Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

In the D.C. prosecution, Donald Trump's objections to the government's proposed redactions in the Appendix to its September 26 filing are due today. He will no doubt squeal like a stuck Republican in an attempt to preclude public disclosure of further details about his criminal conduct.

There is a remarkable irony about Team Trump's blather about what it characterizes as "election interference" by the Special Counsel regarding the timing of filings after remand from the Supreme Court. Trump there is the author of his own misfortune. On December 1, 2023 Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump's Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.171.0_2.pdf As Trump was entitled to do, he sought interlocutory review on appeal of that order.

That interlocutory appeal need not have been taken at that time -- Trump could have manned up, stood trial and raised his claim of entitlement to immunity posttrial in the event of conviction. It is interesting to game out what likely would have happened had Trump done that. That scenario calls to mind the maxim from Aesop's Fables (circa 260 B.C.), "Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true."

Suppose Trump had gone to trial before a jury on the original indictment beginning March 4, 2024 as was originally scheduled. The trial would likely have lasted several weeks to a few months. In the event of an acquittal, he could have stood before the electorate in November as an exonerated man. In the event of conviction on one or more counts, he could have raised his claim of entitlement to immunity on posttrial appeal. While bail pending appeal in federal court is the exception rather than the rule, the absence of any precedent regarding a former president's claim to immunity from prosecution would have weighed in favor of Trump being granted bail after imposition of sentence.

Assuming that SCOTUS would then have followed the same reasoning set forth in its July 1 opinion, the conviction would no doubt have been vacated and the matter remanded to the District Court for the kind of factual and legal determinations regarding what acts were official and what acts were not, in the same manner as is presently ongoing. If immunity were denied after remand, that order of denial would be appealable prior to any retrial. Trump might have even bought himself enough time to die before a retrial could be concluded.

Instead, Trump did appeal pretrial, and Br'er John, Br'er Clarence, Br'er Sam, Br'er Niel, Br'er Brett and Sister Amy threw Br'er Jack smack dab into the middle of the briar patch.

As Groucho Marx very aptly said, time wounds all heels.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The only thing missing are the prosecutors wearing Klan hoods.

[not guilty]

I appreciate a good non sequitur as much as the next fellow, but that is ridiculous, Dr. Ed 2.

[Nelson]

It's Dr. Ed. Did you expect any better from him?

[SRG2]

I wonder, which American university grants doctorates to horses?

[not guilty]

Well, half a horse in this case.

[Ridgeway]

U.Mass

[Nelson]

Dr. Ed is a janitor at UMass, not a graduate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's a lynching, stop pretending it is anything else.

[Nelson]

You're just all-in on the nonsense today, aren't you.

[David Nieporent]

Did many lynching victims get to appeal their lynchings to the Supreme Court of the United States?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Scottsboro Boys did...

[Mr. Hook]

So, Janitorial Community College of Bangor doesn't have a literacy requirement?

[Kazinski]

no its not. Smith has become irrelevant.

Nobody cares, except a few dead enders.

[Riva]

NG’s diatribe could due with a little editing. Less is more. In sum, NG supports the government’s use of its prosecutorial power to interfere in an election notwithstanding DOJ policy to delay overt investigative steps or disclosures that could impact an election within 60 days of that election. Frankly, I’d rather hear the DOJ come out with an explanation as to why it was necessary now to leapfrog over the defense and instead file its massive, highly unusually motion. The timing and procedures here stink.

[not guilty]

"Frankly, I’d rather hear the DOJ come out with an explanation as to why it was necessary now to leapfrog over the defense and instead file its massive, highly unusually motion. The timing and procedures here stink."

We have had this discussion before, Riva. The District Court ordered submission of the government's filings not later than September 26. For the Special Counsel to have refused to do so could have been contumacious.

As I asked you earlier this week, have you actually read the government’s motion which was filed on September 26 and unsealed on October 2? Yes or no? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.252.0_1.pdf

It is titled “GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR IMMUNITY DETERMINATIONS”. At page 1 the motion recites:

In Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024), the Supreme Court held that presidents are immune from prosecution for certain official conduct—including the defendant’s use of the Justice Department in furtherance of his scheme, as was alleged in the original indictment—and remanded to this Court to determine whether the remaining allegations against the defendant are immunized. The answer to that question is no.

This motion provides a comprehensive account of the defendant’s private criminal conduct; sets forth the legal framework created by Trump for resolving immunity claims; applies that framework to establish that none of the defendant’s charged conduct is immunized because it either was unofficial or any presumptive immunity is rebutted; and requests the relief the Government seeks, which is, at bottom, this: that the Court determine that the defendant must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen.

[Paragraph break added.]

Rules 12(b) and 47 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the filing of this motion. Pre Rule 12(b)(1), “A party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial on the merits. Rule 47 applies to a pretrial motion.” The United States is a party. The District Court has been ordered by SCOTUS to determine immunity issues upon remand. Such determinations can be made without a trial on the merits. Judge Chutkan, not the litigants, determined the schedule for the parties' respective filings.

[Riva]

Yes, your unnecessarily lengthy comments are repetitive and consistently avoid responding to the issue. Why rush this now? Now at less than 30 days before the election. The S. Ct. did not order Smith to rush file a superseding indictment. The S.Ct. did not order Smith to rush file a massive, procedurally odd motion, containing previously sealed grand jury material and leapfrogging over any defense response. The S.Ct. did not order Chutkan to publicly release information. And the federal rules do not mandate any of this occur now. In fact, DOJ guidance specifically advises against it.

[not guilty]

SCOTUS on July 1, 2024 remanded the case with instructions for the District Court to conduct a “necessarily factbound analysis . . . to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial.” Trump v. United States, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024). The District Court regained jurisdiction on August 2, and Judge Chutkan promptly scheduled deadlines for the parties' submissions to assist here in making the determinations that SCOTUS charged her to do. The Special Counsel did not fix that schedule -- the District Court did so.

As I pointed out on Monday, Trump has been in no way prejudiced or disadvantaged by the finding of the superseding indictment. While it charges the same four offenses, the scope of allegedly criminal conduct that Trump is being called upon to answer is in fact narrower than that alleged in the original indictment. There is one fewer co-conspirator identified, and the earlier allegations regarding Trump’s corrupt abuse of Department of Justice personnel have been removed.

Do you contend that Donald Trump somehow has the right to frustrate a speedy and public trial?

[Riva]

Again, why rush this now? The S.Ct. did not mandate anything be conducted within the last 30 days of the election. Government actors appear to be timing their filings and disclosures for maximum detrimental impact to one of the candidates in the race. At least they have provided no explanation as to why this must be rushed now. Neither have you.

[not guilty]

It isn't often that I quote Richard Nixon with approval. Hell, his perfidy is the biggest reason I became a Democrat 50 years ago.

But Nixon nailed it when he said "People have got to know whether or not their president's a crook." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M

[Riva]

That’s an admission that Smith is trying to influence the election. Thank you for proving my point. Now try and explain that to dunderhead below.

[not guilty]

I didn't claim to be speaking for Jack Smith, doofus. I surmise that he wants to try Donald Trump sooner rather than later. I have no idea what his motives are, but most prosecutors like putting miscreants into prison, regardless of politics.

But Nixon did get it right that there is a public interest in determining a president's criminality or lack thereof.

[Riva]

That was your admission, doofus. I wasn't exchanging comments with Smith. I was exchanging comments with someone who is now weirdly trying to justify why the election interference he conceded is occurring is actually a good thing.

[not guilty]

I don't concede that Jack Smith is trying to influence the election. I don't see any evidence that he is doing anything other than trying to put a loathsome miscreant in prison.

I do, however, personally regard it as a good thing that more evidence of Donald Trump's corrupt behavior is exposed to the light of day.

[Riva]

By claiming that Smith’s disclosures would be impactful on voters with respect to President Trump, you are, quite effectively, arguing that Smith’s conduct absolutely constitutes election inference per the DOJ guidance.

[David Nieporent]

We have had this discussion before, Riva. The District Court ordered submission of the government’s filings not later than September 26. For the Special Counsel to have refused to do so could have been contumacious.

Why are you pretending to take the bot's programmed questions seriously? It's just mindlessly reposting lies that were input into it about "rushing" and "election interference."

It turns out that when MAGA said that the courts are not supposed to care about the election, and should not be making scheduling decisions based on it, what MAGA meant was that the courts were supposed to care about the election and make scheduling decisions based on it that benefitted Trump.

[Riva]

No, DOJ policy directs that prosecutors must not making filings or disclosures specifically timed to adversely impact one candidate in an election. That is the policy that Smith is disregarding and Chutkan is rubber-stamping. It’s called lawfare numskull. And it’s pretty ugly. But I can see why someone like you would like it.

[not guilty]

Once again, the schedule for filings was not set by the Special Counsel. It was set by the District Court following a status conference on September 5. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.233.0_2.pdf

Do you contend that Jack Smith should have disregarded the scheduling order and declined to file an Opening Brief on Presidential Immunity by September 26, 2024?

[Riva]

Instead of rushed making rushed filings timed to maximize political damage to President Trump, Smith should have advised Chutkan, respectfully, that DOJ policy required him to refrain from public indictments or other overt disclosures in a case that could affect the election. Anything happening now could have been deferred until after the public voted. Nothing issuing from the S.Ct. mandated this. As the exchange above demonstrates, this is all offensively political.

[not guilty]

The original indictment was filed on August 1, 2023 — more than fifteen months before the November 2024 presidential election. The superseding indictment (which narrowed the scope of the conduct alleged) was filed on August 27, 2024 — seventy days before the election.

Donald Trump is the author of his own misfortune. He could have gone to trial beginning on March 4, 2024 as Judge Chutkan had ordered.

[Riva]

President Tump is running for office. He is not a DOJ prosecutor who is systematically engaging in conduct specifically to affect an election.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is running for office because that may be the only way to avoid accountability for his criminality. It is a delicious irony that, as I have described upthread, his taking an interlocutory appeal from the December 1, 2023 order may have the net effect of hastening his day of reckoning.

As Hamlet said of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, (Act 3, Scene 4,) Trump is hoist with his own petard.

[grb]

not guilty : “As Hamlet said of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern…”

Remember, Riva is only a bot – and a primitively engineered one at that. You can tell it a thousand times that Smith was ordered by the court to produce his filing but the Machine Riva will always spew out the exact same irrelevant response.

And forget about quoting Shakespeare. Bot Riva will never be able to tell a hawk from a handsaw. Its circuits aren’t wired to make such distinctions.

[not guilty]

I like to cite to original source materials for my idioms where I can.

Did you hear about the fellow who complained that he did not like reading Shakespeare because his works are full of clichés?

[David Nieporent]

Except nothing was rushed. The Supreme Court's decision was issued on July 1. It's three months later.

You're not complaining about anything being "rushed." You're complaining that they didn't simply put a criminal prosecution on hold for six months for no actual legitimate reason solely to benefit Trump's political career.

[Riva]

Uh huh. Smith files his superseding indictment on August 27, then leapfrogs over any defense response, asking for leave to file his massive motion of previously sealed grand jury material on September 27. Chutkan allows the public release of the motion hours after Walz's embarrassing debate performance. Who could possible object to this completely fair, non-rushed, and obviously non-partisan chain of events? Exemplary. Everything absolutely consistent with DOJ guidelines.

[neurodoc]

This is actually in response to what you said subsequently, but it seems one is not able to "reply" further after a few rounds of successive replies. Anyway...

I simply wanted to thank you for elevating the quality of the exchanges, though still hardly friendly, with the injection of the highbrow element of Shakespeare, which actually fits. It is appreciate if only for its tempering effect.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Which policy are you referring to? Not this one:

"9-85.500 Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election
Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See § 9-27.260. Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this provision requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General."

[Frank Drackman]

You write like an Idiot and sound like an Idiot, but what do you expect? You’re an Idiot

[not guilty]

Being called an idiot by Frank Drackman is akin to being called ugly by a frog.

[Frank Drackman]

Looks like my comment left a Marx

[grb]

not guilty : "Being called an idiot by Frank Drackman is akin to being called ugly by a frog"

True; but "smelly by a turd" seems more apropos.....

[OtisAH]

His name is “piece of shit” after all.

[Commenter_XY]

Dr. Frank....NG is a self-described partisan, retired criminal defense attorney of 28 years, and successful keto dieter. He has argued a case before the TN supreme court that went to SCOTUS (ng, I believe you argued the case, true?) He has his political viewpoint, most of which I do not agree with; but for more than a few issues, I do have a similar viewpoint. I have personally asked NG many questions on the law, and received thorough and complete answers, which I greatly appreciated. He took the time to explain.

Doctor Frank, the clinical definition of Idiot: Those with an IQ of 0 to 25 (an IQ of 100 is average) are called idiots, 26 to 50 are called imbeciles and 51 to 70 are called morons. Morons can communicate and learn common tasks; imbeciles stall mentally at about six years old; and idiots cannot respond to stimulus or communicate with any level of competency.

I know you know all that. The reason I know that is because you're an anesthesiologist, and they are smart. Very smart.

My point: I know that you are a lot more creative. Not malignant creative, but humorous creative. Maybe a lighter touch? Since it is the High Holidays, maybe a good time to consider it.

Before I forget: Gut Yontif. All I will tell you is HH this year are so profoundly different than any other HH season in my entire life. I have never felt so profoundly isolated as a Tribe Member. So in that spirit, I also want to personally thank you for volunteering. I know you went to Israel more than once to help.

[Nelson]

Although I am not a member of the tribe, I would offer you whatever support I can in making you feel less isolated. We may disagree on a lot of things, but you are a good person with a curious mind. I'm a better person for my interactions with you.

That may not offer much succor, but I offer it with the hope that you can use it. Gut Yontif, my friend.

[Riva]

People describe themselves many ways on line, not all of it is true. Harris describes herself as a tough on crime prosecutor who worked at McDonald’s in college. Not really accurate. The common denominator with NG’s lawfare advocacy is that both cases are political. Surprisingly, the fair and objective administration of justice is not exactly consistent with the politics of lawfare.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva describes himself as a human being who responds to comments with relevant information.

On the Internet no one knows if you're a bot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Like I said, this is a lynching.

[MoreCurious]

Saying it twice only makes it sound twice as stupid.

[Armchair]

"He will no doubt squeal like a stuck Republican"

With comments like these, I'm sure we can trust the rest.

[not guilty]

Well, earlier this week I wrote “If Judge Chutkan had ordered an evidentiary hearing in open court with live witness testimony, Donald Trump would likely be squealing like Bobby Trippe in Deliverance.”

I didn’t want to use the same simile twice in one week.

Do you disagree with any substance of what I said, Armchair? (Calling out snark is way easier than responding to substance.)

[Armchair]

Gross bias like this, within a post, simply calls the rest into such question that none of it can be trusted to be accurate.

It's like trusting an antisemite's "substance" about Jews, or a racist's "substance" about African Americans.

It's likely filled with such bias, mistruths, missing information, and more than none can be effectively trusted. Better to start from scratch with a reliable source.

[not guilty]

IOW you have no substantive response. Argumentum ad hominem is intellectually lazy.

What in particular of what I said upthread do you dispute?

[Armchair]

You don't get it....I get to biased phrasing like that...and I simply stop reading. And in my opinion others should as well. The entire thing is drivel. Not worth the effort to continue.

Let's see if I can use an example you'll comprehend.

It's like a 20 page legal brief...but written with the grammar and spelling of a 4 year old. "Mi kase Is that Muster Broon Hurrted me". You're not going to read through 20 pages of that. And I'm not going to read through several paragraphs of biased drivel on your end.

[not guilty]

I get it completely, Armchair. I asked you what in particular of what I said upthread do you dispute?

You, having no substantive response, resort to cheap shots and insults in order to avoid the question.

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair, do you consider your tone to be unbiased and trustworthy?

Do you use the VC as a forum for different beliefs to debate and convince one another of their virtue and correctness?
If not, what is your issue with an openly partisan tone?

[Bob from Ohio]

"public disclosure"

There is none. All these filings drop, you comment ad nauseam, and nobody in the US cares.

Keep hope alive though.

[Sarcastr0]

I can't say I care much at this level of granularity either, but if there's a place to drop this info it's the VC.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sure, its an open thread too, but he thinks its a big deal when it has zero effect on "public discourse".

[David Nieporent]

but he thinks its a big deal when it has zero effect on “public discourse”.

Maybe you should tell that to Riva, which claims that this is the worst case of "election interference" since the Kennedy assassination.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>He will no doubt squeal like a stuck Republican in an attempt to preclude public disclosure of further details about his criminal conduct.

Two points,
1.) Is this public disclosure of unadjuticated claims part of standard ethical practice for prosecutors?
2.) Why aren't you saying "alleged criminal conduct"? Is it because you're just a hack putting on airs for the low information Democrat rubes around here?

[David Nieporent]

1.) Is this public disclosure of unadjuticated claims part of standard ethical practice for prosecutors?

Yes. How do you think the claims get adjudicated, if they're not disclosed?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

In a courtroom?

Isn't that were these things are supposed to happen?

Have you ever heard of a courtroom?

[David Nieporent]

Trump could've had these things disclosed in a courtroom, but he wanted them resolved pretrial. And things resolved pretrial are resolved via legal filings. You've heard of legal filings, haven't you?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So you have heard of a courtroom.

That makes your first comment even weirder.

[not guilty]

"Is this public disclosure of unadjuticated [sic] claims part of standard ethical practice for prosecutors?"

Yes. There is an “important presumption in favor of public access to all facets of criminal court proceedings.” United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 317 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The Special Counsel's initial filing on September 26 was under seal. The parties briefed the issues as to what information should remain under seal, and Judge Chutkan made the determination. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.251.0_4.pdf

"Why aren’t you saying 'alleged criminal conduct'? Is it because you’re just a hack putting on airs for the low information Democrat rubes around here?"

I am a proudly partisan Democrat, as I have been for all or my adult life. If I were writing for a court or speaking to a jury, (before whom Trump enjoys a presumption of innocence,) I would likely use the word alleged. Here, however, that language is superfluous and stilted.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How can prosecutors taint jury pools? Is that possible?

>I would likely use the word alleged. Here, however, that language is superfluous and stilted.

Uh, it's accurate, don’t forget that. But what does a proudly partisan Democrat lawyer care about being accurate when they got Republicans to punish?

Also, what motion of the defense was Jack responding to with his filing?

[not guilty]

Special Counsel was not responding to a defense motion with the government's September 26 filing. He was responding to the September 5 order of the District Court which explicitly directed "The Government shall file an Opening Brief on Presidential Immunity by September 26, 2024." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.233.0_2.pdf

As I explained upthread to Riva, Rules 12(b) and 47 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the filing of the government's September 26 motion and supporting Appendix. Per Rule 12(b)(1), “A party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial on the merits. Rule 47 applies to a pretrial motion.” The United States is a party. The District Court has been ordered by SCOTUS to determine immunity issues upon remand. Such determinations can be made without a trial on the merits. Judge Chutkan, not the litigants, determined the schedule for the parties’ respective filings.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I love how SCOTUS told that Democrat hack to suck it.

Just like those appeals courts are telling those other Democrat Trump Deranged hacks to suck it.

[santamonica811]

World Series predictions?

For me, it's the winner of Friday's Dodgers-Padres elimination game. I think they are currently the two best-playing teams in MLB.

My heart would love to see the Tigers in the World Series. But I have to admit that Yankees-Dodgers, Otani-Judge, would be epic.

[Kazinski]

Is Manny Machado going to get suspended for throwing a ball near his former Manager?

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/dodgers-dave-roberts-thinks-manny-machado-threw-ball-him-dugout-with-intent-after-unsettling-video

That could effect things, and raise tensions, which already seem high.

[Frank Drackman]

In the old days Manny could expect to get a fastball in his Eternal Auditory Meatus, now a days it would be in the Ear Hole (remember those 70's MLB batting helmets that didn't even cover the ears?) but then the pitcher would get tossed, not good anal-lytics.
Braves had some of their biggest brawls with the Padres, check out the 8-12-1984 game on Youtube, Sunday day game, more good punches landed than your typical MMA bout, Braves Pitcher Pascal Perez (First start with Atlanta in 1982 ran out of gas driving on I-285 trying to find the Stadium, which is understandable, since the Stadiums not on I-285) Plunked 1 Padre twice, then got plunked himself, Hilarity ensued. (I'd call a fan drenching a player with a 32oz Beer and a shirtless Padre climbing into the seats hilarious) Padres won the division that year, back when that still meant something.

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

My heart is with the Tigers and Mets.

The Tigers seem to be playing with mirrors regarding their pitching staff & you figure at some point it will collapse. WHEN it will occur is another matter. The Yankees benefited from a couple of calls to be up 2-1 vs the Royals in close games.

Your prediction seems reasonable. OTOH, I think the AL competition might make it a series. And, the Mets have enough weapons to make them beating the winner quite possible.

[bernard11]

So you're not really from the Bronx?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We have all kinds here. My area even has a Republican member of the city council.

[Commenter_XY]

Yankees, all the way. But the road goes through Baltimore. And I do not want to raise David's hackles by talking smack about the Orioles, and have David tell me the Orioles dominated the Yankees this season (they did).

[Ridgeway]

Baltimore? Up to a point, Lord Copper.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“the student intifada.”

Drexel University had 4 Arrests (should have had 40)
https://www.thedp.com/article/2024/10/penn-pro-palestine-rally-oct-7-drexel

Three hundred miles and seven states away, Tufts University had a similar problem and had finally derecognized its Students for Hamas chapter (aka Students for Palestine).

This is nationally coordinated. Where the f*ck is the FBI?!?

[Commenter_XY]

DE2...Call Dennis O'Brien (interim Pres of Drexel - replacing the dork known as John Fry) and tell him what you think.

Do you need his office phone number or email? I don't think it is doxxing to post public info from the Drexel website.

[Longtobefree]

"Where the f*ck is the FBI?!?"

Trying to learn enough Latin to really get the goods on those damn Catholics?
In a DEI training session?
At a school board meeting?
Investigating John Galt?

[David Nieporent]

Where the f*ck is the FBI?!?

What federal crimes do you see the FBI's involvement as appropriate for, here?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Interstate conspiracy....

[not guilty]

Interstate conspiracy by whom, to do what?

[Kazinski]

CBS has gone off the rails in editing in a completely different answer to one of their questions in Harris 60 minute interview.

So much so the Harris campaign is disclaiming any responsibility so none of the taint of fabrication is reflected back on them.

“The Kamala Harris campaign has distanced itself from the controversy surrounding her “60 Minutes” interview after Donald Trump demanded the network apologize for airing two different versions of the Vice President’s response to a question.”

When you make an edit so egregious that both campaigns are asking for investigations and apologies then you’ve stepped it big time.
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/kamala-harris-responds-60-minutes-edit-controversy-cbs-1236173842/

The London Times says:
“When even a brand such as 60 Minutes falls into disrepute, the real loser is the standard of informed debate in the US.”

The Vanity fair article has the text of the two edits.

The Times aricle has the two video quotes.

Its clear in both of them that this wasn’t for time or brevity, because the second version uses a completly different answer to the question, not one cut down from the original answer.

This isn’t the only crazy story about CBS in the last few days either.

It also shows the wisdom of Trump declining CBS' interview "offer", they've proved they can't be trusted to be objective or fair.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's called the "Communist Broadcasting System" for a reason.

This stuff tells me how desperate the left is getting, which tells me that it thinks that Heels Up is losing. And all they are doing is giving a future President Trump ammo justifying yanking the broadcast licenses of CBS stations as "not being in the public interest."

[Frank Drackman]

Dan Blather still swears those fraudulent “W” National Guard documents are genuine, “I got them on the Internets !”

Frank “Courage!”

[Drewski]

"When you make an edit so egregious that both campaigns are asking for investigations and apologies then you’ve stepped it big time."

The Harris campaign isn't asking for either, and the Trump campaign is just baselessly whining like usual. If I had a nickel for every time Trump demanded an investigation I'd have more money than he does. The edit is not significant and certainly not sinister. You're just a fool.

[Michael P]

Thanks for highlighting that the Harris campaign lacks the integrity to advocate for honest journalism.

[Commenter_XY]

CBS you say? My, my they are in the news. Not good for them, either.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/10/pandemonium-at-cbs-news-after-journalist-pushes-back-on-anti-israel-author-ta-nehisi-coates/

Thank God Tribe Member Tony Dokoupil made this anti-semite Coates squirm in his seat on national TV. Give that man a medal for shining a bright light on today's proto-typical anti-semite in academia.

The truly hilarious (and tragic) part is the internal reaction at CBS.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From Puck News

"The network's Standards and Practices division, led by Claudia Milne, determined that Dokoupil had not followed the preproduction process where questions are run through Race and Culture and Standards and Practices.

[Brett Bellmore]

"When even a brand such as 60 Minutes falls into disrepute"

60 Minutes fell into disrepute a couple decades ago.

[Commenter_XY]

'Rather-Gate' did it for me. It was a naked attempt to swing an election. That opened my eyes.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — That Rather contretemps has become practically the founding myth of the internet. It refuses to die, and it refuses refutation. And it may have been a naked attempt to swing an election, but with the question of who attempted to do the swinging left unresolved.

The short of it is that Rather deserved dismissal. He went with a major story based on evidence from a source he could not specify, let alone prove. That is unpardonable journalistic sin. Rather got what he deserved.

But that is not the end of it. The preening of internet Joe Keyboards over Rather’s defenestration must also be dealt with. The myth Rather’s critics love so well continues to corrupt debates about the internet, and its capacity for news presentation. Problem is, evidence to support that myth also will not withstand scrutiny.

The Rather critics’ problem is the story turns out to be one of alleged evidence fabrication, likely answered by counter-fabrication. The samples of text published on the internet to show Rather’s letters were fake alleged proof to show they had been produced using Microsoft Times Roman font. If so, anachronism proved them false, because the letters were dated years prior to Microsoft.

For proof, modern copies of the letters known to be in Microsoft’s version of Times Roman were offered for comparison. An exact match was alleged. But the examples did not show a match.

Close observation of the fonts presented on the internet showed that the number character sets were not alike in the respective fonts. The ones in the alleged Rather letters used what typographers sometimes refer to as old-style numerals. To see what those look like, just look at the dates on a few Lincoln cents. Some of the numerals in those dates show descenders—which are extensions below the baseline established by the numerals, “1” “2” “4” “5” “6” “8” and “0”. In old-style character sets the “3” “7” and “9” typically descend, as you can see on a Lincoln cent.

Modern type designs, including a great many which are updates of older fonts including Times Roman, almost always use redesigned numerical characters, without descenders, and also with more generous counter-spaces enclosed in the rounder characters. Microsoft Times Roman features modern character sets, and those did appear in the text alleged as a recent sample to show the Rather letters were modern fakes. But the Rather letters as scanned and presented on the internet appeared to show old-style numerals.

It is thus highly likely that the evidence produced against Rather was itself faked. So instead of demonstrating a news-gathering triumph for the internet, the Rather case illustrates just an early but signal example of the internet’s signal vulnerability, to fakery.

NOTE ON THIS COMMENT: I make these observations pretty comfortably, as someone who could readily have qualified at that time as a typographic expert in any court. Close critics will note I hedged slightly.

I did not have access to the original documents. Internet screen presentations with their pixilations introduce their own graphic distortions to type images, whether scanned as pixels, or delivered by typographic software programmed to do more accurate pixilations. At the time of the Rather controversy that issue was more troublesome than it is now. But absolute certainty would still require comparisons of the originals.

To my eye, the variations in the numerical character sets seemed established to the point of near-certainty. To someone practiced in professional typography, as I was, the discrepancies seemed to leap off the page.

Admittedly, persons unaccustomed to studying type would almost never take note of those differences—which seems to be what happened in the Rather case. Put the originals side-by-side on a light table, and then compare them by overlays, and all residual uncertainty could be eliminated.

As it is, I would bet Rather’s critics faked their evidence, and give long odds. I do think, however, that the fakers might have convinced themselves their alleged proof was valid. If they overlooked the difference in the character sets, as almost all typographic novices would likely do, and if they did line-for-line light table overlays, and noted only slight discrepancies in line lengths, and ignored those as trivial, they could have deceived not only the public, but themselves. And wouldn’t that be a nearly perfect example to show how the internet actually works.

Also, did Rather’s critics even have access to the originals? I doubt they did.

[Joe_dallas]

Lathrop comment - "As it is, I would bet Rather’s critics faked their evidence, and give long odds. I do think, however, that the fakers might have convinced themselves their alleged proof was valid. "

The critics faked their evidence? your logic is inane.

[Riva]

And he said “[t]he short of it is…” I’d hate to see his long rants.

[Joe_dallas]

The Rathergate memos were obvious fakes based on the grammar and the Typographical discrepancies. It was glaringly obvious they were fakes.

[David Nieporent]

I guess we can add document authentication to microbiology and climatology on Joe_dallas's resume.

