Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Here is a video of Brian Taylor Cohen and Glenn Kirshner discussing whether Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito should be investigated by the DOJ to see whether they should be criminally prosecuted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_-RkElPrno

Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Ron Wyden have written to the Attorney General requesting appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate Clarence Thomas for possible violations of federal ethics and tax laws. https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-07-03-Letter-to-AG-Garland-re-Special-Counsel-FINAL.pdf It looks like most of the incidents of questionable conduct specifically described in the Senators' July 3, 2024 letter occurred too long ago to be prosecuted, but they paint an ugly picture of flagrant disregard of financial disclosure obligations.

Thomas has gotten away with filing inaccurate financial disclosures for many years. It is worth investigating whether that pattern of conduct has held true in recent years.

[santamonica811]

NG,
Cut the guy some slack. Who among us has not forgotten to include 200 gifts in mandated reporting forms? Over the course of multiple years? Or, after failure to disclose is brought to one's attention, to fail to disclose a shitload of other gifts and favors in later disclosers?

It's totally normal behavior, and shows exactly the kind of integrity we all want in our highest court's members. So, knock it off, with your "We want and deserve Supreme Court Justices who are not lying and unethical sacks of shit." Stop your whining...graft won, integrity lost...and you should just suck it up and accept that that's the way it is. Full stop.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You really want a second Civil War, don't you.....

[not guilty]

Hey. For a scoundrel who is stout enough to survive his own "lynching," what's a mere criminal investigation?

[Michael P]

Democrats had some limits to their misbehavior in the prior racist attacks on Justice Thomas. They don't seem to now.

[not guilty]

How is calling for a criminal investigation based on a long established pattern of criminal conduct "misbehavior," Michael P?

When Al Capone was prosecuted for tax evasion, was that "racist"? (Italians were not always regarded as white.)

[Michael P]

How did you graduate from last school, much less grade school, guilty?

[not guilty]

Last school?

Your refusal to respond to my questions is duly noted.

It is de rigueur for those who genuflect at the mention of Clarence Thomas's name to label any criticism of their hero as racist. When Antonin Scalia contrasted his jurisprudence with Thomas's by saying, "I'm an originalist and a textualist, not a nut," was that racist? https://www.npr.org/2008/04/28/89986017/justice-scalia-the-great-dissenter-opens-up

[Michael P]

*law school. My phone's autocorrections give your ignorance a run for money.

[Riva]

I think the school advertising on the back of the matchbook will send anyone a diploma, as long as their check cashes. Not sure where or if he was licensed though. Could be a bar somewhere south of the border. Actually could just literally be a bar.

[not guilty]

Riva, I was admitted to the bars of the Supreme Court of Tennessee and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in 1987, the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit in 1988 and the Supreme Court of the United States in 1991.

When were you admitted?

[Riva]

I was doing you a favor suggesting the matchbook route. Anyone who is actually educated and credentialed and still embraces the repulsive republic ending lawfare is a disgrace to the profession.

[not guilty]

Riva, you know nothing of professionalism.

Again, when were you admitted to the bar?

[Riva]

When did you decide to embrace lawfare over the fair and objective administration of justice?

[Frank Drackman]

A Bar? last week, wasn't really "Admitted", just walked right in.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Riva. When were you admitted to the bar?

[Riva]

Yeah, I can understand why you’d like to stop talking about your indefensible support for lawfare. The more pertinent question is: When did you decide to embrace lawfare over the fair and objective administration of justice?

[not guilty]

"Yeah, I can understand why you’d like to stop talking about your indefensible support for lawfare. The more pertinent question is: When did you decide to embrace lawfare over the fair and objective administration of justice?"

I don't accept the premise of your question. I became a Democratic partisan in 1974. I began law practice in 1987. "Lawfare" has unfortunately become an epithet designed to avoid, rather than advance, reasoned discussion.

[Riva]

The abusive use of federal prosecutorial power to target political opponents is not “reasoned discussion.” And it will be gratifying to see some accountability when President Trump assumes office again to insure that these gross abuses never happen again. I wonder what your “reasoned” response will be to that?

[Sarcastr0]

You want to come in with the assumption that this is about 'the abusive use of federal prosecutorial power to target political opponents' go ahead.

But then no one really has much to say to you. You've begged the question hard enough it's just you pounding the table and people making fun of you for being really bad at arguing.

[Riva]

The question was the embrace of lawfare you pathetic little clown. It goes without saying that a Marxist idiot like you would embrace the democrats repulsive new obsession with all things lawfare. You probably also support government censorship, and generally any harassment of those you disagree with.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Your refusal to answer mine is equally noted.

[not guilty]

You didn't ask a question, Dr. Ed 2. You made the baseless assertion, "You really want a second Civil War, don’t you." I don't regard that kind of hyperbole as a question.

But if you are curious, I don't want a second Civil War. Why would any rational person want that? The first one didn't work out so well for those who provoked it. The Union was preserved, and we got constitutional amendments which abolished human chattel slavery and reordered federal-state relations, but that came at horrific cost.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well it's your side that is provoking the next one, along with an elimination of the concept of rule of law.

If you are successful, it won't come out well for you this time, either.

[Sarcastr0]

When Ed posts this kinda stuff, ‘provoking’ shows which side he thinks will start the war, and it’s not the Dems.

[Joe_dallas]

MP asks a legitimate question - How did NG graduate from law school?
NG Tell us what is the "long established pattern of criminal behavior". Can you tell us what is actually constitutes criminal.

[Michael P]

Do you expect an honest response? We're talking about the person who claims to have been a defense attorney, who breathlessly reports each increment in the criminal lawfare against Donald Trump, and who still asks why criminally prosecuting a Supreme Court justice for partisan ends would be abusive.

[Joe_dallas]

No I didnt expect an honest response. It is a serious case of a person who has developed an irrational hatred of trump and every republican

[not guilty]

Michael P, parsing statutes and other legal authorities and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the government's available evidence is a significant part of what a criminal defense attorney does.

A competent attorney should be able to argue either side of a lawsuit with roughly equal facility. Here the prosecution's case against Donald Trump is as strong as horseradish.

