA in 2020 by less than 12,000 votes.

[ducksalad]

You're not wrong, depending on the state.

But RFK himself is going both ways on this issue now that he's joined Trump's team. He's filed lawsuits to be removed from the ballot in some states (MI), and lawsuits insisting that he be on the ballot in others (NY). OTOH he's telling his own supporters to vote for Trump regardless of what state they are in. One assumes this was all part of whatever deal he made with Trump.

[Kazinski]

Actually I don’t think it will help Harris that their votes get tossed, she still won’t get them.

[EscherEnigma]

So have you missed the part where RFK has sued some states to keep his name on the ballot, and sued others to keep his name off the ballot, seemingly based on whether or not he thinks it'll hurt or help Trump?

Which is to say, yeah, this kind of behavior is shitty, but it's not a Rep/Dem thing, it's an everyone thing. This is defintely one of those issues where "both sides" is accurate.

Also one of those issues where ranked voice voting would be useful.

[Malika]

Keeping candidates off the ballot via technicalities is as bad as keeping ballot initiatives off the ballot via technicalities, both denying the people the right of the consent of the governed, amirite?

"Ballot initiatives have become a central part of the strategy to restore and expand abortion rights in the post-Roe v. Wade era. They’re also key to Democrats’ efforts to turn out voters in battleground states in this year’s tight presidential election. Abortion rights are popular, even in solidly red states; the pro-choice side has won all seven abortion-related measures on state ballots since 2022.

That’s led Republican officials in GOP-dominated states including Arkansas, Florida, and Nebraska to pull out all the stops this year to prevent abortion-rights measures from getting to the ballot in the first place"

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/09/missouri-officials-tried-everything-to-keep-abortion-off-the-ballot-they-just-lost/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Start your own thread about the horrors of aborted ballot initiatives.

[Nelson]

I see what you did there. It was amusing.

[jb]

Seems like the Secretary of State continued to side with the candidates, but the courts have consistently ruled the SoS was wrong. That does suck for the candidates, but also doesn't exactly seem like anyone was out to get them.

It's a little hard to get too worked up about ballot access for third party candidates when you see how cynical RFK Jr. is being with his obvious attempts to manipulate third party votes in favor of Trump. None of these candidates have a real chance of winning; more serious third party candidates like Ross Perot have been successful in getting on the ballot in all states.

[ducksalad]

but also doesn’t exactly seem like anyone was out to get them.

The whole mess started with Democrats filing challenges to keep West off the Georgia ballot. I'd say that counts as "out to get them".

[Nelson]

I believe that's called "assuring election integrity" in today's Republican Party. Oh wait, the Democrats did it? IT'S CORRUPTION!

[ducksalad]

On the Republican Secretary of State’s part (the SoS sided with West) it could easily be payback for Donald Trump slandering him relentlessly. However, Raffensperger happened to be on the side of not banning candidates based on stupid technicalities. Furthermore, he did not initiate it, the issue was brought to him.

On the Republican Supreme Court’s part, I’m inclined to believe now Trump wants West off the ballot and they were aware of Trump’s wishes when they made their decision. However, I’ll concede it’s possible that since someone brought them the issue they had to decide and the law said West had made a mistake.

On the Democrats' part it’s (a) hypocrisy, and (b) prioritizing political advantage over fair play. While they might have had found some actual technical deficiencies in West’s paperwork, there was zero evidence of any non-disgusting motivation for filing the challenge or hunting for defects in the first place. They did not have to attack his ballot access, and they chose to do so.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“It’s a little hard to get too worked up about ballot access for third party candidates when you see how cynical RFK Jr. is…”

He’s just one candidate. Many third-party candidates aren’t him.

“more serious third party candidates like Ross Perot”

Perot’s ballot access, and any seriousness with which he was taken, can be explained by a little joke:

What’s the difference between crazy and eccentric?

About a billion dollars.

[Nelson]

I remember that joke from the time. It still cracks me up, even as Elon Musk becomes more and more erratic. The man's a genius, but he's slipping a little too far away from reality to continue to be a visionary.

Seeing what's possible, but exceedingly difficult to accomplish, is genius. That's the old Elon Musk. I don't know if he started believing his own press, lost his ability to walk that fine line between the unlikely, but possible, and fantasy, or started believing his desire and money could change anything, but he's not the man he used to be, and the human race is poorer for it. Literally the entire human race. He was that brilliant.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He failed up - all the way up into space.

[Nelson]

He hasn't failed at all, really. Of all his ventures, NeuroLink is the most impressive.

But I am concerned about which side of the genius/madness line he's leaning towards.

Look, people think that Tesla is a car company. The reason that Teslas, as automobiles, are largely pieces of crap is because the point wasn't to create an electric car company. The point was to create proof-of-concept test vehicles for the batteries and have people pay him for the privilege. It was brilliant.

And the reason he needed constant testing of batteries? Because that's what is used in space and each kg (2.2 pounds) of material costs about $5k to lift into low earth orbit. So each time he gets 10% more efficiency, he saves $500 per kilo per launch. Each time he lowers the weight of the battery by 10%, he saves $500 per kilo per launch. And he launches thousands of kilos in batteries every year.

As the saying goes: $1 million here, $1 million there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

And how are batteries charged in space? With solar panels. And who owns a solar panel company? Do you think that was an accident?

But that isn't even the end of it. He wants to go to other planets. How much would it cost to accelerate a kilo to the speed necessary to reach Mars? How about further?

And because space is so hostile to human life, wouldn't it be better if a human didn't have to go outside to make repairs? And if that human could control machines with a chip in their brain, how many lives would that save? How many different types of tasks could be undertaken by a single person if they didn't need to train for each control system?

He'll probably never see the end of his vision, but he has been working on going to space (and creating the technological basis of a generation ship) for a couple decades or more.

So no, he isn't a failure. He has been startlingly successful, and on a very accelerated timeline from what most would have expected..

Granted, he achieved that speed by ignoring safety standards and risking the health and safety of his employees and customers with inadequate protections and quality standards. But he hasn't failed.

But he isn't even a quarter of the way to his goal yet and he is becoming increasingly erratic and callous. I worry where he is headed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Incidentally, my reference to failure was meant as sarcasm.

I don’t know whether he will descend into madness, but to quote another aphorism, “the distance between genius and madness is measured by success.” Of course, I first heard this aphorism from a Bond villain, but that simply proves that Bond villains, who keep failing, are on the crazy side of the line. I don’t think Elon Musk is a Bond villain yet.

Yet I think he’s a more important historical figure than any American politician, and will remain so unless some American politician launches some weapon of mass destruction. In which case I’d like to be safe in one of Elon’s space colonies, mad or not.

[santamonica811]

Has anyone heard Donald Trump laugh? He's certainly tried to make a meal out of Harris's laugh. But that made me think, "Have I ever heard Trump laugh himself?" I can't think of an example. I've seen him smile a few times, but 100% were when he or another person were making fun of various political rivals. I've never seen him laugh at a joke. And I did see him give a sort of smile (and sort of a smirk) at one of Epstein's "parties."

This lack of laughter seems pretty remarkable. I've seen a dozen examples of Vance laughing. (Okay, his laugh is weird as fuck, but it is an actual laugh.) I've even seen Mitch McC and Bob Dole laughing...and they're the least funny humans on planet Earth.

A quick Google of "Trump + laughing" yielded a video of someone making fun of Hillary Clinton, and Trump gives sort of a yelp of laughter. Kind of normal laughter, I think...although in response to someone insulting a woman, naturally.

Are there other examples I'm missing? I'm trying to humanize Trump, so a few examples of Trump laughing at a comedy show, or at a joke that's not aimed at a political rival, or at a funny cartoon...anything normal like that would be great. Please pass on the link, if you do find examples of Trump displaying regular human laughter.

Vance's Totally Normal Laugh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N4y28VMMII

Most Normal Laugh I could find for Trump
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10153812519759641

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I couldn’t find Trump specifically, but I found someone who serves as a good stand-in for *all* politicians:

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

[Kazinski]

I think you are reaching.

Different people are different.

"My grandfather almost never laughed, and he was a stand up comic in Vaudeville."

Randy Barnett
https://x.com/RandyEBarnett/status/1838037722142838985?t=LUm3EitX6xTBhdqhrXA3SQ&s=19

[santamonica811]

That is interesting. But, your grandfather did laugh *some* times. Also, I suspect you'd agree; if your gf had been on video for 44,000 hours of his life, he'd have been laughing in some of them.

(My own grandfather never laughed in front of me during my entire childhood, save for watching Marx Brothers movies and listening to Jack Benny records. But he had had a difficult and fairly miserable life, from pogroms in Russia to fighting in the Great War, to struggling thru our Depression. I expect that your own gf might have had comparable challenges in his life. I'll compare to Trump, who was born to wealth, given every privilege, given every indulgence. If there were anyone in America who should have grown up at least reasonably happy and capable of feeling joy, it's someone with cushy and pampered formative years, like Trump.)

[Zarniwoop]

from pogroms in Russia to fighting in the Great War, to struggling thru our Depression. I expect that your own gf might have had comparable challenges in his life.

Cut old Donald some slack. He lived through the Vietnam-era hellscape of avoiding STDs while banging gold diggers at Studio 54. Unless you’ve lived that, you can’t even begin to understand the PTSD.

[Kazinski]

Not my Grandfather, Randy Barnett's.

But Trump is actually pretty humorous at his rallies, but laughing at your own jokes isn't effective.

Neither is laughing for no reason.

[theobromophile]

My grandfather rarely laughed. He had a great sense of humour; he chuckled or grinned. It's not a big deal.

[Riva]

Uh huh. The question is, why is someone so obviously charismatic and popular, afraid to have a press conference? And then there’s making the silly Macdonald’s lie the centerpiece of just about every campaign ad I’ve seen. Almost like she’s hiding something and doesn’t want to discuss too openly her real positions on the issues.

[Nelson]

And your source for the McDonalds thing is ... Donald Trump? What is happening to the GOP? Reagan had the cult-of-personality thing, but he also stuck to facts and good governance (his idea of it, whether you agreed with him or not).

Now the GOP Presidential candidate says something off-the-wall and MAGA repeats it like a parrot on meth.

[Magister]

Ronald "facts are stupid things" Reagan? Ronald "Iran-Contra" Reagan? Not seeing sticking to facts or good governance.

[Zarniwoop]

I, too, must be prevaricating about the entry-level job (grocery stock boy) I had when I was 16-17 because I didn’t include it on my post-law-school resumes when I was applying for clerkships and AmLaw 100 jobs.

This “she never worked at McDonalds” talking point is dumb even for Trump.

[Riva]

Nope. There is no contemporaneous records of her working there. No employment records. Not in any biography. Applications from the time frame contain no reference. No mention of exactly where or when. The lie only appeared in her 2019 failed campaign. Even Snopes acknowledges there is no support for this claim. But like I said, in the burning dumpster fire that is America under Biden Harris, she has made this garbage a centerpiece of her campaign. She’s a clown.

[David Nieporent]

Why the fuck would there be contemporaneous records of someone working at a fast food restaurant 40 years earlier?

[Nelson]

Please stop injecting logic into Riva's insane rants. It causes his mouth to foam over.

[Riva]

A picture? A name tag? An old resume? A pay stub? An application near the time frame? To the best of my knowledge a near contemporaneous job application requiring all employment notes nothing. No old co-workers have come forward. No one knows where this restaurant was or when this work supposedly occurred. You sure don’t know shit about relevant evidence, and we know you sure as shit don’t know anything about separation of powers. You’re not even good at lying. You do seem to be good at bat shit crazy. That’s not a compliment, you bat shit crazy moron.

[ducksalad]

Bad faith requests for evidence, Riva.

If she produces the picture or nametag or paystub, you’ll immediately claim they’re fake and start acting like you’re an expert on fonts and imaging. If she produces an old resume, you’ll say it only proves she was already a liar way back in college. If an old coworker comes forward, you’ll say that person is a Democrat shill, and if possible, search for dirt on that person.

Everyone in this comment thread is five steps ahead of you, and knows what you’re going to do better than you do yourself.

And by the way, she might be lying about McDonalds. But even if that came out, it wouldn’t retroactively make your bad faith demand any less bad.

[Riva]

WTF? She might be lying but your problem isn’t with the lying hack Harris, it’s with anyone who points out she’s lying? You should be a reporter. Actually with your idiotic bias, you’re overqualified.

[Magister]

More likely it's going to be the 2024 equivalent of Obama's birth certificate. Pity none of the MAGAmites are as concerned with Donald Trump's lie about being Michigan Man of the Year, or Donald Trump's cheating at golf, let alone real indicators of character like his fraud, his 34 felony convictions, his being a rapist, or his attempt to overthrow American democracy.

[Riva]

Ok, then. Let's see some evidence. Anything. Well wait a second. She did say "I did the cashier." Maybe we can ask him?

[David Nieporent]

It. Was. Forty. Fucking. Years. Ago. Assuming she was even paid by check, who has a paystub from McDonalds from forty years ago? Who has a job application from forty years ago? Even if she put McDonalds on a resume — and why would she even do that? — why would she have a copy of a forty year old resume? Why would a random fast-food employee remember a random co-worker from forty years ago?

[TwelveInchPianist]

They dug up evidence of a guy taking his dick out at a frat party at a similar time. If they can't find evidence that she worked at McDonalds, the most likely explanation is that she didn't work there.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know who "they" is in your second sentence, but no, the most likely explanation is that

I presume you're talking about Kavanaugh. But he went to Yale. Which still exists. And there are records of everyone who attended, who could be contacted to be asked. And who lived on the same campus and/or dorms with him for four full years. And that's what journalists did: contact those specific people and ask them.

Whereas there are no actual journalists on the right, and therefore nobody doing the legwork one way or the other. (The closest we got to that was one guy calling up McDonalds corporate so he could say, "They didn't have any record of her," which of course they wouldn't since she didn't work for McDonalds corporate.) There are actual liberal journalists, but since they realize that this is a batshit crazy conspiracy theory about something of no importance whatsoever, they would have no reason to try to disprove this claim.

[David Nieporent]

Sorry, somehow the first sentence got truncated. The most likely explanation is that it was a short term unimportant job from 40 years ago in a transient business and nobody remembers anything one way or the other.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, but they would have reason to corroborate it.

[Nelson]

They would? Why? No one cares, except the people who are panicking because Grandpa Trump is acting like a demented old man. But he always has, so maybe it's that he's not running against another 80-year-old any more and he's slowly losing ground.

Unless something changes, Trump will get his ass kicked even worse this time than he did in 2020.

[Riva]

It. is. a. fucking, lie. The job was NOT mentioned in either of her memoirs, published in 2010 and 2019. We don’t know where this mysterious McD’s was located, or even when she did the cashier. All we know is that this lie magically appeared sometime in her last failed campaign. You seem to really like lies, so I can’t understand why making up something else would be so difficult for you. Move on.

[David Nieporent]

The job was NOT mentioned in either of her memoirs,

She probably did not mention her favorite breakfast cereal as a teenager, or the color of the wallpaper in her family bathroom, or the name of the guy who mowed her family's lawn, either. Why would any sane person expect an utterly trivial detail like a short term fast food job to be in her memoirs?

We don’t know where this mysterious McD’s was located,

So what? Also, we do know: Alameda.

[Riva]

Utterly trivial detail? The bullshit lie is fucking central to her campaign. It begins practically every crap ad she puts out. It’s right up there with abortion all the time, anytime. A bullshit lie that magically only appeared sometime in 2019 and now reappears when she finds herself in another failing campaign. Sad.

[Nelson]

"The bullshit lie is fucking central to her campaign.".

Even for you, that is batshit crazy. And your baseline is well into the "howling at the moon" area.

[Sarcastr0]

Whomever programed the Rivabot MacDonald's scandal subroutine may have missed decimal point on the intensity value, because this is just hilarious now.

How can the American People trust Harris, the McDonald's candidate, unless McDonald's people remember her from her McDonalds' job back in the Regan era.

Truly, this is Harris' Birth Certificate moment.

FRAUD!!!!

[Riva]

So the bullshit lie that appears in almost every crap campaign ad Harris puts out is becoming more undeniably just another bullshit lie from a hack who has made a career out of bullshit lies and the response from the creepy democrats here? They try to deny it’s a lie but then realizing at some level that this is lame then either pretend it’s not in pretty much EVERY FUCKING AD or the say well the lie that’s in pretty much EVERY FUCKING AD really doesn’t matter to the campaign putting it in pretty much EVERY FUCKING AD.

Good thing you clowns can cheat because thinking is not your strong suit.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Is it in every advert? I haven't seen that.

2. Is it a lie? You have no idea.

3. Your programming seems have an error regarding the proper use of 'creepy.'

4. You, uh, really go downhill after that first sentence, eh?

[Riva]

It’s glaringly a lie. It’s a swimming up and biting you on the ass lie.

And if you don’t see it in almost every ad then you’re either lying or avoiding all her ads because you secretly despise these ads as much as I do.

Move on to the next lie.

[Sarcastr0]

If it's not a lie, why does Riva keep obsessively posting it's a lie?

Riva, maybe your media consumption habits are NOT shared by everyone?

[David Nieporent]

appears in almost every crap campaign ad Harris puts out

Is this as true as every other fake AI-generated talking point from the bot?

Yes, yes, it is.

[Riva]

The question is why are bat shit crazy guy and his little buddy Sarcastr0 so obsessively clinging to this lie? In fact, why lie about Harris’ ads? It’s quite indisputably that she tries to exploit this McD lie in almost every ad. Never give concede the truth is the theory I guess. Didn’t make Pravda a success and it ain’t going to work for Harris and her creepy running mate.

[grb]

Riva : “A picture? A name tag? An old resume? A pay stub?”

You’re a bot – and with primitive technology at that. So we understand how you can be inhumanly stupid. And Trump is speaking to his MAGA faithful, who are gullible and unreasoning by definition. But what do you think a real & normal person makes of your “argument”?

Answer : They greet it with laughter. No one has pictures, name tags, or pay stubs from fast food jobs forty years earlier. Coworkers are long forgotten on both sides. Now you don’t know this because you’re only a bot. Trump doesn’t know this because he’s never held a normal job in his life.

But ordinary people do. They know it in spades. So what’s the point of all this bullshit? It just makes us laugh at you more…

[Riva]

The relevant question is, why is Harris so desperately promoting this lie? Seems pretty obvious she wants to create a distraction from her disastrous Biden Harris administration record and a lifetime of failed insane liberal policies. But Harris’s bullshit lies don’t bother you. What really bothers you is anyone pointing out Harris’ bullshit lies. Go F yourself.

[grb]

Riva : “The relevant question is, why is Harris so desperately promoting this lie?”

The real (and relevant) question is why Donald Trump insists it’s a lie based on zero evidence. Not even a single atom of evidence. Not even the remotest rumor of a whiff hinting evidence.

Answer : Because he’s panicking and his addled brain can’t handle anything more substantive.

Of course the reason why Riva is pushing such pathetic nonsense is much simpler : It is a bot mindlessly repeating whatever gets the most noise in MAGA-world. Being all cogs & gears (a very primitive bot), it is incapapable of understanding it looks like a fool.

Reminder : Normal person see your McDonald’s gibberish as laughably absurd.

[Riva]

You’re right about zero evidence. So its kinda up to the lying hack Harris to come forward with something to support this absurd claim, not President Trump. A claim that merits no mention in her 2 memoirs. No mention at any time in her shameless career of lying until sometime in her failed 2019 campaign when the mysterious “job” emerges. Exactly where or when, nobody knows. No co-workers, not even the cashier she says she did, have come forward. Yet she persists ad nauseam with the lie to create the facade of a “middle class” background and avoid her last nightmarish term in office.

[David Nieporent]

"I can stop the war in Ukraine with a phone call" is an absurd claim. "Even though I'm a fat 80-year-old I won a golf tournament" is an absurd claim. "Everyone wanted Roe v. Wade overturned" is an absurd claim.

"When I was in college I had a summer job at McDonalds" might be the least absurd claim any politician has ever made.

[David Nieporent]

Seems pretty obvious she wants to create a distraction

The funny thing is that because it's just a bot it doesn't realize how much of a MAGA self-own this statement is.

Nobody was paying any attention to it whatsoever; it's MAGA loons who've been creating this distraction.

[EscherEnigma]

"[S]he has made this garbage a centerpiece of her campaign."
She really hasn't. Trump talks about it a lot. Harris doesn't.

[Riva]

No, she really has. It's in pretty much every fucking campaign ad the lying hack puts out.

[not guilty]

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

[Riva]

Not sure what to say other but when you feel like torturing yourself, or are drunk enough, feel free to sit through any Harris ad out there, or read anything you may get in the mail. If you do, you'll find that everyone should vote for Harris because she supposedly worked at McDonald's. And abortion. or something.

[not guilty]

I get dozens of emails per day from the Harris campaign or associated entities. I delete them without opening them. And whether she did or did not work at McDonald's makes not one whit of difference to me.

[Riva]

It apparently matters to Harris because she keeps perpetuating the lie. And interesting you insinuate that I'm lying while acknowledging you never look at Harris's shit ads.

[Magister]

I looked at a bunch of Harris ads on Youtube, and only found one that mentions McDonalds, as part of her middle class background, in contrast to Trump's inherited wealth and plans for tax cuts for billionaires. (Lots of people with middle class backgrounds have not worked for McDonalds or any fast food place, so she'd still be from a middle class background without that job.)