[Joe_dallas]

Just one of the 20 million or so that recognized the obvious fake memo's
but apparently not the typical leftists

[David Nieporent]

Joe, the relationship between the truth and what you think is "obvious" is inverse.

[Joe_dallas]

DN
You have become quite prolific at denying the obvious truths
There was absolutely zero evidence those memos were authentic.

[Sarcastr0]

These memos were before I paid attention to politics.

But I continue to wonder if this imperiousness works as an interpersonal strategy in real life.

[David Nieporent]

In fact, I don't think they were authentic. What I am challenging is your notion that you can substitute "It's obvious" for your complete lack of any subject matter expertise on virtually any topic.

If the memo was written in crayon on an Olive Garden napkin, then it would be obvious. This was not that. This was something where the trained document examiners/handwriting experts consulted by CBS and later by its critics said things along the lines of, "Based on the information we have, for reasons X, Y, and Z, we cannot conclude that these documents are authentic, and are skeptical about them." Joe_dallas, in contrast: "Oh, it was obvious."

[Joe_dallas]

DN – Tell us again how a few million people recognized the killian memos as obvious fakes but a sophisticated attorney such as yourself could not.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: the fact that you think something is obvious does not make it true, let alone obvious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at this logically -- a General Officer circa 1971 would neither have known how to type nor used a typewriter. They had secretaries back then for that -- and it took the introduction of PCs to get a younger generation of male executives typing -- men born 1910-1920 never learned unless they were journalists.

A memo like this one would have been handwritten. In Palmer Script because that is what men of that vintage learned.

[David Nieporent]

A memo like this one would have been handwritten.

No, it would have been typed. By the secretary.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Rather incident was a successful distraction from the fact that there were other ways to prove that GWB had gone AWOL.

[Joe_dallas]

except that didnt happen –

The need to resorting to fake memos to prove it shows that it didnt happen - otherwise all the Bush haters such as Mapes would have presented actual facts.

Did you forget that Mapes worked on the case for 8-10years before she stumbled on the fake memos

[Frank Drackman]

You've obviously never served in any Military Branch or the Air Farce, AWOL isn't the term that's used (See Article 86, UCMJ), I'd tell you what it is, but then I'd have to kill you(See Article 118)

Frank

[DaveM]

Who doesn't love a good nerdly discussion of descenders on typefaces? I salute you.

[Kazinski]

Of course the real question was never "could Microsoft word produce the document with the requisite superscipts?"

The question was "could a 1970's era electric typewriter used by the Texas Air National Guard produce that letter?"

And the answer of course was no, not for another 20 years.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, on that you are mistaken. I have personal experience to prove it. There existed at the time those letters were written a device from IBM, which looked like an electric typewriter, but was far more capable. It was called an IBM Selectric Composer. It delivered proportionally spaced type, automatic centering, line justification, and with appropriate media camera-ready copy entirely suitable for lithographic printing.

The reason I know about the existence of that device at that time is that I first encountered it in use in a military procurement office, circa 1967. That office, which was in Washington, served military installations in all the services, world-wide. That is why I was there, to negotiate world-wide sale of a publication to military libraries.

I remember the encounter vividly because I was successful. It was the first noteworthy commercial publishing success of my life.

The Selectric Composer so impressed me as an inexpensive workaround to solve the typography problem that I made purchase of an IBM Selectric Composer a keystone decision to enable founding of a newspaper I published later, in the early 1970s. I have years of first-hand experience with the device. It could do everything needed to turn out the Rather letters as they appeared on the internet.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, this is wonderful -- a real-world test bed! Fire it up with its default settings, start typing, and let's see how the output compares to the format of the Rather memo.

Then tweak the settings to your heart's content to get the output as close as possible. Document everything you had to tweak.

Then we'll laugh uproariously.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Life of Brian — That is exactly what might have happened to produce the Rather expose. If I recall, Rather's accusers called attention to line length comparisons. Those can be a sensitive test of font identity in cases which rely on default settings.

If the samples are not produced from the same vendor's version of the same font, and the line lengths match, that is near-certain proof that the ostensible proof was manipulated. Rival vendors' versions of the same font, even when intended to look exactly alike, almost never set lines to exactly the same length. In fact, in years doing a job where that test was used multiple times a shift, I never encountered a case where different vendors' versions of the same font would produce a line-length match on a light table overlay.

[David Nieporent]

Also, did Rather’s critics even have access to the originals? I doubt they did.

I'm not sure what "the originals" even refers to here. If it means the original documents, then no, since (even setting aside the question begging) even CBS did not have access to them. They received faxed copies from their source. If it means the physical faxed copies, then also no; only CBS had them. People relied on what CBS published.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Originals in this instance refers to whatever hard copies were used to create the images published on the internet.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was actually thinking of the Jeep rollover thing, where they added weights to the car to artificially make it more tippy. Also the Audi "unintended acceleration" episode, where the car had also been modified.

They have a long track record of using faked evidence, and some question about whether they knew it was faked. At the least, they didn't seem to be doing enough checking when things looked "good".

[Joe_dallas]

I thought that was Consumer reports that did the fake rollover with the Suzuki
Was that NBC that did the exploding gas tanks with chevy pick up trucks or was that a Ford F150.
I get those fake exposes mixed up.

[Jerry B.]

Don't worry. I'm sure CBS edits Trump's videos as well.

[John F. Carr]

As legend had it (I think I read it in a Howie Carr column) Ted Kennedy once complained about how his statements were edited and the newspaper responded by leaving in all the filler words and mistakes typical of even a sober person's speech. This happened in the print news era when a minor speech was not easily found in video form.

[SRG2]

I heard that story about some well-known Red Sox player. I forget whom.

[Swede425]

This smacks of desperation that a network show would do something like this. Who decided to do that? Who greenlit that decision? More importantly, who thought people wouldn't notice?
The MSM routinely denies being the leftist water carriers that they are. Gaslighters like Mark Cuban will go so far as to say that the MSM is actually rightwing biased. The fumble-fuckery exhibited by 60 Minutes in trying to gaslight Americans into thinking Kamala Harris isn't a complete golem incapable of joining words together to make coherent sentences is more evidence of their leftwing bias.

[Krayt]

You could be 100% correct. Nevertheless, I would be careful of making accusations against presidential candidates who struggle to make coherent sentences.

[David Nieporent]

“They have more. Complaints from grocery the word ‘grocery’ yeh. The word ‘grocery,’ it’s a sort of simple word. But it sort of means, like, everything you eat. The stomach is speaking, it always does."

“And it’s so simple. This isn’t like Elon with rocket ships that land within 12 inches on the moon where they want it to land. Or he gets the. [pause] Engines back. That was the first I realish I said ‘Who the hell did that?’ I saw engines about three or four years ago. These things were coming cylinders no wings no nothing. And they’re coming down very slowly, landing on a raft in the middle of the ocean someplace with a. Circle BOOM. Reminded me of. The Biden circles that he used to have, right? He’d have eight circles and he couldn’t fill them up. But then I heard he beat us with the popular vote I I don’t know I don’t know. Couldn’t fill up the eight circles I always loved those circles they were so beautiful. They were so beautiful to look at in fact the. Person that did them that was the best part of his. Their level of that circle was. Great. But they couldn’t get people so they used to have the press. Stand in those circles ‘cause they couldn’t get the people. And I heard we lost oh we lost. Now we’re never gonna let that happen again but we’ve been abused. By other countries we’ve been abused by our own politicians, really more than other countries.”

[DaveM]

One candidate wanders in the weeds of rhetoric, leaving behind a winding trail of word breadcrumbs, until she eventually peters out and emerges, blinking, into the sun, while the other interrupts himself constantly, like an ADHD sufferer who forget to take his medication. Meanwhile, we have an admitted “numbskull” who apparently is unable to relate even a single detail of his personal history without weirdly mischaracterizing it.

Call me crazy, but J.D. Vance is the only person in this gang who has mastered the ability to speak.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, it seems that way = ...J.D. Vance is the only person in this gang who has mastered the ability to speak

[Frank Drackman]

and does the Belushi Samurai one eyebrow raise

[SimonP]

Vance is fully of well-rehearsed talking points.

Capable of speaking with regular people or conveying genuine humanity? Not so much.

He's basically a polished-up and well-financed version of the MAGA trolls, with guyliner.

[bernard11]

Now if he would only learn to stop lying.

[Sarcastr0]

It's his thing about women and having kids/marrying that creeps me out.

The donut fail thing was pretty funny though.

[David Nieporent]

Call me crazy, but J.D. Vance is the only person in this gang who has mastered the ability to speak.

Vance is certainly the most polished speaker of the four, but of course in an attempt to suck up to the MAGA crowd he says the second craziest stuff on substance, behind only the ur-MAGA himself.

[SimonP]

And both of the responses are... fine?

What's the big deal here? Do you think any media outlet is giving you the straight dope from Trump? The media has been sanewashing him for years.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump tweeted about it.

This is a pattern.
It looks to me like there's a cottage industry of people/media tools who pick up on whatever Trump's outrage they can glean from his latest nonsense and push it to the tools.

Of which there are a bunch on the VC. Or on Reason and thence the VC.

[DaveM]

.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And both of the responses are… fine?"

Huh? One of the responses is word salad and the other isn't, but more importantly, one of the responses is her actual answer to the question, and the other is an answer to a different question that CBS pasted in.

[SimonP]

One of the responses is word salad and the other isn’t,...

I don't agree. I think the "longer" response is a talking point she wanted to hit in the context of the question. I understand what she's trying to say just fine.

...but more importantly, one of the responses is her actual answer to the question, and the other is an answer to a different question that CBS pasted in.

I realize that the crux of the "mini-scandal" is that CBS subbed in a response to the question that Harris didn't actually give. But my point is to ask why that makes much of a difference.

Trump and his goons (you) are trying to make the point that CBS polished up her response so that she looks better. I don't think she looks better either way. So I'm not that fussed that CBS made such a glaring edit in such a patent way. I mean, okay, are we supposed to believe that MAGA gives a shit about journalistic ethics? Trump's out there calling for CBS to be prosecuted for sloppy reporting that he thinks helps his opponent. But the editing is what you care about?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I realize that the crux of the “mini-scandal” is that CBS subbed in a response to the question that Harris didn’t actually give. But my point is to ask why that makes much of a difference."

I guess it depends on how much confidence you want to have in the claim that what is being presented on CBS is what actually happened. Clearly it is not. What difference does that make? That's up to you.

But for a bunch of guys who went ape-shit because people were sharing videos, some of which were cropped (I don't think they were misleadingly cropped, but everyone's entitled to their opinion.) to correctly infer that Biden had lost his mental capacity, well, I guess your principles are dependent on the situation.

[SimonP]

You’re dancing around the actual point of disagreement, Mr. Inflexible Principles.

A video that has been edited to misleadingly portray one presidential candidate as mentally incompetent is no different from another video that has been edited to misleadingly portray another presidential candidate as more together than she is. On that, I’d agree.

Where the disagreement lies is in the perception of the underlying edits. Here, we have the same outlet releasing segments of the same interview, edited differently. In one case – the “teaser” – we get a longer response from Harris, which you’ve described as “word salad.” I don’t think it’s “word salad,” and I don’t think it presents her in any particularly bad light. In the other case – the shorter version used in the broadcast – we get a shorter response from Harris, ostensibly extracted from somewhere else in the interview. It doesn’t really reflect poorly or positively, either. It’s just a shorter, still basically accurate statement.

So it’s not hard for me to understand why CBS chose to go with one and then the other. From their perspective, all that the shorter version does is save some time. In fact, the shorter version omits a lot of her original attempt to reiterate her support for the state of Israel, such that the shorter version might arguably be said to look more hostile to Israel – so as to expose her to political attack from the right.

This entire hullabaloo stems from your continuing embarrassment over your own candidate, who talks only about himself, has nothing coherent to say about what he will do to help struggling Americans, goes off on bizarre tangents. You’re so accustomed to ignoring nuances of policy that all that you see, between the two edits, is a single lost opportunity to beat your misogynistic meat over a politically-calibrated non-answer, and assume it’s part of some grand conspiracy by the media to help Kamala win.

You people are just insane. Stupid, and insane.

[Life of Brian]

You've written literally pages of words in this exchange dancing around the fundamental, inescapable point that CBS/60M spliced different parts of an interview together to make it appear as though she had provided an answer to a question that was asked to her, when the answer was not related to the question at all (and even part of the question itself were edited!).

It seems like you're trying to rationalize the (deceptive at best) practice by some sort of post-hoc subjective analysis of the results: "well, it wasn't THAT different," "well, it didn't make her look THAT much better and maybe even made her look WORSE," and so on.

Bluntly, so what? Arguing that deepfake-lite reconstructions are now totally cool as long as they still maintain some (again, completely subjective!) degree of "feelz" of the original content seems like a pretty dangerous bridge to cross just to try to defend this particular partisan debacle.

[SimonP]

It's all about integrity in political journalism!

[Sarcastr0]

I'm biased, but that is an admirably good deepish cut to my eye.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump's cowardice is now considered 'wisdom' by his idiotic supporters.

"Degenerates" doesn't even begin to adequately describe how detrimental you have been and continue to be to society.

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

Your only positive contribution to society would be to leave it. Go be a moron somewhere else. Gaza perhaps.

[Kazinski]

Kind of interesting that now late afternoon on the east coast and as far as I can tell CBS still has no response or explanation for the editing scandal.

They must be really scrambling to come up with something.

Or they are trying to figure out how high up, or how low to go for the scapegoat.

I have to say, it really didn't help for Trump to say CBS should lose its broadcast license. First of all only stations need to be licensed not news organizations or networks. And while CBS does own some broadcast licenses, this is not a matter for government enforcement, despite being a clear example of deception and misinformation designed to influence an election.

[SimonP]

The people who dismiss what the mainstream media says anyway demand answers!

[Kazinski]

I'm not demanding answers, but it certainly is to CBS's own benefit to provide some.

What ever their "answer" is, its not going to restore my trust or the trust of 2/3 the country.

[SimonP]

No, it is not in CBS's interest to cater to MAGA critics who are just looking for something to argue about during the current news cycles, so that we're not talking about the crazy things Trump is saying or promising to do, or focusing on his fundamental incompetence and laziness.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a lot of wishful thinking that Hurricane Milton will simply go due east after crossing Florida, go out to sea and die.

What's being forgotten is that hurricanes can and do reform after crossing Florida (anyone remember Hurricane Katrina) and if this finds the Gulf Stream and rebuilds, it's headed to New England.

[OtisAH]

Yes, I remember Katrina. It crossed the southern tip of Florida as a CAT 1, entered the Gulf as a CAT 1, and intensified as it tracked to New Orleans. But yes, hurricanes do re-form. Katrina, which barely crossed Florida, did not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Re-form, re-intensify, merge with another (e.g. Sandy in 2012, the "perfect storm" in 1991, etc.).

It's looking like the Bermuda High is building later than I thought it would and hence will push out to sea rather than over the Gulf Stream.

Storms that bother New England tend to be a combination of a storm (or disturbance, or whatever) that comes across the country from the west and another that comes up the coast from the south, that one bringing tropical moisture.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes hurricane sandy
Hit the narrow land funnel of new york city during a spring high tide.

As if global working controls the time of day and the time of the lunar cycle that a hurricane makes landfall.

[Mr. Hook]

Why would Soros and Obama use their sinister technology to send a hurricane to New England? Think before you write!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, sending Obama's massive propane tanks out to sea.

[Zarniwoop]

It appears Grampa Ed comes from the "write on the map with a Sharpie so it must be true!" school of meteorology.

[David Nieporent]

There is a lot of wishful thinking that Hurricane Milton will simply go due east after crossing Florida, go out to sea and die.

Note: Hurricane Milton is going due east after crossing Florida, going out to sea and dying.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Maybe a result of a Sharpie shortage.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In Ohio, Presidential votes for the Green Party will not be counted, although Green Party candidate Jill Stein is on the ballot. The reason is “because of a mix-up over vice-presidential substitution.” Stein is suing.

https://ballot-access.org/2024/10/09/jill-stein-sues-ohio-in-order-to-permit-her-votes-to-be-counted/

If you vote Green in Ohio, you’ll be throwing your vote away – and Ohio will see to it that your vote is thrown away.

But, yeah, ballot-access restrictions are simply about avoiding ballot clutter. Let's go with that story.

[Commenter_XY]

From the complaint

Ohio’s deadline for substitution of candidates was August 12, 2024. Nevertheless, on August 28, 2024, a representative of the Ohio Green Party (“OHGP”) – which is not ballot qualified and has no authority over Stein’s and Rios’s qualification for Ohio’s ballot as Independent candidates – submitted to the Secretary without authorization a letter purporting to withdraw Rios’s name and substitute it with Butch Ware, the Green Party’s nominee for Vice-President. The Secretary declined to allow the substitution but notified Stein’s campaign that because Rios withdrew, votes cast for the Stein-Rios ticket will be void and not counted.

Restriction? Or is there a 'drop dead' date where ballots must be printed, mailed out, etc.? Is that an arbitrary decision? They missed a clear, statutorily defined deadline.

FTR, I would like to see Stein on the OH ballot. And elsewhere, right alongside Chase Oliver (the Team L candidate who I simply cannot support).

[Brett Bellmore]

“They missed a clear, statutorily defined deadline.”

The issue here, I would think, is that “they”, Stein and Rios, didn’t miss any statutory deadline at all. The SoS acted on the basis of a letter from somebody else. Who wasn’t authorized to speak on Stein and Rios’ behalf. Acted without doing any due diligence to confirm the claim with the campaign before acting.

I’m pretty darned sure that if somebody threw together a “Demoncratic party” in Ohio, and sent the SoS a letter purporting that Walz had dropped out, and needed to be replaced on the ballot, that the SoS would check with the Harris campaign, not simply act on it and announce that votes for the Harris ticket weren't going to be counted.

So I’d say this stinks of collusion.

[Commenter_XY]

The law is the law...and there is a clear deadline. Bad on the Green Party counsel for not knowing the law and advising Stein on what to do (if anything).

I want to see Stein on the ballot. She has a viewpoint that needs representation. 😉

[Jerry B.]

"The law is an ass".

[hobie]

I early voted yesterday in Cleveland. The voting center was packed. Big turnout gonna happen. And, yes, Jill Stein was on the ballot.

The big news was Issue 1 though. Which will remove the ability to gerrymander from the politicians and turn it over to an independent commission. This is the lynch pin to Republican power in the state and they'd pulled no punches in amending the language that was before me on the ballot. I had to smile as I read the page and half of disinformation. It was like some global disaster was going to happen. To the rubes, it looks like some soviet-style takeover is about to happen. To the 60% or more that are going to vote this in: 'nice try'. Some highlights:

"the proposed amendment would:

1. Repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018, and eliminate the longstanding ability of Ohio citizens to hold their representatives accountable for establishing fair state legislative and congressional districts.

2.B. Counties, townships and cities throughout Ohio can be split and divided across multiple districts, and preserving communities of interest will be secondary to the formula that is based on partisan political outcomes.

2.5. Prohibit any citizen from filing a lawsuit challenging a redistricting plan in any court

2.8. Limit the right of Ohio citizens to freely express their opinions to members of the commission or to commission staff regarding the redistricting process or proposed redistricting plans

2.9. Require the commission to immediately create new legislative and congressional districts in 2025 to replace the most recent districts adopted by the citizens of Ohio through their elected representatives.

2.10. Impose new taxpayer-funded costs on the State of Ohio to pay the commission members, the commission staff and appointed special masters, professionals, and private consultants that the commission is required to hire; and an unlimited amount for legal expenses incurred by the commission in any related litigation."

[Commenter_XY]

hobie, how much press was given inside OH to issue 1 in the last six months? Have the issues with issue 1 been debated openly?

Go Jill! LOL

[hobie]

Most recently the news was that the supreme court here agreed to all the ballot wording changes (see above) that the Republican-run election board came up with, instead of the language from the petition that everyone had signed up for. And, yeah, as you can see, there is a lot of spin. Because, like in Wisconsin, it will mean the end of Republican power

[Nelson]

Wow. Even for Republicans, that seems to be incredibly misleading opinions presented as facts.

I'm pulling for you guys to get rid of partisan gerrymandering. No state, red or blue, should be able to do it.

[hobie]

It will pass by a wide margin. Everyone, say goodbye to Jim Jordan. He will be missed

[Frank Drackman]

So you'll be like Georgia, carve out a few districts for the Spooks, it does make for great Comedy, as with Representative Hank Johnson, who was worried overpopulation might cause Guam to capsize.

[hobie]

We may consolidate the spooks. Because right now they're chopped up into little bits and combined with wide swaths of redneck-ville. Which is unlike the Southern states that apply some kind of twisted fractal geometry to combine all negro strongholds (cities) into a single bloc. Freeing up the rest of the state.

Either way, democracy returns. I see now why you hayseeds don't like to call us a democracy anymore. Democracy implies something antithetic to your power grab. But you fucked up when you were still rational: you left the people the power to change law through referendum. I expect referendums to be the next big target. Good luck with that, though

[Stella Link the dog]

"Representative Hank Johnson, who was worried overpopulation might cause Guam to capsize."

Georgia sure has some dizzy representatives. MTG, the Belle of Rising Fawn* comes to mind.

No offense to Rising Fawn which does, in fact, have some fine residents (or residents of suburban Rising Fawn). It's not their fault that MTG is their representative.

[Krayt]

Politicians do this all the time. They even fight to reword things into a double negative so a "no" vote actually approves what they want. A certain percent fo voters just vote no on things, and they want to leverage that.

One example was when Detroit went bankrupt. The state used a law that gave them control over the city during bankruptcy. Lots of hot air about local rule later, and there was a state ballot initiative. Should that law be recalled?

If so, an older, less intrusive law would come back into effect.

They presented the question so that "no" repealed the newer law. It won. Law repealed. I don't know if that nasty trick dominated the decision of the voters, but it sure wasn't for lack of trying by the "we love democracy!" folks.

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case it’s not the law that’s an ass. It’s the SOS.

The Green party has done everything it is legally required to do. The only legally appropriate action here is for the SOS to publicly apologize and announce that the votes will be counted after all, because it was all a mistake.

HIS mistake, not the Greens’.

[ducksalad]

C_XY, I have to disagree on multiple counts.

First, what Brett said.

Second, if the attempted withdrawal+substitution happened after the deadline, and we’re going say that deadline enforcement is a serious principle, then *both* the withdrawal and substitution are invalid. The SoS should have gone with the original VP name.

Third, if as you suggest, the purpose of the deadline is to get ballots printed on time, then they are already printed with the original names. The SoS action does not help the state’s interest in timely ballot printing. There is no valid state interest that I can see in having an option on the ballot that looks like all the others but will result in the vote not being counted.

Finally, you’re kind of hinting with that wink sign that you think Stein would draw votes from Harris. The Ohio SoS, a Republican, is playing a much deeper game than that. Normally a Republican SoS would want Stein on the ballot. However, the Ohio SoS knows that Trump is safely +10 in the polls for Trump, so whether or not the lefty vote gets split into D+G is not important. On the other band, the Ohio senate seat is much closer, and the Greens have no senate candidate. Anyone who shows up to vote for Stein for POTUS is very likely to vote for the Dem for senate. Therefore, he wants to discourage Stein voters from showing up all.

[David Nieporent]

The law is the law…and there is a clear deadline.

I agree with that, but if the quoted facts are accurate, then Stein didn't miss any deadline.

I want to see Stein on the ballot. She has a viewpoint that needs representation.

I think Putin’s views are already adequately represented by the GOP ticket.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait, David...you don't like Dr. Jill? Really? 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did Rios drop out or not?

If I were the SoS, I'd contact Rios and ask. And if told yes BY RIOS, then what follows is legitimate.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he did not.

[SimonP]

Always a conspiracy, isn't it?

Who's colluding with whom, here? The Ohio Secretary of State is a Republican.

[ducksalad]

SimonP - see my response to Commenter_XY. The point, I believe, is to help Bernie Moreno (R) get past Sherrod Brown (D) by getting Stein / Brown voters to not show up at all.

[SimonP]

I'm sorry, ducksalad, but I don't think you understand. Brett alleged collusion. There's no way he would make that allegation, if a Republican were the beneficiary.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ducksalad's explanation makes a great deal of sense. You don't need any special explanation for a major party official screwing over a third party, just the fact that they dare to be a third party is frequently reason enough. But to suppress Green votes for Democrats down the ticket would certainly be added motive.

Remember, my original political home is the Libertarian party, which I only left because the Republicans and Democrats had collaborated on rendering third party politics futile. I loath the two major parties with an abiding passion.

I just loath the Democrats a bit more than I do the Republicans.

The Greens are actually further from my Libertarian origins than either of the major parties, but I can sympathize with them when they get screwed over, because I was on the receiving end of that crap when I was in the LP, too.

[SimonP]

Remember, my original political home is the Libertarian party,...

Yes, you say that a lot, despite never really displaying libertarian beliefs or commitments.

[Commenter_XY]

How does a rational, thinking human being support Chase Oliver?

I am in the same boat.

[ducksalad]

How does a rational, thinking human being support Chase Oliver?

Mainly just by voting for him, but I'm considering sending him some money too.

[Stella Link the dog]

"but I’m considering sending him some money too."

I was thinking about that too but decided it would be much more satisfying and have exactly the same effect as donating to go down to the bank and get a bunch of C notes and bring them home and stuff them through the paper shredder and then flush the shreds down the toilet so I could experience the joy of the waste first hand as the bits went round and round but in the opposite direction that they would have gone had I been fortunate enough to be doing this in Australia where It wouldn't cost me quite so much as the Australian dollar is not worth as much as the American but I'm not sure how it compares to the Loony which seems to be enough to get you a hot dog in Toronto on certain Tuesday evenings in the summer.

So goes my experiment trying to emulate the writing style of Cormac McCarthy (not the folk singer).

[Commenter_XY]

ducksalad....Chase Oliver doesn't have the experience for the job of POTUS. Have you actually heard this man speak extemporaneously for more than 15 minutes?

Team L makes themselves a laughingstock and irrelevant with their unserious candidates. I would happily vote for Team L, and have.

[SimonP]

I don't know the first thing about Chase Oliver.

I'm not accusing Brett of being a poor libertarian because he doesn't stump for the current candidate. I'm accusing Brett of being a poor libertarian because he doesn't seem to have much interest in "liberty," per se - save for his own.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An interesting issue in Florida:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-threatens-to-prosecute-tv-stations-over-abortion-ad-fcc-head-calls-it-dangerous/ar-AA1rVaXk

A: It wasn't a "lifesaving" abortion because she has terminal cancer and her life can not be saved.

B: Florida is calling this a "sanitary nuisance", a threat to public health and thus using it's vast public health powers to suppress.

Forgetting the issue of abortion, there are two questions here:

1: Does the First Amendment preclude states from suppressing "inaccurate" health information? Anyone remember what the Blue States did with "inaccurate" Covid information???

2: Does an UNRELATED Federal agency supersede a state?
Congress delegated no public health power to the FCC -- arguably it did to H&HS, which is silent here. What does/could the FCC know about abortion or Covid?

If you take the angst and furor of abortion out of this, it becomes a very interesting state's rights question, doesn't it?

[Martinned2]

If only the VC's resident first amendment expert had written a blog post about this case!

[NOVA Lawyer]

Just another example of how he ignores obvious topics to post on. Is he able to work in "evil LGBTQ agenda" in this DeSantis mess? Perhaps that's why he doesn't and won't say anything on DeSantis, but did provide a post on a recent 11th Circuit case.

[David Nieporent]

Um, it was sarcasm by Martinned2; Prof. Volokh did post on it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

mea culpa.

He did. And made the obvious point that the threat was an unconstitutional attempt to regulate political advocacy.

I missed the post. My bad. I should more thoroughly review prior posts if I am going to complain about his not talking about an obvious First Amendment issue.

[Michael P]

Inaccurate information pushed by pro-abortion hacks infamously killed two women in Georgia. It seems to me that Florida is on good grounds here, but truth has never stopped the Harris-Biden administration from stomping on states.

[Martinned2]

What do Biden and Harris have to do with this story?

[Michael P]

Dr. Ed's second question relates to this part of the story:

The head of the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday also issued a statement calling the state’s efforts “dangerous” and said TV stations’ right to air political ads are “rooted in the First Amendment.”

That person was made the permanent chairperson, and reappointed to the FCC, by the Harris-Biden administration. She is part of that administration.

[Martinned2]

The whole point of a regulatory agency is that they are not part of the administration. That's why they have statutory protections against being fired.

[Michael P]

FCC chairs typically resign when their party leaves the presidency. That's how Rosenworcel got the job: Ajit Pai left. She is effectively the Biden admin's proxy there.

[Sarcastr0]

They don't need to, unlike political appointees.