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, have you read the letter from Senators Whitehouse and Wyden to the Attorney General, including the footnotes? Much of the conduct they attribute to Clarence Thomas violates criminal statutes, especially 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Thomas is a serial fraudster regarding his financial disclosures under the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq. In 2011, Justice Thomas admitted to omitting hundreds of thousands of dollars of his wife’s income from his
disclosures, averring a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions” (despite accurately filing disclosure forms regarding her employment for as many as ten years beginning in 1987). He failed to report more than a quarter million dollars debt forgiveness. He failed to clarify whether he reported that forgiven debt on his federal income tax returns and pay the income taxes owed.

Thomas failed to disclose gifts from multiple billionaire donors and by corporate entities connected to those individuals, including multiple instances of free private jet travel, yacht travel, and lodging, as well as gifts of tuition for his grandnephew, and (through intermediate entities) real estate transactions, home renovations, and free rent for his mother, country club membership, and luxury sports tickets.

[Joe_dallas]

you are going to assume facts in a letter from Whitehouse or Wyden is credible.

What debt forgiveness, give a citation , provide some actual facts, provide a link

[not guilty]

I linked above to a pdf of the letter requesting appointment of a Special Counsel, which details Clarence Thomas's misdeeds and provides citations, but here it is once again: https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-07-03-Letter-to-AG-Garland-re-Special-Counsel-FINAL.pdf

As I said upthread, most of the conduct described therein is too old to prosecute, but a criminal investigation is fully warranted to see whether Thomas has persisted in his pattern of misbehavior. As William Shakespeare observed in The Tempest, Act 2, Scene I, what's past is prologue.

[Riva]

Is Garland going to make another unconstitutional appointment or just recycle his last one?

[not guilty]

I doubt that Merrick Garland has the fortitude to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate Clarence Thomas. If he did, the investigation would take place primarily in the District of Columbia. Under controlling D.C. Circuit precedent, the Attorney General has the authority to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate suspected wrongdoing. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2019); In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

[Joe_dallas]

NG – You are an alleged defense attorney, yet you fail to not the omission of two significant facts in appendix A that required to determine if there is debt forgiveness or a gift. Note the taxable gift rules under 2501 apply to the donor, not the donee.

[Riva]

Uh huh, let’s skip past the zero statutory authority and that the DC circuit has confused dicta with controlling precedent. Of course, the circuit was equally confused as to presidential immunity. Cannon was, however, not mislead. Let’s hope the 11th circuit isn’t either. Although if the good guys win the election, all this lawfare garbage will hopefully be a moot point.

[not guilty]

Unfamiliar with the concept of vertical stare decisis, Riva? Judge Aileen Cannon's delusional ramblings mean diddly squat in the D.C. Circuit, where In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2019), and In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1987), are controlling precedent.

That is first semester law school stuff.

[Riva]

Either you misunderstood my comment or you honestly don’t understand that the 11th circuit is not controlled by the DC circuit precedent. They can (and should) affirm judge Cannon. I guess the matchbook didn’t cover that in your first semester.

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, look at page 2 of the Whitehouse/Wyden letter:

Since last year, the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights have been investigating a loan of more than $267,000 connected to Justice Thomas’s purchase of a luxury motor coach. On October 25, 2023, the Senate Finance Committee released a memorandum, a copy of which is appended to this letter, concluding that in November 2008 the provider of the loan, Anthony Welters, ceased collecting principal or interest on $267,230.00 he loaned to Justice Thomas and his wife for the purchase of a 1991 Prevost Marathon motor coach. Documents obtained by the Senate Finance Committee indicate that no principal was ever repaid on the loan and that Justice Thomas only made interest payments on the loan prior to all payments ceasing on the loan. Forgiven or discharged debt is taxable income, and the Ethics in Government Act requires justices to disclose any “income from discharge of indebtedness.” Justice Thomas did not report any such forgiveness as income on his financial disclosure report covering the year 2008, or for any other year.

[Footnotes omitted.] At page 4 of Exhibit A:

Based on the documents reviewed by Committee staff, Anthony Welters forgave a substantial amount, or even all of the principal balance of his loan to Clarence Thomas, constituting of the forgiveness of approximately $267,230.00 of debt owed by Justice Thomas.

Tax consequences for Justice Thomas arising from hundreds of thousands of dollars in forgiven debt

The new evidence obtained by the Committee raises a number of potentially serious tax questions for Justice Thomas. The revelation that Justice Thomas had up to $267,000 in debt forgiven and failed to repay the entire principal of the loan would have generated a significant amount of taxable income for Justice Thomas.

The tax code makes clear that in instances where debt is canceled, forgiven, or discharged for less than the amount owed, the borrower must report the amount canceled or forgiven as income for tax purposes. The November 22, 2008 handwritten note from Welters to Justice Thomas indicated that Welters felt that Justice Thomas had made interest payments over and above the purchase price of the motorcoach when Welters stopped collecting any further payments from Justice Thomas.

[Footnotes omitted.]

[Joe_dallas]

NG - I previously read the entire Appendix A

As I stated , the appendix omits two significant elements that are required to determine if there is debt forgiveness.
Any prosecutor bringing tax related crime while omitting those two facts is going to get laughed at.

[not guilty]

As Ron White was fond of saying, Riva, you can’t fix stupid. If there is to be a criminal investigation of Clarence Thomas by a Special Counsel, it will likely take place in the District of Columbia, where the federal courts are bound by In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2019), and In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1987), as controlling precedent.

If there is an income tax related prosecution, that may be brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where Mr. and Mrs. Thomas live, but the investigation would in all likelihood be done through a D.C. grand jury.

[Riva]

Uh huh. Be nice if the S.Ct would weigh in eventually, hopefully after the 11th circuit rules in Cannon’s favor. But I acknowledge that prosecutors like Smith are essentially immune from shame. And ethics In fact, they’re probably used to being laughed at and they’s probably suspect they’d made some egregious error, like fairly and non-politically prosecuting a case, if they weren’t mocked. But I’m sure legal talent of the Smith caliber would find that rambling garbage from Whitehouse and Wyden as quite compelling.

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, I surmise that an investigating grand jury would subpoena Anthony Welters and his documents related to the loan.

Even if prosecution of that transaction is time barred (which it may not be if it is an overt act in furtherance of a long lived § 371 conspiracy to defraud the United States), it could be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) as bearing on intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, absence of mistake, or lack of accident -- especially if Thomas were to claim inadvertence or lack of intent.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - As I stated, Whitehouse's letter omitted two key facts, either of which are required to determine if there is taxable debt forgiveness.