[David Nieporent]

If Riva weren't a bot, it would just post links to all of these many ads that supposedly mention it. But since nobody else on the MAGA right is doing so, that's not in its database. So instead it just posts hundreds of times the same words over and over again.

[Riva]

Why are you pukes so concerned? You all seem particularly frightened that this lie is collapsing. Man up, get a grip and move on to your next pathetic lie. I’m frankly concerned you all may require more serious professional mental health intervention after November.

[Sarcastr0]

Rivabot throws error 009: 'You called me on my bullshit.'

Error response patter 009: 'This only shows how desperate you are.'

[Riva]

I’m afraid it’s a little to late for you to get help but you can still serve as an object lesson for others who don’t want to be a Sarcastr0.
And I think the bat shit crazy guy is just as deranged, if that’s any consolation.

[theobromophile]

The evidence is that within 10 years of when she allegedly worked there, she filled out an application for a state job that required her to list every paid job she had held within the last ten years. She did not list the alleged McDonald's gig.

No one has come forward to say that they remember working with her. No manager or coworker corroborates this.

Kamala does not specify which McDonald's she allegedly worked at; it wasn't like she said "I worked on the one at 505 S Main Street," and that is something semi-verifiable.

Obama worked at a Baskin-Robbins in Hawaii. Roadside America lists which one he worked at:
https://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/32384

Crickets from Kamala.

[David Nieporent]

No one has come forward to say that they remember working with her. No manager or coworker corroborates this.

Why on earth would someone have come forward to say that they remembered working at a fast food restaurant with someone 40 years ago? I never worked fast food, but I worked other entry-level type jobs back in the day; I don't remember anyone I worked with.

[Riva]

Someone wrote 2 memoirs for her in 2010 and 2019. No mention of her working at McDonald's. No reference anywhere of her doing any cashier. What a sec....Was Willie Brown ever a casher at McDonald's?

[David Nieporent]

What do her memoirs say about what brand of toothpaste she used? If nothing, I assume that means she never brushed her teeth.

[Riva]

She isn’t making her toothpaste brand a centerpiece of her failed campaign. But if she did, I have no doubt she’d lie about that too. The only true is her doing Willie Brown. And of course her commitment to tax you bastards back to the stone age.

[David Nieporent]

She isn't making a part time job 40 years ago "a centerpiece of her campaign" (and if said campaign were actually "failed" you wouldn't be fecklessly making these pathetic arguments).

And even if she were making it a centerpiece of the campaign now, that would not be a reason why she would discuss it in a book written six years ago.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just what is the "centerpiece" of her campaign?

[Riva]

It’s not in any book written for her because the writers hadn’t thought to create the lie at the time of publication. And she’s using the lie almost daily now because she’s afraid to address the issues. Maybe the first time in modern history a presidential candidate has hidden like this from the press. And a sycophantic press at that. Even Biden in his basement was more accessible . Imagine how she would cower in fear before hostile foreign leaders?

[David Nieporent]

For the record, the form does not say "list every paid job … within the last ten years." It says, "List your work record for the last 10 years." Someone could easily decide that the Alameda County DA's office didn't care about a short part time job at McDonalds being mixed in with being a law clerk, senate intern, and working at the FTC and Charles Schwab.

[Riva]

One could more believably make up a bullshit lie sometime in 2019 to help her failed presidential campaign.

[santamonica811]

When I was applying for work at the Calif DOJ, I left out about a dozen jobs I had worked at. At a bowling alley at age 14. As a fork-lift driver at 15. Shuffling paper at an insurance company at 15 and 16. I partly left them out because I didn't think anyone actually cared about what I was doing during my pre-18 years. But, mostly, because in the pre-internet days, I had no idea of those job addresses, the names of my supervisors at the time, and so on. Hell, for the fork-lift job, I (to this day) have no idea what the actual name of the company was!!! I knew the location of the warehouse, and that's where I showed up each day.

A few years later, when filling out my background investigation info for my FBI application, I again left out those jobs.

What you find damning, I find completely understandable and unremarkable. (If a person put down all her service jobs from, say, Age 15-20, but omitted just one job-where she worked for a year, then I would absolutely agree with you that this singular omission is suspicious.)

My suggestion for you guys: Instead of focusing on something (her "missing" job from her old resume) that makes you look desperate; instead focus on something really important and relevant to the voter's like the quality of her laugh. You could spend a week just analyzing her volume. The next week focusing on its duration. The next on its pitch and timbre. That would get you pretty close to the actual election. To fill out those few remaining weeks, maybe you could talk about how light or dark her skin is? That's also an important issue to voters.

[Riva]

You’re probably lying about the fork-lift gig. But if it’s true, I bet you remember about where and when and could find something to back it up. Unlike someone making something up in 2019 that wasn’t mentioned in either of their 2 memoirs and has zero evidence to substantiate any claim. She can’t even produce the cashier she claims she did. I bet you could produce your foreman.

And it’s Harris who is making this an issue. It’s in practically every fucking ad.

[santamonica811]

To be honest, it was a baby fork-lift. Took an experienced worker literally 15 minutes to teach me how to operate it. One lever for moving the prongs up and down. Second lever for in and out. Third lever for tilting the prongs up (or down). 60 hours a week, hauling pallets filled with a thousand pounds of veggies and fruits into huge trucks, which were then driven up and down the coast to military bases in California.

I remember that it was south of Downtown LA. An area called City of Commerce, I think. I would have NO IDEA how to find the location again. I have zero idea how to find a foreman from 45 years ago. Are you really serious about that???

I think you are making my point for me. So, um . . . thank you???

[David Nieporent]

I remember that it was south of Downtown LA. An area called City of Commerce, I think. I would have NO IDEA how to find the location again. I have zero idea how to find a foreman from 45 years ago. Are you really serious about that???

Just to be clear, though: Harris has never said that she couldn't find the restaurant or didn’t know the details or didn't have corroborating information. This all started because a couple of weeks ago some Internet gnat/MAGA grifter out of the blue claimed that she was making up her McDonalds work. Based on them not knowing the details, MAGA is insinuating that she doesn't know the detail or doesn't have any evidence.

(For the record, by the way, the bot has been passing along other misinformation from social media, claiming that she wrote "2 memoirs." She did not.)

[Riva]

Based on your account, I think your story is bullshit and you probably visited a site your uncle or cousin worked at they showed you the machinery, if this happened at all. You were never hired, never paid and the bullshit story is just more bullshit to cover up the Harris bullshit. (The foreman comment was sarcasm by the way, with an insinuation. Try to think about it.) Thanks for proving my point.

[Riva]

And, for the record this started when Harris recycled this 2019 lie for her present failing campaign. She uses it in almost every ad. Prominently. News reports have detailed the many reasons why this is a lie. Harris has provided nothing to substantiate her claim. It’s just another lie in a political career based on lies. And all because she’s afraid to address the issues.

[David Nieporent]

And, for the record this started when Harris recycled this 2019 lie for her present failing campaign. She uses it in almost every ad. Prominently. News reports have detailed the many reasons why this is a lie. Harris has provided nothing to substantiate her claim. It’s just another lie in a political career based on lies. And all because she’s afraid to address the issues.

Bot just repeats all its talking points over and over again because it isn't programmed to have any original thoughts or ideas.

And for the record, not a single news report has called it a lie. The closest thing is the Washington Free Beacon's report that she did not include McDonalds on her application to work at the Alameda DA's office, instead preferring to list relevant jobs. But even that story doesn't call it a lie, because one would have to be a QAnon-caliber conspiracy theorist to think it is.

[Riva]

For the record, the bat shit crazy guy is lying again. Multiple reports have come out, including Snopes, Townhall, and the Washington Free Beacon. The Washington Beacon report is fairly thorough. https://freebeacon.com/elections/i-did-fries-kamala-harris-claims-she-worked-at-mcdonalds-but-she-never-mentioned-it-until-she-ran-for-president-did-she-really-toil-beneath-the-golden-arches/

So, the lesson to be learned here is, do not trust the bat shit crazy guy. I know being bat shit crazy doesn't necessarily mean stupid but this clown is extremely challenged. Definitely the short bus of bat shit crazy.

[David Nieporent]

Seriously, MAGA never have anything other than "IKYABWAI?"

Snopes does not call it a lie. Washington Free Beacon does not call it a lie. Townhall — which is not a news outlet at all, but just republishes random columns — does not call it a lie as far as I can tell; it doesn't report about it at all. It does plagiarize the Washington Free Beacon story, but as already established, the WFB doesn't call it a lie.

[Riva]

Aside from Harris' bare assertion that she "did the cashier," is there anything to substantiate her claim? Has Willie Brown come forward to concede he worked the register?

[Magister]

David Nieporent lists the Washington Free Beacon story, which is ambiguous at best, and from a right wing source. By contrast, Riva has steadily lied that every Harris ad mentions McDonald’s. The obsession with this story follows on a string of trying to attach something trivial but negative to Harris. Comparisons to Trump’s “concepts of a plan”, lying about his golf scores, fraud, sexual assaults, felonies, insurrection, impeachments and signs of dementia only make Harris look better, which is why I hope MAGAmites continue these attacks.

[Riva]

One thing is clear. There apparently is no arguing with the party faithful. And particularly a matter of faith here, where this is zero evidence to substantiate the claim and just a fucking truckload of details indicating it's a lie. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

So you clowns run with your lie, it grows more pathetic daily.

[Riva]

And it should also be noted that you clowns can’t even honestly address my comments. “By contrast, Riva has steadily lied that every Harris ad mentions McDonald’s.” I actually never claimed that. I said the vast majority of her ads cite this lie. I never fucking said every one of them did. A minor point but goes to the extreme bad faith of you losers. Rather than address any issue honestly, you attack anyone challenging you. Repulsive and pathetic

[Magister]

It’s in pretty much every fucking campaign ad

This is untrue. But you can quibble over "pretty much every" versus "all". But the "vast majority" still being claimed is the fundamental Riva lie.

I don't know if she worked at McDonald's, but it's really as trivial as Donald Trump's golf score. This line of attack just makes Trump and his followers (who must follow their cult leader) look stupider than ever. Keep it up, Riva!

[David Nieporent]

And it should also be noted that you clowns can’t even honestly address my comments. “By contrast, Riva has steadily lied that every Harris ad mentions McDonald’s.” I actually never claimed that. I said the vast majority of her ads cite this lie. I never fucking said every one of them did. A minor point but goes to the extreme bad faith of you losers. Rather than address any issue honestly, you attack anyone challenging you. Repulsive and pathetic

Yes, yes, you are.

"I only said 'pretty much every fucking campaign ad,' 'almost every ad,' 'Almost every crap campaign ad,' 'almost every ad,' 'almost every crap campaign ad,' 'Pretty much EVERY FUCKING AD,' 'Pretty much EVERY FUCKING AD,' 'Pretty much EVERY FUCKING AD,'¹ 'practically every crap ad she puts out,' and 'just about every campaign ad I’ve seen,' not 'every ad.'"

Of course, the truth is not that it appeared in the 'vast majority' of her ads, but that it has appeared in virtually none of her ads. (I think there was one.) And the even larger truth is that there's not the slightest evidence that her claim is a lie. None. Zero. Zilch.
​
​
​
¹That's three times in one comment!

[Riva]

What the fuck??? You point out that I did not say every ad then compliment yourselves for establishing that you’re lying ? Go away clowns. You’ll have to play with yourselves (nothing new for you I’m sure). I’m not playing your latest fucking stupid game aimed at distracting from Harris’ lies. Ironic because Harris lies to distract from the dumpster fire of her last four years in office.

[David Nieporent]

Bot not programmed to do anything other than repeat its talking points.

[David Nieporent]

Bot's gotta bot.

[Riva]

Bat shit crazy gotta bat shit crazy. And stupidly misinformed bat shit crazy. So, we have the toxic combination of bat shit crazy and ignorance. Maybe you should work for the Harris campaign? Or maybe you are already?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Muted.

[Riva]

Is bat shit crazy contagious? Or maybe TDS?

[Bwaaah]

I researched this last year, and did indeed find a youtube clip of Trump doing a genuine laugh. I had to do some work to find it, and when I posted a link on VC, nobody disagreed that it was a real laugh. It wasn’t a belly laugh, nor audible, but he had the real smile lines and widening eyes of unexpected fun. It was a pleasantly uncharacteristic look of DJT.

My mother-in-law once laughed. That means almost anybody can do it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’m trying to humanize Trump"

Sure, that's your motive.

[santamonica811]

Bob,
Actually, it is. Don’t get me wrong; I think Trump is not just a bad person…I think he’s a genuinely awful person, and he’s someone you should not vote for. But maybe it would not be a terrible thing if we did dial down the rhetoric one or two notches. Turn Harris from “The worst future president in our history, and a communist facist” to merely a candidate you disagree with on policy. And turn Trump from “Almost as bad as Hitler, and a rapist/racist” to merely a candidate who no longer has the cognitive ability, nor the moral centre, to be president.

I’d love to find examples of Trump giving normal human-like laughs…even if it ends up mollifying only myself. (I have been working hard to soften my own rhetoric about Trump lately, just as I have–successfully, I’ll note!!!–been working hard to soften my language when criticizing and commenting on Josh Blackman’s silly posts here. Yay me.) ????

[Nelson]

That ship sailed years ago. If you take out the inherited privilege, anger, grievance and a lifetime of pettiness, there's nothing left.

[David Nieporent]

Has anyone heard Donald Trump laugh? He’s certainly tried to make a meal out of Harris’s laugh. But that made me think, “Have I ever heard Trump laugh himself?” I can’t think of an example.

I would broaden the question: have you ever seen Trump exhibit a genuine emotion of any sort other than anger? Think of any positive emotion: joy, love, excitement, compassion, tenderness, etc. I can't picture Trump ever demonstrating those.

[santamonica811]

It was my initial thought as well, but I narrowed it intentionally. But I'd change your question. Yes, I have seen him display lots of emotions other than anger. Envy, fear, scorn, etc.. But I think you are right . . . it's hard to find him displaying what humans would describe as 'positive' emotions.

(This all reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. From a football player, who had played for the Dallas Cowboys, when Tom Landry was still its legendary coach. Landry was famous for never smiling, or displaying emotion of any kind during games, or even after games. So, when asked if he had ever seen Landry smile, he said (I think I'm paraphrasing), "No, but why ask me? I've only been here nine years.")

[BrotherMovesOn]

Well to be fair to Landry there isn't a lot of humor in scripture.

[Riva]

Watch a rally and you may learn something. I'm not that hopeful but you never know.

[Magister]

He did manifest pride in his daughter Ivanka at various times, even if it sometimes segued into creepy comments about dating her.

Trump in public is pretty much always selling Trump, and generally would suppress any emotion that he cant use to sell himself. The anger comes through, of course. His forced attempts at some emotions, like grinning and giving a thumbs up graveside or over an orphaned baby, are sufficiently unnatural that he might not have experienced the emotion he's trying to convey.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/25/donald-trump-jd-vance-springfield-ohio-charges-sought/75369775007/

Three thoughts;

1: Can you imagine if Donald Trump had this kind of power? Or if police officers were able to bring this kind of suit against BLM?
Talk about SLAPP suits...

2: Wouldn't they have to prove that no Hatian had ever killed a pet? How would they be able to do that?

3: If the bomb threats and such are coming from overseas, how the hell is Trump liable? He isn't encouraging those threats...

[Nelson]

Of course, he isn't encouraging anything. He's just repeatedly lying about something that is demonstrably false, targeting a specific group in a specific place as the "bad guys" of his fictional story, and demonizing them as illegal immigrants (which they aren't) who have to be dealt with.

What reasonable person would ever think that might lead to violence by a group of followers who have proved, in the recent past, to be violent when lied to by their candidate?

[Jmaie]

I have seen (and heard) a number of reports stating that the pet-eating claims have been debunked, but the only official statements have said "no evidence." Not including the statements of those making the original claims, of course.

Not defending anyone, I have no reason to (and don't) believe that pets are being eaten. This is a serious non-snarky question. You have used the phrase, "demonstrably false." Is that actually the same as "no evidence?"

[ducksalad]

You have a point. The more accurate term would be “demonstrably bullshit”, meaning statements made without regard for the truth.

[Jmaie]

So demonstrate it...

[ducksalad]

J.D. Vance openly admitted – bragged, really – that he would “create” stories if needed to call attention to immigration. That’s more than enough to demonstrate he never did care whether the story was true. It was there and he could use it, so he did.

I’ve read Frankfurt’s philosophical work On Bullshit, and what JD’s doing is a textbook example. And just to clear, it would still be bullshit even if he got lucky and it turned out to be true.

PS Of course I don’t agree with the lawsuit. Bullshit is fully protected by the First Amendment.

[Nelson]

“So demonstrate it…”

Google “so, when did you stop beating your wife” and see how ridiculous that requirement is. It’s called a loaded question fallacy and it’s inherently dishonest.

The onus is on the person making the statement to prove it has some sort of valid basis, not “some guy said …”.

But let’s assume that’s a good-faith request …

You mean besides there being no reports of pets being taken, let alone eaten, no complaints by any residents that their pets are missing or have been eaten, every official from the Republican mayor to the police to the Republican governor saying that nothing like this has happened?

How exactly is “no evidence” confusing? There is literally nothing, except for statements by Trump and Vance (who acknowledged that he would lie) that would in any way, shape, or form support the idea that anyone, let alone the LEGAL Hatian immigrants (another Trump/Vance lie is that they are illegal) was stealing and eating pets.

The right seems to think that officials saying “no evidence” is some sort of weak statement or hedge. No evidence means exactly that: there is absolutely nothing that would lead any sane person to ever think that anything like this is happening.

[not guilty]

"The onus is on the person making the statement to prove it has some sort of valid basis, not 'some guy said …'."

That is ordinarily true. Here, however, the context is citizen petitioners seeking arrest warrants or referral to prosecuting authorities from a municipal court judge. The burden of showing probable cause (including the falsity of Trump's and Vance's blather) is on the petitioners.

[Nelson]

I was referring to the "no evidence" issue. The initial statement had no evidence to support it, which is a valid reason to say it's false. Especially after so much time over which there continues to be no evidence.

Regarding the suit, I don't know what the standard is because I'm not a lawyer. However, since you are usually detailed in your legal analysis and usually cite laws and/or decisions in support, I'm very comfortable assuming you're right.

[not guilty]

Here is the filing in the Clark County, Ohio Municipal Court. https://www.chandralaw.com/files/assets/2024-09-24-bench-memo-and-guerline-jozef-of-haitian-bridge-alliance-affidavit-re-trump-vance-and-springfield.pdf#:~:text=In%20re:%20Criminal%20Charges%20Against%20Donald%20J.%20Trump%20and%20James

I haven't read the Ohio statutes cited in the memorandum, but my first blush impression from reading the affidavit is that the nexus between Donald Trump's and JD Vance's false statements and the harms complained of is too attenuated to support a finding of probable cause.

[Mr. Bumble]

Gee, ya think?

[Kazinski]

Gallup did a pre-election analysis of the voters views on a variety of topics and found the current environment is very favorable for a GOP victory.

“WASHINGTON, D.C. — Nearly all Gallup measures that have shown some relationship to past presidential election outcomes or that speak to current perceptions of the two major parties favor the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. Chief among these are Republican advantages in U.S. adults’ party identification and leanings, the belief that the GOP rather than the Democratic Party is better able to handle the most important problem facing the country, Americans’ dissatisfaction with the state of the nation, and negative evaluations of the economy with a Democratic administration in office.”

https://news.gallup.com/poll/651092/2024-election-environment-favorable-gop.aspx

I think Tim Walz spoke for the country when he said “We can’t take four more years of this.”

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

X

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Which party will have the privilege of selling us down the river? A country waits on tentacles, I mean tenterhooks, to find out.

[hobie]

A look at gambling sites, Vegas has Harris by 7 points

[Frank Drackman]

Irreverent, she’s going to lose PA,NV,AZ, MI, NC,GA, she’s dead, but like Sleepy Joe , doesn’t know it yet

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Frank, I don't think Pres Trump wins MI, given the recent endorsement by Engage Action (whose people pal around with CAIR).

I do think Pres Trump wins PA (fracking, sympathy vote, etc).

Too soon to make a definitive call on who wins. The election is very close.

[Josh R]

But earloier this week you said PA is over (Trump wins) and it's difficult (but not impossible) for Harris to win if she doesn't win PA. That sounds more like a 75% chance of Trump winning rather than too close to call.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R....any of the battlegrounds can swing with 10K-40K votes. One miscue, and you could be done. Most polls I have seen are within MoE....it is very, very close.

I do think Pres Trump will win PA, in the end. This complicates the EC math for VP Harris.

[Josh R]

It appears you are walking back your earlier claim that PA is already over.

[Commenter_XY]

No Josh R...As it stands today, I believe that Pres Trump will ultimately prevail in PA. That isn't walking back anything. Winning PA doesn't guarantee victory.

The math does get complicated for VP Harris if that happens, all else being the same (btw, it never is the same). She would need a clean sweep of AZ, GA and WI (the three states I have said for months and months that will decide the election), and pick off 1-2 states. Not impossible. Why?

Nearly every poll I see has the race within MoE. My interpretation of that is this race is statistically tied. A jump ball. One miscue, one mishap, could cost the election.

We are told the election is down to just seven (7) battleground states. Is it, really, just seven? I am not so sure about that.

[Nelson]

Perhaps you're right about PA, although I believe your confidence is misplaced. The more important one, to me, is North Carolina. It's crazy that it's in play and, if Trump loses it, it will be a Herculean task for him to win the Presidency.