If you're making a statement against interest push as though the head of the FCC is running their opinions past the administration, you're thinking of Trump's people.
Slavish loyalty isn't what Dems look for.

[Michael P]

If you think Dems don't demand slavish loyalty, take it up with Martinned2 immediately below who thinks it would be "a massive scandal" if Harris were to disagree publicly with anything at all that Biden did.

[OtisAH]

Dear Lord, bless this man. He tries SO hard. So very hard.

[Michael P]

OtisAH yet again showcases his full ability to argue his position, and as usual, it is an even lazier and stupider version of Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, what is there to argue with a guy using Martinned2 as a bellwether of Democratic political opinion?

[OtisAH]

So you’re just copying and pasting that clever retort, dummy? Hey, at least you figured that out. Good for you. Good. For. You,

[OtisAH]

Well, Sarc, we could try to explain that Vice Presidents, as a general rule, don’t contradict the president they serve under. But he wouldn’t understand it.

[Sarcastr0]

Actually that's a dynamic I should have seen but neglected.

Good point on that one as well.

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0, I think you missed that Martinned2 was only endorsing the mindset that Harris herself implicitly reflected. Alternatively, she really is as incompetent as I argued, and Martinned2 was simply wrong about why she answered the way she did.

Instead of supporting or refuting the theory he advanced, you only sniped at someone you see as an enemy.

Elsewhere below, you implied that you don't have a self-image as a rational person when you post here. You typically don't post anything positivist or engage on the substance of what other people write. You just snipe vapidly at people based on their political affect. Maybe you should step back and consider whether you are acting out the kind of self-image you have -- and if so, whether that's the self-image you should have.

[Sarcastr0]

So Harris has reflected a mindset where she's either incompetent or the head of the FCC is.

Ya know? I may not take your analysis as gospel on this one, Michael. This story seems already dead.

And Martinned just asserted an opinion; he didn't advance a theory or argument such that it could be critiqued.
Which is fine, you can have opinions.

Still funny you're leaning on him as some kinda authority.

[SimonP]

Absolutely predictable response from the Twitter Files dittoheads.

What a bunch of idiotic hypocrites you lot are.

[David Nieporent]

1: Does the First Amendment preclude states from suppressing “inaccurate” health information?

Yes.

Anyone remember what the Blue States did with “inaccurate” Covid information???

Yes: nothing at all.

[Kazinski]

Harris had another disaster of an interview this week on The View, where she gave an unusually short and understandable answer to the question:
'Asked if there was anything she would have done differently from Biden over the past four years, Harris said there was “not a thing that comes to mind.”

“And I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact,”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4922691-kamala-harris-biden-government/amp/

That answer undercuts the entire rationale of her campaign as a "change agent. Joe of course was trailing Trump even before the debate exposed his incompetence, and will remind the voters that a vote for Harris is a vote for 4 more years of everything they've been hating the last 3 1/2 years.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You can't fix stupid.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 explains Dr. Ed 2. Insight, accident, or stopped calendar is right once?

[Frank Drackman]

A mind is a terrible thing, too wasted

[Martinned2]

What else did you expect her to say?

[Michael P]

She has presented herself as some sort of "change" candidate, so an attempt to reconcile those conflicting positions would have been helpful. As Tim Walz said, we can't afford four more years of this.

[Martinned2]

No presidential candidate who is running to succeed a president of the same party can campaign by criticising the incumbent. And yes, that makes "change" a bit of a tricky theme for the campaign, but that hasn't stopped candidates from Ford (1976) to Gore (2000) from trying it. Obviously the logic of that approach is to talk about a difference in style compared to the incumbent, but that's not something you get at through the question Kazinski quoted.

[Michael P]

The question was whether she would have done *anything* different than Biden. That’s exactly the kind of question that would get at the differences you are taking about.

Harris’s answer was that “not a thing comes to mind”, which is sadly plausible given how little presence of mind she exhibits in the best of times.

[Martinned2]

No, it's a question that no candidate in that position could have answered any differently than "I fully support the president, because I'm honoured to serve as his vice-president". Any other answer becomes a massive scandal.

[Michael P]

It might become some kind of scandal if the politician is terrible at being a politician and cannot pick some relatively innocuous or closely divided topic.

On the other hand, to the modern left and its orthodoxy, maybe there are no such topics, which should be a scandal in itself.

[Michael P]

Or, from another perspective, has it been a huge scandal when Harris's current positions are different from what she has advocated in the past? If not, what makes that less significant saying that her current positions are different than Biden's? (There are some factors that could make it worse: whether the candidate can articulate why their own position has changed, and whether the public respects or agrees with those reasons.)

[Sarcastr0]

Truly, as disaster of an interview.

You work so hard.

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0 yet again showcases his full ability to argue his position, and as usual, it is entirely without substance.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry I didn't footnote my observation that you've got very little to work with, and are trying to make up for it with effort.

[Kazinski]

Well he isn't the one doing the work:

"Republicans are planning to spend heavily to promote a clip of Vice President Harris saying on ABC's "The View" that there's "not a thing" she would have done differently over the past four years than President Biden.

Why it matters: Republicans see Biden's record on immigration and the economy as Harris' top vulnerability, and are eager to undercut the vice president's image as the candidate of "change."

"Expect to see this clip every single time you turn on the television between now and Nov. 5," a top Trump ally told Axios."

"A recent New York Times/Siena poll found that despite being the sitting vice president, the 59-year-old Harris has a slight edge over Trump in representing change."

This blows her image as a change candidate out of the water.

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/09/trump-ad-harris-biden-quote-the-view

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not sure why you think that’s an absolution of Michael P.

It’s still lots of effort to make up for having little to work with, and him carrying water rather than doing the work on his own initiative is what everyone has seem him doing this whole time.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, he already is using the clip on the campaign trail (last evening in Reading PA).

[Nelson]

"She has presented herself as some sort of “change” candidate"

What are you talking about? She's done no such thing. She's very carefully walked the line of not overtly rejecting Biden and his polices, but actively presenting what she would do differently.

You do understand what a change campaign looks like, right? Or are you just setting up a strawman?

[Kazinski]

You need to get out more.
New York Magazine:
Has Kamala Harris Outfoxed Trump As the ‘Change’ Candidate?

The strategic imperative for Democrats to shake identification with an unpopular status quo did not change. But could Harris credibly appear as a “change candidate” herself, despite being the sitting vice-president in an administration whose policies and performance were decidedly unpopular? That has been the big question from the moment she became the Democratic nominee. All the talk of “vibes” and “joy” surrounding her candidacy early on were really the happy noises of Democrats and other anti-Trump voters thankful for a potential escape from the trap that Biden had stumbled into so deeply.

By proclaiming a “new way forward” at the convention that formalized her candidacy, while succinctly blasting Trump’s extremism and bad character, Harris made her bid to be a “safe change” option for a restless but wary electorate. Aside from Harris earning herself a second look from persuadable voters unfamiliar with her, this gambit also forced Republicans to choose between treating her as Biden 2.0 or as a dangerously different kind of “radical left” Democrat. Typically enough, Trump continues to make both mutually exclusive arguments."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/has-kamala-harris-outfoxed-trump-as-the-change-candidate.html

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, Intelligencer.

[Kazinski]

Thanks SourceWatch.

[Sarcastr0]

I very much doubt you read the Intelligencer. I did for a year or two when I was on the Hill. Gossip for a very wonky definition of gossip.

You have an outcome, and Google till you have a source that doesn't look too Bretbarty and then slam it in.

This one's a miss; it's more on the clickbait side than the insider info side.
But how would you know that? You're just here for the alignment with your priors.

[Nelson]

There is a character to a "change" candidacy, most notably the constant and vocal expression of the need for change. Harris hasn't been doing that at all. Sure, she's more side-hugging Biden than bear-hugging him, but she is absolutely not saying that things are awful and we need change.

Neither candidate is really a change candidate. Harris is saying she'll be mostly the same, but slightly different, than Biden and Trump is saying he'll be mostly the same, but slightly different, than his one term (this time with more revenge!).

[Commenter_XY]

VP Harris has to do the job....of being VP and supporting the POTUS. That is her day job, and there cannot be daylight between she and POTUS Biden. The Cardinal Rule of VPs is don't hurt the boss.

I don't think her boss helped her very much when he said he delegated a lot to her.

[David Nieporent]

Um, that does not in fact reflect Harris presenting herself as the change candidate.

[Michael P]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/08/us/politics/harris-trump-poll-national.html

https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-change-new-way-forward-4e64f2b46287cb80c61f17a8d2efdf0f

You must live under a rock.

[Nelson]

Again, a change candidacy is a specific thing. Harris isn't doing the things that a change candidate would.

Unless you've heard her blast Biden's policies and outcomes? Because I haven't.

[Michael P]

You sound sexist and racist. Kamala Harris is not required to comply with your arbitrary definition of "change candidate".

[Nelson]

Concepts like a "change candidacy" have things that help determine if something does or does not fit the definition. The things that Kamala Harris is doing do not fit the definition of a change candidacy. Is that too technical for you?

I know, as a MAGA conservative, you are opposed to the idea that words have meanings. It's necessary to retain the "Trump is right" worldview.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, is it too late for Team D to stage another political coup and bring in a candidate who can actually speak intelligently? Inquiring minds would like to know.

When Kamala was installed as the Team D candidate, I stated, "The more Kamala talks, the more votes she will lose". I was roundly mocked for that. The wheel has turned. The entire world can see the woman is an empty vessel, not unlike her boss.

[Frank Drackman]

They burned that RFK Jr bridge already(if they’d burned Ted Kennedy’s Bridge, Mary Joe Kopeckney wouldn’t have aphyxiated(not drowned, there’s a difference)

Frank

[Nelson]

And yet she continues to hold (and in some cases grow) her lead in most battleground states. If I were a Republican (as opposed to a MAGA acolyte, who have absolute faith), I would be worried. The Senate (which is once again positioned to be difficult for Ds to hold) looks less likely to flip and the House is a nail-biter as well.

Long-term, I think the GOP needs to worry about what happens if they succeed and end up controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House. Their policies aren't popular and Trump has a thirst for revenge.

If Trump Hulks out (inevitable), his allies who built Project 2025 get positions inside the government (likely, given they are all still in Trump's good graces), it could damage the party for several more election cycles.

If they lose, they have Trumpkins like Vance ready to take up the banner of opposition without having to show any successes. It will probably extend the viability of the MAGA movement inside the GOP.

[Commenter_XY]

The race is statistically tied in the battlegrounds. I do think PA is moving away; lots of reasons. But new registrations by party is significant.

[Magister]

I got polled yesterday by Rasmussen. Among the questions was a reference to "the Democrat party" and a binary choice between spending on illegal immigrants and spending on recent hurricane victims.

Polling averages still favor Harris even if it's close.

[Commenter_XY]

Curious...how did you complete the survey? Online, phone, cellphone, in-person?

[Magister]

Landline. Press 1 for payments to illegal aliens, press 2 for support of hurricane victims, press 3 if you don't know or are not sure..

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, phone CATI survey. Rasmussen doesn't do much mixed-mode data collection for public consumption, so they consistently overestimate. I do not even have to look at the data tables, but I'd wager a months salary that 55+ is heavy in their sample.

[Nelson]

Of course they did. There's a reason Rasmussen has the reputation it does. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Imagine that Trump pulls a slash & burn like Reagan did in his first term -- and it is wildly popular with voters.

Trump's enemies are not popular outside places that would never vote for him anyway.

[Josh R]

Tester is far down in MT and with WV a GOP lock, it looks pretty clear the GOP will take over the Senate. Polymarket pays $1 for a $0.75 bet on the GOP. Betting n the GOP on those odds sounds like a winner to me.

[David Nieporent]

Tester is far down in MT and with WV a GOP lock, it looks pretty clear the GOP will take over the Senate.

Actually, the GOP candidate is looking vulnerable in NE, so it's not so clear-cut.

[Josh R]

If Osborn wins, will he caucus with the Democrats? If not, how does a 50-49-1 Senate work?

[David Nieporent]

Since most of his support will have come from Democratic voters — and since if he were happy with the GOP he probably wouldn't be running against Fischer — I assume that he would caucus with the Democrats. But I am not an expert.

As to your second question, I'm not sure I understand. It works like any other situation where one side has 50 votes and the other side has 49.

[Josh R]

50-49-1 produces no majority, so it isn't clear if the GOP would have full control.

[David Nieporent]

For what do you think an absolute majority of all elected members is required in the senate? The senate does stuff by voting. A 50-49 vote is a vote for the position of the 50.

[Josh R]

I am referring to the setting up of commitees and who gets to control the agenda. Who will be the majority leader? It would seem like Osborn would be able to weild great power, choosing who to side with on any structual concern as he pleases (assuming Harris wins).

[David Nieporent]

I am referring to the setting up of commitees and who gets to control the agenda.

I get that. But I don't know why you think a 50-49 vote to (e.g.) establish a committee and name a committee chair isn't sufficient. It's a majority of those voting.

Who will be the majority leader?

Whoever gets more votes than anyone else. Which would presumably be the choice of the party with 50 members.

It would seem like Osborn would be able to weild great power, choosing who to side with on any structual concern as he pleases (assuming Harris wins).

Well, yes. But that's technically true of any member of a 50-50 senate; caucusing with a particular party is not giving that party a proxy for one's vote. And on organizational stuff (as opposed to substantive bills) I think someone who vacillated as to which party to support would probably just piss everyone off.

[Kazinski]

Actually I don't think that's so, XY is right that they are statistically tied, but the RCP no-tossups map shows Trump currently with 296 Electoral Votes.

Then see below about the polling errors in the battlegrounds in 2016-20.

[Josh R]

The no toss-ups map assumes the poll leader wins the state even if they are ahead by 0.1%-point. That is, it's not useful for concluding whether the race is 50-50 (XY has it right, the race is 50-50).

[Kazinski]

i don't disagree with that.

I was disagreeing with Nelson:
"And yet she continues to hold (and in some cases grow) her lead in most battleground states."

[Nelson]

There has been no real movement in the toss-up states, except for a very slight movement for Harris,

One of my questions is this: which are the "hidden voters" that don't report their support for a candidate to pollsters (often claiming to be undecided), but have made a choice already? In 2016 they were Trump voters. In 2020 they were Biden voters. My feeling, at least in PA where I spend a lot of time, is that they are Harris voters.

Either way, we're not in a great spot. If he wins, Trump will be worse than the first time. And he was a terrible President last time. I don't have much confidence that Harris will be any good, I'm just positive she'll be better than Trump (or Biden, for that matter).

But as I've said repeatedly, we will survive either of them.

It's so exhausting having each Presidential election be the most crucial in the history of the world. People use that nonsense to justify saying insane things, like Trump is going to destroy democracy or Harris wants to let violent criminals go free or Trump is a tyrant or Harris hates freedom.

Even the level of lie that people will defend, like the Hatian cat eaters or the post-birth abortions, keeps shifting towards more and more outrageous and bald-faced lies. Straight dishonesty used to be disqualifying, now it's a purity test, at least for the GOP.

Is anyone else as exhausted as me? Does anyone else feel like the things they believe in are increasingly ignored by the two major parties? Is anyone else yearning for some systemic change that will force the Rs and Ds to at least recognize that winning a majority of votes doesn't mean a majority support you, but that there's a sizable group that oppose your opponent? Winning a majority isn't a mandate for your policies, it's a grudging admission that you are less distasteful than your opponent.

[Josh R]

Silver has Harris up about 0.6%-points in the battleground states. RCP has Trump up 0.2%-points. It’s not at all clear she leads in the battlegrounds.

The polls underestimated Trump by a larger margin in 2020 than they did in 2016, so not only weren’t there hidden Biden voters in the 2020 polls, there were even more hidden Trump voters than n 2016.

[Commenter_XY]

N, I am exhausted.

And, I would like to vote in the second-most inconsequential election in US history. Just once.

The country has survived bad POTUS' in the past. It will in the future.

[Nelson]

"And, I would like to vote in the second-most inconsequential election in US history. Just once."

LOL! You and me both!

[David Nieporent]

People use that nonsense to justify saying insane things, like Trump is going to destroy democracy

I mean, who would be crazy enough to think that someone who tried to violently steal the last election after he convincingly lost might be a threat to democracy?

[verochkax]

That would be crazy if it actually happened.

[Nelson]

David, my view is that something like stealing an election through violence only works when people are complacent. In 2020, no one would have believed that a losing candidate would assemble a mob, then fail to do anything to stop them as they smashed their way into the Capitol shouting about hanging the Vice President for ceremonially certifying the election. We know differently now.

I'm more referring to the idea that Trump will be able to destroy democracy from within after he takes office. I refuse to believe that most Republicans are so far gone that they would jump on board with the dismantling of our democratic protections and traditions. There are more Brad Raffensbergers, Mike Pences, Mitt Romneys, and Liz Cheneys in the GOP than Ds credit for.

[Brett Bellmore]

Obviously Democrats would have believed it, despite it not happening. (The Trump assembling part, I mean; There certainly was a mob.)

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, to be clear, I stated that it is a statistical tie, within MoE. That isn't the same as 50/50.

[SRG2]

bring in a candidate who can actually speak intelligently

Why are only the Democrats required to? The Republican candidate is far worse on that, as any fule kno.

[bernard11]

XY,

Is it your opinion that Donald Trump speaks intelligently, or coherently, or honestly, or factually? He doesn't. He makes no sense most of the time. He lies constantly. Talk about "empty vessel."

You are utterly hypnotized by the man and can see nothing wrong.

Open your eyes, and ears.

[Commenter_XY]

The Donald rambles, meanders through anecdotes, is repetitive AF, and lies like a politician.

That is the truth, bernard11.

[Nelson]

No, he lies like a pathological liar. Politicians largely hedge to avoid saying things that are completely untrue. Trump doesn't. He lies as a matter of course, with no concern for what is true.

[Commenter_XY]

You missed the part where I said, "...and lies like a politician" 😉

[Josh R]

He didn’t miss it. Trump does not lie like a politician. He lies like someone who has narscassitic personality disorder. Your garden-variety candidate would not have lied about the 2020 electioin result (and attempted to steal the lection and block the peaceful transition of power).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nor about the size of his...crowds.

[Nelson]

He's very sensitive about the size of his ... crowds.

[Commenter_XY]

The....crowds....were not big enough. I know, I know. The Donald wants a big crowd, I get it. Doesn't always happen.

[bernard11]

That's too mild, XY. And you don't consider his speeches "word salad?" I'd say there is a strong bias in your mind. And Harris is far more coherent than Trump, but you refuse to see it.

The guy lies constantly, endlessly, and absurdly. And when caught he doubles down.

Tell me, XY, what do you think about the Springfield business? I know it originated with the clear-speaking Vance, but Trump backed it, as did did many other GOPer's. To me the incident was disqualifying - not exaggerating his past or anything, just a dangerous racist lie.

There was a time, I think when it might have knocked a candidate out of the race. Not with you and today's GOP.

[Commenter_XY]

I thought I answered your direct question honestly by saying 'The Donald' rambles, meanders, is repetitive, and lies like a politician. But no, that is not enough for bernard11.

Springfield...you call it disqualifying. Perhaps in another time, bernard11, I would agree, but those days are long gone.

[Nelson]

That's a recognition of the devolution of the Republican party's integrity than I think you acknowledge.

[Commenter_XY]

Values and mores of our country have declined, Nelson. That is true, and cannot be denied,

[bernard11]

I thought I answered your direct question honestly by saying ‘The Donald’ rambles, meanders, is repetitive, and lies like a politician. But no, that is not enough for bernard11.

Correct. It's not enough. It's weaselly and refuses to deal with Trump's rhetoric honestly. It is at least as much "word salad" as Harris' - much more so, IMO. But you have your excuses.

Oh, and he doesn't lie "like a politician." What politician has charged that his opponent controlled hurricanes and directed them to areas that support him (the candidate.) Who claims that he has done more for Black people than any President ever. He doesn't exaggerate or meander, he just makes shit up and spews it out, no matter how ridiculous it is. And you buy it.

I would agree, but those days are long gone.

Poor excuse. Let's look at what happened, for real.

Vance propounded a vicious, baseless, lie about a minority community in Springfield - a racial minority. Trump endorsed it, and added a lie about murder rates. This led to death threats, bomb threats, against that minority communiy.

The (R) mayor and the (R ) governor said Vance and Trump were full of shit. Yet many Republicans either supported or - like you - shrugged off the whole business, and V and T declined to withdraw their lies.

And you excuse it by saying values and morals have declined. Yet you can't stop criticizing Harris, and giving her a nasty nickname, for her decades ago relationship with Willie Brown.

[Sarcastr0]

This is very small beer.

Does this sentence properly align with the greater brandmaking effort of the campaign? Maybe not. Maybe. It’s angels in the head of a pin.

I guess this is how it is for some as Election Day approaches.

Me? I’ll probably do a media blackout the week of the election. Pick some TV show or video game. I’m exhausted just reading these posts straining to make mountains out of molehills,

[DaveM]

Logical consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Free your mind. Do better.

[Krayt]

"I will do change!" -- a standard idiocy rhetoric of politicians. I'd be shocked if she didn't say something like this.

My favorite example was Bush The Elder, who wanted "A kinder, gentler nation."

Well, what have you been doing the last 8 years? Was it a mean, nasty nation? Why didn't you do something about it?

[David Nieporent]

Nancy Reagan possibly apocryphally responded when she heard Bush say that, "Kinder and gentler than who?"

[BrotherMovesOn]

Junior O'Daniel to Governor Pappy O'Daniel:
"Why don't we try some of that RE-form Pappy?
Folks seem to like that RE-form!".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kamala Devi Harris #146672
License Status: Inactive
Phone Number: 202-456-1414
Present Inactive
2/1/2021 Inactive
6/14/1990 Admitted to the State Bar of California

Why wouldn't she renew her bar license?

[Martinned2]

Because, as Vice-President of the United States, she's a little busy with other things to be practicing law?

[Frank Drackman]

Since apparently you lack the “how to Google” gene, she did renew her license, albeit in an “Inactive” status, which is about $400 cheaper, funny how people’s are more careful with their own money. If she ever wants to practice law in California again, it’s a simple matter to change it to active status

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was thinking it was the burden of passing CEU courses...

[Estragon]

“burden of passing”

While I’m not familiar specifically with California, I can tell you that in my state “passing” would be a strange way to describe continuing education requirements. I suspect this comment by you is meant to imply the VP is dumb or somehow unable to “pass” continuing education “courses” but your obvious unfamiliarity with this subject has unfortunately made YOU look somewhat foolish. Womp womp.

[ducksalad]

Actually, there’s a way to spin Dr. Ed’s comment so it’s not as asinine as it looks. If it’s anything the CE requirements for engineering, the burden of passing isn’t that the quizzes are hard. But to pass you’re required to document like 15 hours of sitting in a room or staring at training videos.

Saving the $400 isn’t the point, it’s saving 15 hours = $3000 worth of time for your employer, or for yourself if you’re self-employed.

But yeah that's probably not what Dr. Ed meant.

[Estragon]

Quizzes? Passing/failing? Again— this is a fundamental misconception of what these requirements entail. It’s just more fantasy from Ed, who doesn’t make stuff up but wanted a way to suggest Kamala is dumb. One wonders why he feels the need to be so coy given recent comments… maybe a bit more inhibited today than usual? Less cutty sark with his Cocoa Puffs this morning? Many possibilities.

[MoreCurious]

Do you ever get tired of making stupid comments that prove beyond any doubt that you don't know what you're talking about?

[Nelson]

He really doesn't.

[Nelson]

Because she doesn't see a future need to be a member of the Bar. Duh.

It's not like letting your law license lapse is something nefarious.

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear, however, she did not let her license "lapse." She transferred to inactive status. She still has a license; she just can't practice until she transfers back to active status.

[Nelson]

Interesting. So would she have to retake the bar if she wanted to return to active?

[David Nieporent]

No. She would merely have to do the same things every active lawyer has to do: pay dues and take CLEs. (Which, as some above noted, do not involve “passing” anything. One just has to sit through 12 hours (typically; I don’t know about CA specifically) of lectures. Some states let you do it via streamed recordings, while others require live attendance.)

[BrotherMovesOn]

No. If that were the case few, if any, would choose to take inactive status!

[Commenter_XY]

Calling not guilty...!

NG, about a week ago, there was mention of the middle district of TN, and their peculiar rule of gagging attorneys and preventing them from discussing their cases.

The case in question has run over 2 years, the attorney is gagged.

NG, did you ever encounter this gag rule in your practice?

It just seems so unusual.

[Frank Drackman]

He can’t talk about it

[not guilty]

The rule in question is Local Rule 83.04(a), applicable to civil proceedings, which states in relevant part:

(1) Limitation on Extrajudicial Statements. A lawyer who is participating in or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter, either directly or indirectly, must not make any extrajudicial statement (other than a quotation from or reference to public records) that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by public communication and will have substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter, including especially that will interfere with a fair trial.

(2) Comments More Likely Than Not to Have Material Prejudicial Effect. Comment relating to the following matters is more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, and the burden is upon the person commenting upon such matters to show that the comment did not pose such a threat:

(A) Evidence regarding the occurrence or transaction involved;
(B) The character, credibility, or criminal record of a party, witness, or prospective witness; or
(C) The performance or results of any examinations or tests or the refusal or failure of a party to submit to an examination or test.
(D) Information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence at trial or that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial.

Subsection (a) duplicates the language of Rule 3.6(a) of the Tennessee Supreme Court's Rules of Professional Conduct. Most of subsection (b) is taken from the official comment (5) to Rule 3.6(a), however, the burden shifting presumption of subsection (b) is more stringent.

Daniel Horwitz's civil complaint challenging the local rule, both facially and as applied, is here: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024-09-30-Complaint-Daniel-A.-Horwitz-vs.-U.S.-District-Court-of-the-M.D.-of-TN.pdf The complaint states at ¶3:

In July 2022, this Court applied Local Rule 83.04 to impose a gag order on Mr. Horwitz’s public commentary about CoreCivic, a private prison contractor for the State of Tennessee. To do so, this Court invoked Rule 83.04(a)(2)’s presumption that certain speech is prejudicial, without any evidence that Mr. Horwitz’s comments undermined this Court’s ability to hold a fair trial. The Court ordered Mr. Horwitz to stop talking about his case against CoreCivic and threatened him with contempt. He’s heeded that warning ever since, at great cost to his constitutional rights.

It appears that the burden shifting presumption is the heart of the challenge to the rule. I agree that that presumption is constitutionally suspect.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, this is awesome. I know that 'Nelson' was also interested in this. It just seems so...out of place. And I don't think it is right to gag this guy (Horwitz) for 2 years and not let him even mention the case.

Did you ever bump up against Local Rule 83.04 as a practicing atty?

Is there a time limit to this? 2 years and counting seems like an awfully long time.

[not guilty]

I didn’t offer much public comment on matters in federal court in the Middle District, with the exception of one matter that was litigated in 2000-2001. (That matter was tried to the bench without a jury, so there was no substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.) The local rules were substantially revised in 2018. I don’t recall that the rules regarding lawyers’ extrajudicial comments were quite as stringent before as Rule 83.04(b) is now.

I recall a couple of state court murder prosecutions where I was subject to gag orders. One such order was summarily reversed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. The other I complied with without seeking review. That was frustrating because that particular order did not bind police officers involved in the case, who I believe put out unfavorable information about my client that I was unable to respond to.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, let me ask you this. Is it a timebound question (you can only gag for x amount of time) or a TN state constitution question (this contravenes TN state constitution, or US constitution) or both that is your objection?

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has held, based on both the state and federal constitutions, "that a trial court may constitutionally restrict extrajudicial comments by trial participants, including lawyers, parties, and witnesses, when the trial court determines that those comments pose a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a fair trial." State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 563 (Tenn. 2000).

Before a gag order can be entered, however, the trial court should consider reasonable alternative measures that would ensure a fair trial without restricting speech, including a change of trial venue; postponement of the trial to allow public attention to subside; searching questions of prospective jurors; and emphatic instructions to the jurors to decide the case on the evidence. Id., at 563-564. Initial gag orders on trial participants should ordinarily contain exceptions for assertions of innocence, general statements about the nature of an allegation or defense, and discussion of matters of public record. Id., at 565.

That having been said, my greatest concern about the Middle District local rule is the provision that comment relating to certain subject matter is more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, and the burden is upon the person commenting upon such matters to show that the comment did not pose such a threat. [Emphasis added.] That implicates serious First Amendment and Due Process considerations. If applied to a criminal contempt proceeding for violation of a gag order, that burden shifting is per se invalid, IMO.

A gag order on an attorney's extrajudicial comments is a prior restraint on the First Amendment right to free speech. Levine v. United States District Court, 764 F.2d 590, 595 (9th Cir. 1985). Prior restraints — "predetermined judicial prohibition restraining specified expression" — face a well-established presumption against their constitutionality. United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 424-425 (5th Cir. 2000). The local rule at issue here unconstitutionally obviates the need for the court to consider less restrictive alternatives.