The omissions appear to be intentional and you fail to either acknowledge the omissions or you likewise intentionally skirt over the omissions.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - you are too consumed with partisan hate to notice the deficiencies the Whitehouse's letter

[not guilty]

"NG – As I stated, Whitehouse’s letter omitted two key facts, either of which are required to determine if there is taxable debt forgiveness."

Joe_dallas, the letter is a request for appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate possible violations of federal ethics and tax laws by Clarence Thomas, based on facts developed in Senate proceedings, which the Senate continues to investigate. It does not purport to be exhaustive. The ostensible "omissions" and "deficiencies" that you bark about are matters for further investigation by a grand jury, under the guidance of a prosecutor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How do you get a DC venue, NG?

Clarence Thomas lives in Virginia which is where he technically did any alleged misdeeds.

[not guilty]

A federal grand jury in any district can investigate. If and when an indictment is presented, that would be to a grand jury in a federal district where the offense is alleged to have occurred.

Per 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), any offense begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed. In the case of a false statement prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 or a § 371 conspiracy prosecution, filing of a fraudulent financial disclosure with the Judicial Conference would support venue in D.C.

An income tax related prosecution would likely be brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where Mr. and Mrs. Thomas reside.

[David Nieporent]

Be nice if the S.Ct would weigh in eventually, hopefully after the 11th circuit rules in Cannon’s favor.

Telling that Riva thinks that Cannon is a party to the case. After all, Cannon has acted that way.

[not guilty]

For those whom it may interest, here is an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit that eviscerates Judge Cannon's result-oriented order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.34.0.pdf

FWIW, the amici include some prominent Republicans.

[Riva]

Actually embarrassing is a more apt description of that brief. By all means, anyone interested please read it and Judge Cannon’s order. The hack Smith is incapable of responding to Cannon’s reasoning, in fact he assiduously avoids it. Just a lame regurgitation of his original flawed arguments. Assuming some likely judicial cowardice and bias, I had not frankly assumed Judge Cannon would necessarily be upheld until I read Smith’s brief.

FWIW, for what it’s worth, the support of some never Trumpers, to the extent it exists, does nothing to improve Smith’s garage.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - Yes the letter is calling for an investigation even though whitehouse is aware of the facts omitted in the letter that likely destroys the claim that there is debt forgiveness income.

Yet you fail to recognize the omitted facts which are basic elementary facts.

As stated, you are consumed with hate that blinds you to a rational assessment of the applicable law.

[Sarcastr0]

basic elementary facts.

Trying to hard, man.

[not guilty]

Unfamiliar with what investigation entails, Joe-Dallas?

In this case it would likely include calling the lender, Anthony Welters, before a grand jury and directing him to bring his documents related to the loan. If that investigation shows that he did not forgive the loan, that's all well and good. If it shows that he did, then the matter bears further investigation, including whether it was declared as income on the tax return. But the information cited by Senators Whitehouse and Wyden raises legitimate suspicion.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Joe_dallas]

NG - Yes I am familiar with an "investigation"

Though - you obviously are not familiar with what actually constitutes debt forgiveness income. Whitehouse's letter and comments in Appendix A admit that he has knowledge of the facts which make the debt forgiveness taxable or what makes the debt forgiveness a non taxable gift to the donee or which makes the debt forgiveness an non taxable event to both parties.

Whitehouse omitted those facts for a reason.

That fact that you dont recognize those facts were omitted in the letter tells us how little you actually know on the applicable tax law.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Not guilty has made a name for himself (around here at least) for being a partisan Democrat, yes. He has also made a name for himself in bringing the receipts, statutes, and legal knowledge to make his arguments honestly.

You've been caught multiple times in bald-faced lies because you're a partisan asshole with no integrity. You are the last person around here who gets to talk about rationality or partisan hatred.

[Mr. Bumble]

Assuming anything from that pair is credible is a fool's errand.

[Zarniwoop]

Not a bad brief, NG, but it seems to rehash the points made by the Gov't without offering much of a new focus/angle/perspective/issue/analysis to the 11th Cir.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Italians were not always regarded as white."

Not this dumb, debunked claim again.

[santamonica811]

Dr Ed.
TL:DR: [Noun] + [Verb] + "imminent civil war".

Great point, as always, pretend doctor.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, are there separation of powers issues here? Probably are.

Suppose the AG appoints a SC. Then what? A suit gets filed questioning the legal authority for the SC, and SCOTUS must decide that case. Sounds like a Frankenstein legal recipe.

All I know is I'd want Jonathan Mitchell arguing my case.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"NG, are there separation of powers issues here? Probably are."

No. Simple answer to a simpleton's question.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But he's right...

[not guilty]

No, there are no separation of powers issues here. The investigation would take place primarily in the District of Columbia. Under D.C. Circuit precedent, a district court cannot enjoin a criminal investigation prior to indictment. Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Accord: Trump v. United States, 54 F.4th 689 (11th Cir. 2022). The Attorney General has the authority to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate suspected wrongdoing. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2019); In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, was there a Grand Jury convened? I did not see mention of that.

[not guilty]

The Senators called for appointment of a Special Counsel. Grand juries sit routinely per Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(a), but nothing specific to this situation exists. If a Special Counsel were appointed, he would direct the grand jury investigation.

If an income tax-related prosecution were brought, venue would likely be in the Eastern District of Virginia where Thomas resides.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - What would be the income tax related prosecution crime?

[not guilty]

With the caveat that tax law is not my area, I think it bears investigating whether Clarence Thomas has declared income accurately on his federal tax returns. 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (willlfully subscribing a false tax return under penalty of perjury) comes to mind. Gross income includes income from discharge of indebtedness. 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(11).

If Clarence and Virginia Thomas or perhaps other persons conspired to defraud the United States by filing fraudulent tax returns, that is actionable under 18 U.S.C. § 371. There the six year statute of limitations (26 U.S.C. § 6531) would begin to run from the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. in furtherance of the main goals of the conspiracy. Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 396-97 (1957).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think you may need to cite some "Hunter Biden-related" tax crimes for this point to sink in...

Violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206 is one of the three felony charges Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to last month.

[Frank Drackman]

I’ve heard the Congress has this Constitutional power to accuse Judges of crimes, call witnesses, have a trial, and if convicted, remove the Judge from his Orifice (See Article II Section IV, it’s right after the part where they let the Turd Burglar/Rug Munchers get married and Women kill their unborn babies)

Frank

[gVOR08]

Which is why DoJ has never investigated a congressperson. Oh, wait...