[Josh R]

Your math escapes me.

What is your probability that Trump wins PA? What is your probability that Harris wins the election if Trump takes PA?

It seems like your claim was the first number is 100% and the second is 25% (difficult, but not impossible). That would mean Trump's chances of winning are 75%.

What did I get wrong?

[Nelson]

I don't see Trump taking PA. Abortion is a bigger plus to Ds than fracking could ever be a negative. Ds outnumber Rs. Dave McCormick is a poor Senate candidate, on his way to becoming a two-time loser, so there's no momentum from there, either.

I spend a lot of time going through Amish country in Lancaster and Chester Counties (both heavily R) for the rescue. In 2016 and 2020 there was an overwhelming number of yard signs for Trump and almost none for Clinton and Biden. This year it's very different. There aren't nearly as many Trump signs and there are a surprising number of Harris signs. Even more surprising is that businesses, including Amish businesses, have Harris signs. For those that don't know, the Amish are VERY money-oriented. Many have only started accepting the morality of loans in the past few decades (the whole usury thing in the Bible). If they are willing to put a Harris sign in front of their business, it's because they don't think it will hurt their business.

Granted, that's just anecdotal, but I've driven these same roads for the rescue for over a decade. It's bizarre seeing Dem signs. I think it's more likely that Trump loses margin in those two very conservative counties, rather than gain it in the collar counties and suburbs.

My feeling is that Trump will lose PA and it won't really be close (so 52%/46%, plus or minus a half point).

Harris can't afford to trade NC for PA, but if she wins NC by a little, she'll win PA by a lot.

[Commenter_XY]

N, I am watching Bucks, Chester and Montgomery counties around Philly. It is close. No doubt.

Interesting we reach different conclusions on PA.

[David Nieporent]

No Josh R…As it stands today, I believe that Pres Trump will ultimately prevail in PA. That isn’t walking back anything. Winning PA doesn’t guarantee victory.

I mean, in the literal sense that's true; winning PA only guarantees 19 electoral votes out of the 270 needed. However, given what it is reasonable to predict about other states, whoever wins PA is almost guaranteed to win the election.

[Commenter_XY]

David, I am very cautious about calling the election winner this far out. Who would have thought that Robinson's self-immolation would put NC into play? Not me.

The press are talking about just seven states when they should be talking about a dozen states; there are more states are in play.

Historically yes, the road to the White House runs through PA. You make a good point.

[David Nieporent]

Who would have thought that Robinson’s self-immolation would put NC into play? Not me.

I'm puzzled by your comment. It's not clear if you mean "put NC into play" for the NC governor race or for the presidential race. But either way, NC was already in play — and it's not at all clear that Robinson's conduct will actually affect Trump. I mean, Trump himself has done far worse, and it would be exceedingly odd for someone who didn't abandon him over his own acts to abandon him over Robinson's.

The press are talking about just seven states when they should be talking about a dozen states; there are more states are in play.

I disagree. What are the other five states you are contemplating?

[Magister]

Looking at 270towin.com, and ignoring the single electoral votes in Nebraska and Maine, there are twelve states where neither candidate is above 50% in the average of polls (I chose "above 50%" because Harris averages 50% in Wisconsin, which nobody doubts is a swing state; the other at 50% is Florida). The additional five seem extremely unlikely, even if the undecideds could swing the election (Minnesota falls in this dozen, as do Iowa, Florida, Oregon and Alaska).

Undecided voters are at this point just unlikely voters; the election will probably be decided by turnout among those with a preference rather than tiny margins that show up in polling (but maybe advantages that pollsters systematically miss, as seemed to be the case in 2016).

[Commenter_XY]

It was very sad to see a very enfeebled POTUS Biden this week; meeting with NATO partners in DE, and his halting, eminently forgettable speech at the UN. He is an empty vessel, parroting words he does not comprehend....and the entire world knows it.

Is there a point where the 25th gets invoked, just to end the elder abuse?

[SRG2]

I do not believe you care about elder abuse in the case of Biden

[Nelson]

It is sad to see an old man whose mental abilities have slipped due to age not being able to remember what state he's in.

On a related note, Trump was campaigning in Georgia and said he was in Louisiana ... twice. And he said that Louisiana was in play this year.

Anyone have any concerns about the person who wants to get into the White House declining mentally, as opposed to the one about to leave it?

[Nelson]

No one? Everyone is comfortable with Grandpa Don forgetting what state he was in and thinking LA was in play? No one thinks an 80-year-old who forgets where he is might not make the best POTUS for the next four years of inevitable mental decline?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Gallup did a pre-election analysis of the voters views on a variety of topics and found the current environment is very favorable for a GOP victory.

Makes it all the more remarkable that they’re still going to manage to lose.

[Josh R]

This is as about a good a predictor of who is going to win as Alan Lichtman's 13 keys model. Both are flawed.

[Joe_dallas]

From the national review

Walz Education Appointee Calls for the Overthrow of the U.S.

Brian Lozenski, an associate professor of urban and multicultural education at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., was appointed by Governor Tim Walz’s state education department to help write the statewide “implementation framework” (similar to a curriculum) for Minnesota’s new “ethnic studies” standards. It now emerges that Lozenski has called for the “overthrow” of the United States.

Lozenski is no outlier. On the contrary, he has been the leading voice advocating the addition of a radical version of “ethnic studies” to Minnesota’s social-studies standards (citizenship and government, economics, geography, history, and now ethnic studies). Lozenski is also the key organizer and thought leader for the radical leftist advocacy groups that Governor Walz has effectively put in charge of rewriting Minnesota’s social-studies standards.

While Lozenski’s call for the overthrow of the United States is the clearest expression of his radical stance to date, it’s hardly surprising. For years, conservative voices in Minnesota have sounded the alarm over the extremism of Lozenski and his allies. Maybe now, Walz will have to answer for putting Lozenski and his friends in charge of education in the state.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - test scores in Minnesota have fallen faster under the Walz administration than most every state during the last 4-5 years.

[Nelson]

"was appointed by Governor Tim Walz’s state education department"

That was Tim Walz? It seems like that says it was a department in the Minnesota government that appointed him.

You wouldn't be so dishonest as to blame an individual who had wasn't involved in the process, wasn't aware of who was being considered, and didn't choose the person who was selected in any way, shape, or form for the outcome, would you?

Oh, it's Joe Dallas. Yeah, you're exactly that dishonest.

The most disappointing part is that if you had just said, "this guy that a department in the Minnesota government chose is insane and has no business being the one selected", you would have found almost universal agreement.

But you had to try to use it to create a false impression of Tim Walz. That's the sad part, yiu can't just be outraged at something outrageous, you have to pretend it exposes the "secret" beliefs of people that have been nefariously hidden.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The Expulsion of Jews from Spain was the expulsion of practicing Jews following the Alhambra Decree in 1492,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Jews_from_Spain

The start of the Golden Age can be placed in 1492, with the end of the Reconquista, the voyages of Christopher Columbus to the New World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Golden_Age

That’s weird,

[Ed Grinberg]

That's right, JHBHBE, we'd solve all our problems if only we could get rid of the Jews. It worked so well for Hitler & Co.!

[Sarcastr0]

He's your people, Ed.

All the yelling about Dem antisemitism (which is absolutely a thing) and it's always the MAGA who come in talking Final Solutions and Jews owning the media, Jews having a world government agenda and all that rot.

[Kazinski]

He isn't our people, I had him muted months ago.

[bernard11]

Ok. Your ally, then.

[Kazinski]

He's a crank, he's nobody's ally, he hurts any cause he supports, but how would I know he's an ally?

He's just a grey box to me, and I'm not going to take your word for it

[Sarcastr0]

He's a Nazi. In the GOP. Big Trump guy, just like you.

He likes it there. Just like you.

Food for thought.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment. Do you think he can ever earn your approval?

That's so important. That some snickering bootlicker approves of him?

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : "Do you think he can ever earn your approval?"

Speaking on that subject, Child Nazi, you wouldn't be seen by everyone as a toxic buffooon if you spent less time tongue-polishing Hitler's boots (figuratively-speaking).

Go to work on that character-improvement goal and your own approval ratings might creep up. (and you can't love the taste of Hitler's shoe leather THAT much).

[grb]

Kazinski : "He’s a crank, he’s nobody’s ally, he hurts any cause he supports..."

We don't agree on much, but kudos for that!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I just put two facts together.

You drew your own conclusions, you gaslighting freak.

[not guilty]

Of all words in the language, "gaslighting" seems to have become one of the most frequently misued.

JHBHBE, what has any commenter said that causes you to question your own sanity, memory, or powers of reasoning?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Sarcastr0 attempts to rewrite recent historical events in a manner that serves the CCP/State Dept narrative all the time.

An attempt to overwrite others own recollection of these same events. Successfully causing one to question their own memory is not a requirement to met the definition of gaslighting.

This is basic shit, which is why you are probably struggling with it.

[not guilty]

Uh, no. If no one is gaslighted, then no one is gaslighting. Just as it takes two to tango, gaslighting requires both a practitioner and at least one subject.

[not guilty]

IOW, "gaslighting" is a noun (describing an extended process), or sometimes a transitive verb.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/gaslighting

[Kazinski]

I saw the movie when Ingrid Bergman was still alive, so no need for you to explain it to me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Of all words in the language, “gaslighting” seems to have become one of the most frequently misued."

Language evolves. Deal with it.

[not guilty]

Uh, JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes is conflating "gaslighting" with another commenter's (presumably unsuccessful) attempt to gaslight.

Is there a difference between a field goal and an unsuccessful field goal attempt? Take a look at this video before you answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWiuejtLXt0

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : "The Expulsion of Jews ...."

The Nazi Child providing the Nazi view of history.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I literally linked you Wikipedia you dope.

[Nelson]

No, that's coincidence. Co- (meaning together), -incidence (occurance). Two things happening at the same time, but unrelated to each other.

Unless you're a far-right, Confederate-sympathizing, Jew-hating, black-hating, hispanic-hating, ... hell, non-white-Christian-person hating, assist. Then coincidence is damning evidence.

[Stephen Lathrop]

EV in a discussion of anti-masking laws cited a legitimate government interest to protect from intimidation those who encounter a masked person. How can that apply with regard to masks, but not with regard to guns, especially with regard to conspicuous group displays of arms at political events?

States which want to prevent political intimidation should pass what I would term a “Peaceable Assembly Law.” That would define as politically intimidating any public display of arms at any gathering or demonstration where people assemble for a political purpose. Such displays would be banned. Violators could be ordered by police to leave the vicinity of the assembly. Any who did not comply promptly could be disarmed for the duration of the assembly. Repeat offenders could be punished by gun confiscations of short duration, or for the incorrigible with permanent loss of the right to keep arms.

It is unmistakable that for some gun advocates, one of the chief purposes sought is a personal power to intimidate politically their political opponents. I know of no legal justification, Constitutionally or otherwise, to support personal political intimidation as a justified use of a gun. On the other hand, the right to peaceable assembly, especially peaceable assembly for a political purpose, is 1A protected.

Perhaps there could be a legitimate argument that the 2A is intended in a general way to intimidate government against tyrannizing an armed populace. That is a different matter than personal political intimidation by armed display at a political assembly.

[Commenter_XY]

I know you're old, and need reminding. This is 1A, and I have helpfully highlighted the section that addresses your Peaceable Assembly Law (LMFAO) and enforcement.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Keep drafting that legal code for lathropistan.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — You have arrived at the doorstep of comprehension, without stepping over the threshold. The law proposed is purposed to protect the 1A right you bolded, while doing absolutely nothing to impair any right protected under the 2A.

The 2A does not confer a right of political intimidation on gun carriers—and yet some gun advocates plainly want to use private arms for intimidation at political assemblies, voting locations, etc. Hence the need for the law, to protect the 1A.

If on election day an army of MAGA types shows up in details at polling places nationwide, conspicuously displaying arms, then the cops will need every tool they can get to assure a peaceful and fair election, free of intimidation.

Unarmed MAGA poll watchers are fine, if they take off their hats indoors. MAGA guns patrolling outside the doors are not fine. Anyone who insists otherwise should be subject to instant disarmament and arrest.

That would keep subsequent court cases nice and clear, without a lot of time-consuming blather about how the guns were part of the expressive rights guaranteed to the MAGAs. By now, a lot of folks have figured out that Trump intends to bypass an election loss at the polls by creating time-consuming delay and confusion, at the polls, during the counting, and in the courts.

That is something no American patriot, including MAGA supporters, ought to countenance. Down that road lies Constitutional crisis, contested sovereignty, and a Trump lunge for unappealable power.

[Brett Bellmore]

"How can that apply with regard to masks, but not with regard to guns, especially with regard to conspicuous group displays of arms at political events? "

Maybe you can identify the amendment in the Bill of Rights that states that the right of the People to keep and wear masks shall not be infringed?

I personally think the 'intimidation' argument against masks is pretty weak. This is a second order effect, where the primary effect is that the masks allow people to commit crimes without being identified; The intimidation follows from the realization that the person in front of you could mug you, and you wouldn't be able to pick them out of a lineup.

But absent some reason to expect them to mug you, which is the actual source of the intimidation, this isn't really a factor!

The real justification for anti-mask laws is the first order effect, that they're worn to interfere with identifying you in the event you commit a criminal act.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — There is no 2A right to display guns to intimidate voters. Do you actually intend to say otherwise?

[Mr. Bumble]

Unless you are a New Black Panther in Philadelphia.

[Brett Bellmore]

There is a 2nd amendment right to bear arms, you'd have to actually establish that the bearing was being done specifically for the purpose of illegal intimidation. Rather than just assuming it because some people were upset to see people exercising a civil right they don't like.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Nope, no probing examination of the human heart is required. The evil to be prevented is the chilling effect on the 1A-protected conduct of the person intimidated, just as in the masking cases cited by EV. This is not even a case of enumerated rights in conflict. Only the person exercising the 1A right of assembly enjoys protection.

That at least in part is because everyone has a right to assume that anyone who shows up at a polling place with a gun on display means it to convey an intimidating message. Much more likely than not, the option to leave the gun home was disregarded on purpose, not at random. If the gun carrier means to intimidate and chill exercise of 1A protected conduct, he has not got any rights-related leg to stand on.

[Kazinski]

Its pretty dangerous to show up at a demonstration armed.

Garrett Foster was among the protesters at a BLM/Antifa demonstration in Austin, when he confronted an Daniel Perry a Uber driver who was a former Sargent with an assault rifle, Perry shot him 3 times in the chest claiming self defense.

Perry was convicted of murder, but was pardoned shortly thereafter by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Carrying concealed is one thing, but being ostentatiously armed when confronting others fraught with danger for all concerned.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm typical Lyin' Ted fashion, Kazinski left out many pertinent details involving race and political affiliation.

It's only dangerous to be not White and do these things.

If you're White, you can advertise ahead of time that you intend to look for trouble, kill someone, and then still get pardoned, as long as you pick the right target.

[verochkax]

Even if you post stupid shit on a message board about wanting to kill commies or protesters, that doesn't have any evidentiary value as to whether or not a particular shooting was justified.

Perry clearly was justified. The left wing Soros prosecutor and Travis County jury ignored the law and evidence, which is why the governor pardoned him.

[Sarcastr0]

Clay Higgins. Racists as hard as you can without the N word. And gonna get to keep his job.

[santamonica811]

1. Wow. I have been prepping for a trial, so I missed that entire story. Vile indeed. And good for the number of his fellow Republicans who quickly condemned what he did/said.
2. I disagree with you re your implication that he should lose his job over this. Having a racist in my party is, sadly, not so novel nowadays, but this [IMO] does not approach the level of conduct that's low enough to call for impeachment. (If your point was that his ugly racism should prompt him to resign; then I might be in agreement with you. But, otherwise, it's on the voters to reward or punish him in Nov and in future elections.)

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, the GOP House Speaker is supporting him.

It's not that I want him impeached, but this circling of the wagons shows what the GOP is happy to allow in their party these days.

[Frank Drackman]

You prefer the Representatives from Ham-Ass, Mullah Ill-handjob Omar, Hakeem the Wet Dream Jefferson, and Priapism Slap-a-Jap? Actually you probably do
You know who really hate the Haitians? Amurican Blacks

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Your Pubic Screw-el Ed-Jew-ma-cation is showing, Representatives and Senators can’t be impeached, only Expelled.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You guys know that members of congress aren’t subject to impeachment, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Sure I do.

But apparently the Sarcastr0 of 4 hours ago didn't.

[Kazinski]

its actually s little easier to expel a member than impeach him:
"with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

But the first impeachment ever was of a Senator, nut then they decided to just expel members rather than impeach them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I was assuming that that was one of the main reasons you didn't want him impeached.

[santamonica811]

Nos,
Have to admit that I didn't know that. Got thru all 3 years of law school without learning that...which says something about my level of instruction in law school, or, something about my ability to retain knowledge from my classes.

(But see Kaz's later post, which maybe means that I and Sarc were not entirely wrong.)

[Kazinski]

Honestly, it probably says more about your memory than anything they taught you in law school, since I've never been to law school, but I am pretty sure we've both read Article 1 a few times.

But I first remember it coming up when they tried to expell Adam Clayton Powell when I was in middle school, but it also came up recently when they did expel George Santos. you do remember him, right?

[not guilty]

The matter of Rep. Adam Clayton Powell was an expulsion, not an impeachment. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).

[Kazinski]

Well isn't that exactly what I said?

Glad you are on the same page now.

[EscherEnigma]

He's not saying anything much worse then Trump and Vance have already said, so it'd be seriously hypocritical for the party to seriously punish him over this.

Honestly, the fact that he got reprimanded as much as he did is pretty surprising.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is he racist as hard as the Squad is anti-Jew?

In the hierarchy of liberal oppression, which is more oppressed? The Jew or the black?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He identifies as black which means he can't be racist.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"House Democrats immediately tried to reprimand GOP Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana from the floor of the chamber on Wednesday over a since deleted social media post calling Haitian migrants “thugs” and “slapstick gangsters” who needed to get “their a** out of our country.”"

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/politics/clay-higgins-deletes-post-haitian-migrants/index.html

[Michael P]

No wonder Gaslight0 left out the details. It’s more performative outrage from his partisan wanker allies.

[Sarcastr0]

You're going to endorse that tweet? It's fine? Just normal stuff?

[Bwaaah]

How did you interpret his condemnation of you as an endorsement of a tweet?

Pull your pants up. You look stupid like that.

[Sarcastr0]

He called it performative outrage, and said I left out details.

If he thinks the tweet is not worth outrage, he should explain.

[Michael P]

Have those House Democrats called for censure of any DC politician whose rhetoric encouraged assassination attempts, or are they just clutching their pearls over this because a Republican twitted something dumb?

[Sarcastr0]

Tu quoque based on made up bullshit does indeed explain.

You've got nothing, but don't want to condemn this racist because you either agree with him or are a fucking coward.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't short-change our Russian friend like that. He can be both

[Michael P]

That's a lot of words for "no, the performative outrage was indeed hypocritical".

[Commenter_XY]

He has to win re-election first = And gonna get to keep his job.

Not a given.

[Frank Drackman]

He should have done like Barry Hussein Osama and just said “Nigger” like he did in his Auto-Erotic Biography “Wet Dreams of my African Chieftain Father”

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Hobie? You gonna let that go? Did you hear what he said? Hobie?

[Sarcastr0]

Not that many commenters hear what Frank says.

[Bwaaah]

Shut up for a moment and pay attention to people.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you judging me for not listening to Frank?

That's dumb, dude.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: “Are you judging me for not listening to Frank?”

No. Not Frank. You’re always fixated on your bogeymen, but unable to grasp that you’re as reflexive an axe-grinder as Hobie.

Hobie couldn’t resist, even when an asshole like me took a dump in his path. ’cause Frank said somethin’ he shouldn’t’ve said. And Hobie can’t help but chase after that which he deems to be worthless. Enigmatic? No. Moronic

You misunderstood me. Understanding is not one of your fortes. But no matter; that shouldn’t concern you. It usually doesn't.

Let me know when it’s time to be reasonable around here. You go first.

[hobie]

I don't grind axes. I belittle the rubes here because it pleases me and because I'm so many levels smarter than anyone else here that the job is easy. I stay in this blog because it has the indicia of intelligence compared to the other cesspools out there

[Life of Brian]

I’m so many levels smarter than anyone else here

I really want to meet whoever it was that managed to earnestly convince you that IQ is scored like golf so I can shake their hand. They’ve got to still be belly-laughing themself to sleep over that one.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes you do love to diagnose my major malfunction.

It changes every time somehow. Remember when you said I have no empathy? Bizzare.

The only constant is you being very personal, going after the commenter not the comments.

[Bwaaah]

I believe I said you had no empathy for Gary Shapley. You did not. (You probably still don't.) If I was wrong, you didn't say so at the time.

As usual, you're a loose-talking troll who rarely shows good faith in argument.

[Sarcastr0]

Because I say crime rates are a statistic, and you want to use an anecdote I have no empathy.

That’s not what empathy is. That’s emotionalism over reality.

[santamonica811]

Bwaaah,
I think Sarcastr0's only point there was that a huge number of people have Frank on Mute. I think I've muted a grand total of 3 people, and Frank was the first. He certainly was the quickest. 🙂

[Bwaaah]

With muting on, you may not be able to see Hobie's incessant knee-jerk responses to Frank. (I don't know how muted people appear on screen, if at all, because I haven't muted anybody.)