A statute or rule which requires an alleged contemnor to carry the burden of persuasion on an element of the offense, if applied in a criminal contempt proceeding, would violate the Due Process Clause because it would undercut the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 637 (1988).

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, I see your concern; I share it. Sort of like, we assume you are guilty so proactively prove innocence = A statute or rule which requires an alleged contemnor to carry the burden of persuasion on an element of the offense, if applied in a criminal contempt proceeding, would violate the Due Process Clause because it would undercut the State’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (great find!)

[Nelson]

Additionally, if this lawyer prevails in his case, would the law be nullified or would it just put limits to how gaggy the government can be?

[not guilty]

I would surmise that the District Court judges (the defendants in their official capacity in the lawsuit) would rewrite the local rule in conformity to what the highest level of federal judiciary to consider the case orders.

[Nelson]

That's ... disappointing.

[Nelson]

What would it take to force the rule to change to a different presumption? Said another way, what legal process would prevent the government from tilting the scales against free speech?

[Commenter_XY]

The 6th circuit 1A case from OH that was written about earlier this week.

Judge Thapar's (majority) opinion concludes:
The state of Ohio passed a law restricting the ability of foreign nationals to contribute to state campaigns and make independent expenditures related to state ballot initiatives.

Q: What is the danger to states forcing more transparency on who is funding state candidates and state ballot questions?
(IOW, how did 6th Circuit get it wrong?)

I thought this case was interesting because it appears to delineate an actual limit to 1A and political speech.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What is the danger to states forcing more transparency on who is funding state candidates and state ballot questions?"

Retaliation against supporters, I suppose. There is a bit of a record of that happening.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, in CA = Retaliation against supporters, I suppose. There is a bit of a record of that happening.

Is that a civic cost of transparency?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, not just in California, though they're particularly bad about it.

Transparency is obviously at odds with our early history of freedom of speech; Remember that around the founding a lot of important public debates involved the use of pseudonyms. That wasn't just so that the argument would be evaluated apart from the reputation of the person advancing it, though there was an element of that. It was also to enable people to argue freely without worrying about retaliation.

What's particularly troubling at this time is that the opinions of those in a position to engage in retaliation have diverged significantly from general public opinion, so that you can actually end up subject to retaliation, "cancellation", for expressing mainstream, not outlier, opinions.

I don't think that's a development theorists of free speech saw coming.

[Commenter_XY]

I don’t think that’s a development theorists of free speech saw coming.

I am not sure I agree with that. Shunning (socially, economically) was a common practice at the time, for a variety of reasons, not just politics.

What is the remedy to the retaliation, in an era of heightened transparency?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, sunning was certainly a common practice, but it was the mainstream shunning the outliers. Not great, but in a way socially reinforcing, not socially disruptive.

The difference I see today is that important institutions have been captured BY people holding outlier opinions, who then proceed to 'shun' people holding mainstream opinions. It's a very weird situation, historically speaking, that people would have to fear retaliation for expressing commonplace, even majority, opinions.

[Nelson]

"important institutions have been captured BY people holding outlier opinions, who then proceed to ‘shun’ people holding mainstream opinions"

That's an awfully broad accusation against a potential strawman. Care to provide specific examples?

[Heedless]

The majority of the country is opposed to affirmative action, but you can be blackballed from most any management position if you express that opinion publicly.

Most of the country is (wrongly in this case) somewhere between indifferent and hostile to trans issues like bathroom access, but you can get in serious trouble at most American companies if you express that opinion.

It's receding now, but the DEIJ-based, "America is a racist society" model was required at most major institutions for half a decade despite the fact that it is wildly unpopular. For a few years, you were required not merely to be silent about disagreement, but to actively affirm those positions on pain of official sanction.

[Nelson]

“you can be blackballed from most any management position if you express that opinion publicly”

What are you talking about? Politicians of a specific party can’t say it, but pretty much everyone else does and suffers no adverse consequences. It’s not even likely to impede someone in academia, the only realm where it (barely) matters any more. You’re talking about a world that hasn’t existed in decades.

“Most of the country is (wrongly in this case) somewhere between indifferent and hostile to trans issues”

We all saw what you did there. The outlier position is hostility, the overwhelming mainstream is indifference. You tried to pretend they were the same group so you could pretend hostility is somehow mainstream. It isn’t. It’s a vocal, angry outlier. So no, they aren’t being shunned for a mainstream position. They are being shunned for an outlier position, and a bigoted one at that. America, largely, opposes bigotry.

“It’s receding now, but the DEIJ-based, “America is a racist society” model was required at most major institutions for half a decade despite the fact that it is wildly unpopular.”

Another false conflation? Did you think no one would see that, either? DEI and “America is a racist society” aren’t synonymous. The latter is an outlier interpretation of what equity initiatives are, held by those who oppose DEI generally. The mainstream position, “equity, generally, is a good goal”. Most people don’t care one way or the other, except for the tedious trainings DEI entails.

So through false conflation, you have tried claim three outlier positions (all cultural conservative bugbears, no surprise) are mainstream. Pro-affirmative action? No one cares in virtually every industry in America. Anti-trans? Definitely outlier. DEI as racism? Another outlier.

People aren’t being shunned for “mainstream” opinions. They may be losing opportunities due to expressing outlier positions, but if an employer sees someone expressing hate and bigotry it would be inconceivable that they wouldn’t factor that into their hiring decisions.

Cultural conservatives want to be able to speak their truth, but not be subject to the reasonable consequences if their outlier positions make them less employable.

It’s the difference between social conservatism (acting on your personal moral beliefs), which is good, and cultural conservatism (forcing society to live by your personal moral beliefs), which is very, very bad.

Live your life by your values. Leave others alone to do the same. It’s one of the foundational tenets of libertarianism.

You believe unpopular things. Keep on believing them, but please stop trying to force everyone else to live your way.

[Heedless]

Horseshit.

Stand up at any major American corporation or university and say you oppose affirmative action and watch your management career come to a screeching halt. (Hostile work environment, etc. etc. etc.) we both know this is true, so stop lying and pretending that it’s not.

Stand up at any American corporation or university and say “I don’t see why we are spending all this time and attention arguing about bathrooms for a tiny fraction of the population.” (That would be the majority indifferent opinion.) Again, watch your career in management come to a screeching halt. The problem here isn’t that I was conflating the two positions. I wasn't . The problem is you seem to be unable to recognize that neutrality is also heavily disfavored by the people in charge. Not to the extent that hostility would be, but still a top-down workplace taboo.

As for the third, have you read How to Be Antiracist or White Fragility or attended any DEIJ workshops? “America is a racist society” is precisely the point (with the added instruction that questioning the tenets of DEIJ Is itself racist). And yet, there are still a lot of major institutions at which questioning the tenets of DEIJ (Even the ones you are willing to admit exist) is a quick path to career suicide.

As a final note, I’m not a conservative. I’m conflicted about affirmative action and generally pro trans, although I do think DEIJ is intellectually vapid claptrap. The real problem here is that you are such a blinkered ideologue that you are unable to admit when your “side” has done something wrong or consider the idea that someone might disagree for reasons other than self-serving partisanship. It doesn’t help that you are willing to lie (in highly unconvincing fashion) to support your point.

[Sarcastr0]

"any major American corporation or university" is a superlative that shows you're arguing from emotion and vibes.

I mean, some opinions are unpopular. Like Holocaust denial.
Opposing affirmative action and not being a fan of trans people are not nearly unpopular. And yet you claim basically Holocaust denial levels of oppression.

So I read How to Be Antiracist. I found it food for thought. I also read White Fragility. It's crap.
DEI workshops vary in their quality, and are generally not worth their cost; they're just an easy box to check. But you not understanding what systemic racism is isn't their problem, it's yours.

It is a massive overgeneralization about an entire area of practice with lots of differing ideas and implementations to say DEI is intellectually vapid claptrap. Not saying there's not lots of crap. But 1) us white people are gonna be fine, don't bother getting spun up, and 2) there's plenty of good ideas if you care to look. Which DEI critics never do.

Didja see how I admitted my 'side' did some stuff that was wrong and yet still supported it? You should consider doing the opposite - look at DEI stuff and check out what's worth supporting, even if you don't like the general DEI deal.

[Heedless]

I found the reasoning in How to be Anti-racist to be shallow and circular. If the only possible reason for rejecting either the worldview or the prescriptions for action that are espoused is adherence to white supremacy culture, I can’t help but hear echoes of “false consciousness.” I also very much don’t like the attempt to take important and useful phrases in the English language: “Urgency,” “Individualism,” “Worship of the written word,” slap on new definitions and tar them as elements of white supremacy. (I will grant that this is a feeling of Kendi’s disciples As much as of the man himself.)

Now I’m going to do that thing you were encouraging me to do, and give credit to those I disagree with. I think that there is a core truth underlying a lot of the DEIJ movement – an unspoken and largely unconscious devaluing of Black people. Ta-Nehisi Coates speaks very powerfully of this. The part that I disagree with are the quasi therapeutic (And slightly Calvinist) measures that they propose, and the extent to which their certainty and zeal to punish dissent outruns the philosophical solidity of their beliefs.

On the other subject, I think your comparison to holocaust denial is instructive, because Holocaust denial is a) provably wrong, b) held by a tiny, tiny fraction of the population, and c) is the exclusive domain of people with odious and discriminatory racial/religious views.

Opposition to affirmative action, by contrast, a) Has strong philosophical arguments both for and against, b) commands majority support in the United States, and c) is fully compatible with a broader commitment to black equality.

You’re right, of course, that the career penalties for openly opposing affirmative action are much less than those for openly holocaust denial. I think you are underestimating the extent, especially at the managerial level, at which opposition is punished, but even if we grant your premise, it is absurd that it is being punished at all.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Appreciate your points here. I think we're on pretty similar pages in the end.

2. I'd say neither of us can generalize about how corporations treat these views; we're both going on vibes. I cursory Googling did not find any good surveys on this.

[Nelson]

"you can actually end up subject to retaliation, “cancellation”, for expressing mainstream, not outlier, opinions."

That statement is highly suspect. What "mainstream" positions have evoked a retaliatory reaction from the government or termination without cause for an employee?

The idea that organized condemnation by private citizens against other private citizens for their speech isn't (or at least shouldn't) be illegal. You are free to express your opinions. You are not free from people responding to your opinions.

I'm not talking about retaliation by an employer for what you expressed (absent a business interest in preserving customer loyalty and/or corporate identity). I'm talking about the fact that actions have consequences and choosing to take an action, then demanding to be free from the consequences, is unjustifiable.

You seem to be falsely conflating "retaliation" and "respose". Perhaps you have an example that would clarify your argument?

[Brett Bellmore]

"What “mainstream” positions have evoked a retaliatory reaction from the government or termination without cause for an employee?"

Brendan Eich famously got fired from Mozilla for having donated to a winning ballot proposal.

[Magister]

The chief executive of Mozilla resigning? That's pretty clearly is going to fall under the business interest in preserving corporate identity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's one way to describe, "Fired for having previously donated to a popular ballot proposal that easily passed."

The question is why they were so determined to "preserve a corporate identity" of being on the losing side of a long past ballot initiative?

Because, as I said, they were controlled by people with outlier views. INTOLERANT people with outlier views, who couldn't stand to have anybody working there who was known to hold mainstream views.

[Sarcastr0]

they were controlled by people with outlier views. INTOLERANT people with outlier views

You think these intolerant outliers control the media, big business, social media companies, Hollywood, the entire civil service, the GOP leadership, our education system...

At what point is the needed number of intolerant outliers to support your burgeoning liberal conspiracies high enough that they have to actually be in the majority?

[Magister]

Opposing gay marriage was the outlier view in 2014 when all this happened, nor did Eich do anything to suggest his opinion had moderated by that time. OKCupid was telling Firefox users to use a different browser because of Eich, among other impact on their business.

[Sarcastr0]

And it's a complicated bit of business judgement! Who believes intensely enough for it to effect their business decisions? Who is your market (It's rarely the entire American polity).

I have no idea what the right answers are. Which I guess puts me behind Brett, who knows not only the right answer, but the answer so right everyone who looks like they don't agree are intolerant outliers.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd hardly call any view held by a third of the population, and recently by a majority, "outlier".

So, as soon as your position shifts a bit into the minority, it's OK to fire you over it? Does that mean that it was OK to fire anybody who supported SSM prior to 2010? How about not firing people over things irrelevant to their jobs?

Anyway, I'm arguing that a reason to refrain from identifying supporters of a political clause is that they could be subject to retaliation. You're arguing that they should be subject to retaliation.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know if it's okay or not - I'm not running a business.

You, authoritarian that you are, appear be invoking the 'this is not OK' principle, and want government to tell companies who they can fire more than is already the case.

Do I think it's a good idea? *I have no idea* because unlike Brett, I don't have the telepathy to understand what's behind the decision.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"and want government to tell companies who they can fire more than is already the case."

There goes Sarcastro lying again. Brett never said that.

[Nelson]

"Opposing gay marriage was the outlier view in 2014 when all this happened"

By 2010, the mainstream position in America was in favor of gay marriage. Less than 10 years later, in 2019, it was overwhelmingly supported by a two-to-one ration. In 2014 the mainstream was definitely against banning gay marriage.

[Nelson]

Since support for gay marriage was the mainstream belief in 2014, the CEO was openly homophobic, and companies were willing to take their business elsewhere because the CEO was a bigot, it kinda was a business decision.

Opposing gay marriage is pretty clearly something that will taint your company with a negative reputation. That isn't new. It wasn't new in 2014, either.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett continues to confuse criticism, and private disassociation for censorship.

Those have been an issue for having unpopular views for a long time, man.

It's the whole 'I was silenced for my conservative views!' 'Which views, oh...you know the ones.'

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Brett continues to confuse criticism, and private disassociation for censorship."

Says the guy who thinks men can give birth. You don't like the way Brett uses a particular word? So what?

[Krayt]

The right to speak anonymously is part of free speech. Transparency for donations uses the argument The People need to know, to consider possible tit for tat issues. Outside of that, it's Nunya.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, totally non-political...

A couple years ago, on a lark, I decided to try making some soy sauce. It wasn't terribly impressive, so I forgot about it in a closet until early this year, when we'd run out of soy sauce, and I fetched it out. Actually, it was pretty good after aging! So I decided to make more. Maybe several gallons.

My local oriental grocery was having a bit of financial trouble, and the owner is a widely loved elderly Chinese gentleman ripped right out of an old Chinese martial arts movie, (I'm sure he's got a mogwai hidden somewhere!) and there's a push on among his customers to buy more to help him out, so I decided to buy the soy beans through him.

He ordered me a 60 lb bag of them!

Soy sauce, miso paste, and tofu; Anybody got any other recipes for using soy beans?

[Commenter_XY]

This recipe looks promising (I cannot personally vouch for it....although I am now going to make it).

https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/220479/cilantro-edamame-hummus/

Are the soybeans organic?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know whether they're 'organic', I assume so since I didn't order silicon based ones. (Little chemistry joke.)

They're the mature white soy beans used for things like soy sauce and making tofu, not the immature green ones sold as edamame. I guess I should have mentioned that. They wouldn't work in your recipe.

No natto recipes, please. 🙁

[Nelson]

"I assume so since I didn’t order silicon based ones. (Little chemistry joke.)"

I'm enough of a geek that this made me laugh.

[Moderation4ever]

Might be a good time to think about a donation to the local food bank.

[Brett Bellmore]

A good idea generally speaking, but mature soy beans are about the last thing you'd donate to a food bank, they're basically inedible without a lot of processing. Not remotely a drop in substitute for other dried beans.

[SRG2]

Can you make natto with them? Very healthy, but not to everyone's taste.

[Nelson]

You missed his plea above about natto. Apparently he's with the "not" contingent.

[SRG2]

Ah yes, I see. I remember the first time I ate it - it was part of the lunch box special at Iroha in Midtown. The mama-san, who I knew as I was a regular customer, came over to me and said, "you like this?" I said I did. She said, "many Japanese don't like it."

[Nelson]

You can make soy milk with them, although I’ve never done it. I think it’s gross to drink, but it’s an excellent high-protein substitute in recipes and is less subject to spoilage than dairy is. It also adds a subtle flavor to curry and “cream” dishes like a creamy pesto sauce or dips.

If you plan to use it as an ingredient, leave out the sugar and vanilla, just make it plain.

As a bonus for a man who has 60 pounds of them, I believe it takes a lot of beans to make milk.

[Brett Bellmore]

Making soy milk is actually the first step in making tofu; Then you curdle it, and compress the curds.

[Nelson]

Really? I had no idea. I like tofu, but I've never made it.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's basically just soy milk cheese. A lot easier to make than soy sauce or miso, since there's no fermentation involved; You've got your tofu inside of a couple of hours, instead of 1-2 years.

[Jmaie]

This is family lore but widely excepted amongst the Japanese folks I know in the bay area. Take a large pot and fill it close to the top with soy beans. Fill with water, and then boil until the liquid is reduced to a teacup full. Supposed to lower blood cholesterol. I don’t know if it works, but I do know that it smells to high heaven.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I have discussed a law to punish oath breaking.

In last Thursday's open thread Noscitur asked me this:

Can you offer at least a rough draft of the key test of the law you’re proposing?

I promised an answer in today's open thread. Here it is:

Noscitur — The question you ask is answered thus: the test is whether a federal grand jury—acting as it always does as a tribune of the jointly sovereign People, and not under control of any branch of government—finds probable cause to show that an oath-sworn political actor or government employee has betrayed some specifically defined duty owed to the jointly sovereign People.

Questions about betrayal must be answered in context of stipulations laid down prior to the alleged betrayal. Those may be laid down in either of two ways:

First, by the People themselves, in joint actions or decrees pursuant to the legitimate sovereign powers the People possess. Those powers are inherent in sovereignty, exercised at pleasure, not subject to constraint, and continuously active. Thus, customary constraints applied against government are inapplicable against the sovereign. Neither due process, nor separation of powers, nor judicial authority, apply against sovereign decrees. In the words of founder James Wilson, sovereign power is “. . . a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable.”

Second, by explicit definitions promulgated by Congress under authority of the Constitution, by reliance on the Necessary and Proper Clause, with specific reference to oath breaking.

Whether action against an oath breaker arises by the first means or by the second, disposition of the action must be completed by means under the sole control of the People themselves. The oaths are their explicit demands. They possess the only legitimate capacity in America's system of government to judge their satisfaction.

Thus any trial for oath breaking ought to be initiated by grand jury process, then tried before a petit jury under a special charge applicable only to cases of oath breaking: to make the jury the final authority on both the laws and the facts of the case. For that reason, punishments for oath breaking should be restricted to removal from office, and disqualification to hold office. No one should be put in jeopardy of their life or liberty in such a trial.

There is a great deal more to be said. There is little prospect to understand this issue, except in context of founding era understanding of the founders' own invention of joint popular sovereignty, which revolutionized politics world-wide. That invention became the basis for American constitutionalism.

Except to observe that modern insight into that history is broadly deficient, and the deficiency a prolific source of puzzles and paradoxes which arise in present-day attempts to interpret the Constitution, I will not attempt to explain further here.

Present need for a federal law against oath breaking, especially in context of election denial, and Supreme Court resistance to ethical constraint, I take to be urgent and self evident.

[Heedless]

The problem is that the vast majority of issues that would be adjudicated under such a statute are matters of major partisan conflict, and how people felt about the politicians under charge would inevitably outweigh any consideration of the official definition.

A DC grand jury would indict Trump for oath breaking over his election denial (or of kidnapping the Lindberg baby, if given the opportunity), but not Biden for concealing his mental decline, even though both are colorably instances of failure to faithfully execute the office.

An Alabama grand jury would do the reverse. Both juries would go to bed sure that they had acted justly, but both would simply be furthering partisan political battles in the courts.

And that's before we get to the problem that you still don't have an operational definition of oath breaking. What specific criteria constitute faithful execution of the office of the President or Supreme Court Justice and how would you (again specifically) define a violation of those criteria?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not so sure the situation is as symmetric as you're suggesting.

2020 Presidential vote,

In DC: Biden, 92.15%, Trump 5.4%

In Alabama: Biden 36.57%, Trump 62.03%

Biden's worst state in the entire country was Wyoming, where he got 25.56% of the vote. Generally you'd expect a quarter of grand jury members even in Wyoming to be Democrats.

Or, look at 2016:

In DC, Clinton 90.86%, Trump 4.09%

In Alabama, Clinton 34.36%, Trump 62.08%

Again, Clinton's worst state in the entire country was Wyoming, with 21.88% of the vote.

The DC circuit is unique, in that it's essentially all Democratic, and gets automatic jurisdiction over a lot of important cases. You might find some small towns out in the middle of nowhere that are as Republican, but for judicial purposes they might as well not exist.

[Joe_dallas]

The partisan breakdown in DC was one reason that hillary would never get convicted for her violations of security protocols with her server or her pay for play with her foundation. Same thing happened in the Mann civil trial where the harte hanks standard was completely ignored by the jury, along with poor jury instructions.

[David Nieporent]

The partisan breakdown in DC was one reason that hillary would never get convicted for her violations of security protocols with her server or her pay for play with her foundation.

Setting aside that the latter is something fake you made up, why would someone prosecuting Hillary relating to her server do so in DC, when the server wasn't located in DC?

[Joe_dallas]

Still a similar jury pool in SD NY, so not much difference

[grb]

Joe_dallas : “Hillary would never get convicted for her violations of security protocols with her server”

Right-wing ignorance about Ms Clinton and her server seems to never end. Let’s review how someone so fact-challenged as JD might justify charges :

1. It can’t be about public business on private email. First, there was no law against that then. Also, both predessessors used private email for State business too. General Powell favored AOL.

2. It can’t be about sending classified messages by unsecure means. All the emails in question were thought to be non-classified messages by their sender, therefore not requiring a secure communication line. All the emails in question were upgraded Classified by much later review.

3. It also can’t be about misjudging the classification status of a message. First, because that would mean scores of other people would also face charges. Remember, over 99% of these messages were sent by another party to Clinton; the misjudgement originated with them. And all those messages were sent by standard State Department .gov email not rated for secure traffic. Being deeply ignorant about this subject, Joe_dallas probably doesn’t realize that.

4. Plus, no one has EVER been charged for misjudging the classification status of a message. I have no idea how often a piece of paper in the federal government has its status changed up or down yearly, but bet it numbers thousands of times. And ZERO people have ever faced criminal charges for the mistake. Joe_dallas can’t produce an example of someone not-named-Clinton so charged, despite all his tin-foil-hat mutterings.

Of course, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are examples of people who could have. It’s all there : Private email & messages later upgraded to classified.

[Joe_dallas]

GRB - just keep believing that private server was set up strictly for personal use
Just keep believing those 30,000 missing emails were about yoga and food recipes.

Another one of those alibis that sound credible.

[grb]

Uh huh. Everyone sees you didn't challenge a single thing I said. Of course this is because you can't. You don't have grounds even if you knew the slightest thing about this topic (which you don't).

As for the "missing" email, you seem equally clueless there. At the end of her tenure, Clinton was told to delete any personal email and turn over official government messages to the National Archive. So she gave her server to a firm of lawyers and told them to separate the wheat from the chaff, turn over all relevant messages to the Archives, then erase everything else. This was long, long before any hint of any controversy about Clinton's email.

Of course the rest of the story offers legit grounds for skepticism (even to a non-conspiratorial un-wack-job loon very unlike yourself). Supposedly the technician responsible for erasing the drives rushed to fix his tardy mistake after hearing of a Congressional subpoena. Maybe, maybe not. On the one hand, the tech testified under oath it was so. On the other, we know it would have made Ms Clinton's teeth grind to have her personal business pawed thru by a bunch of hack GOP representatives. I'd need to flip a coin to decide.

Still, what does that leave you? Not a criminal case; that's remains as mindlessly stupid as pointed out by me above. Not some big conspiracy in email already rifled through by a firm of lawyers over months. And when Comey did find tens of thousands more email, what was found? The same government biz turned over to the archives. And personal email Clinton had no obligation to turn over.

If you need more instruction on this topic, we can go another round. But wouldn't it make more sense for you to beat a dignified retreat?

[Joe_dallas]

Correct - I made no attempt to refute your points since your points were dubious talking points masquerating as valid alibi's .

I simply pointed out why the dubious alibis defy a rational basis.

[Sarcastr0]

I made no attempt to refute your points since your points were dubious talking points masquerading as valid alibi’s.

Lazy.

[Joe_dallas]

what is lazy is to accept dubious and implausible talking points as true with no effort to consider the lack of credibility.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : “Lazy”

I would have gone with clownish. Poor Joe. Nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide. Ya know, I asked him to provide one example of a single person charged with the only offense Clinton might have faced.

His response? In so many words : (sweaty, frantic weaseling)

I asked him whether he understood that the criminal charges he claimed were only blocked by a pro-Hillary conspiracy would have also required charges against scores of others – probably hundreds of others. And all of them would have faced a criminal charge no one before ever faced for the same offense.

So did he understand? Apparently not. His response was sweaty, frantic weaseling.

[Brett Bellmore]

"At the end of her tenure, Clinton was told to delete any personal email and turn over official government messages to the National Archive."

At the beginning of her tenure, she was told to set the system up so that her emails were archived with the government system. That was the standing rule for the use of private email for government work: It was discouraged, but permitted so long as you configured it to back up to the official system.

Let's be very blunt about this: Absolutely the only thing she got out of setting up her email the way she did, was the ability to do exactly what happened: Delete it when people with the legal right to see it asked for it.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "That was the standing rule for the use of private email for government work: It was discouraged, but permitted so long as you configured it to back up to the official system"

Neat tale, dude. Do you claim - say - Colin Powell configured AOL to back-up to the National Archives? Given news accounts that said Powell's private email was never completely turned-over to the Archives, that seems unlikely.

And given your standard Brett-style conspiratorial drivel a rest. Clinton complied with the National Archives regs and instructuctions. She easily out-performed Powell in that regard. No one could have anticipated the House witch-hunt that demanded to see email not required to go to the Archives, Clinton least of all.

[David Nieporent]

just keep believing that private server was set up strictly for personal use

Nobody believes that, because nobody, including Hillary Clinton, has ever claimed that.

You seem completely unaware of the factual issues.

[not guilty]

"The DC circuit is unique, in that it’s essentially all Democratic, and gets automatic jurisdiction over a lot of important cases."

Wrong. Four judges in active service on the D.C. Circuit were appointed by Republican presidents, as were three of the Senior Judges.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett's comment was in reference to the jury pool,

[Sarcastr0]

Black people in the South have more faith in an all white jury pool than right-wingers do having a pool that might have a lot of Dems in it.

I very much hope that Trump loses, and this bullshit distrust everyone who isn't MAGA fever breaks. It's very bad for a republic to have a party think like this.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Black people in the South have more faith in an all white jury pool than right-wingers do having a pool that might have a lot of Dems in it."

Well, duh. Being white is only modestly correlated with being an anti-black racist, while being a Democrat is EXTREMELY correlated with being hostile to Republicans.

So the better analogy would be how much faith black people in the South had in Klan members.

[Sarcastr0]

being a Democrat is EXTREMELY correlated with being hostile to Republicans.

No. It's not.

Go touch grass. The Internet isn't America.

how much faith black people in the South had in Klan members.
Unironic the conservative is the n---er of the world.

I've become convinced you are unable to, but normal people are quite able to act normal and professional no matter who they vote for.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, go ahead and claim that Democrats have no bias against Republicans. Beclown your self. It's redundant, so you might as well.

[Sarcastr0]

What a gigantic backdown from you!

“being a Democrat is EXTREMELY correlated with being hostile to Republicans.”
To
‘Democrats have a bias against Republicans.’

With such a new anodyne thesis, how could I disagree! I’m sure some Democrats do have a bias against Republicans. But most people can put that kinda stuff aside.
When I play D&D with Trump supporters, they get the good healz just like anyone else.

You want from maximum drama and persecution complex to 'I'll bet the other side doesn't like my side.' Which shows you know that you were ahead of your skiis, so you backed off.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's worse for the republic for these institutions to behave in ways that lead people to draw these conclusions.

It's simple, if you don't want people to think you're biased, stop acting biased.

[Heedless]

That's fair. I probably should have said "rural Alabama."

I was less trying to draw a perfectly symmetrical equivalence than to illustrate why this sort of law would never be enforced in an evenhanded fashion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Heedless, what you see as bugs strike me as features. If grand jury prejudice is such a threatening possibility (which I doubt), that ought to keep oath-sworn members of government well within the four squares of their duly authorized roles. If the threat of prejudice is so strong it rules out opportunities in office for more-extreme would-be oath-takers, what is that to the jointly sovereign People? They can bestow their gifts of office on any of millions of less-extreme candidates fully capable to do the job better. Nobody in this nation enjoys any right to office.