As to your valid point, that SCOTUS could overule the prosecution, do you really think the rest of them wouldn't be happy to throw Thomas under the bus an d then claim that resolves the whole issue? That's the beauty of a 6-3 majority.

[Frank Drackman]

Really? a beautiful Comet in the twilight's last gleaming, playoff baseball, midway through the College Foo-bawl season. and you're talkin bout some Clarence Thomas Bullshit, don't mean nuthin anyway, I'd tell you to get a life but you wouldn't know what to do with one if you got one

Peace Out,

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Omg Trump is gonna weaponize the DOJ against his political enemies, oh my norms and sacred democracies!!

[Riva]

Trying to find new and more abusively stupid uses for lawfare smacks of political desperation. The real scandal in the SCt involves the leaks. And that has nothing to do with Thomas and Alito.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Clerks serve one year, right?
So if it is a clerk, it's not the same one.

[Zarniwoop]

Not necessarily. I served 2 years, as did most of my judge’s clerks. We had staggered terms so he always had a senior and junior clerk

Don’t confuse “general practice” with “always true”.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dobbs was Fall Term 2021
This is Fall Term 2024

Any clerk doing both the Dobbs leak and current onw would have to have a 4 year appointment if terms start in the fall.

Your point is well taken, but I still think that if the Dobbs leaker were a clerk, that person would have already graduated.

[SRG2]

The real scandal in the SCt involves the leaks. And that has nothing to do with Thomas and Alito.

You know this how?

[Riva]

Thomas and Alito had been on the court a long time with no leaks at all. What would be their motive to all of sudden start in 2022? How could it possibly benefit them? Now the leftists hacks and their little leftist clerks, that’s an entirely different matter. Their sacred abortion cases were being threatened. What to do? And this unethical tactic is perfectly consonant with the Democrats’ embrace of lawfare, just to bring this matter back to the general topic.

[SRG2]

So no knowledge nor evidence, merely belief. FWIW I think a perfectly plausible scenario is Thomas taking a draft home, his wife reading it - with or without Thomas's knowledge - and she leaked it.

Why would someone in favour of overturning Roe leak? Read Reason articles on this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't think she'd do it. Too much class...

[Zarniwoop]

Give it up for Grampa Ed, folks, he'll be here all week! Try the veal, tip your waitress.

[Riva]

That’s as insane as the lawfare fanaticism. And in no way plausible. The leaking did nothing to benefit those who supported the overturning of the Roe case line. And I seriously doubt whatever deranged leftists first obtained the drafts ( I forget there are so many) would go to any lengths to protect Clarence Thomas’ wife. Those racist scum would be more likely to fabricate crazy fantasies like yours slandering his wife.

[SRG2]

IIRC the investigation was aggressive and thorough with the exception of the justices themselves, but it was limited to within the SC staff. This leads to the conclusion that it was, directly or indirectly, a leak from one of the justices.

[Riva]

Don’t believe any investigation was all that “agressive or thorough,” even regarding staff. Did it involve any subpoenas, any search of devices or accounts, anyone under oath, and lie detector tests? Doubt it. At any rate, you’ve just succeeded in circling back to the beginning. It was likely one of the justices or staff, and as I pointed out above, logically one of the deranged liberal hacks. Probably involved Jackson, the female justice who can’t define what a woman is because she’s not a biologist.

[David Nieporent]

Not only does bot repeat tired old talking points as if they were original and funny, but bot is too stupid to know that Jackson wasn't even on the Court at the time.

[Riva]

Actually you’re right bat shit crazy guy, she was confirmed but not sitting on the Court. But I never said she was my bat shit crazy friend. Who can say what material she had access to? There certainly wasn’t an “agressive and thorough” investigation. Maybe she felt she was entitled to leak given her status ? Now I’m not saying it was absolutely her, my comment was more passing facetious than anything and there are plenty other leftist turds there to suspect. Wit is wasted on fools though, and the batshit crazy.

[SRG2]

Regardless, you still have no evidence. None.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Federal judges serve for good behavior.

There should be a stronger process in place to make that a real limit. There is no compelling reason to limit enforcement to impeachments alone.

OTOH, the release by Justice Sheldon Whitehouse of a report on the sham FBI investigation of then Judge Kavanaugh underlines the need for overall reform in judicial matters generally.

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/KavanaughReport_final.pdf

[Michael Ejercito]

So how else shoulds it be enforced, if not by impeachment?

[Z Crazy]

So why hasn't the House started an impeachment inquiry if there's evidence of bribes?

The acceptance of gifts alone doesn;t seem to be a problem unless a case the gift giver has a personal stake in arrives at the court's doorstep. A promise of a squid pro quo would change things.

[David Nieporent]

So why hasn’t the House started an impeachment inquiry if there’s evidence of bribes?

I mean, you understand which party controls the House, right?

[gVOR08]

This has proven to be a neat Rorschach test. Certainly clarifies the beliefs of Law and Order (tm) conservatives.

[SRG2]

As I have noted before, "Law and Order" is never about Law, it's always about Order, and only applies to "those people".

[Kazinski]

Well as the 2024 election polls come down to the wire there is a lot of inside baseball talk about the polls and weighting.

Some pollsters are using a technique called “2020 Recall” to weigh the polls. This basically goes by the premise that the 2020 election should be the benchmark, and the electorate in this election should mirror the 2020 Electorate.

Here’s is Rasmussen’s (I use Rasmussen’s explanation because it’s pretty clear, not because I think their results are.particularly accurate):
“Weighted D+2, and by gender, age, race, region, and recalled vote.”
“Reader Reminder: We are weighting nightly election results to the 2020 Recall Vote (Who did you vote for in 2020?).

If we did not do this – which we believe helps our accuracy – our Trump v Harris results would be Trump +5 and our new Generic Ballot out yesterday would be Republicans +5.

Step 1 – weight overnight field results at standard LV D35, R33, I32.

Step 2 – apply weighting template formulas to overlay current contemporaneously gathered likely LV “Who did you vote for in 2020?” results. Press recalculate.”

Nate Silver who is not a fan of 2020 Recall polling puts it this way:
“Chastened by their errors in 2016 and 2020, many pollsters are applying what until now had been a relatively uncommon technique: weighting their samples based on how people say they voted in the last election. Nate Cohn of the New York Times has a terrific explainer on this topic that I’d strongly recommend you read in detail.”