Please forgive my maltreatment of Sarc. I have deemed him to be quite trollish, so I'm just sharing in his malfeasance.

[hobie]

Frankie is a small man who has never been challenged in his soft life. Based on his own input, he's taken the weakest course through life and feels emboldened in his wealth and anonymity to troll. Yeah, like everyone else I ignored him for a year, but he keeps hanging on, so I've decided to challenge him. You can characterize it as an unfair attacks, but I see it as sweet victimization. And it's really easy to victimize someone as insecure as our Frankie

[hobie]

As a general rule I support the use of the N-word, but only by licensed professionals. Unlike myself, Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman: America's neediest veteran does not hold an N-card

[Frank Drackman]

I’ve had a medical license since the 80’s, what do you have, besides a bad case of Hemorrhoids?

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Since when is attempted assassination not an act of war?

Nuke Iran!

[santamonica811]

This is your problem, Ed. You're a bloody coward. Be a real man. Stand by your convictions. If we should declare war on Iran, then that means boots on the ground there. Iran (like North Korea) has a SERIOUS army. We'll go in, we will eventually win, but we will lose countless thousands of men, and will piss away tens of billions of dollars.

You don't have the guts to call for a real fight. Instead, you want to deliberately murder 80,000,000+ totally innocent civilians...Iran's children, women, elderly. You want to murder the young students there who risk arrest and torture and murder by going into the streets there and protesting Iran's evil government. And you want to do it the easy way...nuke the geographic area into oblivion.

You're not an idiot. You are a fucking animal. No wonder you get a hard-on when Trump speaks.

[Martinned2]

We’ll go in, we will eventually win

WTF? The US couldn't even win in Iraq. Iran is much tougher terrain. If you shipped all 333m Americans to Iran you couldn't conquer and keep it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on. We won in Iraq, it's just that, like Vietnam, we threw the victory away after winning.

[Martinned2]

That's just a lot of words for "losing".

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, there's a real difference between "losing", and winning and then walking away from the victory. Granted, the end result is largely the same, but "losing" lacks that intermediate point at which you'd actually "won".

[Martinned2]

You mean like the Germans in 1942 and Napoleon in 1811. That kind of winning?

[Don Nico]

Martin,
You're not being honest here. The US had accomplished its task quickly until Paul Brenner screwed the whole deal by firing all Ba'athists from the civil service and the Army. Almost overnight he created an in-place trained resistance, fro which the US did not recover, except momentarily during the surge requested by Petreus.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right. That was a really stupid move. We literally had the place under our control, and threw that away.

Winning wars requires a certain degree of ruthlessness, which we really don't have any more, probably because we've been getting into a bunch of wars where losing really doesn't have enormous immediate consequences at home.

We do have a deplorable level of indifference to the damage we do, but that's hardly a substitute for determination to win.

[Sarcastr0]

Control was not the goal.

Bremen screwed the pooch but don’t pretend occupation and toppling the leadership was the victory condition.

[Martinned2]

If you think that there was any other approach that Bremer could have taken that would have allowed the US to control Iraq indefinitely, you're delusional.

All government depends on the consent of the governed, and Iraqis don't and didn't want to be governed by a bunch of Americans.

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, we legit screwed the pooch and had an opportunity in Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_City

Doesn't mean the Necons were good or PNAC wasn't foolish or that it would have been easy. But maybe coulda.

[John F. Carr]

The US military right now is capable of lobbing expensive missiles at cheap targets and beating up weaklings.

With a real mobilization the US could conquer Iran a few years from now. The population advantage is over 3:1.

[Martinned2]

And every war in the last 50 years has shown that expensive missiles and population advantage get you exactly bupkiss. If that was all you needed to win, the Russians would be on the Slovakian border by now.

[Bob from Ohio]

Then nukes it is!

[Martinned2]

Making a country glow in the dark, that sure sounds like winning!

(Not to mention that the US doesn't have nukes big enough to reach the Iranian underground research facilities, because they built those deep underground in the mountains intentionally.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Won't know for sure until we try.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Where were you when Clinton bombed Bosnia?

[David Nieporent]

Busy learning the difference between Bosnia and Serbia.

[Don Nico]

Bosnia is largely Muslim. Serbia is mostly Orthodox Christian.

[Martinned2]

And meanwhile the people we bombed 25 years ago are the only people in Europe who don't want to join the EU or otherwise have anything to do with the US and its European allies. It turns out people hold a grudge if you bomb them.

(That's true for the Chinese too, by the way. Still angry over that "oopsie we bombed your embassy".)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No smart person thinks it is really Iran. That's just the Democrat Deep State preparing their patsy.

[Malika]

"No smart person thinks it is really Iran."

But what do you think?

[Nelson]

Malika with a wicked backhand return that
NaziJesus can't handle.

15 - Love

[John F. Carr]

If we nuke Iran European countries will send extremely harshly worded letters to Washington and Blinken and Sullivan will die of shame.

[Commenter_XY]

That alone might make it worth it. /joke

[Martinned2]

I think it's safe to say that, when faced with a lunatic with nukes, extreme caution is probably advisable.

[Nelson]

Hopefully he will lose in November and we won't have to find out how much caution is required.

[Bwaaah]

"If we nuke Iran European countries will send extremely harshly worded letters to Washington and Blinken and Sullivan will die of shame."

They may even declare the act as having been "unacceptable."

Remember when they gave Yassir Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize? They gave it to Barack Obama too, before he accomplished anything other than being Black and well-spoken, and after eight years of accomplishing nothing, he bought peace from Iran for $400 million. Then Trump ruined that, and now Iran wants to destroy Israel, amiright? Something tells me Putin loves European-style diplomacy.

Funky peace, ain't it?

[Sarcastr0]

The source for Iran trying to kill Trump is thusfar largely noted liar Trump.

[ThePublius]

Don't you read the news? It's all over....

From NPR, for example:

"American intelligence officials briefed former President Donald Trump on threats from Iran to assassinate him. A Trump campaign spokesman says the focus was on real and specific threats."

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/25/nx-s1-5126621/what-we-know-about-irans-alleged-threats-to-assassinate-trump

[Sarcastr0]

Threats != attempt.

And alleged is even in the title.

If this is the best you got, it is indeed Trump bullshitting.

[Don Nico]

"And alleged is even in the title."
That means nothing. It is boilerplate news report language.

[Sarcastr0]

It's boilerplate when something is alleged, but not established.

Like Iran attempting to assassinate Trump.

[Joe_dallas]

Iran's ruling party would certainly prefer harris over trump. Harris is vastly more likely to continue shoveling money to Iran along with other appeasement actions as has Obama and Biden. Trump has already shown he is not interested in that game.

[Sarcastr0]

Appeasement actions. As though Iran is our peer.

What a foreign policy expertise you have.

[Joe_dallas]

What term would you use for lifting sanctions, sending pallets of cash to a terrorist regime?

[Bob from Ohio]

Stupidity?

The Ben Rhodes theory that Obama and Biden follow is that Iran should become a bigger regional power, that it leads to a 3 way balance of power [Israel, Saudi, Iran] that will stabilize the region and let us downsize our commitment.

[Joe_dallas]

Bob - of course most everyone figured out that Ben Rhodes theory wasnt working and wasnt ever going to work.

[Bob from Ohio]

"most everyone figured out"

Not the current people running our foreign policy, they are still committed to it.

The Biden Iran point man is an actual Iranian agent as well.

[Joe_dallas]

bob
I think they are fully aware of their complacency. They are committed to their policy. Same with the VP's current advisors. Nothing more than fake pro Israel facade while supporting Iran and the Irans assets

[Commenter_XY]

BfO...I understand Malley is tight with Blinken. Interesting.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Appeasement actions. As though Iran is our peer."

This makes absolutely no sense.

And nonsensical comments are an odd way of attacking some else's foreign policy knowledge.

[Don Nico]

That's what I said.
News outlets always do that even in the face of overwhelming evidence until a case is judged in a court

[Frank Drackman]

You’re Pretty cavalier with other people’s lives their “Dr”, What branch did you serve in? Or your kids? And don’t give me the Ty Webb excuse, been Ass Bandits in the Military since Christ was a Corporal, got 1 daughter in the Marine Corpse Reserve, other in the Air Farce( OK, stretching it a bit to call it a “Military” branch) who both would love to have an Iranian Mig in their sites, (I’d rather see them shoot down a French Typhoon)

Frank

[MoreCurious]

Since you lie about everything else, Drackman, why should we believe anything you say about your purported daughters? But let's assume for a minute that they're real: Do they know what a racist, vulgar, misogynistic pig you are?

[Frank Drackman]

Actually they think I’m not racist/vulgar/ enough, and the last one is like saying Rumplestiltskin, you say that word, that’s all I need to know about you. Do you have daughters? men are amateurs when it comes to the cruelty XX’s dish out to each other, I wish I could be as cold blooded as they are(but they love Amurica, their boyfriends, Horses, crazy bout Elvis, not so much Hey-Zeus)
Frank

[MoreCurious]

Charming. I'll think I'll skip Thanksgiving dinner with you and your family this year. Spending time with the Genovese family might be more enlightening.

[not guilty]

NBC News is reporting that Donald Trump's campaign says that U.S. intelligence officials briefed Trump on Tuesday about threats from Iran to assassinate him in an effort to destabilize and sow chaos in the United States. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-briefed-ongoing-iranian-threats-assassinate-campaign-says-rcna172588

I bear no affection for Donald Trump -- he is a wretched scoundrel who fully deserves to live out his remaining days in prison. This claim, however, deserves serious investigation. The Trump campaign is hardly a reliable narrator, but if there is reliable and credible information that the government of Iran has been involved in an actual attempt to assassinate Trump, the Biden Administration could rightly regard that as an act of war.

(I realize that the word "if" here is doing some heavy lifting.)

[ducksalad]

We’ve seen these alleged Iranian attempts before. Note the careful wording: “from” Iran. It does not say “by” Iran.

One previous example was the supposed Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US.

What really happened? IIRC, a mentally questionable car dealer of Iranian ethnicity was encouraged by undercover DEA agents to contact an IRGC officer he knew in Iran and ask them to wire sums of money to kill the ambassador. The DoJ press release said he (the Iranian-American) “caused” money to be wired and the IRGC officer “approved”. Note the weasel words: they don’t say the IRGC caused the money to wired, nor where the money came from.

He pled guilty and got 25 years. No problem, he shouldn’t have followed the DEA instructions. But this whole thing resembled the Whitmer kidnapping plot – wouldn’t have happened all without our own government giving them the idea and encouraging it.

The claimed motivation was to cause “instability” and “chaos” in the US. Yeah, sure. The way to terrify ordinary Americans is to assassinate a Saudi ambassador.

So, I consider this bullshit until we get assurances that zero FBI agents were suggesting to Iranian-American mental patients that they assassinate Trump.

[EscherEnigma]

When it's the US or Israel doing it?

[Frank Drackman]

Braves/Mets rained out yesterday and today, setting up a Monday Twin-Bill for the last Wildcard spot, Let’s play 2!!!!! (ht E Banks)

Frank “beat the Mets, beat the Mets, step right up and beat the Mets….,,,”

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit informs us that we have no constitutionally protected interest in the secrecy of our cryptocurrency transactions. The IRS went snooping through Coinbase transactions and sent out letters to people who didn't report their activities to the IRS. One of the letter recipients sued. He lost under the Constitution because he voluntarily gave his information to a third party. The court distinguished Carpenter v. United States, the cell site location information case. He lost under the Administrative Procedure Act because threatening to make people pay their taxes is not final agency action.

Harper v. Werfel

[Commenter_XY]

Wow....does this push people toward decentralized platforms sited outside the US, and not Coinbase?

[John F. Carr]

Anonymity combined with convenience is a hard problem. Bitcoin needs a layer on top to make small transactions possible. It's too expensive to buy a coffee or a joint using the bare decentralized protocol.

[Commenter_XY]

But do you think that people will now seek out decentralized platforms sited outside the US? There is a reason I am asking...lol.

What stops Person A from opening an account on a decentralized platform, and keeping their Bitcoin (or Ethereum) completely outside the US, and the US banking system.

If convenience isn't the motivation, but complete anonymity is, why is a decentralized platform not the ultimate answer?

[Michael P]

In practice? The same things that made Swiss bank accounts lately disappear. The US can still sanction entities that facilitate such transactions, push foreign countries to impose know-your-customer and tax disclosure laws, and observe many of the practical uses of offshore accounts.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The same reason most people don’t keep all their money in krugerands stuffed into a mattress: the convenience of being able to use modern technology to transact with others is worth the risk that the government might be able to find out about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bitcoin was a demonstration protocol, it was never originally intended to be USED. It might have worked out as is if Moore's law hadn't stalled, though.

[apedad]

Snooping?

I think you meant followed established – legal – procedures.

(from the link)
Harper alleges that the IRS’s letter refers to information the agency obtained via a “John Doe” summons the agency issued to Coinbase in 2016. A John Doe summons is an ex parte third-party summons issued “where the IRS does not know the identity of the taxpayer[s] under investigation.” Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310, 316 (1985) (emphasis omitted). Such a summons may only issue following a court proceeding in which the IRS establishes that certain statutory criteria have been satisfied . . . .

These factors are:
(1) the summons relates to the investigation of a particular person or ascertainable group or class of persons,
(2) there is a reasonable basis for believing that such person or group or class of persons may fail or may have failed to comply with any provision of any internal revenue law, and
(3) the information sought to be obtained from the examination of the records or testimony (and the identity of the person or persons
with respect to whose liability the summons is issued) is not readily available from other sources.

That’s not snooping; that's investigation work.

[Commenter_XY]

It was snooping, and a fishing expedition. The IRS has a track record of doing exactly that, and targeting people for enforcement action based on ideology.

[Nelson]

I think his point is that, legally, it wasn't snooping. You may choose to use the word colloquially, but that doesn't change the legal reality.

If your argument isn't that the IRS has too much power, but that the government as a whole is too intrusive, that's a different (and much easier) point to make.

[Krayt]

It's hard to argue government shouldn't do what blockchain stuff was intended to do, allow tracking and verification of transactions by anyone who cares to look.

In general though, not a fan of warrantless 3rd party doctrine, but the above is not that. (Unless I missed something.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

This result seems not only correct, but so obviously correct that I’m having trouble seeing a colorable counterargument.

[Malika]

BUT DUS HAZ LAPTOP?

The private equity firm run by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former President Donald J. Trump, has been paid at least $112 million in fees since 2021 by Saudi Arabia and other foreign investors, even though as of July it had not yet returned any profits to the governments largely bankrolling the firm.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/25/us/politics/kushner-private-equity-saudi-arabia.html

[David Nieporent]

The corruption of the Biden Crime Family is just endless, isn't it?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He's not running any more, so it's time for the media to run all its negative stories on Biden, along with inside sources revealing how Harris protested behind the scenes.

[Armchair]

Are you implying this is corruption David?

Are you familiar with what the standard management fee is for individuals who invest money?

[Sarcastr0]

Kind of Saudi Arabia to stand by this fund even after it's sucked for 3 years.

[Joe_dallas]

The article provides zero information that it sucked for three years.

[Joe_dallas]

depending on the holdings in the fund, it will range from a low of 40Bips to 200bips. If the holdings are equities, then it is very likely to be on the very low end of fees, if private equity, distressed lending, likely on the mid to high end with percentage profit kick in.

The NYT article states 125 bips which is the range.

The NYT article is highly deceptive, playing on the ignorance of the reader being unfamiliar with the typical hedge fund structure. Numerous deceptions in the article. The article intentionally conflates distributions with profits. The article claims there have The mentions the 5 year commitment, yet fails to mention that a typical fund of this type has a long horizon, thus distributions would not be expected after only 2.5 years. The article claims most funds return some profits after 2.5 years, yet doesnt compare similar funds in a similar space. Its rare that a fund investing in heavily in private equity would be returning profits after only 2.5 years since that would entail opening and closing deals in only 1-1.5 years

[SimonP]

The NYT article is highly deceptive, playing on the ignorance of the reader being unfamiliar with the typical hedge fund structure.

It's a PE fund, not a hedge fund.

The article intentionally conflates distributions with profits.

It is true that the article doesn't distinguish carefully between distributions that are a return of capital and distributions representing "profits," but it appears that no distributions of any kind have been made. Right?

The article claims [...] mentions the 5 year commitment, yet fails to mention that a typical fund of this type has a long horizon, thus distributions would not be expected after only 2.5 years.

No, the article notes this, when it notes that "profit distributions are most common during a fund's sixth and seventh years."

The article claims most funds return some profits after 2.5 years, yet doesnt compare similar funds in a similar space.

It draws a comparison with data found on PitchBook. I don't know how you know that they aren't similarly-situated funds.

Its rare that a fund investing in heavily in private equity would be returning profits after only 2.5 years since that would entail opening and closing deals in only 1-1.5 years.

It is true that the hold period for most PE portfolio companies is going to be longer than 1-1.5 years. You have to really luck out to buy into a company and sell at a profit that rapidly.

But what the lack of distributions suggests to me is a lack of sophistication on the investment team. There's a lot of stuff you can do with portfolio companies, as a PE fund, to squeeze out value and start returning capital to your investors. Where are the dividends?

Personally, I am not reading this article and seeing anything that out of the ordinary. It has been a tough market to deploy capital, and IPOs aren't popping off either. So it's not surprising to me that they had a slow start from 2021 and haven't done much harvesting yet. But a 1.25% fee on a $2 billion commit by PIF for an inexperienced manager is remarkable. They should have driven a much harder bargain for a check of that size.

[Joe_dallas]

SP – Your response indicates that you have some familiarity with the PE space unlike most of the other commentators. As a background I have several clients who have large holdings in HF and PE funds, though the largest holding one my clients have in a single fund is around 125m.

A few comments in reply to your observations
I doubt the NYT was comparing similar funds since they were referencing pitchbook which indicated funds were making distributions after 2.5 years. There is nothing in the description of the fund that it would fall into a class that would be expected to be making distributions in such a short period.

The problems that look sketchy to me is the fee structure and the size of the investment.

The 125 bips does seem potentionally high, exceedingly high if it was a fund only investing in publicly traded equities. However, it appears to be a PE fund only so,

The second thing that stuck me was the size of the investment, I would have expected a much smaller initial investment from the suadi’s, perhaps 200m-500m instead of the 2b

The NYT article is based on Lots of speculation from a reporter who doesnt really know the subject

[SimonP]

It doesn't sound like you fully understand the subject either. Managing portfolios for HNWs will give you a very different perspective on things.

If I were the Saudis, I'd be concerned that Kushner is going to be spending the next 2.5 years chasing stinkers so that he can get the rest of their $2 billion in. Maybe they're banking on some... forced acquisitions... if Trump II happens.

[Armchair]

Regardless, it appears you don't view anything here as really that out of the ordinary.

[SimonP]

The fact that profits haven't been paid? No, that's not weird.

The size of the check, the agreed fee, the lack of experience - those are off. And the situation will be ripe for abuse if Trump wins.

[Nelson]

"standard management fee is for individuals who invest money?"

But is it an investment designed to make money, or something else? I don't have several billion dollars to invest, but even with my pittance I wouldn't stay invested with someone who failed to make me any money on three years.

But maybe hugely wealthy people are just more comfortable with getting 0% return on their investment. The wealthy are very well known for accepting terrible returns, right?

[Joe_dallas]

Nelson - there is absolutely zero information that it made no money for three years. Given the size of the fund and the commitments, its very likely a fund that wouldnt be making distributions until 4-5 years out. The NYT comment that this type fund normally makes distributions after only 2.5 years is blatantly false. They are comparing very dissimilar type funds.

[Nelson]

OK, I'll wait for another 1-2 years before pointing out that it's provably a slush and influence fund.

For now I'll just point out that Jared Kushner's terrible business decisions (even worse than Trump's) would make investing with him a no-go, unless you wanted to buy your way into Trump's inner circle.

Check out 666 Fifth Avenue to witness the brilliance of Mr. Kushner.

[Joe_dallas]

I will reply to simonP since he displays some knowledge on the subject

[Nelson]

I'm merely pointing out that anyone who invests with Mr. Kushner expecting to make money hasn't paid attention to his record.

[bernard11]

there is absolutely zero information that it made no money for three years.

Are there no quarterly or annual reports to investors?

Every such fund I've invested in filed those regularly.

[SimonP]

It is not surprising that the fund hasn't yet turned a profit for its investors.

What is unusual about the fund is its overall size and the level of fees being paid to an inexperienced and unproven manager whose only apparent credential is a familial link to TFG. Since Kushner owns the manager, most of those fees - net of expenses - is just cash to him.

[Armchair]

I mean, is Kushner "that" inexperienced? He seems to have a history of real estate transactions in the 10s to 100s of millions of dollars area, making substantial profit on many of them.

[SimonP]

Do you grasp that there is a difference between buying office buildings and buying companies?

[Armchair]

Of course, Kushner has also purchased companies in the past as well

[SimonP]

You're a weasel, Armchair. You know perfectly well that he has never been a professional PE investor, prior to setting up Affinity. You're talking about strategic acquisitions, which are a totally different ballgame.

[Nelson]

“making substantial profit on many of them.”

If by profit you mean loss, then yes. He is notoriously bad at real estate. People enter into deals with Kushner because they know they can fleece him.

Look at the $1.8 billion “cornerstone” of Kushner’s real estate empire (an empire he got when his dad went to jail). 666 Fifth Avenue is exactly the sort of transaction Kushner is known for.