[Heedless]

If you consider capricious, politically motivated enforcement to be a feature of your new law enforcement scheme, count me out.

We put a great deal of effort into making sure that political disputes are settled at the voting booth. Moving them to the criminal courts is not any sort of improvement.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Heedless — It is telling if you suppose oath breaking is a, "political dispute." But I do not think that is what you are about. Your argument is worse. You demand that Constitutionally decreed oaths be read out of the law, lest a candidate you support be deprived of advantages he might be able to seize otherwise.

And of course it is worse than nonsense to dismiss grand jury protection, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as "capricious."

[Kazinski]

Lathrop, you really should list these powers you imagine the people possess:
"First, by the People themselves, in joint actions or decrees pursuant to the legitimate sovereign powers the People possess."

Their "legitimate sovereign powers" are actually pretty modest, serving on juries, voting for Congress and the legislatures, and the god given right of insurrection (as Jefferson explained it), when none of that works for redressing their grievances.

Otherwise we are a Democratic Republic of a Union of States, with the States guaranteed a Republican form of government by the Constitution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Oh for pity sake, Kazinski, how often do I have to do this? Here it is again, the entire James Wilson quote:

There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable . . . Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions . . . This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. The consequence is, the people may change constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.

In short, the jointly sovereign People possess all the power—everything they delegated in the Constitution, and whatever else they can accomplish, by whatever means they can arrange. Neither government, nor the Constitution, constrains the jointly sovereign People in the slightest. That is what sovereignty means.

I get that you are probably shocked by that. Grade school civics classes are not set up to teach political philosophy. They are meant to instruct youngsters in their duties and privileges when they act in their individual capacities as citizens and subjects of government, and leave it at that.

So stuff like Wilson's remark does not show up in civics class. Wilson is all about joint action to found a polity from scratch. His views were widely shared at the time, not extreme at all. They in fact describe the historical basis of American constitutionalism.

[Kazinski]

So "the people" have a right to insurrection, I guess we both agree on that.

As for other civil sovereign powers would they be equivalent to the powers of the king of England? He is also sovereign.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — You begin to glimpse the truth, but only dimly. Yes, sovereign powers are sweeping, uncontrollable, and unappealable, no matter who wields them. But no, not like the King of England.

Joint popular sovereignty, the great invention of America's founders, was intended to cure a near-fatal defect in foregoing systems of government, which relied on a personal sovereign. That kind of system invited, and nearly assured, conflicts of fundamental interests between a king wielding sovereign power, and the poor schlubs subject to the king's governance. And the shchlubs lacked countervailing power to do anything about it.

At its worst, that was a terrible system. At its best it worked okay. But everything depended on happenstance. Who did you get for king? What challenges did the king encounter? Was today's king motivated and capable to take into account his subjects' interests with regard to this challenge? Who knew?

Invention of joint popular sovereignty cured that defect, by creating a durable bond of shared interest between the sovereign and the subjects, because they were the same people. A joint popular Sovereign inclined toward abuse of the government's subjects would inevitably end up feeling the pain of that more directly than in the former system.

As for a right of insurrection, under a system of joint popular sovereignty it becomes a contradiction in terms. The would-be insurrectionists are already at least theoretically in control of the government. But overlook that as maybe too theoretical, then yes, the notion of sovereignty implies rivalries for power based on brute force takeovers. One of the principal reasons to enforce oaths for government officers, elected officials, and military people, is to suppress the use of government power to support such a coup. Like for instance, right now.

[DaveM]

Absolutely not. You are calling for the court to take the place of the political process. That would destroy both, and in very short order.

Can I ask why we would even want to do this? How would intentionally removing hundreds of millions of votes and replacing them with a court trial be any kind of an improvement? This seems so completely at odds with the concept of self governance.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I am talking about oath breaking, not vote removal, whatever that fantastical notion might mean to you.

[David Nieporent]

You are talking about roughly two dozen individuals (i.e., a grand jury) overruling the votes of roughly 80 million people (voters). Whatever that is, whatever its merits, it most definitely is not an exercise of the people's sovereignty.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Votes contributed by members of the joint sovereignty remain unaffected. They are a matter of history. As time passes, the oath-sworn officer remains in debt to the jointly sovereign People for the gift of his office, and solely responsible for any conduct which dishonors the trust of voters. A broken oath is not a restart of the prior election; it is cause to conclude the oath breaker no longer qualified to continue in office.

Millions of people are no more involved than are a myriad of candidates. Just as two-dozen grand jurors are but a tiny fraction of the joint popular sovereignty, so is any particular candidate a tiny fraction of all potential office holders. None of that implies in any way that any particular oath breaker, once elected to office, remains perpetually the anointed choice of the sovereign.

Your argument fails. If oath breaking cannot be punished, then oath taking as a condition to hold office cannot be meaningful. The jointly sovereign People themselves have long-since decreed oath taking is not only meaningful, but also an indispensable condition to hold office. You do not get to say otherwise, nor dictate to the People what process they will choose to dispose of a case of oath breaking.

[David Nieporent]

Your argument fails. If oath breaking cannot be punished, then oath taking as a condition to hold office cannot be meaningful.

I did not in any way say that oath breaking can’t be punished. It can, because of the rule of law, not your imaginary sovereignty arguments.

Millions of people are no more involved

Millions of people decided that they wanted a particular person to be their representative/officeholder. You are trying to overcome their will through the invocation of philosophical incantations. If they decide they want that person to remain in office despite his oathbreaking, that's their prerogative, under the notion of sovereignty.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — No again. A candidate’s supporters comprise a faction. A faction is not the joint popular sovereign.

And while a certified election result is a sovereign decree, the argument you make requires for justification a legitimate election outcome, to be decreed following the alleged oath breaking, not prior to it.

Can you see the problem? What if the oath breaking alleged implicates action to thwart election processes, or to corrupt election tallies? Election processes and tallies from the jointly sovereign People’s elections rightly remain among the People’s most jealously guarded concerns—and unfortunately among the most coveted targets of potential oath breakers.

Hence the grand jury, petit jury, and proof to a standard beyond reasonable doubt. If, as we all understand, that process is adequate in a legal case to justify depriving an accused murderer of his life, it is likewise adequate in a sovereign inquiry to deprive an accused oath breaker of his office—the more so because the accused criminal began with a right to his life, but the accused office holder at no time held a right to his office.

An insurmountable problem with your rule-of-law rejoinder is that it presumes to constrain the sovereign People’s power to act at pleasure, and thus stands American constitutionalism on its head. The oath in question was not required by rule of law; it was required down to the syllable by sovereign decree.

Of course, the sovereign People might be pleased to permit a rule of law resolution to an oath breaking case. By which I mean, as I think you mean, a case tried under control of the government’s judicial department. But the People have not done that. If they had done it, nothing could legitimately prevent an action likewise at the People’s pleasure from undoing it. About that, the rule of law could have nothing to say. The People’s government’s judicial department is not empowered to constrain the sovereign People themselves.

Under American constitutionalism, at all times, satisfaction of the jointly sovereign People with performance of the oaths they decree remains their exclusive prerogative. If they require an oath as a condition to commence tenure in office, or a place in government, then it is the People’s will that the oath be obeyed. That will remains sufficient to conclude proof the oath was violated terminates tenure thus granted. Absent some subsequent decree to the contrary from the People themselves, nothing more than that proof is required.

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent — No again. A candidate’s supporters comprise a faction. A faction is not the joint popular sovereign.

NOBODY is the "joint popular sovereign." Even to the extent that it exists as a concept, it's an abstraction. It can't and doesn't do anything.

but the accused office holder at no time held a right to his office.

What you're saying is wrong but also misses the point, which is that it's the right of the people to have their desired selection hold the office.

And while a certified election result is a sovereign decree,

Once again: it's a government decree.

the People’s will

"The People" don't have a will. Will is individual, not collective. And if they did have such a will, how would we determine it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — You offer 4 assertions. As matters of fact, all are so plainly mistaken that I think I can leave the discussion here, without worrying that your contributions have convinced anyone.

[David Nieporent]

I get it. You're just spouting a weird ideology you don't actually understand that can't withstand any scrutiny.

[Moderation4ever]

The news this morning suggests that hurricane Milton was not as bad as was earlier feared. This is a good thing. I think we can all expect there to be real devastation but it sounds like things we can live with and deal with.

[Kazinski]

Yeah I was following the news before it hit, and they said if it deviated south of Tampa Bay, the storm surge would be significantly less than than dead on or to the north. It did go south and that made the winds push water out of Tampa bay, not push the storm surge in the bay.

That and the fact it dropped to category 3 before landfall probably helped significantly.

CNN quotes DeSantis:

“What we can say is the storm was significant, but thankfully, this was not the worst-case scenario,” DeSantis said.

[hobie]

I cannot find any news stating if the storm surge did anything anywhere. That was the thing I was most worried about

[Jmaie]

Cliff Mass (professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington) mentioned that Milton was much smaller than Helene thus likely to be less destructive. Not sure why, but he was the only person I’m aware of mentioning that aspect.

[Moderation4ever]

The Russian Kremlin has confirmed that Trump as President did supply Putin with Covid tests they did not confirm the post Presidential conversations. I think it would be good for Trump to address if he did talk to Putin. I think he can learn something from his Presidential staff who tried to hide their conversations with Russia. The truth will come out. I don't really have problems with people talking to Russian officials as long as they are honest about doings, observe the appropriate laws, and address what they discuss.

[OtisAH]

TBC, he did not send them “tests,” which connotes the single-use boxes of test kits people could use at home. He sent Putin the testing machines that hospitals use, and that American hospitals desperately needed. Allegedly they were utilized to test anyone Putin came in contact with.

[hobie]

Wonder if he sent ventilators too. That would be bigger than handing over American test machines. However, like you say, it's still pretty ugly to be handing Putin needed American technology during a crisis

[Dr. Ed 2]

One or two machines? How much of an impact would that have?

I'm reminded of what someone involved in such things said about Iran Contra -- there definitely would be an American benefit from cultivating a relationship with a saner branch of those nutcases, and the stuff we allegedly sold to them was essentially identical to stuff that they could have bought from a whole lot of other people.

You can't view International Relations in terms of good guys and bad guys -- the point that JFK made was that just because we were civil to certain people in the UN didn't mean that we liked them.

The fact is that Obama gave the Ukrainians blankets, Trump gave them Javelin (anti tank) missiles. So Trump then gave Putin a couple of testing machines that were statistical outliers in terms of US medical needs. So what?

[Brett Bellmore]

The point is that Trump wasn't supposed to be capable of diplomacy. They wanted him to lunge across the table and throttle Putin, anything less proved he was a Putin ally.

[Moderation4ever]

I find it amusing that the Putin loving wing of the Republican party like to downplay Covid when their buddy Putin seems so terrified of the infection.

[Joe_dallas]

there is no putin loving wing of the republican party.

[bernard11]

Coulda fooled me. Trump sure seems to be a fan.

[OtisAH]

And MAGAGOP loves who/what Convicted Felon Trump loves. That is:

Convicted Felon Trump, Vladimir Putin, Convicted Felon Trump, Kim Jong Un, Convicted Felon Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Convicted Felon Trump.

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

How many times were you dropped on your head as a baby? A few too many it seems.

[grb]

bernard11 : "Trump sure seems to be a fan"

There was a cermony for the armistice that ended World War I. Trump was there seated among the closest allies of U.S, looking hunched-over, mopey and petulant as a small child trying to keep still for a church sermon. Then his face broke into a radiant smile. Why? Putin had arrived.

You have to wonder why. Putin his one of the most loathsome leaders on the world stage today. He has personally destroyed any chance of Russia becoming a normal country where people are free to live normal lies. What does Trump see in him?

https://time.com/5451539/putin-trump-thumbs-up-paris-wwi-commemoration/

[Joe_dallas]

Lets pretend the "russian reset" never happened

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a big difference between loving Putin and dealing with the Russian leader we have and not the one we would like to have. (Whatever happened to Boris Yeltsin?)

Second, there is a big difference between not being concerned about Covid and the jack-booted fascism that the Dems imposed because of it.

Notwithstanding that, if we can gain influence over Putin by giving him a machine that otherwise would have been sitting in a closet, why not? While giving him a hundred or a thousand would have been a different issue, what was the harm with one?

[Kazinski]

Jake Tapper, discussed the Putin phone call allegations with a knowledgeable foreign expert that has had lots of dealings with both Trump and Putin,

He is skeptical:
https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1843788918787059729?t=LjTsFsRv45yNhSQYDZ3TiA&s=19

[Sarcastr0]

Ever notice how you seem to have an outcome you want, and then search till you find a media source that agrees with you on it?

No one knows enough about this yet to verify.
Tapper's just filling air.

[Kazinski]

Ever notice whenever there is an outcome you want, then you don't like my source?

[Sarcastr0]

My issue is with the rush to facts when we don’t really know yet.

I’m not really yearning for this to be true, or not.

Of course you assume I’m all about each blow-by-blow in this runup, because that’s you. But I’m really not.

I've got who I want to win and who I want to lose, but the rest of this is just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Kazinski]

I didn't dispute the calls. cause I don't know. Johnson, didn't actually dispute it either, he was skeptical.

What Johnson's point was was when he was in a diplomatic standoff with Putin over assassinations in the UK, Trump supported the UK 100%.

[grb]

Kazinski : "Ever notice whenever there is an outcome you want, then you don’t like my source?"

1. To be fair to Sarcastr0, you are frequently full of shit.
2. The Kremlin has already confirmed Woodward's account.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4923741-trump-putin-covid-testing/

[Sarcastr0]

I don't trust the Kremlin, though. I'm unsure enough that they may have been Woodward's sole source I'm still waiting on confirmation. Which will be along soonish I expect.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Kremlin has already confirmed "

Well, that settles it. Putin's word is good now!

[Krayt]

As Sarcastr0 replied, Kremlin could be liars and the source for Woodward.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, because as we know (because Putin said so), they're putting everything they've got into supporting Kamala Harris for President!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Well, I'd like to see ol Donny Trump wiggle his way out of THIS jam!

*Trump wiggle his way out of the jam easily*

Ah, Well. Nevertheless,"

Nobody will care.

[Frank Drackman]

I almost expect Pencil Neck Adam Schitt to say “I’m hunting Donalds! huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh!!

Rank

[Nelson]

Here's what's on my mind: the Ninth Amendment.

In a prescient move, the Federalists (notably James Madison) claimed that the Bill of Rights would be viewed as limiting rights unless it was overtly stated that Constitutional rights weren't only the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Therefore there had to be an Amendment acknowledging that there were Constitutional rights that weren't enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

My question: Have there ever been unenumerated rights specifically identified as Ninth Amendment rights by courts or legislatures?

As a follow-up, have there been rights identified by the Supreme Court as fundamental/Constitutional without specifically resting on the Ninth? I am thinking about bodily autonomy issues like Tuskegee.

[not guilty]

Justice Douglas's opinion of the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965), quoted the Ninth Amendment (without elaboration) as supporting a constitutional right of privacy. (He also cited the First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Ninth, and the Fourteenth Amendments.)

Justice Goldberg's concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan, more comprehensively emphasized the relevance of the Ninth Amendment to the Court's holding. Id., at 487-493.

[SRG2]

Speculation only: I wonder whether the right to travel would be one example.

My layman approach to 9A is that it does not apply merely to other rights existing but not specifically identified at the time but that it confirms that the government has no power to infringe on any right it is not given the explicit power to infringe on via A1S8, etc.

So for example there is a right to internet access under 9A.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, a substitute/basis for enumerated powers doctrine? But I think the 10th has that covered, or would if upheld.

[Krayt]

If it's redundant, I'm fine with that. The debate was whether we needed enumerated rights, lest future politicians claim they don't exist, and the fear that listing them would lead future politicians to claim those were the only rights.

History shows both fears were correct.

[Brett Bellmore]

History shows that the Anti-Federalists were much more prescient than the Federalists. They were basically spot on with every one of their concerns.

And if you look at the way the Federalists went and enacted the Alien and Sedition acts, as well as the Logan act, both violating the 1st amendment they'd opposed, their opposition to having a Bill of Rights starts to look more like "It would get in our way" than "it's not needed".

[David Nieporent]

The Logan Act does not violate the actual first amendment, though I recognize that it may violate the first amendment that exists in Brett Bellmore’s head.

It no more violates the 1A to criminalize unauthorized negotiations on behalf of the U.S. government with a foreign country than it does to criminalize revealing classified information to a foreign government, even if both involve speech.

[Ridgeway]

The issue is that the Logan Act is not limited to people purporting to act on behalf of the US government. It covers any communication by any US citizen with a foreign government with intent to influence that government in connection with its relationship with the US. Specifically:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

I think that makes it a harder case from a 1A perspective, likely explaining why we have had as many Logan Act prosecutions as we have had.

Note that the CRS does not seem to think it is a slam dunk either:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10058

[Brett Bellmore]

To the best of my knowledge, we've NEVER had a Logan act prosecution that actually was completed. We've had, what, three of them in history, and every one of them dropped before reaching a verdict?

It's the classic example of a totally unconstitutional law that's kept around as a threat, but never, ever used, because everyone expects the Supreme court to strike it down in a heartbeat if you ever allowed a test case to reach the Court.

[Nelson]

"totally unconstitutional law"

Except that in over 200 years it’s never been found to be unconstitutional. What, has no one ever gotten around to it?

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said just above your comment, (didn't you read what you were replying to?) they've dropped EVERY LAST PROSECUTION. And only three even got to the point of charging somebody.

How do you find a law unconstitutional when nobody's being prosecuted under it?

[Sarcastr0]

Why are you so bothered, when nobody’s being prosecuted under it?

[Nelson]

I question whether Constitutional rights are ever so specific as "internet access". That may be a conclusion from a broader right, like flag burning being protected speech as a conclusion derived from the First, but what larger right would cover "I have the right to access porn"?

[SRG2]

Possibly one could contort a penumbra (!?!?) of 1A, that the right to free speech and a free press implies that other citizens have the right to access the speech/press, etc. regardless of medium of access, and that includes the internet, therefore.

[not guilty]

Per Justice Douglas in Griswold, "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read[.] . . . Without those peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure." 381 U.S. at 482-483.

Expression by means of motion pictures is included within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 502 (1952). It follows that there is a First Amendment right to read and receive (non-obscene) pornography.

[Krayt]

Where does government have a power to ban porn? Government should only have powers specifically given to it by The People. Who in their right minds grants it the power to regulate sexuality?

"But States existed already!" Maybe, but not really a respectable argument.

[Nelson]

"Who in their right minds grants it the power to regulate sexuality?"

On America, they're called Republicans.

[Commenter_XY]

9A: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

My question...were those rights not specifically enumerated (but retained, nonetheless) only those from that era, or have new rights been created under 9A as a result of technological progress, and time.

[Nelson]

I think the broad concept is that rights, identified or not, exist regardless of any awareness of them. That advances in knowledge expose rights doesn't mean they are "created".

An analogy would be an archeological dig. Discovery of an artifact doesn't create it, it merely exposes what was already there.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

You can phrase the "rights" to a high enough level of generality to include specific current realities.

Overall, the Framers were products of the Scientific Revolution and knew there was not a fixed status of knowledge, including the knowledge of rights.

I think if that sort of thing interests a person, limiting things to specific "of that era" rights based on the technology of the time would seem somewhat absurd to them.

Jonathan Gienapp's new book on originalism, which has received a lot of positive feedback from scholars, covers some of this ground. Perhaps, Volokh Conspiracy will have a post on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5flX8msgIBc

The ultimate question also is how you determine the rights protected by the 9A, including ultimate enforcement. Since people of that era saw a smaller role for the courts than we do, today's debates are somewhat different in that sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

My understanding was that the intent was to avoid rights being lost by implicit repeal, not to license the judiciary to invent new rights.

So, you'd at least have to demonstrate that the action had a history of being treated as a right, to invoke the 9th amendment. I suppose that history wouldn't have to be contemporaneous with ratification, though any history that was would automatically be relevant.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett going for intent over text again.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are you a Living Constitution type?

[Brett Bellmore]

How is that intent over text? Obviously texts HAVE intents behind them, or nobody would bother writing them.

But all the text says, essentially, is that you can't use the fact a right wasn't written down to impugn it's existence. That still leaves you needing some basis upon which to assert its existence!

Remember, the judiciary were the least dangerous branch. They didn't write the 9th amendment in order to change that.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2 suggested travel (interstate, international, intrastate?).
Others have stated 'privacy'.

What 'rights' would you see coming from 9A?

[Brett Bellmore]

That’s a good question. Most of my concerns at the federal level don’t actually require ‘new’ rights, if only the federal government were limited to its enumerated powers. (Like that’s ever going to happen, at this point.) But at the state level?

Freedom to farm would be a pretty solid 9th amendment right.

I think maybe “first sale” doctrine has a good claim to being a 9th amendment right.

And, of course, the various economic rights that were recognized prior to the early 1900’s; As I say, Lochnerism was actually right as a constitutional matter.

But the 9th amendment isn't, technically, a source of rights. It's simply a rule of interpretation. You need to independently establish that something WAS treated as a right at the time of ratification, or maybe that it had come to be treated as a right later.

The 9th amendment simply prohibits using non-enumeration as a basis for dismissing a claim of a right. As such, of course, the judiciary routinely violates it...

[Commenter_XY]

Those were good examples....maybe home distilling could be added to the list.

[SRG2]

Good "history and tradition" argument there!

I have a predominantly white cat with a few black splotches who I named "Moonshine" because when I first got him, he'd move like white lightning.

[not guilty]

The Tennessee Titans had a white, Pro Bowl punt/kickoff returner, Marc Mariani. A local radio program that he sometimes appears on as a commentator has nicknamed him Moonshine.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Internet is the ability to send and receive information -- freedom of speech is right to send and right to peaceably assemble is right to receive (because people addressed the assembly).

[Nelson]

"invent new rights"

How would that work?

Were free speech and freedom from search and seizure "invented"? If not, how would they differ from bodily autonomy or privacy?

[Krayt]

I’m fine with full-blown Living Constitutionalism, in recognizing new, unenumerated rights for The People, even if they would not be considered such back in the day.

The reverse is not true. There is no living constitutionalism discovering new powers for government that would not have been considered such back in the day.

These views are 100% in accordance with each other. The people and their rights and freedoms are supreme. Government, and what powers it can wield, are the historical threat to freedom, and need the laborious, supermajority amendment approval, by The People, before the power mongers may be permitted to sling it from the hip.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Government, and what powers it can wield, are the historical threat to freedom

The Constitution set forth a new and more powerful federal government to further freedom (see the Preamble). As the Declaration of Independence notes, governments are formed to secure the rights of the people.

How exactly to apply government powers will develop over time, including factoring in the knowledge and realities of the current era. Legitimate regulation of interstate commerce, for instance, will factor in realities that were not in place in 1787.

[SRG2]

Goes back to my old point, that the USAF is unconstitutional and that specifically the president has no authority over it - except under a Living Constitution...

[not guilty]

Donald Trump reportedly has endorsed changing the name of the Army’s Fort Liberty in North Carolina back to Fort Bragg. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/09/lawmakers-trump-confederate-base-00183057

The Confederacy and the American Civil War were all about treason in service of human chattel slavery. Naming United States military installations for Confederate generals who waged war against the Union makes about as much sense as naming an airport for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

[Jerry B.]

Do the Scots have monuments to William Wallace? He was treasonous, per the English.

And there was slavery in Scotland at the time.

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

[Moderation4ever]

We have numerous monuments to people treasonous to England, for example Washington, Franklin, etc.

[not guilty]

Does Great Britain have such monuments to Washington, Franklin, etc.?

[SRG2]

There is a statue of Washington in front of the National Gallery.

https://www.military.com/history/george-washington-statue-london-british-soil.html

Because legend has it that George Washington once swore he would never set foot on British soil ever again, the erectors of the Trafalgar Square statue laid it on a foundation of Virginia soil to ensure that Washington did not tell a lie.

[OtisAH]

And are we England?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Who's "we"?

[Nelson]

Whataboutism in its most pure form.

Ignore that the Confederacy caused more American deaths than any other point in history. Ignore the oathbreaking, cruelty, and moral emptiness of the Confederacy. Ignore the fact that Bragg actively and intentionally killed Americans.

Never mind that, what about Scotland?

[David Nieporent]

Strictly speaking, Wallace could not have been treasonous since he was not English and had never sworn any oaths to England or its monarch.

[Mr. Bumble]

"According to a memorandum published by the Pentagon, the new name changes would cost the Department of Defense $62.5 million. In particular, the change to Fort Liberty would cost the Department of Defense $6,374,230, making it the most expensive name change.[19][20] In accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act, the local garrison had until early 2024 to complete the name change.[21]"

[Nelson]

On one hand you have honoring an oathbreaker who killed American in the name of an evil cause. On the other hand, you have the cost of removing an evil man from a place of honor.

It's pretty simple to most people. Fuck the Confederacy, their immoral cause, and the architects of that evil.

[Sarcastr0]

Cant change anything ever; might cost money.

Weak sauce.

Just say you like honoring Confederates; no need to faff making dumb arguments that prove too much and fool no one.

[Krayt]

It's ironic Trump, and his lickspittle talking heads, use "money" as one of the reasons to abandon Ukraine.

This is grotesquely dishonerable

[Brett Bellmore]

Was this guy a "Confederate"? Not that I'm aware of.

The left wants to destroy every reference to the past it doesn't like, but this destructive desire has no limiting principle. Demonstrably has no limiting principle! It's not remotely limited to Confederates.

If you don't want to walk over a cliff, you're free to refuse to walk towards the cliff before you leading foot is over air. You don't have to wait until the very next step takes you to disaster.

[bernard11]

The left wants to destroy every reference to the past it doesn’t like,

Horseshit. The Confederacy lovers spent a century or more lying about and glorifying the Confederacy and its leaders, and displacing honest accounts of slavery and the Civil War with Lost Cause nonsense. IOW, they want "to destroy every reference to the past [they don't] like."

When they started getting called on it they started all kinds of BS about destroying the past, etc. instead of admitting what assholes the rebels were.

It's not "the Left" that's the bad guys here. It is, among others, the "fine people" who cheer at Neo-Nazi rallies.

[Frank Drackman]

well initially he wanted to change it to Fort Sharpton, I believe, like my Vote for Sharpton in the 2004 DemoKKKrat Primary, as a Goof.

[Dr. Ed 2]

First, it's not that it was named Bragg in 1918, some 106 years ago, but that the name then acquired a secondary meaning to six generations of servicemen and their families.

Above and beyond that, why was it considered necessary in 1918 to name a fort IN SOUTH CAROLINA after a Confederate Rebel?

What was Wilson trying to do at the time? Conversely, look at what the Quebecois (and Irish) did during WWII. Give the South a statute or two so that they will send their boys to die in the trenches of Europe -- that's what was behind this....

[NOVA Lawyer]

Well, and there's the fact that Wilson was one of the most virulently racist presidents, so.....

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, because he was a local? (OK, technically a North Carolinian, but near enough.) It would be pretty weird to name a fort IN MICHGAN "Fort Bragg". It would be kind of tacky naming one in the South "Fort Poe".

[Nelson]

But naming a base in a nearby state after a traitor is A-OK? I thought you lot claimed moral relativism was a bad thing, and yet apparently mere geography shifts the moral balance.

You do agree that he was a traitor and helped kill hundreds of Americans, right? I mean, that's just facual.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I agree he helped kill hundreds thousands of Americans, anyway. So did the Union generals, for that matter, in case you forgot.

Whether he was a "Traitor" depends on your view of the legality of secession, which I don't think was settled by killing people who held a particular view of that legality, and which is independent of whether you approve of the motive for it. I personally take the position that the 10th amendment means secession was, in fact, legal, since it was unmentioned in the Constitution.

We had a civil war, were forcibly reunited, and both sides in that civil war had their local heroes. The losing side is entitled to have its local heroes, and to have them honored. That's my position on the matter.

[David Nieporent]

The losing side is entitled to have its local heroes, and to have them honored.

It is not. And it is certainly not entitled to have them honored by the winning side; we're not talking about a local park being named after the traitors; we're talking about the winning side's military base.

[Sarcastr0]

The losing side is entitled to have its local heroes

Haha who told you that? Heck, the losing side isn't entitled to *be allowed to live*

It's actually pretty toxic to be casual about a culture of racism, slavery and secession to protect slavery continuing.

[SRG2]

The losing side is entitled

See also, "The Middle East"...

[Nelson]

"thousands of Americans, anyway."

Yeah, that was supposed to be hundreds of thousands.

"So did the Union generals, for that matter, in case you forgot."

Blaming the deaths of people on the ones who didn't start the war is disingenuous.

All of the deaths in the Civil War are laid at the feet of the Confederacy because, without the South starting the Civil War, there would have been zero deaths. The North bears no responsibility for defending America against the Confederates.