Now I mention this because all the pollsters are doing some flavor of weighing their samples and applying their likely voter model to massage their results.

All the polls we seeing are a result of this model manipulation. And while they of course are all trying to get it right, they haven’t been great the last to cycles.

It is important to note we aren’t seeing robust surveys the way we would see actual polls try to count robust samples the way we used to 20 years ago.

Which is not to say there isn't more robust data available, because the campaigns have it. As Mark Halperin says:
"And as we've said repeatedly, the public and private data differs. The public data is cheap and has issues in almost every case. It's just the nature of the beast now for academic and media organizations, not every one, but most.”

Which makes sense because the campaigns have billion dollar budgets, and are making multi million dollar ad buys, and the public pollsters and forecasteds don't have that much skin in the game.

[Kazinski]

Here is Halperin discussing the internal polling he's hearing about from insiders, but its worth noting, he is not seeing the data himself or getting specifics, still its interesting.

https://x.com/2waytvapp/status/1844803367740096811?t=fn4twZGNjrztj4dJQXtnNA&s=19

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, every election cycle, the political pollsters tell us they have 'solved' for the mystery that caused their erroneous results the last election cycle. Invariably, it is a new weighting variable. Guess what? Nope.

This was the most relevant comment = And as we’ve said repeatedly, the public and private data differs. (Halperin)

The place to start is sampling, and data collection mode(s). That is where the big dollars are spent in professional polling.

As for the statistical tie.....it remains, but momentum has shifted. As I stated, VP Harris would see a pop (she did), and then a gradual decline as she speaks more (she is). I also said months ago that the more Kamala speaks, the more people will understand why 99%+ of democrats rejected her in the primaries (they are).

The sad fact is, she cannot speak extemporaneously. She can't think of anything she would change policy-wise, from her boss. Her answers on Israel (one hot button for me) did not inspire any confidence whatsoever (i.e. advocating for a ceasefire only rewards hamas, which must be utterly defeated).

It is not toxic masculinity, it is not sexism, and it is not racism that is driving away men. Wheeling out Obama to lambaste the 'brothers' (his term) was a tactical mistake. Kamala has a man problem, LOL.

At this point, it is outside events (geopolitical) or assassination that will change the race dynamics.

Kamala's 'Joy' is on the verge of becoming 'Oy'.

[Kazinski]

Well to restate my point,the thing to watch over the next 3 weeks is what the campaigns do, not what the polls say.

Is Trump campaining in Aurora, Coachella and MSG because hes far enough ahead in the swing states hes shooting for the popular vote? Or is he making the same mistake Hillary made in 2016 by not spending every second in the swing states.

Is there something in the polls that made Harris scrap her "no interviews" campaign and go on the View, and 60 minutes?

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, the race is a statistical tie, so no, Pres Trump is not 'far ahead' in the swing states. That said, I do think PA moved, and it will greatly complicate VP Harris' path to EC victory if (when) she loses that race.

So why is Pres Trump going to CO, CA, NY, NJ and other 'bluest of blue' places? Good question. My take: Optics, and building momentum. Pres Trump shows up in Coachella, and 15K people show up in 95 degree heat to the rally. Pres Trump shows up in Aurora, and 10K people show up. Pres Trump holds a rally in the freaking Bronx, and thousands show up. He is demonstrating that he has support everywhere, even in Blue paradises. Notably, Pres Trump is actually showing up and asking for their votes.

The MoE (assume 3%) is not a discrete point, it is a band with a lower bound and upper bound. What concerns Kamala's campaign is the movement within the MoE from the higher portion of the band to the lower portion of the band....that is a 6-point swing, but not statistically significant. Nonetheless, it is movement, and in one direction. That is the worrying aspect. That is why Kamala's campaign must risk more Kamala word salads.

Kamala can't speak extemporaneously, is tied to failed Biden policies that she has stated she would not change...so for the next 21 days, the American electorate is going to be force-fed Kamala word salads. I do not like the taste of Kamala's word salads and apparently, a lot of XYs (guys who aren't confused about their gender) feel the same way.

What October surprise is lurking? Like the Great Pumpkin, there is always a Halloween surprise for the American electorate.

[Frank Drackman]

We'll find out Tampon Tim is more experienced with opening Flys than tying one.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/10/it_s_time_to_talk_about_the_rumors_regarding_tim_walz_and_teen_boys.html
From the article:
"What do you think Tim, should I drop that now? Or should I wait another week or so? You know, the student you were having sex with, the male student you were having sex with? They didn’t call you Touchdown Timmy because you were the football coach, oh wait, you lied about that also. You were the assistant coach. What do you think Tim? You remember the Indigo Girls concert, right? The gay bar, spending the night and of course the school board meeting. Think it is time Tim? TOUCHDOWN TIMMY. You were Touchy alright."

[Martinned2]

Another example of how the current interpretation of the First Amendment screws up American society. People can publish blatant libels like that without any worry about consequences.

[Frank Drackman]

Libel? I thought you claimed to be a Shyster, first of all, Tampon Tim’s a Pubic Figure (Boy, is he ever) so there has to be actual malice proved, rather than my purely moral motives of throwing Jerry Sandusky’s in the Hoose-Gow, Secondly, if it’s true, it’s not Libel, like saying “The Second Gentleman, Doug Jack Me-hoff, was accused by his former girlfriend, who he fucked and got pregnant, of slapping her”
What’s so great about that story, is he slapped her at the Cannes Film Festival, not at a “Gentlemen’s Club”, not at Home, not at a bar, at the friggin Cannes Film Festival.
Seriously, I’d say that Tampon Tim reminds be of the murderer in “The Lovely Bones” except that guy wasn’t a Homo

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

IF there is any validity to the Walz child molestation rumor, that could explain whyhe didn't deploy. The NG couldn't court martial him as they could (and would) an active duty soldier, but they could drop him one pay grade and have him retire instead of deploying.

You would NOT want someone like that deploying as CSM...

Just saying *if*, then possibly...

[Kazinski]

We don't know what Trump or Harris internal polls are showing, which are of much higher quality than the academic or wire service polls that make up the averages we see.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can we surmise based on the candidates actions?