[Armchair]

Well, there was 200 Lafayette Street in Manhattan, purchased in 2011 for $50 million, selling it two years later for $150 million. Not a bad deal.

Or

In August 2014, Kushner acquired a three-building apartment portfolio in Middle River, Maryland, for $38 million with Aion Partners, later selling the complex for $68 million

[Nelson]

And how much lifting does that $80 million do when faced with a $2 billion money pit?

When you have to hit on every other deal (but don't, because you aren't any good) just to pay off the interest on a single loan, you are doing something very, very wrong. Especially when yiu got fleeced when you paid almost $2 billion in the first place.

[bernard11]

He seems to have a history of real estate transactions in the 10s to 100s of millions of dollars area, making substantial profit on many of them.

Cite? specifics?

[David Nieporent]

Are you implying this is corruption David?

No. I am mocking the people who — based on much much much less than this — accused Joe Biden of corruption.

[Nelson]

They aren't very self-aware. I doubt they'll understand. My sarcastic posts on 666 Fifth Ave. will probably be misunderstood as well.

[grb]

Nelson : “My sarcastic posts on 666 Fifth Ave. will probably be misunderstood as well”

Your sarcastic posts on 666 Fifth Ave should pull double-duty:

First, because it was a calamitous investment that almost bankrupted Kushner’s company all by itself. Back in ’16, there were predictions that could happen if Kushner didn’t find a white knight to unload some of his debt due on the half-empty building. It terms of an unforced error, the investment rivaled his father-in-law’s career of business bungling.

But there’s more : Trump is elected and Kushner effectively leads the transition team after Chris Christie involvement devolves to that of a figurehead. And leading a presidential transition is a position of extraordinary influence & power – both in setting policy & picking the people who will run the administration. But Kushner divided his time between setting-up the new White House and traveling the world – hat in hat – begging for cash to save his ass. He tried Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani, Qatari investor and former prime minister. He tried Saudi Prince Mohammad Bin Salman. He tried multiple investors from China such as the Anbang Insurance Group – all with close ties to the government in Beijing.

You couldn’t create a more obvious scenario for corruption if you tried. A man’s entire financial future is at stake and he’s begging for money from foreign government-connected sources while setting U.S. policy & picking administration leaders at the same time. If little Hunter had done something so brazen, we’d never hear the end of it. But even Trump’s cultists know he & his circle are hopelessly corrupt.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/03/news/companies/kushner-666-fifth-avenue-brookfield/index.html

https://www.justsecurity.org/69094/timeline-on-jared-kushner-qatar-666-fifth-avenue-and-white-house-policy/

[David Nieporent]

Kushner effectively leads the transition team after Chris Christie involvement devolves to that of a figurehead

Just want to put a bit more meat on those bones. Everyone, including Trump, thought Trump was going to lose in 2016. So the transition team was seen as a joke; it was fine to stick Christie with that assignment. After Trump won, it became a plum job instead, and at that point, Kushner pushed Christie out because he hated Christie for prosecuting his scumbag of a father. (Kushner, of course, had no qualifications to run the transition team.)

[grb]

Armchair : “Are you implying this is corruption David?”

Here’s what we know : It’s a Saudi government fund but managed by professional investors. The professionals opposed Kushner:

“A panel that screens investments for the main Saudi sovereign wealth fund cited concerns about the proposed deal with Mr. Kushner’s newly formed private equity firm, Affinity Partners, previously undisclosed documents show.

Those objections included: “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management”; the possibility that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk”; due diligence on the fledgling firm’s operations that found them “unsatisfactory in all aspects”; a proposed asset management fee that “seems excessive”; and “public relations risks” from Mr. Kushner’s prior role as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, former President Donald J. Trump, according to minutes of the panel’s meeting last June 30.

But days later the full board of the $620 billion Public Investment Fund — led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler and a beneficiary of Mr. Kushner’s support when he worked as a White House adviser — overruled the panel”

So, yeah, I think the evidence points to a political payoff.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html

[bernard11]

Are you familiar with what individuals who invest money in these deals look for in the manager?

Hint: It's not Kushner's qualifications.

Are you familiar with what SA's investment advisers thought about investing in Kushner?

Of course it's corruption. Only a willfully blind fool could think otherwise.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its good that a Jew is getting some of that Saudi money.

[Nelson]

Wow. Just wow.

[Michael P]

“it had not yet returned any profits to the governments”

To coin a phrase: Fucking investments, how do they work?

My CFP has been paid a lot of fees, and has not yet returned any profit to me even though my accounts are doing at least as well as the broad market. He hasn't returned any profit because my investment timeframe is several decades long.

That you think this says anything speaks to your ignorance, and nothing more.

[Joe_dallas]

MP - agreed - as noted above, the NYT is highly deceptive playing on their readers ignorance.

[SimonP]

Oh, Mikey. Saudi Arabia isn't investing the assets of an IRA that they can't take distributions from anyway until they retire. This is a fund that should be gone by 2031 or shortly thereafter. It's maybe too early to expect profits now, but this investment timeframe is not "several decades long."

Talk about speaking from ignorance.

[bernard11]

My CFP has been paid a lot of fees, and has not yet returned any profit to me even though my accounts are doing at least as well as the broad market.

I bet not, especially after allowing for fees.

[John F. Carr]

Do moral values change with the seasons?

A study from University of British Columbia finds that Americans more strongly endorse moral values "pertaining to loyalty, authority, and purity" in spring and autumn than in summer and winter. If you are a party campaigning on such values, you want the election at a time of year when people see everything around them turning brown and dying and want a return to the glory days.

In the UK the morality high lasts through the winter too and only in summer do they lighten up.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Hold the elections on Mardi Gras.

[John F. Carr]

I showed you my tits, now go vote for Chase Oliver.

[Bwaaah]

LOL

[santamonica811]

Heh

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.cpusa.org/article/cpusa-2024-election-platform/

Can anyone spot the difference between that party platform and what the Democrats are saying and doing?

[Joe_dallas]

Amazing how many democrats are strongly in favor of border control

[Sarcastr0]

That you argue this is normal but get outraged at Justices' book advances seems hard to reconcile.

[Joe_dallas]

The discussion is on party platforms and the difference in democrats rhetoric and actual actions
What does judges book royalties have to with this discussion

[Don Nico]

It must have something to do with goalposts.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment. I really appreciate how you didn't stay on topic to tone police everyone!

Good job!

[Nelson]

"Can anyone spot the difference between that party platform and what the Democrats are saying and doing?"

Yes. This has been another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions, false equivalence edition.

[Malika]

Boy, a lot of folks here, including the main VC commentators, better hope Trump doesn't win!

"Trump suggests criticizing judges ‘should be illegal,’ despite his own record
'These people should be put in jail, the way they talk about our judges and our justices,' the former president said, despite the First Amendment — and his record."

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-suggests-criticizing-judges-illegal-record-rcna172633

[OtisAH]

He only means people with the gall to criticize judges he appointed.

[hobie]

I can't recall. Did Trump ever threaten/intimidate/belittle judges and court staff?

[theobromophile]

Was he referring to pure speech, or was he referring to the threats made against the justices?

[Sarcastr0]

Takes a lot of parsing to go from 'the way they talk about our judges' to only talking about threats.

[CommentMonkey]

And the context makes pretty clear he was not only talking about threats - probably wasn't talking about threats at all. Per the Washington Post:

“It should be illegal what happens. You know you have these guys that are, like, playing the ref like the great Bobby Knight.
“These people should be put in jail the way they talk about our judges and our justices, trying to get them to sway their vote, sway their decision.”

[bernard11]

Pure speech. He wants to jail those who criticize judges, especially his appointees.

Odd none of the free speech champions around here have peeped a word about it.

[OtisAH]

It is already illegal to threaten judges. People go to jail for it.

[John F. Carr]

The indictment of Ryan Routh is item 21 at
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69192558/united-states-v-routh/

The charges so far are attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate (1) while brandishing a firearm (2); assaulting or otherwise interfering with a federal officer with the intent to commit another felony (3); and felon in possession of a gun (4) with a defaced serial number (5).

Brandishing a weapon during a crime of violence (count 2) has a seven year mandatory minimum sentence.

The case has been assigned to Judge Cannon.

[Commenter_XY]

I hope Judge Cannon mandates a psychiatric evaluation of Rouse.

nb: NG demolished any hope of Rouse raising insanity as a defense with his post on Monday laying out how Rouse's planning and executing his plan indicates a presence of mind that argues against insanity. Thx for the detailed explainer, NG!

And as it was pointed out to me...No, FL cannot give Rouse the needle.

[John F. Carr]

News reports don't make me even suspect he is insane in a legal sense. Sociopathy is not a defense.

[Nelson]

To MAGA's dismay.

[Commenter_XY]

That was funny, lol.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The case has been assigned to Judge Cannon."

Then the only appropriate course of action would be for her to dismiss the case.

[hobie]

All the government has to do is assign a special prosecutor to the case. Presto! Dismissed

[Nelson]

"The case has been assigned to Judge Cannon."

She must be relieved to have a case with a lot of evidence where she wants to find the defendant guilty, as opposed to wanting to find the defendant innocent.

[Roger S]

Now she has two cases of men who are out to get Trump, and who skirt the law to do it.

[Nelson]

Right, it's all a conspiracy. Please.

[Sarcastr0]

Cases of men, binders of women!

[apedad]

OMG Girlz Group Wins $71 Million Over Infringing Line of Dolls

Toy maker MGA Entertainment Inc. must pay $71 million to the former teen-pop group OMG Girlz for ripping of their names and likenesses in a line of dolls, a federal jury decided Monday in the third trial for a case that’s been ongoing since 2020.

Judge James V. Selna declared a mistrial in the first trial in January last year after prohibited testimony on cultural appropriation was introduced. Following the second trial, a jury in May 2023 cleared MGA of infringing. Selna granted OMG Girlz’ request for a new trial, concluding that the jury had been improperly instructed to apply the Rogers Test—which balances free speech and the appropriation of trademarks—which changed after the June 2023 US Supreme Court decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC shortly after the verdict. The high court’s ruling said that the test should be used only in cases where the allegedly infringed trademark isn’t being used to identify the source of a good.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/omg-girlz-group-wins-71-million-over-infringing-line-of-dolls

Raise your hand if you had OMG Girlz, Jack Daniels, and cultural appropriation on your Bingo card today.

[Commenter_XY]

Almost thought it was my fave judge, Judge Selya of First Circuit. He of the arcane vocabulary....philotheoparoptesism, anyone?

[Moderation4ever]

A new paper in the Journal Cell reports on studies supporting the zoonotic emergence of Covid-19 pandemic from wildlife at the Huanan market. The authors acknowledge the studies do not confirm the market as a source, but do link the infection to the market.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00901-2

The fact is most people are unlikely to ever know definitively the cause of the pandemic. Whether the source was zoonotic origin or if a lab leak occurred. The fact is whatever the source it will not obscure the incompetence of the Trump administration in its handling of the pandemic in this country. So, rather than obsess on the source people should be looking at lessons learned to stop or reduce the impact of future epidemics and pandemics. Finding the source is an academic pursuit, preparing for future infection is reality.

[Frank Drackman]

You’re correct, in retrospect shutting down the economy, travel, schools was stupid as was the social distancing, masks, and vaccine, when natural immunity is much more effective, funny how the masks came off as soon as Parkinsonian Joe got into Orifice(and how many times has he had the Vid’? After every one of his fuckups it seems)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

So it’s just a coincidence that the Novel Corona Virus just happened to originate in the city with the Novel Corona Virus Lab?

[Moderation4ever]

No, it's not a coincidence. It seems likely that a top lab researching these viruses would be located in an area where the viruses are naturally occurring.

[Bob from Ohio]

Which came first, the lab [chicken] or the virus [egg]?

[Moderation4ever]

Pretty sure viruses were around long before the first laboratory was built.

[Armchair]

"Here, we analyze the data from the market generated and shared by Liu et al.25 in the context of all early SARS-CoV-2 sequences using multiple genomic approaches. "

Who is Liu et al?

NHC Key Laboratory of Biosafety, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC), Beijing, China. [e-mail].

Oh. So, I suppose there's someone else who could verify that data on the Liu et al paper?

Nope.

[Sarcastr0]

I suppose Cell is in on the fraud?

I wouldn't put it past China to put out propaganda through research papers.
But to get them through peer review would require actual science.

[Armchair]

If you can't properly identify the publishers of the paper referenced, maybe you shouldn't comment.

[Don Nico]

Cell is a very high impact factor journal published by Elsevier.

[Armchair]

"Cell is a very high impact factor journal published by Elsevier."
I'm aware...

The Liu et al paper referenced isn't from Cell.

The Cell paper apparently exclusively uses the information from Liu et al for its dataset for its analysis.

[Sarcastr0]

Cell paper reached the result at issue, Armchair.

Doing a lot of work to argue that peer review doesn’t exist.

[Armchair]

Again, because you don’t seem to grasp this (because you haven’t read the paper….)

The Cell paper…the entire dataset it uses….it’s from the Liu el al paper.

If you base your results on a questionable dataset…well….

Let's put it this way. I can have a great analysis on a dataset with data that the world is flat, and have perfect analysis of that dataset that will demonstrate the world is flat.

[Moderation4ever]

It is a peer reviewed journal.

[Michael P]

Passing peer review, even in a high quality journal, doesn't mean the paper is right. It just means it isn't obviously flawed. https://www.science.org/content/article/many-scientists-citing-two-scandalous-covid-19-papers-ignore-their-retractions

In the case of this paper, it's a bunch of authors who have long backed the zoonotic-origin hypothesis, and they aren't presenting much in the way of new evidence.

Also, given that WIV and another lab in Wuhan use animals to study viruses, I don't think human-to-human vs human-to-animal transmission is a strong argument for the early cases.

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair argues the paper is a Chinese fraud.

That, at least, is addressed by it passing peer review.

The rest, we leave to the usual way things get vetted - the lots more scientific investigations.

Frustrating for those itching to blame China, but pretty normal if you're looking to prove something is true.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If passing peer review was such a high standard, why is/was there The Great Replication Crisis?

It isn't a high bar. It's quite low.

[Michael P]

You might want to read the article I linked to, which involved two apparently fraudulent (and certainly factually unfounded) Covid-related papers that passed peer review in major, highly-regarded journals. Peer review is much worse at detecting fraud than innocent mistakes and sloppy work.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I'm not going to pretend your anecdotes are generalizable.

You can join Bob in pretending peer review adds no value if you like.

But for all those in the reality-based community, smart money is on a peer reviewed paper being legit, even if it's from China.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Go ahead and pretend The Great Replication Crisis doesn't exist and peer review is infallible.

That helps you concern troll and push your pro-China/State Dept. message.

[Don Nico]

"smart money is on a peer reviewed paper being legit"
Legit is the operative word. It dos not mean the paper is correct, but with high probability it is not fraudulent. Cell is a "top of the food chain" journal in biosciences. It does use high quality reviewers. That is the most that one can hope for.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure. That is indeed science.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 continues to love straw men, apparently because he is too mid to argue against what people actually say.

[Sarcastr0]

Your argument:
1. Here are some examples of fraud not being detected by peer review
2. Here is an assertion that peer review is bad at catching fraud.
3. This paper may be ignored.

Good lord deal with a paper that doesn't agree with your priors without being a denialist baby.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

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

I wonder why peer review didn't save us from this?

[Bob from Ohio]

"peer review"

In other words, "I read it, sounds good".

Amazing you think "peer review" matters at all.

[bernard11]

Amazing you think you and Armchair have the Truth when you don't know shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

I know "peer review" is useless.

[Don Nico]

As I know that your opinion on this matter is useless.

[Don Nico]

Bob,
You know nothing about this journal or its standards. You are just showing your ignorance.

To be sure there is a lot of drek that passes what is called peer-review somewhere. Cell is NOT one of those somewheres

[Ridgeway]

I thought Peer Review is actually bad at detecting fraud -- that it is more focussed on the soundness of the methodologies, and the accuracy of calculations. Basically, it assumes good faith on the part of the authors.

Fraud only gets turned up later when new researchers try to replicate the results.

[ducksalad]

Finally someone with a reasonable take.

[Armchair]

Remember, whenever Sarcastr0 says "Armchair argues"

Just assume Sarcastr0 is wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "Who is Liu et al?
NHC Key Laboratory of Biosafety, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC), Beijing, China. [e-mail].

Oh. So, I suppose there’s someone else who could verify that data on the Liu et al paper?"

That is you, arguing the paper is fraudlent.

You should stand by the shit you say.

[Armchair]

I stand by what I say. But when you say "Armchair argues"...

You're generally wrong. You can't even identify the proper paper I'm talking about.

[Sarcastr0]

So I did get what you argue right, you just want to stamp your foot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Armchair argues the paper is a Chinese fraud.

That, at least, is addressed by it passing peer review."

Huh? Peer review isn't designed to detect fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah how could asking questions about the data and conclusions detect fraud?

You don’t know much about peer review I take it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol that's not what peer view does

[Armchair]

And?

https://retractionwatch.com/

[Sarcastr0]

We get it, you want to ignore the paper but don’t want to look like you are care only about politics not science when you do it.

So you offer anecdotes to argue peer review is useless.

Bad news there chief.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Holy crap, the State Department is hell bent in protecting the Feds in the COVID mess.

They got you on OT.

You federal idiots and the Chicoms are the only ones who still argue it came from a bat.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"The authors acknowledge the studies do not confirm the market as a source, but do link the infection to the market."

I may have slept through my epidemiology classes, but *if* it came from the lab, would it still be possible for the infection to first manifest itself in the market?

[Moderation4ever]

Certainly possible that an infected lab worker came to the market and introduced it to animals the market, but that is a more convoluted route.

[John F. Carr]

The pandemic traces back to the market. From there you have two possibilities. The disease jumped from animals to humans in the market, or the disease was brought into the market by a person and spread there. It is not likely that somebody was infected outside the market and spread the disease widely outside the market before the recorded start of the pandemic.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you have the right idea. Scientists can trace the source to the market, but cannot take it back further. I would add if it was an infected human, I would expect the transmission to be mostly human to human. The infection back to the animal seems unlikely and yet virus DNA is found associated with the live animals.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unless research animals were sold in the market -- China IS that corrupt.

[hobie]

Humanity does not yet have the technology to modify a virus to the extent necessary to to create the corona virus. We're not even close. But keep telling yourselves otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you've got a really dated idea of the reach of modern genetic engineering.

[Bwaaah]

I think he’s working from, you know, a wholistic view of humanity. He’s not talking about genetic engineering; he’s talking about, you know, stuff like life and the capabilities of man.

...bro.

[Sarcastr0]

Who is this kind of comment for?

Yes, you hate liberals. We know this. Now engage with the comment not the commenter.

You know, like Brett did.

[hobie]

It's not a matter of splicing together a bunch of genes and expecting a functioning lifeform. There exons and introns to consider, exogenous DNA, protein folding etc. To get from the known corona viruses of the day to the one of 2020 would require a leap of engineering so great that we could have also had a global cure for cancer by now if it were possible. But it ain't.

It's so much mentally easier to believe conspiracy than to think rationally

[Brett Bellmore]

When it comes to viruses, all that stuff is a lot simpler. Trivially, the coronavirus has no exogenous DNA, because it's an RNA virus.

In fact, the coronavirus is only about 30K bases, representing about as much information in genetic terms as a modest pamphlet would in terms of text.

[hobie]

Plus you would have to re-engineer the nucleoproteins holding the RNA together and regulating transcription. Also there's the cytoskeletal scaffolding etc. etc. A functioning, living organism is way more than it's genetic material. We go through extraordinary lengths just to change a base pair in animal DNA because it could - and does - destroy the whole organism.

[Sarcastr0]

We can't synthesize a virus out of whole DNA cloth.

We can't even do that for proteins; we just take them from nature.

Doesn't mean we can't 'create' via some mixing and matching, but we're way way behind being able to design a virus.

[Artifex]

... and with this, the stupidity attains such mass that it threatens to collapse into a singularity.

We have been synthesising viruses out of whole DNA cloth for 20 years, Yes, the polio virus that was synthesised in the early 2000's is an RNA virus, but the follow on synthesis of phi X 174 was single stranded DNA. Further, the technology to do this existed a decade before it was done. Contrary to hobie's insipidness, it is not particularly hard these days. Just buy a machine from GeneScript and get to work.

Design is fundamentally different than synthesis and Sarcastro's post makes both claims. I have to admit that I don't know exactly where the cutting edge is these days, but I suspect design is already happening as well. Engineering by recombining structures you have seen in nature is easily within our capabilities. As a working example of this, transplanting the spike protein seen elsewhere to a different virus is straight forward.

One of the main reason's that the lab leak hypothesis seems likely is that the plan for the Defuse project proposed to add human proteolytic cleavage sites into SARS-like coronaviruses. It laid out a road map for this action in full detail. Darpa ultimately did not fund this, but a methodology certainly exists and could have been utilised.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah I didn’t mean we can do DNA synthesis. I was talking about design, as even you know. Synthesize has other definitions. But you know that.

Drop more jargon maybe. Does that kind of flex to take out a strawman work on many?

And citing an unselected grant as proof is overdetermined.

[Don Nico]

hobie,
I know many virologists with divergent views about origins, but I’ve never hear any of them make the claim that you make that engineering SARS-CoV-2 from know SARS viruses is far beyond modern biotechnology.