"Whether he was a “Traitor” depends on your view of the legality of secession"

You mean between the view that it was illegal and they were all oathbreakers (which is factually true) and the Lost Cause view that there was some uber-legality at play (factually untrue)?

As usual, I side with reality over fantasy. Losing an election is not justification for starting a war. I REALLY hope Trump remembers this when he loses again.

"I personally take the position that the 10th amendment means secession was, in fact, legal, since it was unmentioned in the Constitution."

Dissolving the federal government unilaterally isn't, by any stretch, something that would ever be a state power.

Now if they had proposed secession and a majority of all the states had agreed to the proposal, that would be a different discussion. But one state unilaterally deciding for the entire nation? No. Only the states that opposed the winner? No.

This is a clear case of outcome-based reasoning, ignoring all logic.

"We had a civil war, were forcibly reunited, and both sides in that civil war had their local heroes."

No, we had a Civil War (unilaterally caused by the South), the side that started it was defeated (we were never legally separated, so we couldn't be reunited), and the nation had heroes (the North) and villains (the South). The fact that the evildoers who caused half a million deaths refused to accept accountability for their perfidity and believed they were the "good guys" in the face of reality doesn't mean they were any sort of "heroes". Heroes do good. The Confederacy did evil. It is impossible for a Confederate to be a war hero.

"The losing side is entitled to have its local heroes, and to have them honored."

This is Lost Cause on steroids. No, they aren't allowed to call villains heroes.

The winning side was America. We don't have any obligation to honor evildoers. The Confederacy was never anything other than an attempt to destroy America. America has decided to stop indulging the false narrative that the Confederacy was anything other than evil. That's our prerogative, since we were the winners. The losers don't get a vote on how the winner will behave.

"That’s my position on the matter."

So the Confederacy wasn't evil? Noted. The Lost Cause is a valid belief? Noted. America can't deny their enemies positions of honor? Noted.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bragg the man was born in NC and Bragg the fort is located in NC.

[Nelson]

And he was still an oathbreaker and a traitor. Call me crazy, but those people deserve condemned, not honored.

[Nelson]

"but that the name then acquired a secondary meaning to six generations of servicemen and their families."

So what? You think a substantive counterargument to "the Confederacy and all those who aided in its immoral cause should never be given any honored.place in American society" is "some servicemembers might be sad because the base they knew as Fort Bragg had its name changed"?

Maybe find something that justifies honoring the people who got 500,000 Americans killed in order to defend slavery? That will be a heavy lift, but give it a try.

It would be like complaining that renaming an American ... well, anything ... that has Osama Bin Laden's name on it was wrong ... if OBL had helped kill 166,000 times more Americans.

Literally nothing has been more destructive in terms of Americans killed than the Confederacy. It makes brutal terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah seem like pikers in the "causing the death of innocents" Olympics.

And yes, the Confederacy, Hezbollah, and Hamas are moral equivalents.

"why was it considered necessary in 1918 to name a fort IN SOUTH CAROLINA after a Confederate Rebel?"

Because the Lost Cause is real and the Confederacy was still embraced by Southerners. Hell, today, 150 years after the Confederacy was put down like the rabid dog it was, some Sourherners still call it "The War of Northern Aggression".

I have a friend who grew up in Georgia that was taught it that way in the late 80s/early 90s. When he went to LSU he was probably astonished that people learned it any other way, since according to him that was all he heard growing up. And this is from a guy who took out a loan to buy an AR-15 when Obama won because he was going to take everyone's.guns away. A loan he hadn't paid off four years later when I hired him.

"Give the South a statute or two so that they will send their boys to die in the trenches of Europe — that’s what was behind this…."

Sometimes I read something Dr. Ed writes and think, "That's the dumbest thing he has ever said", then the next day I read anothet post and I'm forced to reassess. But the idea of a statue for a traitor as the deal-breaker in the decision to enlist? Surely that one can't be topped until at least next week. Right? Right?!? Please, someone say that's right.

[SRG2]

David Brin, amongst others, has argued that the Civil War isn't over.

https://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2014/09/phases-of-american-civil-war.html

(And this was before Trump fired up the Confederates.)

FWIW I cite the South's still not being over the (hot) Civil War as a counter to those who think that because the CRA and VRA were passed 60 years ago, African-Americans should have "got over it". Yeah well, it's been 160 years...

[verochkax]

Obama didn't take everyone's guns away because he couldn't. He would have loved to, as guns are frequently used by people who look like my hypothetical sons to defend against people that look like his.

[Nelson]

"people who look like my hypothetical sons"

So, given your genetic input, barely smart enough to remember to breathe?

[gVOR08]

Seems silly to change the name again. But if we must name forts for Confederate generals, it's good to name them after losers like Bragg and Hood.

[Nelson]

It might be cheaper if we just put "The Traitor and Killer of Thousands of Americans" in front of every Confederate name and called it a day.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, as long as we put "Killer of Thousands of Americans in front of every Union name, too. Since it's just as true.

[Sarcastr0]

The Civil War was the Confederacy’s fault. The Union generals were doing their jobs. The Confederate generals were defending slavery and disunion.

For a long time, it was just an awkward averting of the eyes as too many venerated the Confederacy. We all knew a couple of reasons why. None of them flattering. And it’s to our shame we didn’t call out those assholes for decades.

Wrong side of history again, Brett.

What kind of liberarian defends the side of slavers? Brett's kind. The kind that aligns with the far right in every single way but likes the way libertarian sounds better.

[Frank Drackman]

Your Northern Pubic Screw-el Ed-jew-ma-cation is showing, were Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware defending Slavery? and you probably don't know that the Bogus Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to the states that remained in the Union. South's mistake was in calling what they did "Succession" they should have just kept doing what they were doing and ignored the North.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

No, secession was the Confederacy’s fault. The war was the Union’s fault. They could have just let the South go.

I will frankly say that the Confederacy had the worst conceivable motives for seceding. But if they had the legal right to secede, (And I believe they did.) their motive for doing so was precisely legally irrelevant.

And Lincoln’s motives for forcing them back into the union were not much better. He frankly stated that he was willing to guarantee the future of slavery to get them back, so don’t give me any noble cause bullshit. Freeing the slaves was just something he seized on because the public in the North weren’t willing to bleed and die just to establish that the union was a roach motel.

I am glad slavery got abolished. Very glad. I’m glad the Bill of Rights eventually became binding on the states. But I’m not going to pretend it was devils vs saints.

[verochkax]

Lincoln's motives were that America was stronger together than as two separate nations. Might be true, might not be true, but not relevant as to whether states have a right to secede, as I believe they do.

[Nelson]

Gee, what a surprise. You’re a Lost Cause proponent.

"Lost Cause doctrine holds that secession is a right granted by the Constitution; therefore, those who defend it are not traitors."

[Sarcastr0]

The South fired first, was excited for war, and secession was not actually legal.

Lincoln maintained the Civil War was a rebellion the whole time.

When you've studied it out and you wish the Union had been allowed to dissolve so one bit could keep their slaves, you've followed your logic to a stupid place.

But you live there these days.

[Nelson]

"No, secession was the Confederacy’s fault. The war was the Union’s fault. They could have just let the South go."

You know that's the core argument of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, right? The fantasy that the North bears any responsibility for any part of the Civil War is insane, never mind the idea that they are solely responsible for it.

Even Alabama stopped teaching it as "The War of Northen Aggression" years ago, and those people are one of the bottom 5 in education every year.

"But if they had the legal right to secede"

Not according to people who actually know what they're talking about.

"And Lincoln’s motives for forcing them back into the union were not much better."

No one "forced" anyone. It's the United States. Saying "we're divorced and we're taking all your stuff and it's valid because we say so" isn't, in fact, valid. No one has to treat it as valid. Lincoln retained our (America's) country. There is no other action a President could take.

The Confederacy had no validity. They weren't another country to be "reunited", they were a violent insurrection in defense of slavery.

[Nelson]

"in front of every Union name, too"

The Union carries no blame for any deaths in the Civil War, since the sole reason so many people died was the Confederates.

[John F. Carr]

The Boston Globe published an investigation into the collapse of the Steward for-profit hospital chain.

This “appears to me to be serious white-collar crime,” said Steve Weisman, an attorney and expert on financial scams who teaches at Bentley University and has followed the Steward saga. Weisman likened [Medical Properties Trust]'s activities with Steward “to the type of accounting fraud perpetrated by executives at Enron.”

The real estate investment trust that charged so much rent to the hospitals was sending money back to the hospitals so they could keep paying rent. Thus the market value of the landlord, a publicly traded company, was inflated relative to its true value.

https://apps.bostonglobe.com/metro/investigations/spotlight/2024/09/steward-hospitals/steward-mpt/ (may or may not require a subscription depending on location, browser settings, and phase of the moon)

[Nelson]

I may be wrong, but isn't that sort of self-dealing an overtly criminal act? Is there some sort of controversy about whether it's a crime?

I'm not following the case, so that's an honest question (mentioned to avoid falling victim to Poe's Law).

[John F. Carr]

Maybe the players didn't think they would get caught. Maybe they honestly believed a loan to a tenant would be paid back, despite all the evidence pointing the other way. I have heard many stories of a little loan to pay the bills this one time snowballing into a messy failure. I was going to pay it back!

Warren has filed a bill on this subject. It may be the same one she filed a few years ago. The older bill aimed to make private equity funds liable for the debts of their acquisitions. For example, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation can recover its costs if the acquired company needs a pension bailout.

[John F. Carr]

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a report on a large attorney's fees award against Nike for abusing the legal process to make even winning a lawsuit unaffordable for the small company that sued it.

[Special master Jane Cutler] Greenspan wrote that Nike tried to discourage Nathan from pursuing the case by burying Lontex in expensive litigation that ran his legal bills into the millions.
“Nike’s incivility, bad behavior, blatant willful infringement, and recklessly indifferent conduct” once it was warned it was infringing on trademarked designs “are rare qualities” that justify more than the usual modest penalties, she found.
Nike spokespeople and six lawyers from national corporate law firm DLA Piper plus one for Philadelphia-based Saul Ewing, all of whom represented Nike, didn’t respond to inquiries seeking comment on the decision or whether Nike plans to object to Greenspan’s findings.

https://www.inquirer.com/business/nike-trademark-violation-sweat-it-out-norristown-pennsylvania-20240930.html

I worked for a small company that had our IP stolen by a very large company that could afford to spend more than our net worth on lawyers. Nothing we could do about it. It might have been feasible and cost effective for us to sue another small company.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, the legal bill went from 800K (awarded by jury) to 7+MM (what special master recommended). In this case, looking at the malevolent conduct of Nike, and that of their attorneys especially, it seems justified.

The Third Circuit seems to think Nike acted malevolently.

I wear NB, anyway, heh. Good walking shoe.

[Nelson]

I prefer NB myself, they're excellent for people with wide feet. I worked for a Nike licensee, which meant we could get shoes for, on average, 90% off, but they run so narrow I never got any for myself.

[santamonica811]

My 10.5 size feet are, I guess, odd-shaped. Really difficult to find sports shoes that are very comfortable. New Balance staff were able to find them for me. Took over an hour in their store of measuring one thing after another. But...the most comfortable shoes I've ever had for tennis, walking around, etc..

Downside? They were crazy-expensive (from my perspective). About 3-4 times as expensive as my usual sneakers. And, since they are exercise shoes, they last only 4-5 months. Is it worth it for me? I go back and forth on this. Sometimes I do splurge, to get the 10/10 comfort. Other times, I buy the budget shoes that give me 9/10 comfort, which I have found is generally good enough.

(Sort of like flying Business Class. I rarely treat myself, since it's hard to justify paying triple or quadruple the Coach price. But I do do it sometimes. And often do it, when I can upgrade by using my freq. flier points.)

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, it is tough for me, I am 10W, and NB is perfect. Worth the money. If they are comfortable, just buy them and don't fret. For your feet, good enough really is not. get the 10/10 comfort. I makes a difference over time.

I don't fly coach for flights over 3 hours.

[SRG2]

To my certain knowledge, a few major and well-known financial firms have small departments whose job it is to go through new business process patents and determine which are worth infringing on, where it is estimated that the firm owning the IP would be unable to defend it.

For the small limited company I own with a partner we didn't bother to file even a provisional patent for some IP because it provides no real defence and the best way to defend the IP was simply to point out that the man-hours required to replicate it made it cheaper just to buy it from us.

[Brett Bellmore]

My prior employer had invented a novel form of lumbar support for chairs and car seats, much superior to the ones then in use. We were looking to make a lot of money off it, then along came a major company, our expected competition.

They'd secured a patent on our invention overseas, after our patent had been issued, then came to us offering to buy our patent and tooling for just enough to cover our development costs. Or, they said, we could fight them in court, but while the fight was going on we wouldn't be able to sell the product, and THEIR lawyers were on retainer.

The owner was mad as hell, but eventually decided he had no choice but to sell out to them.

Salt in the wound: They didn't use our design, they kept manufacturing their own inferior one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's the same problem that individuals have -- the cost of legal representation is so excessive that most have no ability to exercise their legal rights.

The ABA won -- the practice of law is lucrative but that is coming at a price -- ranging from Elizabeth Warren's antics to Mississippi Juries.

[David Nieporent]

didn’t respond to inquiries seeking comment on the decision or whether Nike plans to object to Greenspan’s findings.

Let me help: yes, they do plan to object.

[Kazinski]

Mark Halpern, formorly ABC political director, and of MSNBC and Bloomberg, says on his podcast:

“In the conversations I’m having with Trump people and Democrats with data, they are extremely bullish on Trump’s chances in the last 48 hours. Extremely bullish,”

Specifically some of the data he is talking about, is internal Democratic polls Baldwin in Wisconsin, and Slotkin in Michigan have disclosed to Democrats, that not only show their own Senate races moving into tossup territory, but Harris behind in both States.

“There’s no path without Wisconsin, We all said yesterday, Wisconsin and Michigan are looking worse for Harris than before.”

https://x.com/2waytvapp/status/1843883126881161636?t=biRz5mg6vhDj_BI-QegHBw&s=19

One other independent data point is that the Cook Political Report has moved the Wisconsin Senate races to a tossup, saying Baldwin has a two point lead. Baldwin has been consistently been doing 5-7 points better in her race than Biden/Harris have done at the top of the ticket. If all the sudden Baldwins race is a tossup, then it follows Harris is underwater. And there is a similar trend in Michigan and PA.

https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/senate/wisconsin-senate/wisconsin-senate-shifts-lean-democrat-toss

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, the data are clear: The race is statistically tied, every poll with methodology I can understand has them within the MoE in the battleground states. The national number is not helpful.

It is all about motivation and turnout. Voting is already underway in many states.

I do think PA moved, and will continue moving away from VP Harris, week by week, into Pres Trump's electoral column. There are a number of factors unique to PA (Shapiro rejected, PA Supreme Ct ballot decision, Butler, fracking, loss of union support, difference in new registrations by party, and Pres Trump just plain showing up and asking for their votes) that will explain what happened. Senator Fetterman called this out six weeks ago, was anybody paying attention because he really nailed it.

To me, a close election has always come down to AZ, GA and WI. Those three states have unique issues that are hot buttons. If the election is not close, then this is moot.

It is ironic that both candidates are their own worst enemies, verbally.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's possible for Trump to be his own worst enemy as long as there'the MSM or the DOJ, but third place? He's got that locked down.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett...If The Donald is not his own worst enemy, then he is a close second.

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't that more or less what I said?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “…. as there’the MSM or the DOJ ….”

A point that can be applied generally. For example: “See that street corner crack dealer? He’s not his own worse enemy as long as there’s the local police narc squad.”

As for the MSM, imagine a normal politician (or human being) doing any of the grotesque, crude, addled, or pathological things that are daily events with Trump. That normal pol (or actual human being) would get 10X the coverage because Trump has defined imbecility, dishonesty & deviancy way down. Just yesterday we had DJT saying he’d never heard of a Category 5 hurricane reaching landfall and offering this evidence of advanced dementia re windmills:

“They got these big, ugly suckers hanging down. They’re rusting and rotting,” Trump said. “Half of them weren’t spinning, and the ones that were were going so slow. They were going, it’s not too windy, but y’know, they’re going like slow. The other ones were just dead. But they’re all rusting and disgusting looking. The wind, the wind, it sounds so wonderful. The wind, the wind, the wind is, the wind is bullshit, I’ll yell you.”

Imagine if a normal politican (or person who wasn’t a hollowed-out empty nothing inside) said something like that? Easily front page news. But that will probably get no coverage at all. Of course what Brett actually means is this: As long as he can blame the messenger, he doesn’t have to confront Trump’s lifelong criminality, deep stupidity, or mentally-ill dishonesty. After all, Trump could shoot an innocent stranger on Fifth Avenue and Brett would blame the cop that arrested him and the newspaper that reported it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" he’d never heard of a Category 5 hurricane reaching landfall "

Only four ever have, and the most recent (Michael, 2018) was considered Category 4 but upgraded the next spring on the basis of observed damage. The worst was the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 -- ever hear of it?

See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/atlantic-hurricane-basin-category-5-united-states/

It actually makes sense if you reflect on the principle of conservation of energy -- i.e. the energy that causes the damages as the hurricane comes ashore has to come from somewhere and hence weakens a storm that is no longer feeding off the vertical rise of humid air coming off the ocean.

That's what happened here -- according to the same CBS News, Milton came ashore as a Category 3 -- bad enough -- but not Category 5. TRUMP WAS RIGHT -- it weakened as it came ashore.

And the other wild card is that you have to add the forward speed of the storm to the wind on the right side of the hurricane because that's the actual wind speed.

[Nelson]

"TRUMP WAS RIGHT"

Since even you couldn't weasel-word away every Category 5 in your "Yeah, but ..." screed, this is absolutely 100% false. At best, you can say "TRUMP WAS IGNORANT", but he absolutely wasn't right. But ignorance is his default state, so ...

And tomorrow, when someone asks about him saying there have been no cat 5 hurricanes that have made landfall and he doubles and triples down, it will turn into "TRUMP LIED", which will cause Trumpkins to talk about tornadoes on Oklahoma and swear that proves he was right.

[grb]

Hell – If necessary, Trump can even take a sharpie and change the hurricane to conform to his statement. After all, he’s done that in the past.

Note to Ed: I know Category 5 hurricanes have reachied landfall before. I knew that even before the incessant focus on Milton these past few days. Even you, Dr. Ed 2, knew that basic fact. If Biden or Harris didn’t (if they said what Trump did) it would definitely be headline news. So:

1. Even allowing eveyone accepts Trump is dump as a box of rocks, why isn’t it with him?

2. How is the MSM “out to get Trump” when he gets away with things no one else does?

[Krychek_2]

I have a theory on that. The MSM spent 2016 destroying Hillary Clinton only to wake up the day after the election to realize they actually got Trump elected and that they bear partial responsibility for the disastrous four years that followed. So their open season on Trump this year has two roots. One is guilt over helping him get elected in the first place, and two is an honest conviction that the country may not survive another four years of him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where "destroying Hillary Clinton" just means, "not defending her zealously enough".

[Krychek_2]

The charitable interpretation is that you have a bad memory. Her 2016 coverage was awful.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's perfectly possible for the media to be defending somebody, and giving them awful coverage at the same time. It just requires them to be more awful than the coverage. Hillary was.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Hillary was.”

Oh really? How so? It used to be common to criticize her as a “liar” but I doubt even you are so shame-faced hypocritical. And there was the endless effort to find some wayward offense in a real estate investment where the Clintons lost their shirt and were defrauded by their business partner but – hell – you worship a lifelong criminal as cult god so I’m not expecting much on that front. Indeed, take all of Ken Starr’s detritus under the general rubric of “Whitewater” and compare it to the snowflake hysteria criticizing Mueller’s investigation.

Aside from the fact Starr was a partisan hack & Mueller wasn’t, all of “Whitewater” was based on less, amounted to less, and was drawn out longer (for political reasons) than Mueller’s inquiry.

I guess you can fall back on the emails. Too bad you can’t make a factually coherent case for your outrage. So we’re left with your loathing of Ms Clinton as a free-floating miasma, derived more from your sour disposition than reason or just cause.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, there you go, pretending that she wasn't corrupt as hell, which Whitewater was just the start of. Take a look at her cattle futures trading expertise some time.

[David Nieporent]

You know that Whitewater and the cattle futures were both heavily investigated, right? And nobody found any wrongdoing of any sort by Hillary Clinton? Your definition of "corrupt as hell" is "has a (D) after her name."

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “… pretending that she wasn’t corrupt as hell …”

What about her cattle trades? The Clintons were referred to a futures trader named Robert L. “Red” Bone by a friend (James Blair). Bone was making massive piles of money for a small group of clients and did so for the Clintons. Since you’re deeply ignorant about this beyond dark ominious mutterings, I’ll make your case for you. There were two possible objections to the Clinton’s conduct:

1. Bone might have cherry-picked successful trades to the couple’s benefit. That wouldn’t have been illegal, but would have raised ethical issues. Unfortunately (for you) all the evidence suggests otherwise. The Clinton trades were a continuous series of wild swings between huge gains & losses – the exact opposite of the “cherry-picking” scenario.

2. More substantive, during those low points the Clintons should have faced a margin call. But Bone was letting all his clients slide. Within two years – long after the Clintons panicked and left the market – he (Bone) would be sanctioned for precisely that lapse.

And that’s it – soup to nuts. There’s a thimbleful of scandelette there in that the Clintons didn’t demand (demand!) their wildly sucessful broker didn’t treat them differently than everyone else, but I suspect your dour grumbling was supposed to signify more. So, two questions:

1. Why do I need to school you on this?
2. Who do you think is more “corrupt”, Clinton or Trump?

[grb]

A personal note on the Cattle Futures Farago : Most of my facts came from a James Glassman article in the New Republic (which I subscribed-to back in the day). Although the article headline promised scandal, the substance was no more than what I note above.

Years later. Andrew Sullivan was running his personal blog. Always the most vitriolic & snide of Clinton-haters, he made a Bellmorian-style dig about the cattle-futures-thing. I did a reply saying that was just empty talk – something I knew from reading the Glassman article in his very own magazine (Sullivan was TNR editor at the time).

Surprisingly, he replied. It was, he admitted, a good article.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Brett, we all know you burnished your telepathy and speculation-into-conviction skills with the Clintons back in the day.

Doesn't make that discursion from established reality any better than your more recent discursions.

[Krychek_2]

Your claim was that they merely didn’t defend her vigorously enough and that is pure arrant horseshit. All they talked about the entire last month of the campaign was investigations into her emails. I remember interview after interview in which she would try to talk policy and the interviewer would change the subject back to her emails. Every other investigation for the past 25 years was repeatedly rehashed. If you consider that a mere not-vigorous defense I’d like to see what you would consider actual bad coverage.

There were actual comparative studies done on her negative coverage versus Trump’s negative coverage. They routinely showed that her coverage was far worse than his. I don’t currently have access to google or I’d give links but you’ll have no trouble finding them.

Most of the MSM probably thought she would win so they decided to appear unbiased by savaging her, only to find it worked better than they thought it would. So they’re not repeating their mistake this year.

[Brett Bellmore]

News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters

As you can see from figure 1, her coverage was marginally worse than Trump's over the course of the entire campaign. But it was substantially better than his during the general election campaign.

Compare figures 8 and 9: Trump's coverage was bad the entire campaign. Hillary actually had a couple moments in October where she got positive or neutral coverage.

Her problem was that there was just, objectively, a LOT of bad news about her to report, and they couldn't entirely refuse to report it.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The article Brett links makes some interesting points that he doesn’t mention:

Negative news has partisan consequences. Given that journalists bash both sides, it might be thought the impact would be neutral. It’s not. For one thing, indiscriminate criticism has the effect of blurring important distinctions. Were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of magnitude as those surrounding Trump? It’s a question that journalists made no serious effort to answer during the 2016 campaign. They reported all the ugly stuff they could find, and left it to the voters to decide what to make of it. Large numbers of voters concluded that the candidates’ indiscretions were equally disqualifying and made their choice, not on the candidates’ fitness for office, but on less tangible criteria—in some cases out of a belief that wildly unrealistic promises could actually be kept.

Ultimately, the reporting on the Clinton Foundation led nowhere whereas the Trump Foundation turned out to be a bogus “charity” that had to be shut down.

Although conservatives claim that the press has a liberal bias, the media’s persistent criticism of government reinforces the right wing’s anti-government message. For years on end, journalists have told news audiences that political leaders are not to be trusted and that government is inept. And when journalists turn their eye to society, they highlight the problems and not the success stories. The news creates a seedbed of public anger, misperception, and anxiety—sitting there waiting to be tapped by those who have a stake in directing the public’s wrath at government.

[Sarcastr0]

I wouldn't buy into the premise that it is open season on Trump. He's not normal.
He lies a lot more, in size and frequency. He gives no evidence of wanting to lead America at large, versus only his supporters. His rambly angry rants are not normal.

Yada yada.

The media vacillates. At times they cover for him so they can treat him like a normal candidate, as they know how to handle. And they call him on his shit sometimes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I seem to remember "if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."

In 1940, someone said "I tell you time and time again, I will not send your boys off to fight in some foreign war."

[SRG2]

Ah, so you do disapprove of politicians lying after all. Or is it just politicians not named Trump?

[Frank Drackman]

You read it hear first, Fetterman will change his status to "Independent" in January

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's irrelevant -- Angus King allegedly is an Independent but caucuses with the Democrats. Likewise Bernie Sanders is a Socialist but caucuses with the Democrats.

[Kazinski]

The question is how good are the pollster voter models, and have the corrected them for the errors they had in 2020 and 2016?

Both elections were < 1% in 2016 and '20.

Pennsylvania :
October 10, 2020: Biden +7.1
October 10, 2016: Clinton +9.4

Michigan :
October 10, 2020: Biden +6.7 October 10, 2016: Clinton +7.3

Wisconsin:
October 10, 2020: Biden +5.5 October 10, 2016: Clinton +6.8

If they are off by 5% this time too, the election is already over. Biden had enough of a margin to squeek by in 2020 when he was leading by a minimum of 5.5% in those 3 states, Hillary didn't have enough of a cushion.

Kamala has no cushion.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, a model is only as good as the assumptions that underlie it, and the quality of the data going into it. One technical note, there are very, very few mixed data collection mode political polls done with likely, registered voters that are large enough to make a reliable projection

Soon we'll see exit polling of people who stated they voted. I want to see the demo profile of the early voter.

[Josh R]

I suspect we will not see as big a Dem bias in early voting this time around (Trump has been much less vocal against it and the GOP has decided not to continue to be stupid). Thus, even if the Dem adavantage is less than in 2020, I wouldn't make much of it. It's most likely GOP voters choosing to voter early who voted on election day in 2020 (i.e., the GOP advantage on election day will also be less).

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, the reason to see the demo profile of early voters now is to understand what recruitment methods succeeded or failed and amp those up for the next 14 days. There are ~3 weeks of early voting to go. The election will be won or lost here (early voting), unless something dramatic happens (lol).

That is why the difference in party affiliation for new voters in PA is so important to look at. For Pres Trump to have any chance to win PA, he will need lots of early votes. Team R has done yeoman's work in PA. They have a decisive edge in registrations.

Totally agree = stay tuned on election day

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You mean stay tuned for the weeks and weeks after election as they continue to "receive" ballots and count them.

[Josh R]

I don't necessarily agree the election is won or lost in early voting. It can't hurt to get your votes early (they are in the bag), but we don't know how many early voters would have voted on election day anyway. That being said, if PA is on the razor's edge, even a very small fraction of early voters who otherwise would not vote could be a difference maker.

[Commenter_XY]

It is for PA = The election for PA will be won or lost by early voting

[Josh R]

So far, the D/R/I split in ballots requested is 61/28/12 and ballots returned 69/22/8 (does not add up to 100 because of rounding errors). The numbers for returned ballots 2020 were 65/24/12

[Krayt]

Their internal polls are probably most accurate, as they need to know the situation on the ground, and not fanciful polls trying to lead the nation one way or the other.

In 2016 I knew something was up and Clinton did not have it in the bag, when Trump, her, Obama, everyone was campaigning in Michigan the day before the election. This is one of the purple states that's really closer to light blue. If it was in danger, most of the other purple states must be.

[Josh R]

Don't believe what the campaigns say about their internal polls. They have motivation to spin them (e.g., to scare supporters into giving donations).

[Brett Bellmore]

External polls are exercises in PR. Internal polls are probably more accurate, but only get released if they conform to the intended PR, and so become exercises in PR.

[Commenter_XY]

YES! = Their internal polls are probably most accurate, as they need to know the situation on the ground, and not fanciful polls trying to lead the nation one way or the other.

Polling expense is tremendous with a political campaign (like House and above).

[David Nieporent]

Their internal polls are probably most accurate, as they need to know the situation on the ground, and not fanciful polls trying to lead the nation one way or the other.