[Joe_dallas]

yes we can surmise based on candidate actions.
Though worthy of note is the harris money spend in Texas. Both colin allred and harris ads dominate the 6-7pm hour (during jeopardy which is the only TV I watch). Both have 5-6 ads each during that hour with no trump ads.

Interesting that Allred ads claim that allred is strongly in favor of border control even though for 3 1/2 years he and the democrat party were very much in favor of policies which creating the explosion of the border crisis.

[Josh R]

You should not assume the internal polls are any better. Take for example Romney’s internal polls in 2012 which ended up to be crap.

[verochkax]

Did Romney's internal polls actually show him winning? It was obvious to me as soon as he took the nomination that he would be destroyed. He was an awful candidate, the Republican equivalent of John Kerry. He excited no one and he was boring.

[Magister]

The answer seems to be yes.
https://newrepublic.com/article/110597/exclusive-the-polls-made-mitt-romney-think-hed-win

[David Nieporent]

He was an awful candidate, the Republican equivalent of John Kerry. He excited no one and he was boring.

And yet, he got a higher percentage of the vote than Donald Trump did either of the times that Trump ran!

[verochkax]

Who cares?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Mitt Romney made the mistake that the mASSgop has long made -- thinking that volunteers are employees whom you can make jump when and where you want to.

Romney had no GOTV in key states -- he'd have won if the same number of White males had voted that voted in 2008. Charlie Baker made the same mistake in 2010 (and then winning in '14 & '18).

[David Nieporent]

which are of much higher quality

No. Seriously, this is just a misunderstanding of internal polls.

[verochkax]

This is the answer. IN the days of social media, Youtube, and other modern communication forms, where a rally takes place is less important than it taking place.

Combine this with the natural inclination of people to want to be on the "winning team," and some undecideds in swing states might see thousands turning out in New York City and decide that Trump is the "winner," and thus, their man.

[Z Crazy]

It's beyond debate that Trump gained ground among Democratic constituencies.

https://x.com/mtracey/status/1844391089161310279

[Brett Bellmore]

While said constituencies are still going to vote overwhelmingly for whoever the Democrat is.

It all comes down to turnout, and the Democrats have mastered the art of making people hate Trump enough to bother voting even if they don't like their own nominee.

[Josh R]

The gradual decline has been all of 0.3% to 0.4%-points across all the polls. That might be real, and either contiue or stop. Or, it might be an artifcat in the noise. Case in point: your preferred pollster (TIPP) says Harris remains 3%-points ahead nationally (no change). Luckily they will now have a daily tracking poll.

And no, the polls have not moved 6%-points (or anywhere close to that) from the top of the MOE to the bottom of the MOE. Also, the MOE due to finite sampling is less than plus-or-minus 3%-points when you take the average of all the polls (many more people survyed). The problem isn't finite sampling. The problem is systemic errors which cause the polls to be statistically biased (e.g., undersampling Trump voters or applying a faulty likely-voter screen).

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...wrt to TIPP. Your question was what pollster was better than Nate Silver. I answered you: TIPP/IBD. And they are. The data bear that out. I explained how they do better, and why. It isn't the only poll I look at, and truthfully, there are other items outside of strict polling to consider.

In 3 weeks, we will see if I am right about The Donald (I think he wins PA - already laid out why), and whether it comes down to AZ, GA and WI (which it will, if the election is close - and it is thusfar).

Internal polling has much more rigourous sampling and mixed mode data collection, and that is why campaigns literally spend millions. It is obscenely expensive because you are drilling down to Zip+4s to find respondents. Then, there is a lot of data crunching of credit data, census data, and public data for profiling and predictive analysis.

[Josh R]

What data supports your conclusion that TIPP (by itself) is better than Silver (he aggregates all the polls)? But even assuming you are right about TIPP, they aren't showing Harris slipping (Silver did, by by about only 0.3%-0.4% points, as did RCP).

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, look at the data for 2004, 2008, 2021, 2016, 2020 and you will see that TIPP/IBD had the most accurate polling data. They were much, much closer to nailing the actual percentages won by each candidate, state by state (by individual demo, also, which is even more impressive to me) than Silver ever was.

TIPP is not the only poll I look at, but it figures prominently in my thought and evaluation process.

[Josh R]

I forgot about this post of mine from a few weeks sgo. We can compare TIPP to Silver for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. The numbers below are the actuals, TIPP, Silver:

2008: Obama 7.2, Obama 4.7, Obama 6.1
2012: Obama 3.9, Obama 1.6, Obama 1.9
2016: Clinton 2.1, Trump 0.2, Clinton 3.9
2020: Biden 4.5, Biden 4.5, Biden 8.0

Yes, TIPP nailed 2020! Overall, they have an average error of 1.8. Silver’s average error is 1.9. At worst Silver matches TIPP

[Kazinski]

Kind of makes you wonder whether or not you'd call 2016 a win for TIPP or not, they did have Trump winning, but were wrong on the popular vote.

[Josh R]

The correct measure is not a binary win or loss. It's how far were you from your predicted value.

[Commenter_XY]

That is exactly correct, Josh R.

[Josh R]

The Reader's Digest version:

The polls underestimated Trump in 2016 and 2020. The raw poll results in 2024 have more people who voted for Biden in 2020 than actually did. When you adjust the polls to match the 2020 results, Trump's numbers go up. Perhaps the raw polls are again underestimating Trump.

On the other hand, recall weighting historically does not work because enough people say they voted for the winner last time even when they did not. In that case, the adjusted polls are overestimating Trump.

Who is right? The 2/3 who are adjusting or the 1/3 who are not? We will have to wait for election day.

[Joe_dallas]

my guess is the polls in the swing states are under estimating Harris support. My basis for that impression is the polls for the undercard races generally show the democrat party candidate with better polling than Harris. Generally, but not always, the gap between the top race and the undercard races is usually not very large. Though there could be huge differences this year. Stay tuned.

[santamonica811]

In other news, apparently Speaker Johnson, in response to both Dem and Rep lawmakers begging him to bring the House back early, in order to add desperately-needed funds to FEMA, is saying, in essence, “Nah. No hurry. Let’s get around to it after the election in November.”

My fucking party. It’s like its leaders are bound and determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Take a hugely popular idea, and deliberately give the middle finger to the people in a fistful of devastated states by deliberately failing to do anything. But he’ll still expect people to vote for Republicans in Nov.

My fucking party. ????

[Kazinski]

Heh, your party.