[Commenter_XY]

What lessons do you think we learned, M4e? = So, rather than obsess on the source people should be looking at lessons learned to stop or reduce the impact of future epidemics and pandemics.

[Moderation4ever]

Most importantly that we need to detect significant infections early and plan for them. All evidence suggests that the Trump administration knew about the infection and its significance but chose to ignore the problem until it blew up. Another lesson is that we cannot just hope it goes away, as President Trump did. Leaders have to take action and address the problem. Far too much of the Trump administration response was reaction and not proactive. Operation WARP speed was good but not a solution in itself.

[Brett Bellmore]

"All evidence suggests that the Trump administration knew about the infection and its significance but chose to ignore the problem until it blew up."

I suspect the usual, "Experts predicted 20 of the last 3 disasters" dynamic was going on here.

I've suggested that we should place air filters connected to gene sequencers in our airports and other places where large numbers of people congregate. This would allow real time tracking of at least respiratory viruses.

Basically we need to treat epidemiology more like meteorology. Measurements up the wazoo. Right now it's more like tracking the weather by looking at insurance claims for flooding...

[Michael Ejercito]

Ognoting the problem wpuld have been much better than doing something stupid and malicious.

[ducksalad]

Can we occasionally remind ourselves of something?

Infectious diseases, climate catastrophes, tsunamis, earthquakes, supervolcanoes and asteroid strikes are not social constructs and aren’t governed by political boundaries. Also, the US is a bit under 5% of the world population.

The most important and salient fact about any of these disasters is not who is president of the United States when they happen, nor what that person does or doesn’t do about them. There are many other world leaders, and even all of them put together are limited in what they can do

I realize Donald Trump acts like he can solve anything away through sheer force of character. However, that’s nonsense, even a lot of stuff that *is* a social construct or a political issue is beyond the ability of anyone to solve.

A lot of people were going to die from Covid no matter what politicians did. Government in general was a second order effect in the whole mess.

[Absaroka]

"So, rather than obsess on the source people should be looking at lessons learned to stop or reduce the impact of future epidemics and pandemics."

I dunno. The source of covid19 is indeed water under the bridge, but what about the source of covid28 or covid35 or other future pandemics?

I think it is generally agreed that it is at least plausible that some kinds of pathogen research could result in a leak, especially at labs that may be a bit sloppy (cough...Wuhan Institute of Virology...cough). And since pandemics, by definition, cross borders, I think there should be an international discussion of exactly what kinds of dangerous research gets done, and what precautions need to be taken.

For example, maybe some kinds of gain of function research ought to only be done at an international lab located on some remote island, with strict quarantine for researchers leaving the island. Or whatever - I'm not a virologist, so I'm not remotely qualified to opine on the exact details. But lab leaks of engineered pathogens can have huge worldwide impacts, and so the safety decisions ought not be left solely to the most reckless researcher at the South Texas or Botswanan National Virology Lab.

[Artifex]

For example, maybe some kinds of gain of function research ought to only be done at an international lab located on some remote island, with strict quarantine for researchers leaving the island.

I have to admit I agree with this. Post Covid, it might not be a popular decision, but gain of function research seems pretty vital. This Djinn is out of the bottle. Bad actors can and will continue this research. Understanding the process is vital to defending against it.

The stupidity here is not Darpa funding these sorts of things. The stupidity is having government bureaucrats funding these sorts of things under the eye of a foreign military that does not wish us well with inadequate containment.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, to defend properly, you need to develop the offensive capability = gain of function

Sounds just like chemical warfare.

[hobie]

Clearly the virus emerged from some Haitian fucking a pangolin in the wet market

[Jmaie]

Randy doesn't look Haitian...

[Dr. Ed 2]

EXECUTE FAUCI!!!!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay, this one made me laugh out loud.

[hobie]

Why?

[Nelson]

Probably because it’s so ridiculous. But Dr. Ed said it, so we can’t assume it was meant humorously. He really seems to want SOMEONE to die, given his constant predictions of civil war/World War III.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh, I'm sure it wasn't meant as a joke. That's what's funny about it—the image of Dr. Ed, phone in one hand, mop wringer in the other, reading about this new study, thinking about how to respond... and landing on this.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn’t “45” used to be a gun owner? Why no coverage of his surrendering them with his Felony “Conviction”

[Martinned2]

Today in "when you do business somewhere you have all the legal and political tools at your disposal, but you still have to obey the law".

The CEO of Ofcom, Melanie Dawes, signaled that some companies might prefer to leave the UK instead of complying with the Online Safety Act when speaking at an online conference about technology-facilitated abuse yesterday*.

She highlighted that, since enforcement is expensive, the regulator would be reluctant to block a company's access to the UK, but she said it would do so if necessary.

“Ultimately, if we have really serious concerns and harm is significant, we can disrupt their business, prevent them from being available in the UK. That would be very much a last resource," she said. "It's a very, very, very serious and very expensive process to go through, through the courts, but there will be some who decide that they would rather remove their service from UK users," said Dawes.

[John F. Carr]

Hard to tell if she's serious. Does Ofcom do what the Labour government tells it to do or is it somewhat independent?

[Martinned2]

It's an independent regulator, but it's job is to follow the law. (Which is, in this case, the Online Safety Act passed by the Tories last year.)

[John F. Carr]

Prosecutorial discretion applies. She doesn't have to go for the last resort.

Unless parents can sue to force a regulator to enforce its rules. Is that an option in the UK?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What are those charmingly eccentric English up to this time?

[Michael Ejercito]

I hit a recent notigication from Quora which linked to this answer from four years ago.

https://www.quora.com/Should-climate-change-denial-be-considered-a-crime-against-humanity-when-a-world-leader-uses-false-claims-to-undermine-and-overturn-environmental-protections-they-know-will-have-devastating-consequences-for-much-of/answer/Michael-Gogins

Amazing that people not only think this way, but post this sort of thinking online.

[Armchair]

In today's news: Foreign/unknown political donations via "smurfing"

Smurfing is the practice of making a "donation" in someone else's name (often without their knowledge) in order to avoid detection by the authorities. And...the numbers in the world of political donations are getting huge. It's estimated that up to 43% of ALL political donations (in terms of numbers of donations) are being done via "smurfing". Which is amazing and disturbing, and needs to be investigated. When looked at the dollar value, it's 10-19% of all donation dollars.

https://chroniclesmagazine.org/online-feature/smurfing-is-corrupting-american-elections/

[David Nieporent]

It’s estimated that up to 43% of ALL political donations (in terms of numbers of donations) are being done via “smurfing”.

The wonders of the passive voice, combined with the weasel phrase "up to." It is estimated that up to 74% of Trump supporters are child molesters.

[Absaroka]

The linked article had some interesting info, for example:

"In the 2014 cycle we found just 58 people who donated more than 100 times. Since then, we saw a steady increase in the number of potential smurfs detected in each election—rising to 84,000 in 2022,..."

That's a little ambiguous, but if the number of people who made more than 100 donations has gone from 58 to 84000 in 8 years, that does seem like an anomaly worth looking into.

I took a brief look at the FEC data and stumbled on a lady named Mary Marshall. Ms. Marshall's activity may be totally legit - there isn't anything wrong with making multiple single digit dollar contributions per day, day after day after day. I have my own eccentric hobbies, to be sure. But it is an odd pattern.

I found that after plugging in just a few random names or people who I could guess whether they had made contributions, and one of those names was similar to hers. Maybe she is the only person with that hobby and it is an extraordinary coincidence I know someone with a somewhat similar name. But it seems like the posted article should not be summarily dismissed.

[David Nieporent]

This came up a year or so ago, when some MAGA grifter — I think it may well have been James O'Keefe — purported to do an expose. Campaign finance experts explained that he was misinterpreting the records. The tons of small donations are an artifact of the way ActBlue works and interacts with campaign finance reporting law. (Also WinRed I suppose, but that's a much smaller platform.) Every individual donation that a contributor makes to a candidate through ActBlue gets reported multiple times. Also, it's possible to set it up so that donations one makes to ActBlue are automatically split up and distributed to multiple candidates in small, odd amounts, so some people are going to have oodles of small donations to many different candidates.

[Armchair]

Even that explanation doesn't really make sense given the dollar patterns for many of these individuals. It's not all act blue, it's not all identical amounts, the dollar values aren't all identical, they're on multiple days, right next to each other, and it ends up being quite a lot of money....

Let's take "WENDY URBANOWICZ." Over 3 elections, this "not employed" resident of WA has donated more than $390,000 dollars. But the "average" donation is $10.49. More than 30,000 different transactions.

[Armchair]

It is certainly very interesting.

David's only point here is that he didn't read the article, but decided to troll anyway.

Let's take Gerald Farr. This "Not Employed: individual from TX decided to do the following.
1. Donation on 8/31/24 to the Progressive Turnout Project for $14.82
2. Donation on 8/31/24 to the Progressive Turnout Project for $15.00
3. Donation on 8/31/24 to the Progressive Turnout Project for $35.00
4. Donation on 8/31/24 to the Progressive Turnout Project for $35.00
5. Donation on 8/31/24 to the Progressive Turnout Project for $15.00
6. Donation on 8/31/24 to the Progressive Turnout Project for $25.00
7.....

This goes on for 16,000 similar transactions in 2024....

You gotta wonder

[ducksalad]

“Amazing and disturbing, and needs to be investigated.”

I’m not that amazed and not that disturbed. Never did know, or care about, the names of people who gave 10-19% of all political donations, so there’s no reason to be super upset that names I never knew in the first place might possibly be fake.

Also not going to get all scared and shivery because they might be foreign. If Mother’s Lament wants to send all his discretionary income to Donald Trump, and Martinned wants to send all his to Kamala Harris, I’m just not very concerned. In fact I don’t care at all, even if they exceed the FEC limit and do it using made up names.

[Armchair]

If non-Americans are giving American Politicians billions in donations...

What are those non-Americans getting in return?

[Martinned2]

If they're anonymous - as is true here by assumption - how can they get anything back?

[Armchair]

They’re only effectively anonymous in the official records…

I mean, it would be a lot easier to prosecute bribery or illegal if the person doing the bribery put it in the official records as bribery or illegal donations.

For example, if China calls up Mr. Walz and says “we’re going to donate $10,000,000 to your campaign” and China tries doing it directly…it doesn’t go through, and no one is happy (Except US law enforcement).

But if China calls up Mr. Walz and says “we’re going to donate $10,000,000 to your campaign” and suddenly Mr. Walz sees 100,000 new “small donors” each of which donate $100 in 5 different increments each…

Well, Mr. Walz knows where that money really came from.

[David Nieporent]

Why would he, in this ridiculous hypothetical, know that it came from China, rather than from 100,000 new small donors each of which donate $100 in 5 different increments each?

[Martinned2]

And it'll be a cold day in hell before I participate in the money grift that is US politics. Even if I was a US citizen they could all get stuffed. The only way to win that game is to refuse to play.

[Armchair]

What does smurfing start to look like?

Imagine an individual who is listed as "not employed" who has donated over $300,000 to political candidates...in 30,000 to 40,000 different donations. Average donation amount in the $5 range, but over and over and over again. Repeated donations of $0.12 and $0.13 to the same organization...in the same day.

Take a look at the FEC database. Especially if you've donated to political causes before...look yourself up. People who have donated before are often victims.

https://voteyourvision.org/individual-contributions-fec-gov/

[ducksalad]

Interesting. Looked up my zipcode and someone I know personally made 152 donations in one election.

I might mention it to her if I happen to see her. But I’m not going to make a special call because even if she was “victimized” it’s at worst someone misattributing donations to her. If they were somehow draining her bank account she’s the kind of person who’d notice 152 extra transactions. OTOH she is the kind of person who might do Act Blue….

[Armchair]

Well, now you know why they pick people who have donated before. They're less likely to call it out.

But...consider where is all that "extra" money coming from?

[Commenter_XY]

This will make DMN happy....congrats to the Orioles for making the playoffs. It is a worthy accomplishment. They deserve a lot of credit.

However, as a Yankees fan, I must add that NYY will kick Oriole butt if they face off against each other. Just sayin'. 😉

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A bit late, congrats to the Padres too, via a triple play.

[David Nieporent]

Orioles are 8-4 vs. Satan's team this year.

[Commenter_XY]

I know, I know. You can needle remind me periodically.

[apedad]

Utah Legislature fights constitutional amendment injunction at state Supreme Court

The overwhelmingly Republican state Legislature called a special session last month to put together the constitutional amendment after the Utah Supreme Court had ruled against them in July 2024 in a long-running lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters of Utah and the Mormon Women for Ethical Government over a 2020 state law that had repealed a voter-approved ballot initiative banning partisan gerrymandering.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled then that the right to alter or reform the state government through a ballot initiative was a fundamental constitutional right that the Legislature couldn't ignore, prompting lawmakers to introduced Amendment D in an effort to undermine the court's decision.

https://www.courthousenews.com/utah-legislature-fights-constitutional-amendment-injunction-at-state-supreme-court/

Summary: Utah Republican politicians don't trust Utahns (Utahians?).

[Moderation4ever]

It is important to remember that partisan gerrymandering is not just for the party it also used by politicians to protect their own seats. Keep themselves in safe districts.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, I think that's the primary use of gerrymandering, with gaining partisan advantage only a secondary use.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree here. Parties often have to guarantee their members seats to get the votes needed.

[Nelson]

I believe it's Utes. Like in My Cousin Vinny.

[hobie]

Here in Ohio they're fighting tooth and nail to defeat the ballot initiative for eliminating gerrymandering. Well, more specifically, the Republicans are fighting it. The christian radio stations here - where about 90% of their air time has switched to gun topics and politics instead of soul saving - have been harping on it night and day. Jim Jordan's spaghetti-shaped district avoiding all negro enclaves is in jeopardy

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t most Intellgent people’s avoid all Negro Enclaves?
Barry Hussein Osama certainly has since his huge-ly successful administration was replaced by a Queens Realator

Frank

[Swede425]

Archery season in Michigan opens on October 1st.
Using a crossbow from a ground blind this year.
If successful, I may never get up in a tree ever again.
However, still want to get a raised blind, at least 9 feet off the ground, that I can heat and stay dry in.

[John F. Carr]

I don't have enough land to invite a hunter to exterminate the deer that plague the neighborhood. Even bow hunting is illegal close to roads and houses.

[Swede425]

My in-laws live on Portage Lake and regularly get a ton of deer in their yard. A couple of the bucks are very tempting and they like to stare at us when we sit on the deck. But, alas.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cool! That's where I went to college back in the 70's; A very scenic area. I shared an apartment over the Downtowner bar with some friends, with a great view of the lift bridge.

The whole area is much more built up now, of course. Just a sleepy college town when I was there.

[Swede425]

I'm very familiar with Portage, Michigan. Beautiful area.
However, Portage Lake is in Onekama (up in Manistee County).
Which is also the county I hunt in (in Kaleva).

[Nelson]

My dad had a summer house in Frankfort (originally Elberta, until it was folded into Frankfort) for most of my life. After he retired he spent almost half the year there.

It’s a gorgeous area, and fantastic for hard cider.

[Swede425]

Frankfort is beautiful and has some nice restaurants as well.
Don't know if it's still the case, but the A&W there still had waitresses on roller skates when you ordered. That was several years ago.

[Nelson]

The A&W is one of my nostalgic summer memories from childhood. It hasn’t changed in decades. My best days were when we went to the beach in the morning, A&W for lunch (with the obligatory root beer float), and the tiny ice cream stand around the corner after dinner. When you’re 8, that’s the definition of a perfect day.

[Commenter_XY]

If your Father is alive, tell him.

[Nelson]

Unfortunately, he died several years ago. But he died of COPD from smoking, so we had a good amount of time to talk. Dying from COPD takes years.

[Commenter_XY]

I am sorry, N. May his memory be as a blessing to you.

[Nelson]

Thank you, XY.

[Brett Bellmore]

I see. The body of water the Houghton/Hancock lift bridge crosses was locally called "Portage lake" when I was there. I wasn't aware of the one in Manistee.

[Moderation4ever]

Crossbows are pretty powerful. In Wisconsin their use requires a special permit. Is that required in Michigan?

[Swede425]

No special permit required.
There's been a big interest in crossbows here for a while now.
Some of the older hunters I know really like them for their ease of use and their accuracy.

[hobie]

Plenty of deer here in inner city Cleveland. Just last week an eight point buck was at the end of my street calmly munching on grape vines

[Swede425]

Several years ago I watched a doe with twin fawns calmly walking through a large car dealership parking lot in downtown Grand Rapids like it was no big deal. They're pretty good at adapting to people when they have to.

[Nelson]

Who's growing grapes in inner-city Cleveland and how's the wine from them?

[hobie]

Just concord grapes growing wild. They're all over

[Bob from Ohio]

There are several small "urban" wineries inside the city of Cleveland which grow the grapes they use. One I know about is Winery at Château Hough in the city's Hough neighborhood.

Never had any of the wines.

[hobie]

I saw that vineyard the other day. All their grapes were in great shape, whereas mine in the backyard were decimated by the spotted lantern fly invasion. Them fucking bugs are taking over!

[OtisAH]

To all who celebrate the occasion, 180 pages specifying the J6 charges against Convicted Felon Donald Trump, and reasons why none of the listed charges should be considered “official acts,” lands on Judge Chutkan’s desk today. We probably don’t get a look till at least next week.

[not guilty]

Will the intrepid Professor Volokh kvetch about the filing under seal?

[Mr. Bumble]

Was it (filed under seal) and if so what is the justification?

[Z Crazy]

It is pretty fucking obvious though that conspiracy for others to commit perjury or forgery aren't officials acts.

[Roger S]

If it were obvious, the filing would not have required 180 pages.

[Nelson]

I think he means obvious in a colloquial sense. Remember, 180 pages of legal brief is roughly 4 sentences in the real world.

[not guilty]

"Was it (filed under seal) and if so what is the justification?"

I don't know that the government's brief has been filed yet. If so, it is not yet posted on the CourtListener.com docket. (The filing deadline is midnight tonight.) Media reports have indicated that the filing will be under seal.

The brief will likely include grand jury testimony, which attorneys for the government are required by Rule 6(e)(2)(B)(vi) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to keep secret in the absence of an order of the Court authorizing disclosure under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i). The government can petition for such an order ex parte under Rule 6(e)(3)(F), so we don't know whether the Special Counsel has procured any such order or not.

[not guilty]

The government's brief has been filed under seal, along with a motion for leave to file unredacted motion under seal, and to file redacted motion on public docket. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.246.0.pdf

Professor Volokh is ordinarily a champion of public access to documents filed in judicial proceedings. Will he weigh in on sealing a document that makes his buddy John Eastman and the chief MAGAt look bad before the election?

[Mr. Bumble]

As if you care.
What will Judge Shitcan do?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Best wishes to those who are affected by Hurricane Helene.

The name list:

https://www.fox13news.com/news/hurricane-names-2024-heres-why-the-list-may-look-familiar

A somewhat minor concern, relatively speaking, is its effects on the MLB playoffs. MLB did not think much ahead and now -- if necessary -- the Mets/Braves will have to play a doubleheader on Monday. One more Mets stress point.

[Nelson]

I thought the Mets were terrible. Commenter XY indicated such the other day.

Or did he mean "terrible" in a "the hell you can date my daughter" way?

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, I just bust on the Mets b/c I am a Yankees fan.

[Michael Ejercito]

Aee this tweet.

https://x.com/keith_dorschner/status/1837849187725017503?t=vTxEaZmRaISNublARxAbvg&s=19

[John F. Carr]

A snowmobiler who crashed into an Army helicopter parked on a trail at night won $3.3 million. "The court finds the government breached its duty of care in failing to take any steps to protect against the obvious risk of a camouflaged helicopter parked on an active snowmobile trail, in a somewhat wooded area, as darkness set."

The judge assigned 60% fault to the government and 40% to the plaintiff. As there is no formula for parceling out negligence the judge could have just as well split the liability 40-60 so the plaintiff took nothing. The total award comes out approximately equal to the total of medical expenses and lost income, with comparative negligence erasing the award for pain and suffering.

The property owner who allowed the helicopter to land on his property had previously settled for $550,000.

https://apnews.com/article/black-hawk-snowmobile-crash-massachusetts-lawsuit-d8f8b028b05216eed8bb6f03263dce20
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16493932/smith-v-chase-enterprises-corporation/?page=2

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn't the helo have FAA-approved red & green running lights and why weren't the on? They were not on a secure military reservation, they had not secured a perimeter, and with night vision, ought to have been able to see snowmobile tracks.

[John F. Carr]

The crew landed during daylight. One of the crew wanted to hang out with his friend from a nearby town. Maybe they intended to leave before sunset. When it started getting dark they didn't do anything.

The crew was negligent for parking on a snowmobile track and not warning snowmobilers of the helicopter's presence. The snowmobiler was negligent for outrunning his headlights, drinking before riding, and not being extra careful after having seen the helicopter earlier. The judge's resolution feels good to me. The rider has his quantifiable losses paid and no more. He had several nerves detached from his spinal cord and is functionally partly paralyzed despite not having severed the spinal cord itself.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any thought from you lawyers out there on Penn Law suspending Professor Amy Wax?
Does she have a cause of action against the school?

[hobie]

I guess just throw her on the heap with the other college teachers and admins axed for anti-Israel views and various political thoughts. Which I believe you approve of, yes?