That may or may not be true, but that doesn’t mean that they’re telling the truth about what those internal polls say. (They can either directly lie, or they can just selectively report the ones that send the message they want.)

[Josh R]

Nate Cohen has a fascinating article (paywalled at the NY Times) on why the polls might be overestimating Trump this time around because of something called “recall weighting.”

It is true the polls underestimated Trump in both 2016 and 2020 (2020 was the worst poll performance since 1980 when the polls showed only a slight Reagan lead). In response, 2/3 of the polls (but not NY Times/Sienna) adjust their raw results based on how respondents say they voted in 2020. If too high a percentage say they voted for Biden compared to actuals, Trump’s adjusted numbers look better than his raw numbers. Thus, these pollsters assume Trump supporters continue to be underrepresented by choice (much the same way Bush43 voters were underrepresented in exit polls that had Kerry winning hours before the polls closed in 2004).

However, Cohen details the history of how and why recall weighting fails. Some people forget who they voted for and say they voted for the winner. Others outright lie to say they voted for the winner. The effect is big enough so that recall weighting overestmates the loser of the previous election.

Who is right? Stay tuned on election day.

[Krayt]

My state has a big push on to get Trump voters to vote early. The Republicans often get burned by a new technique, but adapt.

[Nelson]

"The question is how good are the pollster voter models, and have the corrected them for the errors they had in 2020 and 2016?"

What the hell? Who had any of those states at +5.5% outside the MoE, let alone more?

[SRG2]

The gap between polls and actual results in 2020 is also explained by a simple hypothesis - the GOP attempted to rig the election but the gap was too large for the rigging to succeed.

[Moderation4ever]

As a Wisconsinite I am curious as to what is our hot button issue?

[Commenter_XY]

M4e...Well, the WI Supreme Court is a) elected, and b) recently flipped. They've already had a couple of election related decisions. The Wisconsin Elections Commission has also played a role (along with subsequent investigations, prosecutions). Those are two unique hot buttons to WI (when considered against AZ, GA, WI). The Senate race is also playing an outsized role; Hovde is closing the gap against Baldwin (I never would have thought that).

For the GOP to win WI, depress Dane turnout, drive up Northwest and Northeast WI turnout.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think Wisconsin really has any hot button issues. We do have a Senate race but Tammy Baldwin is pretty formidable. Hovde has little other than money. Dane county is pretty reliable, and Northwest WI includes Vilas county which trends blue. Democrats will do well if they can get turnout in the Milwaukee's consolidated urban area. Trump underperformed with Republicans in Wisconsin's 2020 election. I would expect the same in 2024.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Milwaukee County will always be the last report and will ensure no Republican surprises.

They illegally held out and submitted their vote counts in the last two elections past the legal deadline. They will do it again as they weren't held accountable before and they have a friendly, results oriented, Supreme Court.

[Frank Drackman]

Atlanta does the same thing, I think the Braves brought it with them when they moved from Milwaukee

[Kazinski]

When is the economy not a hot button issue?

In Michigan EV mandates have emerged as a hot button issue, both Slotkin and Harris are denying they are for them, despite votes in Congress (Harris as Senator and VP). They are a hot button issue in AZ too.

[Sarcastr0]

Discord I'm in calls it pollpigging. I think it's a findom ref.

I don't see the alure; just seems like it'll stress you out either way.

But enough folks love it around here I guess.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Most Republicans believe the Democrats will just steal the election again, anyway, so the polls are meaningless, and there's no reason to vote.

[Nelson]

Yet another reason that today's Republicans can't be trusted with serious or important things. If you can't acknowledge something as clear and proven as "the 2020 election wasn't stolen", how can your judgment be trusted on anything else you don't want to believe?

An immunity to facts is a dangerous trait in the powerful.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congratulations to the Mets.

Read an interesting book, "The View From Down Here: Life as a Young Disabled Woman" by Lucy Webster.

She has cerebral palsy and argues the non-disabled in society has a lot to answer for regarding its ableism.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Ninth Amendment was referenced in the thread.

I read various interesting books on the subject. Daniel A. Farber's book is covered here:

https://booksinaflash.com/book-summary-retained-by-the-people-the-silent-ninth-amendment/

[Area Man]

I know this is an unpopular take, but I don't think the 9th Amendment has any substantive component. By its terms, it is merely a rule of construction. It was put in place to prevent the government from weaponizing the Bill of Right's existence against the people's recognized-but-not-constitutionally-protected rights, which usually derived from either state law or the common law. It was not, however, supposed to be the source of those laws or a shield from such laws being repealed/replaced/amended in the ordinary course of lawmaking.

[Nelson]

"It was not, however, supposed to be the source of those laws or a shield from such laws being repealed/replaced/amended in the ordinary course of lawmaking."

Why would the the First or Second or Fifth Amendments be a valid source of laws, but not the Ninth?

[Area Man]

They aren't sources of law. They are shields that protect pre-existing rights. Not all rights have federal constitutional protection.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

” the people’s recognized-but-not-constitutionally-protected rights, which usually derived from either state law or the common law”

It’s rather unclear why the 9A when it speaks of other rights that exist does not include any rights akin to the 1A. It’s a catchall provision. A right such as travel, what would have been seen as a natural right, would be an example of what was at stake.

The “rule of construction” cited other rights. The 9A wasn’t the source of the rights. It reminded people of them. Just like the 1A didn’t “invent” free speech.

The existence of those rights would limit the range of federal power. The federal government, for instance, could not cite deprivation of the rights as a “proper” exercise of power.

It also recognizes, when applicable, a federal obligation to protect such rights such as criminal laws to protect deprivation of a right to travel in federal territories.

[M L]

Important stuff . . .

Gangs Massacre Haitians as Mayorkas Extracts Cops, Doctors, Teachers for Bidenomics Jobs

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/10/09/gangs-massacre-haitians-as-mayorkas-extracts-cops-doctors-teachers-for-bidenomics-jobs/

Where were Haiti’s elite anti-gang police on October 3 when more than 88 Haitians were being murdered by gangs in a rural town?

Hard to find, except for in New York where former anti-gang cops are working in low-wage Bidenomics jobs because President Joe Biden’s migration chief gave them visas to fill jobs in President Joe Biden’s economy.

The U.S. Department of State’s “2024 Trafficking in Persons Report: Haiti,” admitted:

Law enforcement experienced a significant reduction in its [9,000 person] workforce as police officers fled the country; media reported 3,000 police officers departed Haiti since 2022, the majority of whom anecdotally left on the U.S. government’s [visa] processes ..a humanitarian parole program [created by Biden’s border chief, Alejandro Mayorkas] that included Haitians as of January 2023.

The New York Times described the aftermath . . .

The four ex-cops are just a few of the roughly 500,000 people extracted from Haiti by U.S. immigration policy, which is run by Mayorkas and his progressive deputies. They gave “Temporary Protected Status” to roughly 300,000 Haitians after they illegally crossed the border, and awarded travel visas to another 214,000 via Mayorkas’ parole program . . .

Understandably, those policies are extremely unpopular in the United States, in part, because they help push millions of Americans out of the workforce as they push Americans’ economy into a low-tech future.

Many people have pointed out the disastrous results of Mayorkas’ colonialism-like policies in Haiti.

“It’s a brain drain,” Dr. Jean Ardouin Louis-Charles, the secretary-general of the Haitian Medical Association, told the Miami Herald newspaper, which added:

The departures left the Sanatorium [Hospital] with just half of its staff by the time the Grand Ravine gang moved in. At the Hospital of the State University of Haiti, commonly referred to as the General Hospital, there was just one medical resident in pediatrics.

“Given how the situation is in the country …[the Mayorkas parole program] has opened a door for them. But for the country, it has huge consequences,” he said.

“An estimated 30% of teachers across Haiti have migrated to the U.S. and elsewhere, which means some classrooms will not have a teacher on Tuesday.,” the Miami Herald reported on October 1. . .

Worse than a brain drain, Mayorkas’s tempting escape hatch also guts the chances that Haitian leaders, graduates, police, and citizens will collectively risk their lives and fortunes to rebuild a democratic society for the nation’s 11 million people.

“Despair reaches such a level that the daughters and sons of the country only consider their future elsewhere,” one top Haitian official told the New York Times reporter in March 2023. . .

Plenty of reporters understand the chaos caused by Mayorkas in Haiti, but they downplay the connection to immigration policy created by the U.S. establishment. For example, two reporters at the establishment New York Times noted in a May 2024 article:

Many officers have been killed, resigned or simply walked off the job, Mr. Elbé, the police chief, said. But, he added, a significant number had left Haiti under a U.S. humanitarian parole program for Haitian migrants introduced last year by the Biden administration.

Mayorkas has repeatedly explained that he supports more migration because of his migrant parents, his sympathy for migrants, and his support for “equity” between Americans and foreigners. He even insists that Springfield “has blossomed by reason of the infusion of [up to 20,000] individuals from another country.”

He also justifies his welcome for migrants by saying his priorities are above the law, claiming that the “needs” of U.S. business are paramount — regardless of the cost to ordinary Americans, the impact on U.S. children, or Americans’ rational opposition.

But there is an alternative explanation for his extraction policy. . .

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Breitbart bullshit from ML? Shocking.

[M L]

Any substantive thoughts to offer today Jason? What's BS about it?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, "bullshit" does imply some measure of substance and coherence. This article was more like a very wet fart.

[M L]

You could not discern a main point, or two, of this article? And see how each part supports it?

Obviously, I copied and pasted bits of it, so the excerpts are somewhat disjointed, and you'd have to read the whole thing for better structure. And Breitbart's writing and editing always leaves something to be desired, IMO. But maybe it's more of a reading comprehension issue on your part.

[David Nieporent]

What’s BS about it?

Just the words. Everything else is fine. Well, also your formatting, which makes it look like the NYT is saying things that are actually being said by Breitbart.

[M L]

You’re right, I should put in the extra effort for those blockquotes and such. Substantively, though, the lack of any responsive reply among all these replies is increasing the apparent strength of the article's argument.

[SRG2]

the lack of any responsive reply among all these replies is increasing the apparent strength of the article’s argument.

Easy to disprove.

Marjorie Taylor-Greene’s earlier suggestion that there are Jewish space lasers received support from confidential sources within the US intelligence community. It is well-known that Jewish scientists were heavily involved in the development of space weaponry, both in the old USSR and in the US, and Israel itself is in the forefront of the development of laser weapons. At least one Palestinian village in the West Bank was destroyed by a laser test, according to a PA spokesman.

Last March a rocket was launched from, Cape Canaveral with an undisclosed payload, and according to internal NASA sources, outside the regular launch schedule. A photo on Twitter, later deleted, shows the Israeli ambassador to the US at Mission Control for the launch. Three days later, an unexplained fire on Federally owned land in Colorado was started just as the satellite from the recent launch was orbiting overhead. The satellite’s path was noted by a space tracker hobbyist in Wyoming, who asked that his name not be disclosed for his own safety. Witnesses reported a strange light, like straight lightning, striking trees, though local police, through a spokeswoman, denied any reports had been made to them.

etc. etc.

You can either argue against each point here, or dismiss it as rubbish., According to you, if you dismiss it as rubbish, it strengthens the argument of my article.

[M L]

Another substance-free, nonresponsive reply. Nice. Welcome to the subthread.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not hard to see the point he's making and how it pertains to your comments here.

Are you that dumb, or just pretending?

[grb]

ML is a strange case. He’s not a troll, but his standards are as nonexistent as any troll’s. Basically, he’s happy posting content that conforms to the Right’s hive mind regardless whether that content is the purest drivel.

And here’s the bizarre thing: He could put in a little effort, find some actual facts, create real arguments and build a serious case. But he never bothers. As long as he’s One with the Body (right-wing zombie-style) that seems enough for him. Actual meaning need not apply…..

[SRG2]

Substance free? I provided plenty of substance, actual facts, details, etc. All that was missing was a link to some other page.

[M L]

Do you have any substantive critique of the Breitbart article? So far no one's been able to muster one.

[David Nieporent]

Letting people come here is not “extracting" them. They have agency. They are not being imported.
Letting people come here is not “colonialism like."
Mayorkas is not “causing" chaos in Haiti; he is responding to it.
TPS does not “push millions of Americans out of the workforce.”
TPS does not “push Americans’ economy into a low-tech future."

Those are all factual errors.

The moral error is the notion that refugees owe some sort of obligation to their former country to stay there and suffer on the chance they might make the country better.

[Nelson]

Do you not hear the insane partisanship and conspiratorial dot-connecting in your takes when you read what you've written?

[M L]

I copied and pasted excerpts of this article. Partisanship - yes. Insane - no, I don't see it. My tentative conclusion is that the article presents a good argument for why the Biden/Mayorkas policy is bad for Haiti and the people there. It raises the broader point about such immigration policies, which is a point that has long been discussed. But by posting it here I'm hoping to hear the best counter-arguments.

[Sarcastr0]

You say the Dems hate and want to destroy America. You regularly post fringe right wing shit, including a neo-Nazia couple of times.

'My tentative conclusion'...what horseshit. Does anyone ever buy it when you shift your tone to pretend to be the Only Reasonable Person like that?

It'd work only if someone had never read any previous comments of yours.

You're a true believer and no one thinks you read Breitbart critically because they bring up interesting points of view.

[M L]

So nothing substantive from you today, either? Sigh.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, calling you out for lying with your 'tentative conclusion' nonsense is not engaging with the shit you shovel here.

That's by design.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 steps on a rake yet again, and yet again concludes that the audience is laughing with him. We’ve seen this show before.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Only Reasonable Person"

He's messing with your schtick!

[Sarcastr0]

That's an unexpected take on my deal. Not what my self image of my posting here is, but kinda funny you see it like that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are the problems our country is facing caused by an outsider who became President for 4 years, or by the political class and am insulated bureaucracy that has governed for a generation?

[Ed Grinberg]

The latter. Sam Francis explains it well in his book Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Maybe that's why the Democrats and the institutions are so busy hatecrafting against Trump to deflect blame where it belongs?

[Krayt]

Oops wrong post.

[Bored Lawyer]

Came across the following which I find astounding. Takes places in the Netherlands:

Concern at police officers “refusing” to guard Jewish buildings
October 2, 2024

Police chiefs have admitted to changing duty rotas to accommodate officers who have “moral objections” to protecting Jewish events and buildings such as the national holocaust museum.
Mireille Beentjes, a spokeswoman for the national police force leadership, told the Telegraaf that the force took individual objections into account when drawing up duty rotas.
“There is no hard and fast policy,” she said. “The line is that police staff are allowed to have moral objections.
“We take moral objections into account when we make the rotas. But if there is an urgent job to do they go on duty whether they want to or not.”

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/10/concern-at-police-officers-refusing-to-guard-jewish-buildings/

The notion that someone has "moral objections" to protecting an event because it's Jewish, or a Holocaust memorial, is beyond belief. If one has moral objections to protecting innocent Jews, then your moral compass is far off.

And the Dutch authorities seem to have a hard time dealing with it. To be fair, some quoted in the article appear to have taken a hard line, while others seek dialogue and accommodation. Shame on the latter.

Wonder what would happen if a policeman said, "I have moral objections to protecting a mosque."

[Bored Lawyer]

For completeness:

Outrage over cops' "moral objections" to guarding Jewish sites

Reports that some police officers don’t want to be deployed to protect Jewish institutions over moral objections to the violence in Gaza and Lebanon have caused outrage in the Netherlands. The police said it makes space for officers’ moral objections and switches shifts to accommodate for that where possible, but if there is an emergency or urgent situation, police officers respond regardless of their personal feelings. Justice Minister David van Weel and several parliamentarians are very critical.

“During the preparations that were made for the security of the Holocaust Museum, there were colleagues who did not want to be deployed there,” Michiel Theeboom, part of the Jewish Police Network within the national police, told the Telegraaf. “They talk about ‘moral dilemmas,’ and I see a tendency to give in to that.” He called that very concerning and “the beginning of the end.”

https://nltimes.nl/2024/10/02/outrage-cops-moral-objections-guarding-jewish-sites

[Commenter_XY]

How long before that happens here....

I read about that in Arutz Sheva

[Brett Bellmore]

How long before we find out it's happening here, you mean?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Racist cops? In America?!?

[SimonP]

Wonder what would happen if a policeman said, “I have moral objections to protecting a mosque.”

They should receive the same treatment.

Here in the US, Christians seek these kinds of “religious accommodations” all the time. They’re practically constitutionally guaranteed, at this point. Why does it offend you?

[Nelson]

Careful. The idea that your individual religious and moral beliefs are an unassailable justification for refusing to do your job is a basic tenet of American conservatism.

I'll be interested to see how the "my personal morality is more important than yours" crowd will square that circle.

Maybe we can take a poll at Materpiece Cakeshop or 333 Creative about the acceptable reach of personal moral beliefs?

For the record, the non-hypocritical answer to "Is a person's personal moral beliefs a justification for refusing to do their job?" is: No.

[Bob from Ohio]

Police and a baker or website designer are exactly the same!

[Bored Lawyer]

The baker is a private independent business being imposed upon by the state. A cop is an employee of a public entity. Whose very purpose is to protect the public. That you think that distinction is hypocritical says a lot about you.

On the moral side (which is what I was mainly referencing) the notion that "I don't want to create expression that supports something I disagree with" is morally the same as "I don't want to protect Jews from harm because I am upset about what Israel is doing" is, IMO, a sign of extreme moral failure.

[ducksalad]

From a practical point of view, if the cop has moral objections, he’s probably not the one you want to assign to the job.

What’s more important: protecting the Jewish events and buildings, or teaching the cop a lesson? I know your preferred answer is tell him to suck it up or get fired, but then he just shuts up and does a shitty job (or worse).

[Area Man]

I think the point is those cops shouldn't be cops at all because they're anti-Semitic neo-fascists. Cops who can't defend all the public shouldn't be cops. If a bunch of cops here in the U.S. couldn't defend, say, the MLK memorial on "moral grounds," they would quite rightly be fired.

[Nelson]

“From a practical point of view, if the cop has moral objections, he’s probably not the one you want to assign to the job.”

From a practical point of view, a cop who will only work for those who he morally agrees with shouldn’t be a cop. Protecting the innocent is the job, not protecting the innocent as long as I agree with them.

“I know your preferred answer is tell him to suck it up or get fired, but then he just shuts up and does a shitty job (or worse).”

Allowing employees to dictate what jobs they will or won’t do based on their preferences, not your organizational needs, is what a terrible supervisor and an organization doomed to fail permits. These cops are just as wrong as anyone who thinks their particular flavor of Christianity should justify them refusing to do their jobs, like pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions or Kim Davis refusing to issue gay marriage licenses.

These people need to get over themselves. The only relevant question is the one they ask themselves: is this worth quitting my job over? If the answer is yes, they should quit. If the answer is no, they should go do their job.

And if they do a shitty job because they don’t agree with what they’re being asked to do? That counts in their annual assessments for raises and promotions. So I guess the secondary question they should ask is, “is this worth losing a raise or promotion over”? And then they can decide for themselves.

In no scenario are their moral qualms something that should change anyone else’s behavior.

[ducksalad]

I don't disagree with your opinion of the cops, or the long-term solution.

But in this case the consequences of doing a shitty job aren't merely lost jobs or promotions. It could be burned down buildings or even dead people.

Maybe a different way to ask the question. Which cops should you fire:
(a) the ones that admit to being an anti-semite, but claim they'll try to do a good job anyway.
(b) the ones that admit to being an anti-semite, and admit it'll make them less motivated.
(c) the ones that are anti-semites but will only say it off the job when they have freedom of speech.

None of them are particularly desirable but only firing category (b) has unintended consequences, because people can decide whether they're going to do (a), (b), or (c).

[Martinned2]

There are many things wrong with the Dutch police. Don't even get me started.

[not guilty]

R.I.P. Ethel Kennedy, age 96.

[Commenter_XY]

Baruch Dayan Ha'Emet, Ethyl Kennedy.

[SRG2]

Ethyl Kennedy.

Her cremation should be quick, therefore

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, LOL, LOL....touche'

[Commenter_XY]

Before I forget...an easy fast.

[SRG2]

Thank you, and to you!

[Frank Drackman]

was she the one with the Lobotomy?

[Bob from Ohio]

That was Rosemary. Ethel was married to Robert Kennedy Sr.

[Frank Drackman]

So RFK Jr's mom, guy's had a rough year

[Commenter_XY]

From an intl law perspective, proportionality is the deciding factor on whether a military attack crossed the line into being a potential war crime.

Suppose Country A attacks Country B twice, firing hundreds of ballistic missiles in each attack (200 in first attack, 180 in second attack), targeted at military bases, and civilians in major cities. Both attacks fail, less than 5% of ballistic missiles hit their target. Country A's military objective was not met, and there were minimal civilian casualties in Country B.

In response....(hypothetically, of course)

Country B fires 180 ballistic missiles at military bases and specific neighborhoods of major cities in Country A; however, the missile hit success rate is 95%.

Country B fires two volleys of missiles, 200 and 180, at military bases and specific neighborhoods of major cities in Country A. Only this time, the missile success rate is 'only' 50%.

Suppose in each instance, Country A has 10K civilian deaths as a result of the retaliatory attack from Country B, whose military objectives were met.

Which of these is a disproportionate response by Country B? Or is neither disproportionate?

[Brett Bellmore]

From an international law perspective, it's proportionality between damage to innocents and the military objective, not proportionality to the effectiveness of the foes own attacks.

You're not required to be ineffectual in responding to an attack just because you successfully defended against it.

[ducksalad]

Suppose there was this married couple, A and B. They have two young daughters, C and D. Their marriage is not going well. In particular, Parent A is not a good person at all. On one horrible day, A viciously punches child C, leaving her with a bloody nose. It could have been worse.

Parent B, who prides themselves on being among the most moral parents on earth, then calmly muses in a VC comment thread along the following lines:

Parent A smacked daughter C, but it could have been worse. So, should I, parent B, smack daughter D and give her a bloody nose too? Or since A is just bad at punching, wouldn't it be proportionate to punch as hard as I can and break daughter D's jaw or fracture the palate? Which would be proportionate?

The answer of course, is that daughters C and D are civilians rather than combatants in A and B's problem. Talk of proportionality is meaningless, because daughter D never did anything to daughter C. Intentionally harming a child/civilian is always wrong regardless of what the other parent/country did.

[bernard11]

Very good point, DS.

Country B shouldn't be aiming at civilian neighborhoods at all.

[Jerry B.]

How about if Country A bases their rocket launchers in civilian neighborhoods?

[santamonica811]

That is the actual tough question, of course. My sense is that--if there are rocket launchers in a neighborhood--it's no longer a "civilian" neighborhood. Even assuming that everyone who had been living there was indeed a civilian and entirely unrelated to that govt, to that military, etc.. [The alternative answer to this calculation is that, if I'm the evil govt and willing to sacrifice my own people; it would place my rocket launchers out of harm's way, which obviously eventually increases the death and destruction total on the other country's side.]

[Martinned2]

My sense is that–if there are rocket launchers in a neighborhood–it’s no longer a “civilian” neighborhood.

Any neighbourhood where civilians live is a civilian neighbourhood. Neighbourhood isn't really the relevant concept, civilians is. And if you know the enemy is using a human shield (which is a war crime), firing on the human shield is still quite likely illegal. (Depending on what's behind that shield, etc.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"And if you know the enemy is using a human shield (which is a war crime), firing on the human shield is still quite likely illegal."

If you know that the enemy is using a human shield, which IS a war crime, you can't fire on the human shield. Which is to say, you can't specifically target the shield itself.

You can, however, fire on the military objective, and incidentally kill the human shield, under the law of war, so long as the loss of civilian life isn't out of proportion to the value of the military target, and you didn't have another way of attacking the target which wouldn't risk the life of the human shield.

[Michael P]

That's why he hid behind "depending on". He pretends that Israel is doing this regardless of what Hamas is doing and where Hamas is operating from.

[Martinned2]

No, I wrote "depending on" because proportionality is a thing.

[Martinned2]

If you know in advance that you're going to kill civilians, that not "incidentally" killing the human shield. That's simply not what that word means.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that IS what the word means.

I went through chemo back in 2010. The treatment unavoidably had a lot of negative effects on my health. But the objective was to kill the cancer, not to make my hair fall out, give me cataracts, kill most of the veins in my hands, and so forth.

The doctors could, in fact, have accomplished all those things and left the cancer intact, if accomplishing those things was their goal. Instead, they were incidental effects. Incidental is quite compatible with unavoidable.

[David Nieporent]

If you know in advance that you’re going to kill civilians, that not “incidentally” killing the human shield. That’s simply not what that word means.

When you lose a legal argument to Brett, you should reevaluate your life choices. That is indeed what the word means. Your intent is to kill the combatant, not the shield; the shield's death, though foreseeable, is very much incidental. And 100% is legal if the proportionality requirement is met. (Which, to reiterate, requires proportionality between military benefit and collateral damage — not proportionality between the effect on the combatants themselves.)

[Commenter_XY]

David, is hitting Country B's military nuke facilities (all of them) disproportionate?
How about destroying the Kharg Island oil terminal, disproportionate?
Destroying the base housing Khamenei Country Bs dictator, disproportionate?

I see substantial military benefits to Country A in doing all three of those; would that be a disproportionate response? I personally do not think so, as it might end the war with a stiff knockout blow.

[Krayt]

Dictatorships have no validity. Practical reasons stop you from invading and offing them, not ethical ones.

I'd happily risk deaths in my own country, if it were a dictatorship, and someone wanted to invade and free us. It's only self-important assholery in free nations that wrings its hands about crap like this. You're better off alive, all of you, with a boot on your dick. Now pardon me, I have game shows to get back to watching.

[Martinned2]

The fact that we obey the law is what makes us not dictators.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better

[M L]

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/10/09/rep-ro-khanna-on-doj-google-antitrust-case-child-online-safety-concerns-and-2024-election.html

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) on CNBC says age verification legislation to protect children online is getting pushback from groups funded by Meta that argue “if you’re LGBTQ, you need the Internet.”

“You’ve got hundreds of millions of kids on these platforms. I had moms in my office who had lost children because of the choking challenge online, because they’re getting fentanyl online. Here, of course, you’ve got these video games where kids are being preyed on. There’s a Kids Online Safety Act. There are only 15 members of Congress on the House who are on that bill. We’ve got to pass that. The Senate wants to pass it. .

. . . I think there are some tech lobbyists who are pushing back on it. . . I think there are groups that are, some funded by Meta, and they make arguments that I don’t think hold water. They say, well, if you’re LGBTQ, you need the Internet. But, you know what, the bullying is more for LGBTQ kids online, three times than it is for non-LGBTQ kids. And all the Kids Online Safety Act is saying, is age verification, protect children, make sure there’s a standard of harm. So, I think this is a case, really, where tech lobbyists need to be defeated and let’s pass the bill.”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And?

[M L]

Seems like an interesting issue. Do you agree with Rep Khanna, or the Meta-funded LBGT groups? Or perhaps neither, or both?

I'm inclined to agree with Rep Khanna here although I haven't researched the specifics he's proposing.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean yeah, you posted one side of the argument. Easy to be very inclined towards a position when you do it that way!

You are very bad at propagandizing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You, on the other hand, are also quite bad. Since you just regurgitate the elite's narrative as if it were gospel.

[M L]

You got me. I am actually a propagandist for .. *checks notes* .. Congressional Democrats.

I'm sorry I didn't locate a presentation of the Meta-funded LGBT groups argument that "if you're LGBTQ, you need the Internet" direct from the source. Maybe if you have a link you can share it here, or offer an argument yourself to that point?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, looks like you did do that.

And it still sucks!

If you're going to push an opinion, push an opinion. If you're going to play considering an issue, dig up more than one side of it.

It's not a partisan thing. It should be easy.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You look like a fool and an idiot.

Make sure you continue to double down looking like a fool and an idiot.

[Michael P]

Meta wants to siphon up details about kids online to build advertising profiles for them. What more is there to the story?

Apparently the criticism is just as incoherent and conjectural as one would imagine: https://www.advocate.com/law/kosa-anti-lgbtq-groups
https://www.them.us/story/kids-online-safety-act-kosa-youth-lgbtq-content

It's yet another leftist position that Sarcastr0 will only defend by criticizing the approach of people he disagrees with.

[David Nieporent]

What's more to the story is that politicians again want to violate the 1A For The Children™.

[Jerry B.]

“I had moms in my office who had lost children because of the choking challenge online, because they’re getting fentanyl online.”

Consider X and TikTok as a Darwinian test which their kids failed.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I wonder when Proudly Partisan Democrat not guilty is going to share with us his insights on how the NY fraud case is going in the Appeals Court?

Hopefully soon. I wonder how these five judges square the case with Proudly Partisan Democrat not guilty's analysis of the rock-solid, bullet proof, highly normal and ethical fraud case?