Well I suppose Self-loathing Republican can be a thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure he will be voting for Steve Garvey.

[Commenter_XY]

Quit Team R, I did (years ago). They are politically incompetent.

[Kazinski]

I register Republican so I can vote in the primaries, since they don't have open primaries in my state.

Its just that voting Democratic just isn't a viable option, and Libertarians are weird.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, agree about the Libertarian Party right now. It IS weird. What were they not thinking when they chose Chase Oliver as Presidential candidate? I just look up to the Heavens, and say, 'Really?'.

Since I live in the PR of NJ, the bluest of Blue Paradises, my vote is meaningless, except for local municipal elections.

My senate vote goes to Kaplan (L) or Bashaw (R). Congressman Kim (D) is my representative, and he is a decent man. I've met with him personally. And I would vote for him because I have a sense of his caliber, except, Rep Kim is captive to a political agenda I don't want any part of (IOW, a decent man advocating horrible policies).

[David Nieporent]

Kaz, agree about the Libertarian Party right now. It IS weird. What were they not thinking when they chose Chase Oliver as Presidential candidate? I just look up to the Heavens, and say, ‘Really?’.

They were thinking, "This guy is an actual libertarian, unlike the MAGA people who tried to take over the party."

[Commenter_XY]

David, do you have a 'Chase for President' sign in your yard? 🙂

Chase Oliver gives lip service to libertarian ideas.

[santamonica811]

XY,
I'm loyal. This party will (probably) survive Trump. He's evil and ugly and unAmerican. But, thank God, he is not immortal.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They said that about FDR.

[Commenter_XY]

Loyalty is an admirable trait, sm811.

I grew up in a Team R family, WFB reigned supreme. There was a strong libertarian strain back then (Tea Party progenitor?). I just got tired of the mealy-mouths and the failure to deliver.

Yes, the country has survived bad POTUS' in the past. We are surviving Biden's shitty presidency ok.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Heels Up has the authority to do it -- the Constitution says:

"[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them'"[emphasis added]

Now tell me how that doesn't mean what it says.

[santamonica811]

You think that Harris is currently President?

Fucking retard.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You are a fucking retard if you think that Biden is making decisions.

[Martinned2]

I apologise for dignifying this comment with a response, but of course it does speak volumes about the shortcomings of US democracy that this is even a question. In any other sensible democracy voters can see their leaders making decisions, or at least they can see them operate in a way that positively confirms who is and isn't able to do a sensible job.

[Commenter_XY]

M2, thanks for the critique of the US.

Since we have so many shortcomings (your term), perhaps you in the EU won't mind taking up the slack in NATO and meet the defense spending levels your leaders committed to years ago.

America did the job, bailing out Europe with our blood - twice - last century, despite our shortcomings.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or accept responsibility for "discovering", invading and despoiling the Americas. Introducing slavery and bringing your incessant wars to the New World.
Happy Columbus Day!

[Frank Drackman]

Are you an Amurican Indian? Then go back

[Martinned2]

Why would I have to accept responsibility for something your ancestors did, not mine?

[Vryedni]

We entered those wars because American lives, territory and interests were attacked, not Europe's.

[Martinned2]

1. What does that have to do with anything?

2. Arguably, the US did that *because* of the flaws in its democracy, not despite of them.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address

[David Nieporent]

I apologise for dignifying this comment with a response, but of course it does speak volumes about the shortcomings of US democracy that this is even a question. In any other sensible democracy voters can see their leaders making decisions, or at least they can see them operate in a way that positively confirms who is and isn’t able to do a sensible job.

It isn't even a question. As you know, you're just responding to a troll. Also, I don't think most democracies have PMQs or the equivalent.

[Martinned2]

They don't, but then PMQs are mostly a show - at best they show that the PM can stand and talk coherently in a pretty confusing setting. But (prime) ministers have to participate in other debates to defend their government policies, budgets, and bills. Eg. here is the new Dutch prime minister being outmanoeuvered by the opposition in a debate about immigration: https://youtu.be/WCHD92o7_L8?si=e2XVkgQ69A2TT3nS&t=55

[Frank Drackman]

Does Parkinsonian Joe even know he's not running? he's made more appearances this year than 2020

[Riva]

Who is actually acting as President? Just curious because it sure ain’t the guy they forced out of the race. The one that won the primaries. To save democracy or something.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why not? Aren't you lot convinced it has always been his "handlers" in charge, anyway? What's different now?

[Riva]

Maybe nothing really. I guess though the ousting of Biden has brought the puppeteers out in the open. Just curious as to who exactly is in charge now. Democrats keep using that word “democracy.” I don’t think it means what they think it means.

[Martinned2]

That's one of those things that has always fascinated me about US democracy. Why does one person get to decide whether the House sits or not? (Or two - doesn't the President have the power to summon them back to work too?)

For example, art. 29 of the French constitution:

Parliament shall meet in extraordinary session, at the request of the Prime Minister or of the majority of the members of the National Assembly, to debate a specific agenda.

Or section 73 of the Spanish constitution:

The Houses may meet in extraordinary sessions at the request of the Government, of the Permanent Deputation or of the overall majority of members of either of the two Houses. (...)

[Commenter_XY]

Think about the job (Pres, PM), and how it differs from the legislature. The legislature represents a district, a Pres/PM represents a nation. National problem (emergency) might not affect 33% of districts, but still must be addressed. So that nominal authority is granted. Makes sense, up to a point.

Now, the Legislature can convene, say 'Problem, what problem? Buzz off' and adjourn while taking no action. That is their prerogative.

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure I understand your response (leaving to one side that the legislature, regardless of how it is elected, is responsible for the entire country).

Of course the legislature can take no action if it wishes. But the question is whether any one person, e.g. the speaker, ought to be able to prevent a majority from taking action if a majority wishes to do something.

And it doesn't have to be a majority. I'd say that the threshold for summoning a new session should be substantially lower than a majority. E.g. the German basic law, art. 39(3):

The Bundestag shall determine when its sessions shall be adjourned and resumed. The President of the Bundestag may convene it at an earlier date. He shall be obliged to do so if one third of the Members, the Federal President or the Federal Chancellor so demand.

[Commenter_XY]

Your question why does one person get to decide. I answered you.

[Martinned2]

No you didn't, at least not in any manner that I can discern. Why does one person get to prevent the legislature from sitting if it wants to sit?