[Ed Grinberg]

As I noted in my reply to Mr. Bumble's comment, University of Pennsylvania is a private school. AFAIC, it should be free to discipline / fire its employees on any basis whatsoever. So, if this school wants to punish some controversial views but not others, more power to them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What about refusing to hire UP grads?

[Ed Grinberg]

I wrote last year:

I now see these institutions as utterly, irredeemably evil. I want to shut them down if they’re funded by the state, cut off any state funding for the other (private) ones. Aside from this, I’d let the private ones alone, to continue operating in any manner they see fit, however odious. Hopefully, word will get around, and decent people will start avoiding schools that maintain this sort of double-standard (just as decent people are likely to avoid a store with a “No blacks allowed” sign in its window).

(Assuming there are better candidates available,) I wouldn't hire someone who got his degree from such a malodorous place. (And, of course, I think the law should allow private employers to hire / not hire whomever they wish, based on any considerations whatsoever.)

[Ed Grinberg]

University of Pennsylvania is a private school. So, she certainly doesn't have any constitutional claims. She may have valid contractual claims. Not being an employment attorney, and not having the relevant contractual documents before me, I can't say how strong such claims might be.

[hobie]

I watched a chilling short video on what would happen if every human suddenly disappeared. The obvious things like planes falling from the skies and power outages within a few hours. But what got me was that in about thirty days the backup generators at all nuclear power plants across the world would fail and we'd have nuclear meltdowns causing a nuclear winter that would last for years. I wonder if that was the unnamed disaster in Cormac McCarthy's The Road?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who would care?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The cats.

[hobie]

Without Haitians, the cat population would explode.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There's plenty of cats on Haiti, but they're all evil zombies like the cat in Pet Sematary.

[santamonica811]

heh

[David Nieporent]

About 15 years ago, the History channel aired a show called Life After People. The premise was — like the one you describe — what would happen to the world if people vanished. It wasn't trying to be melodramatic so it didn't talk about plane crashes or anything; it was basically like eight episodes of different scenarios of how quickly would nature reclaim civilization without us around to fight back.

The thing that stuck with me was also power-related, but different than yours: it was that basically all electrical generation would shut off in (at most) days. (So the post-apocalyptic shows that depict any electricity at all are wrong.) The one exception was hydroelectric; they estimated that the Hoover Dam would keep going for a couple of years until parts wore out and the equipment failed.

[OtisAH]

Meet Kevin Roberts, an architect of Project 2025, and yet another MAGA psychopath with money and power. Redundant? Perhaps.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/24/project-2025-kevin-roberts-killed-dog

[Roger S]

Article says that his neighbor's pit bull went missing about 20 years ago, and tries to relate the story to dogs going missing in Springfield Ohio.

[OtisAH]

You fail reading comprehension. Again.

[Frank Drackman]

But he passed fucking your wife. Again.

[hobie]

He should have hired Kristi Noem. Come to think about it, has Kristi Noem ever been spotted in Springfield?

[Frank Drackman]

Has your Dick ever been spotted in a Vagina?
OMG, that burn was so great, how your Man-Bun-Haid, wasn’t guarding your Flank and Whammo!(ht (Dr)W Cosby), I totally Bee/otch slapped you, that “No Bullying” Philosophy has produced a generation of Emotional Trig Palins

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, Piece of Shit here, don’t got no job, how I supposed to pay da rent in yo Haid?

[Krayt]

“So you would vote for Kamala over Trump because you don’t want tanks rolling through Europe?”

“Yes. It’s a lousy choice, as I don’t want to reward those who created the inflation knowingly, but I’m impressed he offers a worse choice.”

__________
Went to McDonald’s on the way home last night.

“I’ll have a Big Mac meal with a small fries and diet coke.”

“I’m sorry. We don’t do small meals. I can do a medium.”

“That’s fine.”

“That’ll be $9.85.”

__________

“So, inflation-inducers or tanks?”

“I’m thinking…I’m thinking.”

[Krayt]

For the record, I’m throwing my vote away on neither, just like the past 3
4-year elections. You fools keep voting for your quasi-religions, with fury in your hearts.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In Georgia, if you vote third party, they throw away your vote themselves and spare you the trouble (see above).

[Frank Drackman]

Because like “Pumpkin” in Pulp Fiction we’re fucking reasonable men

[Magister]

Which party controls Georgia's state government?

[bernard11]

The inflation inducer in the race is Trump, by a mile.

All his proposed policies will drastically increase inflation, among other disastrous consequences.

What do you think sky-high tariffs will do to prices?

All those yelping about how Trtump will reduce inflation are ignorant, yapping, fools.

Get over it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny, non of that occurred while he was President.

[SimonP]

Bumbler, you have a choice.

You can vote like any other low-information voter, where the choice is between the “Trump economy” and the “Biden economy,” without a concrete sense of how voting for either Trump or Harris will bring you one or the other.

Or you can ask yourself, “What kinds of government policies drive inflation, and what are the different candidates proposing?”

Trump wants to cut taxes without a real plan for pay-fors, he wants to impose economy-killing tariffs, he wants to manipulate the markets to try to bolster the dollar (which will just cause markets to abandon it), he wants to have more direct influence over the Fed. At the same time, he wants to shut out renewable energy and shore up the oil/gas monopoly (which will increase gas prices), he wants to dismantle the social safety net, reduce the size of government (which will put a lot of people around the country out of work), and distort the economy by offering tax breaks that will make people more dependent on tips and working overtime.

Kamala is offering an extension of the Biden economy, with some tweaks at the margins. Which makes a certain amount of sense – it will take time for Biden’s policies to bear fruit, inflation is leveling off, wages are strengthening. Prices are still high. But the way we fight that is increasing wages and building more housing. That’s on Kamala’s agenda.

Electing Trump isn’t going to magically make things cheaper. You have to look at what he’s promising and ask yourself what he realistically could accomplish. There is no path to lower prices in any of Trump’s proposals, and there’s no way in hell that a bill that could actually help American workers is going to get through a Republican Congress.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Kamala is offering an extension of the Biden economy, with some tweaks at the margins."
Making voting for something different an easy choice.

[apedad]

Different doesn't mean better - and could mean worse.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : “Making voting for something different an easy choice”

Sure, if you’re voting from ignorance. For example, the low-information voter will ignore Trump mediocre record on job creation before the pandemic and write-off his historically abysmal record overall as caused by covid. That last part is true enough, but your dumbass voter somehow can’t see inflation was a worldwide condition as well, also caused by the pandemic. Hell, the U.S. record was better than most comparable economies.

And – as SimonP notes – that’s before you look at the actual proposals from the candidates. Then you really need ignorance to stay in the Cult. Trump’s policies would explode the deficit sky-high, adding 1-2 trillion dollars in debt yearly depending on what pandering he’s doing any given week.

And apparently no one ever taught him what tariffs are during his lifetime of bungling away Daddy’s millions. His proposal would strangle the economy with inflation – a fact apparent to everone but the ignorant & Trump (to be unnecessarily redundant).

And to just hit the high-points of calamitous incompetent incoherent Stupid, his pledge of mass-deportations would also roil the economy. There are a few dozen pledges equally dumb because Trump never bothers to think-thru anything, but just those alone make a Harris vote essential.

(as long as you’re not a low-information voter, that is)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/11/25/inflation-rates-by-country-how-does-the-us-stack-up/

[Mr. Bumble]

Why did Biden keep the Trump tariffs in place?

[Frank Drackman]

Because they’re good policy

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Why did Biden keep the Trump tariffs in place?"

That's hardly a serious question, Bumble. Because one of the most ironclad truisms of politics is this: It's much harder to undo Stupid than to avoid it altogether by non-action.

Thus Biden couldn't undo Trump's imbecilic tariffs because that would bring the headline, "Biden lets China off the hook" or some other equally dumb bullshit. The same is obviously true with tax cuts, where Harris is busily defining all those cuts she'll save more than the ones she'll let expire.

Besides, the old tariffs are small change compared to Trump's latest economically-illiterate extravaganza. The old ones were imbecility at the edges. The new pledge is imbecility taken to thermonuclear levels.

But Trump always goes full-in with ignorance. Have you heard he's promising to halt all financial support to schools with vaccine mandates? Apparently Bozo (the GOP-nominated clown) is too much the moron to know that's all schools. But - hey - Trump never lets a day go by without seizing the opportunity to be shit-for-brains dumb.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So Biden intentionally let these inflation increasing, harm causing tariffs in place for a selfish political reason?

What a piece of shit.

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : “What a piece of shit”

Checking your reflection in the mirror again, Nazi Child?

Meanwhile, let’s check out your reasoning: Biden didn’t undo all the moronic imbecility of Trump, therefore you’re going to vote for Trump? Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, does it?

But you’re just a buffoon. You don’t do reason.

[hobie]

Another thing the hayseeds keep forgetting. After each global disaster (Great Recession, COVID) gas prices skyrocketed and each time Exxon shot up to be the most valuable company on earth. If Exxon as a company were subject to the same shared global pain, their profit margins would be more or less the same. But that's not what happened, is it? They gouged and they profited. And it took two democrat administrations to undo the bullshit.

The oil companies beloved by the bumblers have been playing them like violins, and they fall for it every time. And now you want an administration to give them license to do it all over again. But, yeah...own the libs something something

[Frank Drackman]

TLDR

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, only if you think he's being honest with his proposals. Like his remarks on IVF and threats to John Deere, it sure seems like he's entered the "throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks" phase of the election, but doing so with more... out there... false promises then a normal candidate.

[Krayt]

So the EV market is having major issues in the US. Domestic manufacturers are abandoning it. Recharging isn’t adding up. Winter problems, costs, all of it. And the primary EV guy is on the outs because he had the temerity to not blow the pushers anymore.

Alternatively, those pushing it, and lined up their investments and their cronies’, got their money out of it so it’s ok to abandon the push now.

[Sarcastr0]

I see EV's on the road a decent amount. China seems to be doing very well, so the issues seem more engineering challenges than anything fundamental.

The primary EV guy has gone kinda loco and is blowing up a lot of the companies he owns.

Maybe it's a bad long-term investment, but current trends don't indicate that. And certainly none of the second hand on the clock-level stuff you just posted has any relevance to that determination.

[apedad]

I’d say it’s also a regional issue how well EVs are doing.

Here in the Great State of Northern Virginia, they’re all over the place with recharging stations popping up all the time.

I’m sure there’s other regions/areas (like the Virginian backwater areas down south), where the infrastructure is not there.

[Mr. Bumble]

Pretty parochial of you. Other than in relatively dense urban and suburban areas EVs are a bust. Too many shortcomings even there when you factor in the effects of weather on charge state.
Also, I'd be willing to bet that most owners have an IC vehicle.
Isn't Virginia a commonwealth?

[Frank Drackman]

Like 95% of the US

[Frank Drackman]

Flew into Regan National a few weeks back, funny, didn’t see any “EV” Airliners.
Awful lot of Tractor Trailers, all spewing “Clean” Diesel,

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

And what would you know of current trends for EVs? I highly doubt you have the chops to discuss the US EV market, other than to say, "Geez, I see them in my neighborhood, so business is good'. GMAFB.

BTW, it isn't engineering, it is more relaxed regulations, lower rare earth cost, and lower labor cost that hugely benefit China wrt EV production.

[Sarcastr0]

I said the evidence in the OP was not relevant to the question of long term trends.

I expressly had no opinion about the long term merits, only of current trends.

What is it with you and chops lately? Shallow attempt at gatekeeping.

[M L]

Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) revealed that thousands of duplicate absentee ballots contained “no barcode” on them after officials in Madison City said the duplicate ballots had the barcode.

In a post on X, Tiffany wrote that officials in the Madison Clerk’s Office had stated that because the duplicate ballots had identical barcodes, they would not be allowed to be submitted. Tiffany’s post came a day after he called for an “investigation” after Madison officials revealed that 2,215 duplicate ballots had been sent out to roughly 10 wards.

“DEVELOPING,” Tiffany wrote. “Although the Madison Clerk’s Office claims, ‘The voting system does not allow a ballot with the same barcode to be submitted,’ my office has proof that there is no barcode on the actual ballots.”

Tiffany included a photo in his post that showed a ballot without a barcode.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/25/rep-tom-tiffany-reveals-duplicate-absentee-ballots-have-no-barcode/

[David Nieporent]

Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) revealed that thousands of duplicate absentee ballots contained “no barcode” on them after officials in Madison City said the duplicate ballots had the barcode.

Tom Tiffany is either a liar or a retard, or both. Ballots never contain barcodes. Secret ballot and all that. It's the ballot envelopes, in which the ballots must be submitted, that contain the bar codes.

[M L]

Apologize for using the R-word.

[Ska]

Representative is bad, but it's not that bad.

[Moderation4ever]

Here is the story, error made, error detected, error corrected. The system works.

Second story, politician outraged over nothing, nothing unusual here.

[M L]

The Troubling Immigration Reality

The bare facts of the Springfield story are enough to explain our political moment; they are ignored at peril.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/challenges-remain/

[David Nieporent]

I don't really have any objection to the content of the article because it doesn't really say much of anything.

With respect to Springfield, I'd commend this essay:

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/wanderland/exotic-cat-eaters-springfield-ohio/

[Frank Drackman]

Like your Dick doesn’t really do much of anything? Maybe change your name to something that isn’t almost”Never Potent” in German

[David Nieporent]

It's fine to oppose the death penalty, but one should not lie in service of that position. A guy named Marcellus Williams was executed the other day, and progressive social media freaked out about an innocent black man being executed. Trouble is, some people were working from outdated half-truths ("the family and the prosecutor both think he's innocent!") and others just had no idea of the facts. While nobody except Williams could be 100% certain, the evidence of his guilt was strong; the evidence of his innocence is nonexistent, and requires the positing of a massive and yet undetected conspiracy.

[verochkax]

We finally agree on something!

It looks like the prosecutor opposed the execution out of general opposition to the death penalty, not anything specific to this case.

This reminds me of the Troy Davis case from Georgia some years ago. Despite all of the media fan fare, anyone who read the judge's 175 page decision denying federal habeas relief could see how the whole thing was a sham.

[Bob from Ohio]

The prosecutor is not the one who prosecuted the case in any event, he was elected a few years ago. He just beat Cori Bush in a primary so will be in Congress in 2025. Left wing but not a Jew hating crazy like Bush.

[David Nieporent]

It looks like the prosecutor opposed the execution out of general opposition to the death penalty, not anything specific to this case.

DNA was discovered on the murder weapon that didn't belong to Williams. Before it was identified, this raised a reasonable question about whether Williams was actually guilty, or whether the DNA pointed to the possibility of an alternate suspect. At that time, the prosecutor (the current one, not the one who prosecuted Williams) expressed doubt as to guilt.

However, that DNA was later identified as belonging to an investigator who had handled the knife w/o gloves after the crime lab was finished with it. So it didn't point to an alternate suspect at all. At that point, the prosecutor continued to oppose execution on general anti-death penalty grounds, but no longer maintained a belief in Williams' innocence.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Thank you.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

My position is not that the prosecutor and family thought him “innocent.”

I noted elsewhere that the family signed on to a plea deal where he would have received life in prison. I would suppose if they actually thought he was innocent, they would not be inclined to do that.

Also: “St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell, who had sought to have the conviction overturned, said, “This outcome did not serve the interests of justice.”

Again, this is not the same as saying he was “innocent.” I have repeatedly seen people say "They didn't want him executed." Not "he is innocent." Maybe some said that too. But, what I saw was that the people agreed he should not be executed.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marcellus-williams-execution-supreme-court-stay-denied/

I read various articles [including the Innocent Project summary which apparently in your view is bogus, which is fine — they aren’t god] providing various facts.

Taking everything into consideration, I think he should not have been executed. In this specific case, the evidence is a relevent factor. “Obviously he is innocent” is not where I’m at.

The person executed by Oklahoma today also has some questionable details. And, when the pardon board recommends life, I’m inclined to think they should be followed.

The Alabama case is different. He appears to be mentally ill & Alabama shouldn’t be able to “try and try again” to kill people. They need to send some people to Texas, who manage to execute people without screwing up repeatedly.

I don’t think he is factually innocent or anything.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The narrative being pushed is very much that he is innocent.

For instance, the Innocence Project page says, "Marcellus Williams is scheduled for execution in Missouri on Sept. 24 even though there is no reliable evidence proving that he committed the crime for which he was sentenced to death." and asks people to call to governor to "Stop Missouri from executing an innocent man".
Stop Missouri from executing an innocent man

Your CBS story repeatedly quotes people saying that Williams was innocent. And that theme emerges throughout the media coverage:

-The Associated Press ("A Missouri man has been executed for a 1998 murder. Was he guilty or innocent?")
--USAToday ("Marcellus Williams executed in Missouri amid strong innocence claims: 'It is murder'")
-MSNBC ("Prosecutors say Marcellus Williams is innocent. He’s scheduled to be executed anyway.")
-The ACLU ("Missouri just executed Marcellus Williams, who maintained his innocence until the end of his life. The district attorney who originally prosecuted Mr. Williams suggested he was wrongfully convicted and fought to have the conviction overturned.")
-The NAACP ("Tonight, Missouri lynched another innocent Black man.")

And of course nominally serious poster SRG2 on this very site.

If you want to have a conversation about whether this specific crime should have resulted in the execution of this specific offender, that's a serious discussion that I'd welcome. But it's not the one that's being proposed right now.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The person executed by Oklahoma today also has some questionable details.

Like what?

[Martinned2]

I noted elsewhere that the family signed on to a plea deal where he would have received life in prison. I would suppose if they actually thought he was innocent, they would not be inclined to do that.

Of course they would have. The whole point about execution is that it makes the question of innocence moot. As long as someone is still alive, even if they are serving life in prison, you can still try to get the opportunity to prove their innocence.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, any comment here?

[Martinned2]

For the record, the problem with the Williams case was the DNA evidence:

hours before Williams was set to be executed, then-Gov. Eric Greitens called it off and appointed a panel of five retired judges to investigate the DNA evidence. The board, however, was dissolved by Parson in June 2023 and never issued its final report.

Faced with the DNA evidence and other new information in Williams' case, prosecutor Wesley Bell sought to toss out the conviction on numerous grounds, including the results of the DNA testing and constitutional violations during the jury selection process.

But the night before an evidentiary hearing was set to take place, Bell's office received new test results indicating DNA on the knife handle was consistent with that of a prosecutor who worked on Williams' case and a former investigator with the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marcellus-williams-execution-supreme-court-stay-denied/

[M L]

Joe Biden Says He Delegated ‘Everything’ to Kamala Harris: ‘Foreign Policy to Domestic Policy’

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/09/25/joe-biden-says-he-delegated-everything-to-kamala-harris-foreign-policy-domestic-policy/

[Roger S]

It is obvious that neither one of them know what is going on. Neither can give a direct answer to a question. Harris is worse than Biden. Sometimes she just babbles about how her single mom raised her in Canada, except that she does not mention Canada.

[verochkax]

I hear though that she gives good BJs to older powerful men.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Worried you might be letting your skills deteriorate? Plenty of dicks out there for you to refresh yourself with.

[verochkax]

Disbarring Giuliani is blatant thuggery on the part of left-wing state/district bars.

[hobie]

He harmed a lot of people with his shenanigans. He should consider himself lucky to only being disbarred and sued into oblivion. If, like yourself, he had just kept his inane, childish thoughts confined to bigoted legal blogs, he would have been fine

[verochkax]

What "shenanigans?"

He was disbarred for being a supporter of Trump. Period.

[Frank Drackman]

He refused Hobies, “Amurica’s Wokest Millenial’s” advances, who doesn’t recognize Hobies Screed as “a Homo Scorned”???

Frank

[hobie]

If only that were a thing, verochkax. If only that were a thing

[hobie]

In related news, today NewsMax settled with Smartmatic the same as OANN earlier this year. Now Smartmatic is gunning for Fox, Rudy, My Pillow and the Kraken. Will be wild

[EscherEnigma]

It'll be interesting to see --if Harris wins-- whether or not Fox, OAN and so-on will give nearly as much airtime to Trump's sour grapes as they did in 2020. I could see them giving him plenty of air time but doing careful framing around it (which would piss off Trump, sure, but air-time is air-time).

[EscherEnigma]

I haven't followed the case too closely, but wasn't it about the doxxing, blatant lying, and malicious bringing of meritless cases?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In regards to the execution yesterday, a few years ago I spent some time carefully looking at the information for each execution.

I still do so in a summary way. I don’t claim to do some deep-dive research of all the facts. There can be people found who can go toe-to-toe with people challenging the innocence of the person. This comment format is not a great way to do it.

Anyway, looking into the cases, I regularly found some problems. Concerns of actual innocence were rare. But, there were various other problems. One problem I have is executing people after a really long period of time. Stevens and Breyer covered that.

The whole process tends to be quite arbitrary. And, yes, some of the people committed horrible crimes. That is relative to other murderers. I read the details too. I know what they did.

Other times, the people executed seemed not as bad as many who were not executed. I wondered why they specifically should be executed instead of getting long prison sentences.

Sometimes, the victims’ families opposed the execution. Or, there was disagreement.

I am against the death penalty but realize the complications. Not all cases are as obvious as some make them out to be.

People find that out in the law, including having long time experiences going head-to-head with people on the other side.

[EscherEnigma]

I'm fine with the death penalty in theory. The argument that some crimes are just so severe that it's worthy of death? Yeah, that makes sense to me.

I'm not fine with the death penalty in practice. Simply put, our government and justice system are full of enough bad actors that I don't trust them with the power of execution.