[not guilty]

Which New York fraud case? Civil or criminal?

I haven't followed the civil case there closely enough to form opinions.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The one where the filthy corrupt Democrat government prosecutors with all their indica of ethics and truth ended up begging not to be sanctioned for their heinous Proudly Partisan Democrat actions.

[Jerry B.]

Dude. Don’t use drugs before posting.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The NY Court of Appeals shredded the fraud case against Trump.

Of course, you low information types do not know anything about it.

Classic Democrat.

[David Nieporent]

Not only have you completely fabricated a nonexistent ruling, but you don't even know what the New York court system is. The New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in the state — what every other state calls its Supreme Court — and the case has not reached that court.

[John F. Carr]

Many colleges consider the finances of noncustodial parents in computing financial aid, contrary to the federal government which considers only custodial parents and stepparents. A new class action lawsuit claims this is an antitrust violation. The defendants are a random-looking selection of 40 major schools, plus the College Board which created the standard financial aid form. From the complaint:

79. The University Defendants have agreed to adopt, promote, and implement the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy promulgated by the College Board through their involvement in College Board governance and their adoption of the NCP standards. By participating in an association which collectively sets standards related to financial aid, the University Defendants have joined the conspiracy and played a key role in its implementation and enforcement.

A previous lawsuit alleging financial aid collusion among major schools has so far yielded $284 million in settlements.

The case is 1:24-cv-09667 in the Northern District of Illinois, the district containing the first named defendant Northwestern University. Plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP with Berman as lead counsel.

[Bob from Ohio]

I wish the plaintiffs the best of luck!

[ducksalad]

Tell us more. Is it just that suing the commies is a good thing, or are you strongly opposed to considering the finances of non-custodial parents, or that you’re a strict anti-truster who is suspicious of any agreements or collaboration between entitites?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://x.com/DefiantLs/status/1844446474719174974

President Biden begging President Trump to do President Biden's job and help the hurricane victims.

Someone should tell Biden his border czar, Kamala, gave all the FEMA money to illegals.

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : “… to do President Biden’s job …”

Being a worthless fucking troll, the Nazi Child doesn’t say what Biden actually requested from Trump. All Biden asked Trump to do was stop lying about aid to hurricane victims. That’s all. Stop deceiving people whose lives have been upturned or destroyed. Stop treating them as another another mark for Trump to con or scam. For once, put ordinary people’s lives first over a Trump-style huckster pitch.

But being an invertebrate liar himself, the Nazi Child probably favors scam hustles conning people desperate for aid.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"Mr. President Trump... help these people."

It's right there in the video you bootlicker.

[grb]

Note how the Nazi Child ducks all substance in his reply. Again, Biden just asked Trump to stop lying about relief aid. Nothing more.

Stop deceiving people who are facing the most terrible of hardships right now. There was a news account about a man convinced if he accepted food aid the “government” would seize his home. That’s the kind of garbage flowing from the MAGA Lie Machine right now. They’ve taken a break from conning people about Haitians roasting baby kittens. Now they prey on those unfortunate folk whose lives were decimated by Helene.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I literally quoted him you lying moron.

[grb]

Ah, the Nazi Child is getting flustered now! Doesn’t our little hilterite see repeating the same snippet over and over doesn’t challenge the truth of what I say?

And what I said was the truth. Biden begged Trump to stop lying to victims of the hurricane. He asked Trump to stop seeing those people as dupes to be scammed. He asked Trump to think of them as fellow Americans in a desperate way who need our help.

But Trump only sees other people only as things to be conned and used.
He thinks of no one but himself.

[Michael P]

POTatUS begged grb to stop using the Nazi Big Lie tactic? What?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's nowhere in the video I posted.

No where. You made it all up.

[Stella Link the dog]

"But being an invertebrate liar himself, the Nazi Child probably favors scam hustles conning people desperate for aid."

Invertebrate as if he were a slug, perhaps? Was this an intentional joke or the product of a rouge spell checker?

[grb]

Stella Link the dog : "Was this an intentional joke...."

I wish. My poor spelling ability coupled with crude typing skills don't admit of intentionality. Obviously I was aiming for "inveterate" but got carried away.

[Frank Drackman]

Howard Stern is so sad, like seeing Babe Ruth in a clownish Boston Braves Uniform, in his Prime he'd have asked Cums-a-lot how big Willie Brown's Cock was (is?) if she let him do Anal (duh), if the 2d Gentleman Jack Me-hoff's Jewish Micro-Penis is able to hit her G-spot (Howard's a MOTT so he can make Jewish jokes), then bust her Ovaries about picking Tampon Tim (sounds like a Stern "Wack Pack" member) over Josh Shapiro,
but he's been a pussy ever since he married the Animal Rights Bee-otch (I'm an Animal lover too, but c'mon (Man!)

Frank

[verochkax]

Do we know she Cums-a-lot? Willie seems like a pump and dump kinda guy.

[Nelson]

Tonight there are high levels of solar flare activity, so the Northern Lights may be visible in the top 1/3 of the lower 48. Check out the map (the North America button is under the frame on the left) and see if you are in the viewing area.

Light pollution might prevent you from seeing anything, but if you get to see them, they're amazing. I saw them in northern Michigan when I was 12. Nothing impresses a 12-year-old boy, but they managed it.

Good luck!

https://www.gi.alaska.edu/monitors/aurora-forecast

[Currentsitguy]

Just came here to say that. GMTA. If it's anything like what I'm seeing happening across The Pond we're in for a spectacular show.

[grb]

Nelson : "Good luck!"

Thanks, but it's hopeless. I've always wanted to see the Northern Lights. A couple of years back, I did 160mi backpacking the Kunsleden Trail above the Arctic Circle in Sweden. A few times a night I would crawl from my tent to look up - but always nothing.

Next morning? Other hikers would be showing off their pics of the previous night's aurora fireworks. After this happened multiple times, I decided to write it off as the doings of a spiteful deity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, you missed the trick there: Camera sensors are much more sensitive to color at low light levels than human eyes, which revert to black and white. So a camera will take fine aurora pictures when there's basically nothing you can see with the naked eye.

[grb]

Maybe that's it. All I know is I've always wanted to see the full Northern Lights show with shimmering veils of light across the sky. It's a honest-to-God bucket list item.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I have seen them, and it's a worthy thing for your bucket list, for sure. Right up there with a total eclipse.

[Nelson]

I agree completely. The ribbons of light are mesmerizing.

It's also one of those natural phenomena that make you realize how ultimately small and insignificant you are in the universe.

It's a humbling experience that I seek out whenever I can, like staring up at the carpet of stars in the Montana night sky and realizing how vast the universe is (one of the most beautiful sights I've ever seen). And then realizing that some of those stars probably died thousands of years ago (or more) and we won't see them disappear for millenia.

We are each a tiny spark in a vast bonfire, briefly flashing before fading away forever.

[Nelson]

Did anyone get any good shots? In Delaware (actually Maryland, since I drove a couple miles to an NRMA to get away from my town's light) we got pretty good ones for our latitude, but it was the green/pink hazy color, not the streamers of light you get further north.

I know there are a number of people in New England and Wisconsin here. Anyone get the full light show?

[grb]

Donald Trump, quoted from tonight during a rambling word-salad about Elon Musk’s reusable rockets:

“And they’re coming down very slowly, landing on a raft in the middle of the ocean someplace with a circle. Boom. It reminded me of the Biden circles that he used to have, right? He’d have eight circles and he couldn’t fill them up. But then I heard he beat us with the popular vote”

Remember when every Joe Biden stutter or miscue was evidence of diminished capacity? Meanwhile, every night now Trump shows his brain has rotted to consistency of worm-ridden mush. But the cultists don’t care about his obvious dementia. They just don't care.

[santamonica811]

The words coming out of his mouth are kinda jaw-dropping.
I wonder if the people saying, simultaneously, (a) that Kamala is dumb and inarticulate, and (b) Trump is more intelligent and more articulate, are joking, or trolling, or if it's truly that their pro-Trump TDS makes them genuinely incapable of separating fantasy from reality.

(I separate how a candidate answers questions from how he or she speaks in generally; because I (sadly) understand that almost no national candidates answer difficult questions directly. Their deflections are pathetic and irritating . . . but are indication of deception, not stupidity. But when Trump or Harris is just talking--that's what I carefully listen to, to see if they can string together 4 sentences in a row, to make a coherent point.)

When I've heard Harris speak at a rally, I can almost always follow exactly what she's saying. When I listen to Trump, I think he loses his own train of thought at least once every 5 minutes. With windmill cancer and 'sharks vs batteries' only being the most famous in an exhaustive (and exhausting) 500-line list of his senior moments.

[Brett Bellmore]

So,

“And then all of a sudden, you hear that they’re leaving Milwaukee or they’re leaving wherever they may be located. It’s very sad to see it. And it’s so simple. I mean, you know, this isn’t like Elon with his rocket ships that land within 12 inches on the moon where they wanted to land. Or he gets the engines back. That was the first I realized. I said, “Who the hell did that?” I saw engines about three, four years ago. These things were coming. Cylinders, no wings, no nothing. And they’re coming down very slowly, landing on a raft in the middle of the ocean someplace with a circle. Boom.

Reminded me of the Biden circles that he used to have, right? He’d have eight circles and he couldn’t fill ’em up. But then I heard he beat us with the popular vote. I don’t know. I don’t know. Couldn’t fill up the eight circles. I always loved those circles. They were so beautiful. They were so beautiful to look at. In fact, the person that did them, that was the best thing about his, the level of that circle was great. But they couldn’t get people, so they used to have the press stand in those circles because they couldn’t get the people. Then I heard we lost. Oh, we lost. No, we’re never gonna let that happen again. But we’ve been abused by other countries. We’ve been abused by our own politicians, really, more than other countries.”

Oh, look: Circles! That wasn’t so hard to find, if you hadn’t personally memory holed the complaints at the time.

So, rambling, yes. Random word salad, no.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “So, rambling, yes. Random word salad, no.”

Four Points:

1. His comment is the very definition of rambling word salad, as I noted.

2. I could always sleuth what Biden meant too. That didn’t seem to be the standard them. It isn’t the standard with other people afflicted with dementia. As always – be it criminality, dishonesty, election fraud, or general loathsomeness – Brett Bellmore grades Trump on a curve.

3. And seeing what Trump “meant” doesn’t mean his statement was meaningful. Obviously it wasn’t. You do see that, right? It’s like random gibberish firing-off in his head.

4. Also, what complaints about distance separation at presidential press conferences am I “memory-holing”? Whichever ones I’ve forgotten, maybe they should be seen in context of Trump’s superspreader White House event and subsequent near-fatal case of covid.

But we’re debating his dementia. That he’s a imbecile has always been beyond debate.

[ThePublius]

No, it's not a word salad, 'though it is a bit rambling. For a real word salad, see Kamala Harris.

[grb]

Uh huh. At least Brett tried to make a point. He didn't just do a "I'm rubber, you're glue" that is comically false.

[ThePublius]

You called it a word salad in your original post without any substantiation or definition of word salad. So, my comment is as valid as yours!

[Brett Bellmore]

Rambling and word salad are two different things.

When you’re rambling, you’re not sticking to the topic, you’re drifting from one topic to another, but the things you’re saying actually are somewhat coherent and meaningful. You’re just moving from one topic to another without much warning.

Word salad is basically just random words, that don’t have any cognizable meaning.

It’s the difference between wandering around aimlessly and having a seizure, essentially.

So, I think it's fair to say that Trump doesn't reliably stick to the topic at hand. But what he's saying is still understandable.

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome semantics. Vital stuff. Trump may be rambling and addled seeming, but word salad not according to a Wikipedia on a neurological symptom that no one was referring to!

Do ya see why people say you’re in the tank for Trump as great as any cultist this side of Jonestown?

[Brett Bellmore]

What the hell is the point of having two terms, "rambling" and "word salad", if they're not going to mean different things?

In fact, the reason he insisted on "word salad" is that he DID want the implication that Trump had some neurological deficit, not just that he's been bad at sticking to one topic for many years now.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You haven't established what word salad means in common parlance. Probably because it is kind of new, and this rolls heavy in connotation but light in denotation.

2. You're defending Trump basically by saying the equivalent of 'he didn't kick someone he headbutted them!' Yeah, that makes you look like an utter tool.

3. There's a difference between a deficit and a disorder. Everyone was claiming Biden had a disorder. What hurt him with Dems was the deficit, not some speculated Parkinsons' or advanced dementia or other such rot.
No one is claiming a cognitive disorder for Trump, just that he's got a growing cognitive deficit.

By appealing to a definition of word salad disparate from the issues everyone is pointing to of when they use it, you're basically erecting a strawman via semantics.

I hope this belabored discussion elucidates the issue for you, so you can address the actual evidence and associated concerns.

[Mr. Bumble]

" The earliest attestation I can find ascribes the origin to Forel's wortsalat, as translated by Kraepelin to 'wordsalad'. This appears in The Medical Standard of 1895, recounting events from the May, 1894 meeting of the Association of German Alienists and Neurologists, where "Kraepelin of Heidelberg described a 'peculiar group of insane patients,' who, among 'other distressing symptoms,' exhibited as 'the most striking phenomenon' a tendency to the coinage of new words":

Although the earliest attestation in OED Online is from 1904, they give the origin as "after either German Wortsalat (1894 or earlier) or French salade de mots (1895 or earlier)", which jives with the date of the wortsalat attestation in The Medical Standard.

--JEL"

[Brett Bellmore]

What are dictionary definitions to Sarcastr0, anyway? He's offended by people insisting that different words have different meanings.

[Sarcastr0]

What are dictionary definitions to anyone, Brett, if they're not tracking actual usage?

If everyone is using a word one way in a discussion, despite what a dictionary says, it's just a long walk to take out a strawman if you cite the dictionary and argue based on what no one is talking about.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, your position is that if you deliberately misuse a word, everybody else has to accept your mistake as the new meaning?

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t know what deliberately means here. Most folks commenting here were not up on the wikipedia definition of word salad.
But even if they were, if everyone was ignoring the dictionary that's a problem for the dictionary.

We aren't talking about just me, or any individual.

If the intended idea is being communicated to everyone, but it’s not the same as the idea the dictionary says it should be based on the word everyone is using, all is well but the dictionary.

As a general proposition for living with humans, if everyone is on the same page except you that’s a you problem, not an everyone else problem.

[David Nieporent]

What the hell is the point of having two terms, “rambling” and “word salad”, if they’re not going to mean different things?

Roget is rolling over in his grave/coffin/casket/tomb/mausoleum/sepulcher/burial chamber right now.

[Commenter_XY]

But those are all different things = grave/coffin/casket/tomb/mausoleum/sepulcher/burial chamber

🙂

G'mar Hatimah Tovah, David.

[Nelson]

"You’re just moving from one topic to another without much warning."

One *unrelated* topic to another. You seem to miss that part. Plus, of course, the references to the demonstrably false belief that he won the 2020 election.

"So, I think it’s fair to say that Trump doesn’t reliably stick to the topic at hand. But what he’s saying is still understandable."

By that standard, Harris' statements aren't word salad, either.

I remember a few weeks ago when some paleocon tried to use a detailed and targeted response about housing (specifically transit oriented development) as "word salad" because she used the word "holistically" several times.

Pretending that politicians don't try to use tenuous connections to shoehorn their campaign slogans into any answer is ludicrous. But claiming Trump isn't incoherent, but Harris is, is just partisan nonsense.

Trump is an 80-year-old trust fund baby who has never had to (nor does he have the inclination to) accept realities that he doesn't like. You'd think that non-MAGA Republicans would ding him for that, but they clearly won't.

In 1972 the Republican party's integrity peaked when they forced a criminal President to resign. 52 years later, they want to knowingly elect a criminal to the Presidency.

[David Nieporent]

1. His comment is the very definition of rambling word salad, as I noted.

Yes. Although "toddler" would also describe Trump. Anyone who has raised kids would be familiar with the style of speech:

"Mommy, I saw a bird flying! It was blue. I like blue. I have a blue dress that I like. I wore it when we saw Grandma. Grandma gives me candy. I like candy. I like m&ms but I don't like jelly beans. My teacher has jelly beans in a jar on her desk. Timmy knocked over the jar one day when he was being bad and the teacher made him pick it up. Sometimes our class is bad and then we don't get to go outside for recess and that makes me sad. Recess is fun. Olivia went to Disneyworld. I want to go to Disneyworld. Can we go to Disneyworld?"

[santamonica811]

Heh. That's actually pretty accurate for a lot of Trump's ramblings.

(I actually do disagree with SarcastrO. I think that what Trump does is rarely word salad. I have no problem instead labeling them as "incoherent digressions" or "delusional side-tracks" or "bizarre stream-of-consciousness verbal diarrhea" or whatevs. Using 'word salad' is probably inaccurate...but has the huge advantage of being short and at least in the general ballpark.)

I (hopefully accurately) remember a very old "Bloom County" cartoon, where Opus is calling up a radio talk show. [This is from a 30-year-old memory, so I'll paraphrase]:
Opus (to the show's host): "Why do you criticize penguin lust so much? Penguin lust is normal and wonderful, and an expression of love between two penguins."
Host: 'Um, tonight's topic is "nun beating." '
Opus: "Good lord, man. Well, I can't support that!!!"

[Not really on point in re to Trump's brain malfunctions; but thinking about this particular strip always makes me smile. And, whenever I think about Trump, I find myself in need of a smile.]

[ducksalad]

Brett, I know you’re in the reluctantly-and-strategically camp with respect to Trump, and I can respect that without agreeing with it.

Having said that, your defenses here are basically that

(a) it wasn’t meaningless, rather it was Trump’s ongoing obsession with who gets larger crowds and turnouts at press conferences, stated without context such that only people intimately familiar with his obsession can get it.
(b) rambling incoherence is not strictly the same as word salad, as formally defined in the context of schizophrenia or advanced dementia.

While these statements are true, they’re not very good defenses:

(a) the obsession itself is a sign of mental unfitness, furthermore, his weird assumption that everyone else would understand the reference to Biden’s circles shows that the obsession is deeply consuming.
(b) There’s a big gap between the threshold to classify someone as clinically schizophrenic or having advanced dementia (which I totally agree he doesn’t meet) and a level of incoherence in speech and thought that is disqualifying for a full-time job with heavy responsibilities.

[Brett Bellmore]

He’s a narcissist who is indeed obsessed with everything relating to him being the best ever. That is a fair observation, but narcissism is pretty common in Presidential candidates; Who would run for President if they didn’t have an inflated self-image?

I think I’ve been clear that I don’t like the fact the GOP nominated Trump, for multiple reasons. But I’d rather have a much less than ideal candidate who isn’t determined to do things I detest, than a modestly less compromised candidate who IS determined to do things I detest.

Neither of the major party candidates this time around should be in the race. Neither of them. But one of them IS going to win, and between them I prefer Trump.

Oh, and it would actually be fairly common for a conservative political activist to recognize what Trump was going on about with the press and circles. Maybe the left didn't care, but the right thought it was downright embarrassing how the media supinely permitted themselves to be herded around and treated like cattle.

[Sarcastr0]

I think I’ve been clear that I don’t like the fact the GOP nominated Trump, for multiple reasons.

You keep having to say this, because you defend him at every turn.

Like you're doing right now.

[SRG2]

גמר חתימה טובה to all appropriates!

Personal note: I am an atheist Jew - but there are two festivals I follow, er, religiously.

1. Passover - because it's the first nationalist holiday, and because a good Seder is a joyous thing (particularly when one has a cousin who does a superb brisket).

2. Yom Kippur - because it is the day of the year when my tribe is most in sync across the globe and has been for over 2,000 years. I regard it as confirming my tribal membership (and allows me to kvell when a fellow MOT gets a Nobel prize - 2 out of 7 this year). If my people could fast on Yom Kippur in the camps, I can certainly do so from the comfort of my home.

3. To all of my fellow tribespeople who will go to synagogue tonight or tomorrow, while we may be amused/interested by all the women who will be there well made-up in black cocktail dresses (you can tell I've been to synagogues in the tri-state area!), note that according to Mishnah Yoma, the daughters of Israel always looked at their best on Yom Kippur. So it's traditional! (We can - indeed, why not "will"? - have a separate discussion on the meaning of "minhag makes din"...)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are others allowed to be nationalist too? Or only you people?

[grb]

Thus the Nazi Child - always true to his Hiterlite "principles"....

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>1. Passover – because it’s the first nationalist holiday,

Why are you okay with that?

[Nelson]

"You people", eh? Yeah, that tracks.

[Frank Drackman]

You have to be chosen

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'm a Christian, so obviously I am. I'm part of His Church.

Read the Bible dude, you'd know this.

[Frank Drackman]

so what's your beef? (Kosher I hope)

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, I livestream into a Conservative shul (with a dynamite Cantor).

[Michael P]

Stick a fork in Kamala Harris and Univision; they are done.

https://x.com/mtracey/status/1844482023530131483
And why?
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1844606786667696373

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

She's a first class DEI idiot (BIRM).

That's why she is being selected by the Globalist Marxist elites. They need another brainless Democrat in the Oval office so they can continue the revolution and White Genocide.

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : ” … she is being selected by the Globalist Marxist elites.”

Thus the Nazi Child. There's no hitlerlite trope he won’t roll around in like a reeking pig in shit.

[Martinned2]

In a parliamentary democracy the leaders of the main parties face off in parliament regularly. In the US, they may not meet at all before the election - until their first debate Harris and Trump had never met in their lives - and they don't have to answer questions they don't like. Isn't US democracy great?

[ThePublius]

Get lost, Martin. If you don't like the U.S. so much, why do you spend so much time on this site?

[Nelson]

The same could be asked of you. Why do you come to an American website that discusses American issues? Besides the joy you get from trolling, obviously.

[ThePublius]

I'm not trolling, and I am, indeed, an American in America. Why do you assume differently? Perhaps it is you who is the troll.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Nelson is Israeli and operates on this blog as part of the internet JDF.

[grb]

Thus the Nazi Child.....

[JoeFromtheBronx]

U.S. democracy has issues but it isn't the only nation where the presidential candidates might only meet for the first time during the campaign. The two parties meet up in various other contexts, including congressional leaders of both parties.

[David Nieporent]

The first tweet is trivial. The second claim is not only a lie, but an obvious one. (Well, doubly obvious; that it was posted by community college dropout/MAGA grifter Charlie Kirk is the leading indicator.) It is, however, very revealing of the MAGA nutjob mindset. First, one has to be dumb enough to think Univision would do this. But then one has to be crazy enough to think that Univision would do it and provide the footage to prove they're doing it, but then clumsily cover it up in such a way that MAGA people could catch them.

But of course the icing on the cake is the crazy notion that this non-story makes Harris "done." If Donald Trump raping people isn't a fork in him, then how would a teleprompter make Harris done?

[Michael P]

"That's a lie", claims the infamous dissembler without evidence.

[santamonica811]

Which is Michael's way of saying, "Yeah, I have to admit that's a pretty good point, David. So . . . let's gloss over that, 'kay? "

[Sarcastr0]

So in response to a walk through of why Charlie Kirk's assertion is highly improbably, Michel throws out an odd insult ('infamous?') and then complains about the lack of evidence.

As though the OG assertion, itself without evidence, has now become a rebuttable presumption.

[David Nieporent]

Also, replies to Kirk in the tweet thread refute his claim.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What if Hitler was anti-racist?

Pretty interesting analysis.

https://x.com/goatroper911/status/1844407272820310434

[Nelson]

Probably not, considering the source. Tell me, is this an attempt to claim Hitler was right or that Hitler killed all the right people? Or some new retcon effort?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I take it you didn't bother watching the Anti-Racist hypothetical before you commented since your comments are non-sequiturs.

[OtisAH]

“I’m running out of ways to explain how bad this is.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/10/hurricane-milton-conspiracies-misinformation/680221/?gift=bQgJMMVzeo8RHHcE1_KM0QW0K3DKS019CAwkgCJs0j8&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

Intro: “The truth is, it’s getting harder to describe the extent to which a meaningful percentage of Americans have dissociated from reality. As Hurricane Milton churned across the Gulf of Mexico last night, I saw an onslaught of outright conspiracy theorizing and utter nonsense racking up millions of views across the internet. The posts would be laughable if they weren’t taken by many people as gospel. Among them: Infowars’ Alex Jones, who claimed that Hurricanes Milton and Helene were ‘weather weapons’ unleashed on the East Coast by the U.S. government, and ‘truth seeker’ accounts on X that posted photos of condensation trails in the sky to baselessly allege that the government was ‘spraying Florida ahead of Hurricane Milton’ in order to ensure maximum rainfall, ‘just like they did over Asheville!’”

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“Georgia’s first female appellate judge blazed trails on and off the bench; Dorothy Toth Beasley argued key death penalty and abortion cases”

Today’s daily SCOTUS history entry involves Roe v. Wade. I checked and saw that Beasley (who argued Doe v. Bolton & Furman v. Georgia) died in May. RIP.

One account of the cases noted that when a telegram was sent to notify her office of the result in Doe (GA lost), she refused to pay for the charges, refusing receipt.

[M L]

‘Dark Money’ Group Threatens Future Trump Lawyers with Disbarment

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/10/10/dark-money-group-threatens-future-trump-lawyers-with-disbarment/

Project 65, a “dark money” left-wing group that has targeted lawyers that represented former President Donald Trump in 2020, is now warning potential Trump attorneys that they could be disbarred for working for him.

In an ad posted on Instagram, and apparently targeted at lawyers, Project 65 warns: “Don’t let partisan politics endanger your standing with the bar. The Porter Wright Partners face ethics complaints over Trump campaign post-election work. Don’t risk your law license by joining an effort to subvert democracy. We – and the public – are watching.”

Porter Wright is a firm that represented Trump in Pennsylvania in 2020. Its lawyers withdrew from representing Trump mere days after the November election after coming under intense pressure.

The “ethics complaints” referred to in the Project 65 ad were brought in 2022 by Project 65 itself against Ronald Hicks and Carolyn McGee, who were partners at Porter Wright at the time. Both now work for another firm, Nelson Mullins; they withdrew from representing Trump before the first hearing in his election challenges even took place. The Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel does not appear to have taken any action against either of them.

As Breitbart News reported in 2022, Project 65 was launched with help from David Brock, the Hillary Clinton ally behind such groups as Media Matters. It does not disclose its donors, but has “ties to Democratic Party heavyweights,” Axios reported.....

[Brett Bellmore]

They went after Dershowitz, for example. And he wasn't even working for Trump!

Prosecuting Lawyers for Their Legal Representation Is Dangerous to Us All | Opinion

Basically the goal of Project 65 has been to make sure that Trump, and anybody associated with him, is incapable of getting competent legal representation, by making it clear that if you work for any of them in basically any election related capacity, they'll make a serious effort to get you disbarred.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"And he wasn’t even working for Trump!"

It's almost like your theory that it's about Trump is bullshit. This is the Dershowitz who faced Rule 11 sanctions by the court for signing onto pleadings filled with easily disproven lies. And "they" is a group who asked the bar to investigate whether further action is required. Yes, "going after", so scary.

And your other link is to Dershowitz basically arguing that dishonest attorneys who file complaints based on lies that they know are lies should be above reproach. Nope. I'm all for the thrust of his argument that attorneys should be permitted to push the limits in arguing legal theories, but filing false affidavits and including facts that are known by the attorney to be false, that's unethical conduct that is rightly sanctioned through Rule 11 and, if part of a pattern or serious enough, subject to bar discipline.

All this handwringing, but you ignore the essential fact that they knowing lied to courts. Remember Giuliani's binders of evidence that were never included in court filings? Because it was all bullshit and everyone knew it and no one wanted to get disbarred for it. That's the system working. Of course, Guiliani couldn't help himself, so he did include some lies and he paid a price. That is useful for the legal system. Attorneys are officers of the court. There should be penalties for knowingly lying in pleadings. There's a reason subornation of perjury is a thing.

[David Nieporent]

‘Dark Money’ Group Threatens Future Trump Lawyers with Disbarment

"'Dark Money' Groups" have no power to disbar, so they cannot threaten anyone with disbarment.

[John F. Carr]

A Texas man has dropped a lawsuit claiming his ex-wife had an illegal abortion. The ex was not a defendant. He sued the people who helped her get an abortion. His case went downhill after an appeals court ruled his ex could assert her privilege against self-incrimination. She claimed to fear prosecution under the Comstock Act. Without her communications as evidence the plaintiff would have a hard time proving that she had an abortion and that the named defendants assisted her. I don't doubt the facts alleged by the plaintiff, but he does need admissible evidence. A prosecutor could grant the ex immunity or go wild with subpoenas at public expense. A private plaintiff has a harder time.

This was a test case arranged by Jonathan Mitchell. He is not infallible.

The case is Silva v. Noyola, Texas District Court 56th district (Galveston County), No. 23-cv-0375.