And frankly, death penalty advocates at the highest levels aren't doing anything to convince me otherwise. When SCOTUS justices say it doesn't matter that someone is innocent, what matters is that they were lawfully convicted, I'm not persuaded they're seeking justice. When the demographics of who it's used against don't match population statistics, or even the demographics of comparable criminals, I'm not persuaded it's fairly used. When states go out of their way to hide how they're performing the execution itself, I'm not persuaded it's being competently used.

So yeah. Philosophically I'm okay with the death penalty. But in practice, I just don't trust the fuckers in charge enough to be comfortable giving them that kind of power. And seeing as the alternative is always "life in prison", I'm not too broken up by the idea of some evil-ass fucker getting not getting executed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

When SCOTUS justices say it doesn’t matter that someone is innocent

What is it you're referring to here?

[EscherEnigma]

Shinn v. Ramirez (2022), but even if you disagree with my reading of that case, you shouldn't pretend surprise: the conservatives on the court have repeatedly affirmed that they care more about if the paperwork was done right then if someone is actually guilty, and when it comes to death penalty cases they double down on this doctrine.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That seems like a deeply strange reading of that case, not least because it’s a case about ineffective assistance of counsel, not actual innocence.

the conservatives on the court have repeatedly affirmed that they care more about if the paperwork was done right then if someone is actually guilty

With all due respect, you sound like someone who is completely unfamiliar with the arguments against their position.

Nobody thinks that it’s good or acceptable for an innocent person to be punished for a crime. The difficulty is how many opportunities a person should get to try to re-argue a claim of innocence.

[EscherEnigma]

You can slice and dice it any way you want, at the end of heh day the SCOTUS said that they didn't care about the evidence, he was lawfully convicted and that was enough.

Whcih is to say: they put paperwork ahead of justice.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am having a lot of trouble understanding how you think that reading is available. What is the part of the opinion that you think best supports your characterization?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Philosophically I’m okay with the death penalty. But in practice, I just don’t trust the fuckers in charge enough to be comfortable giving them that kind of power.

I agree Escher.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1839367360303845378?s=19

Illegals on video confessing to be illegally registered and unashamedly declaring they are voting for Harris.

[Bwaaah]

You saw that? On the internet? Did they they have the Mark of the Illegals emblazoned above the hairline?

Sometimes I think people just say shit just because other people care so much. But not on X. That shit on X is real.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Look at this clown. A video of people confessing, and he's like "it was on the internet, it's not true!"

\

[Bwaaah]

Correction…you look at a video on the internet of people saying shit, and declare, “It’s true.” (They're not doing shit; they're saying shit.)

Now, to defend your underlying point, New York State’s automatic voter registration law is very carefully crafted to automatically register people whenever they apply for any state service, even non-citizens, and to assure there will be no consequences for “mistakes.” For example, to avoid being registered to vote, a non-citizen must check two boxes, one that says “I do not wish to be registered” and another that says “I am not a citizen.” The law explicitly protects people not only from consequences of making mistakes on those forms that cause them to be registered, but also protects them against prosecution for illegally voting through having been registered by mistake.

While assholes like Sarcastr0 insist Democrats aren’t trying to let non-citizens vote, this law shows the lengths they are going to to allow exactly that. And New York City Democrats, in the form of the New York City Council, already passed an unconstitutional law enabling non-citizens to vote. This attempt at diluting U.S. citizen votes through uncontrolled immigration is precluded at the federal level only because not all states are controlled by Democrats. Otherwise, the only thing Sarcastr0 is right about is that it is illegal [so far] for a non-citizen to vote, not that Democrats won’t do everything they can to change that. They will. They do. Read our corruptly conceived automatic voter registration law (linked above) passed and being implemented by New York State Democrats.

[grb]

And yet you've been trying to produce all these illegal votes years & years & years & years.

And failing again & again & again & again. Ever wonder why, Bwaaah? Here's a hint: No matter how hard I strive to produce a live unicorn, my efforts will always be futile.

Does that help you figure it out?

[Bwaaah]

This is a new law. Democrats are just ramping up now.

And I'm not saying non-citizens are voting illegally (in significant numbers). I'm just saying Democrats want to make non-citizen voting legal, and even if not legal, safe and easy to do so.

You are not disagreeing with me.

[grb]

Bwaaah : “You are not disagreeing with me.”

But I am. You claim a law designed to make it easy for people to vote is a nefarious plot to get illegal immigrants voting. That is tin-foil-hat dumb, because illegals voting has not been a problem, is not a problem, and will never be a problem. You might has well claim some law is a secret conspiracy to permit unicorns to graze on public lands. You make that much sense.

Only one question remains. Right-type droning nonsense on illegals voting comes from two sources: There are the hucksters, who hate voters in general, eagerly push any measure to harrass voters, and are always on the lookout for new excuses for the next Trump election loss.

And there are the dupes, dumb enuff to believe them. Which are you?

(unrelated : How do unicorns graze anyway with that damn horn sticking out of their heads?)

[grb]

Bwaaah : "This is a new law"

Here's a bonus point: Asked to produce all these illegal immigrant votes, you weasel with the excuse above. Fine enough, as far as that goes. But a similar law has been in place in other states across the country. And illegals aren't voting there either.

Thus your "conspiracy".

https://www.lgbtmap.org/democracy-maps/automatic_voter_registration

[Bwaaah]

I don't assert illegals are voting. You assert they aren't voting.

New York could have required a check box that says, "I am a citizen." Seems easy enough, no? (The person doesn't even have to provide any proof.) Still just another Republican attempt at voter disenfranchisement? Yeah. A person is required to expend the effort to check the box that says "I am not a citizen" in order to avoid registration. (Oopsy!)

Our legislators aren't being nefarious in their writing of our laws. You are pretending their intent isn't plainly visible.

Tell me...under New York State law, how do you know that illegals aren't voting? How would you know? How could you know? These aren't abstract questions.

It appears that New York laws are explicitly written to make it not only almost impossible to know if a non-citizen votes, but against the law to engage in an examination that would make such a determination possible. That's Democrat rule-making.

There's nothing you say that suggests you care at all if a person votes illegally. And our voting laws are being stripped, by Democrats, of any rules that would in any way assure that. That's not nefarious. That's just Democrats, through law-making, saying "fuck it" about illegal voting.

You claim, with confidence, that which you have no ability to prove. And Democrats are trying to assure that inability.

[Sarcastr0]

It appears that New York laws are explicitly written to make it not only almost impossible to know if a non-citizen votes, but against the law to engage in an examination that would make such a determination possible

It also appears the New York laws are explicitly written to make it not only almost impossible to know if a skinwalking creature from myth votes, but against the law to engage in an examination that would make such a determination possible.

*nefarious*!

[Bwaaah]

I could say you're imagining all that. But you're just being a trollish asshole who doesn't give a shit about what I'm actually saying.

Typical.

[Sarcastr0]

I had a point about assuming an evil is occurring based purely on the lack of a policy to spot or combat it.

Guess it went over your head.

[David Nieporent]

an unconstitutional law enabling non-citizens to vote.

Which provision of the constitution do you think this violates? You know that non-citizen voting has lawfully existed throughout our nation's history, right?

[Bwaaah]

The New York State constitution explicitly grants the right to vote to citizens. The New York State court declared NYC’s law to be unconstitutional.

Democrats are now trying to overturn that ruling.

What am I saying that’s wrong?

[David Nieporent]

My apologies; I assumed that the unadorned term "unconstitutional" was a reference to the U.S. constitution, as it usually is in these discussions.

You are correct that the courts ruled that it violated the state constitution.

[Sarcastr0]

'The New York State court' meaning just the Appellate Division, not the Court of Appeals.

If the 9th Circuit holds a law unconstitutional, do you just call it unconstitutional?

[Bwaaah]

"If the 9th Circuit holds a law unconstitutional, do you just call it unconstitutional?"

If a court holds a law to be unconstitutional, and that decision strikes me as being correct, then I tend to call the law "unconstitutional." If I disagree with the court, I might say that "the court has held that law to be unconstitutional." So though I may be slightly more circumspect in my wording when I disagree, I recognize the supremacy of the court's prevailing opinion in matters of law, regardless of my opinion. (Constitutionality of laws can come and go as courts change their opinions.)

How would you describe the constitutionality of that law in light of the court's most recent decision? How do you determine the constitutionality of a law? (Please stay with me for a moment as I try to examine your question, and don't fork elsewhere.)

[Sarcastr0]

Unconstitutional tends to be about a settled area of law.

I don't think you were being dishonest, but that's not the usual construction, both not noting it was state level, and not noting it was not a final court.

[Bwaaah]

I asked:
How would you describe the constitutionality of that law in light of the court’s most recent decision? How do you determine the constitutionality of a law?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't call a law balls-out unconstitutional with respect to state constitutions at all.

But were I do say it's against the state constitution, I wouldn't do so unless there was an opinion by the highest court.

Unconstitutional is serious business.

Legally, sure grapple with the precedent. But if in a brief you just call a law unconstitutional and then cite a middle court as your footnote, that would strike me as odd - that thesis was incomplete.

[Bwaaah]

I asked: How would you describe the constitutionality of that law in light of the court’s most recent decision? How do you determine the constitutionality of a law?

I answered those questions. You criticized my my answers as being not quite right. Now I'd like you to answer those questions. This isn't a legal brief, nor a time for trickery. Those are straightforward questions. I'd like you to give straightforward answers that reflect you sincere opinions.

[Bwaaah]

If I infer your answer to the second question from your indirect comments, it appears that you don't recognize the currently prevailing opinion of the court as a determinant of constitutionality of a law, but rather, your own opinion on the matter. (There is no practical reality to your implied notion that there comes a time when the constitutionality of a law can no longer be disputed; finality is in the eyes of the beholder.) If I have that wrong, then again, please answer the questions:
How would you describe the constitutionality of that law in light of the court’s most recent decision? How do you determine the constitutionality of a law?

[Bwaaah]

And by the way: New York's automatic voter registration law triggers registration without any specific requirement for identification or verification of any voter information. Non-citizens should come vote in New York...even though that's illegal, our laws will protect you from state prosecution, and in our "sanctuary city," we'll make it practically impossible for the feds to do anything about it.

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : "Illegals on video....."

I've got a scholl project for the Nazi Child: Instead of a worthless video stunt, go out and find a real legal/investigative record of illegal immigrant voting in any kind of real numbers. Last presidential election there were about 160 million votes. If you find anything more than a few dozen, I'd be surprised. And then we'd know this wasn't some GOP ratfucker paying a few bums twenty dollars to say something only dupes & imbeciles can believe.

After all, I could pay someone a few dollars to say he saw Trump shoot a stranger on Fifth Avenue, but what would that be worth? Number One, people on the Left aren't as gullible as those on the Right. Number Two, the MAGA-cultists wouldn't care even if true.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump seems to have little or no knowledge of economics. He has shown he understand little about who really pays tariffs. He is now promising to cut energy prices in half. Something he has no ablity to actually do.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/10/us/politics/trump-economics-gas-tariffs-inflation.htm

The real question for me is Trump ignorant of economics or does he just assume his marks are ignorant?

[Noscitur a sociis]

While I don’t disagree with your point, his opponent seems exceptionally ill-equipped to criticize him in this regard.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Right. She has no power to force him onto a debate stage, where she would tear him to tatters—again.

[grb]

Noscitur a sociis : "... his opponent seems exceptionally ill-equipped ..."

A matter of degree, isn't it? I may not be able to argue String Theory with a theoretical physicist, but can still call a Flat-Earther an ignorant fool.

Thus Harris can criticize Trump.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Are you kidding. Reading poll results is too complicated for him. Too much context. Registered voters? Likely voters? Too much nuance. What questions actually got asked? To audiences selected how? With what response rate? What's a margin of error? Trump gets overwhelmed.

If you showed Trump that paragraph right above, his attention span would redline halfway through the second line.

You know why Trump likes crowd size as a popularity metric? It's the only thing out there similar to the only metric he actually understands—a really simplistic metric—television ratings.

[apedad]

Mod4e, why you got to be so narrow minded?

It could easily be both!

Trump's ignorant of economics AND he assumes his marks are also ignorant.

[Don Nico]

If find it interesting that there are no comments today concerning the proposal in the UN by the US, Canada and EU nations for a 21-day truce in Lebanon.
Except for Michigan, what could be the rationale for that.

[Bwaaah]

A break from “genocide”? It makes people who don’t have bombs coming down on them feel like they’re doing something for people who do? Reminds people that appeasement, today, is always an option? Gives Hezbollah time to order new pagers? Gives people three weeks to envision a new reality in the Middle East? Gives Jews some downtime to contemplate their own demise?

Sounds like a plan from people without a plan, sponsored by Democrats, the party led by Kamala Harris.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's such an obviously fatuous proposal, what is there to say? Anybody who expects Israel to let up and give Hezbollah a chance to regroup and recover is insane.

They're not Ukraine, that can be forced to do militarily crazy things by threatening to deny them ordinance. They're a military power in their own right, and are deep in the middle of a existential war with a foe entirely devoted to their genocide. They're NOT going to stop short of destroying Hezbollah.

The proposal was made for political purposes, to suck up to antisemites. Really, I think it was. Just to provide an excuse to criticize Israel when they refuse to do it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If they are a power in their own right, why do we give them billions each year?

[Moderation4ever]

There is good reason to fear a larger war in the Middle East. It is worth remembering that 104 US Marines died in Lebanon in October 1983 when the US was trying to deal with Israel's last invasion of Lebanon. Better not to repeat that part of history.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and who was it that caused the death of those troops?

[Martinned2]

Wait, your theory is that when the US army invades a foreign country, the locals aren't allowed to shoot at them?

[John F. Carr]

There are treaties on the subject. If you put on uniforms and carry arms openly, fire away. If you look like a civilian, you are a criminal.

[Mr. Bumble]

The US Army invaded Lebanon?

[Martinned2]

How else do you think they got there? With the consent of the Lebanese government?

There was a peace treaty in 1983 that would have made peace between Israel and Lebanon, and provided a legal basis for US military presence, but it was never ratified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_17_Agreement

[Mr. Bumble]

Did Lebanon have a government.?
What about the French, Italian and UK troops who were also deployed as peacekeepers?

[John F. Carr]

With the consent of the Lebanese government. According to your link "the Lebanese government repudiated the agreement on March 5, 1984," which is after the barracks bombing.

[Don Nico]

Why don’t you tell us when you want 70,000 Israeli civilians to be able to return to their homes without fear of rocket attacks (10,000 in the last year)?

While you're at it why don't you tell us why Ukrainians shouldn't stop fighting?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Ukrainian's and Israeli's can do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't cost the US taxpayer money or blood.

as far as I'm concerned

[Martinned2]

When Israel has agreed a peace treaty with Lebanon. (None of which is in any way analogous to the Ukraine war, given that neither Israel nor Lebanon is occupying the other's territory, and hasn't been since Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.)

This has been another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[ThePublius]

You know, that's about the most snide, stupid, and condescending thing you've posted in a long time. Well, maybe not that long.

Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, has been launching missiles into Northern Israel for years, and resumed in earnest on October 8, 2023. Does that date mean anything to you? Israel shot one down this morning, as a matter of fact, a missile that was aimed for Tel Aviv. Many thousands of Israelis have been displaced from Northern Israel because of these missile attacks coming from Lebanon.

And you have the temerity to say that all will be well when Israel agrees to a peace treaty with these terrorists? Are you kidding me?

The real answer, as opposed to your stupid answer, is when Israel has utterly defeated Hezbollah, and deterred Lebanon from any form of aggression towards Israel. There is no negotiation with terrorists who are committed to one's annihilation, stupid! That's why both Hamas and Hezbollah must be eradicated.

[Bwaaah]

Remarks like his make me want to literally put a gun to his head and demand, “You want them to stand by idly while people do what?” (He reminds me of people who act like Marsellus Wallace is a bitch.) He may be a pacifist who doesn’t admit that; that would at least explain his obtuse feckless reasoning.

[Martinned2]

You're the one who wants one side in a war to stop fighting because you are friends with the other side. In what universe does that make me the weirdo?

[Martinned2]

Lebanon, and Hezbollah within Lebanon, have been at war with Israel since 1947/1982. War involves people shooting at each other. The Israelis drop bombs on Hezbollah, or explode their pagers, and Hezbollah drops bombs on Israel. There are rules about how that is to be done, including the rule against targeting civilians or disproportionately hurting civilians, but I see no reason why one party should unilaterally stop shooting because it inconveniences the other side.

And no, Israel has not defeated Hezbollah, because Hezbollah controls the south of Lebanon, having successfully forced the Israelis out in 2000. They are each on their own side of the border, a border that has been there since 1947 (or arguably 1920). Neither one has had the slightest bit of success defeating the other, but both have had a lot of success consolidating their position on their respective side of the border.

[Don Nico]

"I see no reason why one party should unilaterally stop shooting because it inconveniences tion that the other side."
Here I agree with you. Israel would be extremely foolish to agree to any truce,

Lebanon is an occupied country by a criminal / terrorist organization that completely destabilized the country. Lebanon is not at war with Israel; nor is Israel at war with Lebanon. As the government of Lebanon is impotent against Hezbollah, Israel has little choice in how it can stop Hezbollah's attacks.

[Bored Lawyer]

Does Lebanon have any obligation to stop thousands of missile being launched from its territory into Israel? Or just a "peace treaty" with the continuation of the status quo ante is enough for you?

[Martinned2]

Lebanon is at war with Israel, as is Hezbollah to the extent that you'd consider it an entity that is distinct from the Lebanese state. Shooting comes with war. The way you end war is with peace negotiations that involve both/all sides ceasing hostilities.

I mean, I get it. You look at the Middle East and see English speaking white people being shot at by Muslim brown people, so your instinct is to demand that those Muslims stop shooting. But that's not how war works.

Neither side is occupying the other in this war, so the only thing left to do is for them to agree to all stop shooting. You can't just stamp your foot and demand that only one side stop the violence.

[ThePublius]

"The way you end war is with peace negotiations that involve both/all sides ceasing hostilities."

No. That's not at all how the greatest conflicts of the last several centuries have ended. They ended either with the utter defeat of the enemy, or the unconditional surrender of one side.

[ThePublius]

"Mr. President,

Today I come before the United Nations, to address a stark reality: our moral compass is faltering.

The West, once a bastion of justice, now hesitates when good triumphs over evil.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the response to Israel’s recent actions against Hezbollah, a terror group that has wreaked havoc on civilians for decades. Ask the Syrians — they will tell you.

And since October 8th, Hezbollah fired 9,000 missiles at the people of Israel, expelling 70,000 from their homes.

Israel, a small nation of 9 million, has taken a stand against barbarism. Its young soldiers are on the front lines in a battle that once would have united Western coalitions. Yet today, much of the West fails to support Israel in its existential fight against groups like Hezbollah and Hamas—both backed by Tehran, which tramples its own people, and races toward a nuclear bomb.

No less alarming is the West’s response. In Washington, we hear calls to avoid “escalation,” while in Europe, the UK’s David Lammy just said climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. Incredibly, some have turned against Israel entirely, condemning its efforts to defend itself.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a battle over land; it is a battle of civilization against tyranny. Hezbollah, armed with 150,000 missiles aimed at civilians, must be stopped. To criminalize Israel’s right to self-defense, while ignoring the atrocities of its enemies, is a grave injustice.

We must stand with Israel. We must stand for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the right of every nation to protect its people from terror.

I thank you."

[Bored Lawyer]

Ah, yes, the snide accusations of racism.

Hezbollah has publicly stated that its goal is the destruction of Israel and it won't stop shooting until it reaches that goal. It is a terrorists organization full of unlawful combatants. The notion that "all sides" will reach a peace treaty is legalist fantasy. Or delusion on your part.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned2 is being especially disingenuous today.

[Don Nico]

"see English speaking white people being shot at by Muslim brown people,"
That is just dishonest racism, Martin. Moreover because Israeli can speak English does not make Israel an English-speaking country. Moreover you conveniently ignore the brown Hebrew speaking Mizrachi Jews.

[Commenter_XY]

Your hamas and hezbollah and houthi pals will be hunted down like the human animals they are, and killed. They're the appetizers, not the main event.

Israel reserved the right to retaliate against Tehran when Iran fired hundreds of missiles at Israel.

Sleep well Khamenei. Your days are now numbered.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico....Hezball-less became head-less today. Nasrallah and a bunch of his friends are now riding the One-Way Paradise Train to a warm destination.

The world is a better place without them.

[Sarcastr0]

TRUMP: She went to the border today because she went to see if she could she's getting killed on the border that she went to the border, this was a bad day, because somebody just released the numbers they came out through ice. According to this brand new data never seen before, over 13,099 convicted murderers have crossed the border and are free to roam and kill in our country.

S O U P

[Bwaaah]

The data comes in a detailed letter from ICE (and linked here). This frightening statistic is more true than false. 13,099 border crossers previously convicted of homicide were not only allowed into the U.S., but are currently “non-detained” (roaming free) as they await adjudication in a years-long (estimated 4+ years?) backlog of cases. (Don’t worry; about 320 others convicted of homicide are in detention.) NBC news finally picked up the story here.

The New York Times and Washington Post currently reflect the silent malignancy of the media while Gaslight0 leads the Trump-said-it-so-shut-the-fuck-up chant. I expect they’ll be circling their wagons while they figure out a discounting strategy to save us all from misinformation.

[sarcasm]Oh...and a bunch came in before Biden's term, so it shouldn't be considered a problem.[/sarcasm]