[Kazinski]

So where in that text does it say one person can prevent the house from sitting?

[Martinned2]

If you scroll back to the original comment that I originally responded to:

In other news, apparently Speaker Johnson, in response to both Dem and Rep lawmakers begging him to bring the House back early, in order to add desperately-needed funds to FEMA, is saying, in essence, “Nah. No hurry. Let’s get around to it after the election in November.”

[Kazinski]

Thats a matter of house rules, not law.

The constitution says each House shall make its own rules.

Glad to be of help.

[Martinned2]

I know. That doesn't change the fact that it's a terrible rule. Hence my question: why?

[Kenneth Almquist]

Martinned2, one thing you are possibly overlooking is that if Republicans wanted to pass more FEMA funding, they could have done so before Congress adjourned. The FEMA funding situation is not something that suddenly materialized. If we were talking about an unexpected event that occurred while the House was not in session, then your concerns about who can call the House into session would be more directly on point.

What is at issue in this case is that Johnson is shielding his members from having to vote on additional FEMA funding. He didn’t schedule a vote while the House was in session. If he had, I expect it would have passed with a combination of Democratic and Republican votes. A majority of House members can force a vote by signing a discharge petition, but that did’t happen. Essentially, the issue is that Republicans have a majority in the House, some Republicans opposed additional FEMA funding, and the rest weren’t willing to force the issue.

The current rules don’t force the House to vote on the issue, and it would be hard to craft a change to the rules that would force the House to vote on an issue like this, but not on lots of nonsense bills with no chance of becoming law.

[David Nieporent]

hy does one person get to prevent the legislature from sitting if it wants to sit?

One person doesn't. Why do you think the Speaker can prevent the legislature from sitting if it wants to sit?

[Magister]

You answered only with respect to the President calling Congress into session; you did not answer why a single member of the legislature can block opening a session.

Even the President is politically constrained from calling for a session, as right now it would turn into a political issue of pulling all of the representatives away from campaigning for reelection. Republicans shot down an immigration bill, which gave them a large portion of what they wanted, at Trump's behest to preserve his campaign issue; not funding FEMA is more of the same.

[Commenter_XY]

The single member is the Speaker. Not just some schmoe.

[Martinned2]

Yes. Why does the Speaker have that power without some kind of opportunity for a majority (or even a large minority) to overrule their decision?

[Commenter_XY]

M2, somebody has to be the boss. In our system, the Speaker is the boss (of the House). Deal with it. We have been for 240+ years.

Each chamber makes their own rules.

[Magister]

If you need one boss to block sessions, why don't you need one boss to decide what gets passed? By your reasoning, we're spending way too much on hundreds of legislators. It would explain your support for would-be dictator Trump.

[Martinned2]

Somebody definitely does not need to be the boss. That's the whole point of having 435 Representatives. They vote on things, and that's how they decide things collectively.

[Magister]

Between McCarthy and Johnson, in this Congress the Speaker is just some schmoe.

[Commenter_XY]

The Speaker might have practical political limits, but he still has the power to call (or not) the House into session. The House wanted it that way.

[Martinned2]

Yes, and that's my question: It's a terrible rule, so why does it exist?

[bernard11]

Martinned,

You are not going to get an answer to your question. Everyone you ask dodges it, or gives non-answers.

Of course, if Johnson had a shred of integrity this wouldn't be a problem. But all he does is scamper around following Trump's instructions. Calling him a worm is an insult to worms.

[mulched]

He's also not blocking it, he's just not forcing it.

[bernard11]

Actually, Johnson is a schmoe.

[Riva]

I’m sure someone must have mentioned this to you at some point but you just forgot. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

[bernard11]

Empty, stupid, answer.

[Riva]

No, actually pithy. And correct.

[David Nieporent]

No, incorrect. Democracy and republic are the same thing.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/

[Riva]

You get back to me and tell me the next time you vote for federal legislation. Actually, you don’t. Your representatives do. Because we live in a constitutional republic. You’ve heard of the constitution? The thing that doesn’t mention “democracy”? And that guarantees to states a republican form of government. I think I’ll rely on that, not an article on a website.

Actually though, if we could have a reasonable exchange of views I would suggest that we first define “democracy,” before we start. But we can’t. Every response from you eventually deteriorates into some absurd moronic insults. You are inherently incapable of having an exchange of views like a reasonable adult.

[David Nieporent]

Bot not programmed to make sense, so it makes an argument first and then posts that it doesn't know the definition of the word that it's making the argument about.

[Riva]

I did note that you were incapable of exchanging views like a reasonable adult. You sure showed me bat shit crazy guy.

[David Nieporent]

Bot programmed to resort to "I know you are but what am I?" whenever it has no substantive responses designed to output for that particular topic.

[Riva]

Interesting. Doubling down on stupid. Not sure this is the way to go, but it probably makes sense to the bat shit crazy.

[Riva]

But I must add, of all the seriously stupid, I mean no excuse stupid, literally drooling on the ground, irredeemably stupid comments, claiming a “democracy” means the same thing as a “republic” doesn’t just rank high on the stupid list. It needs its own special list.

Congratulations bat shit crazy guy. One of the most impressively stupid comments ever to be posted.

[David Nieporent]

claiming a “democracy” means the same thing as a “republic” doesn’t just rank high on the stupid list. It needs its own special list.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/

[Riva]

You better slow down. You’re entering dangerously stupid territory. Your unbalanced mental health may never recover. Being mind bogglingly stupid and unable to respond to my comment with your own opinion, you merely post an article link, claiming it as authority for the proposition that a “[d]emocracy and republic are the same thing.” Thus proving only the obvious point that a world class imbecile like yourself didn’t even understand the article he’s citing.

You should stop now and go on to do whatever is imbeciles do to occupy their time. Maybe go to a Harris rally?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That’s one of those things that has always fascinated me about US democracy. Why does one person get to decide whether the House sits or not?

“U.S. democracy” has many rules regarding how legislatures work with each state having their own rules.

Each house of Congress has the power to set rules of proceedings. This seems like a fairly mundane rule & I assume arose from British practice at the time of ratification.

[“Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings”]

The Constitution doesn’t give one person the power to decide when to call back each house to session. Each house sets its own rules. If the House wants to delegate the power to the speaker of the house, it can do so. It can give a majority of each house the power to override the decision of that person.

The president can in “extraordinary” occasions convene each house, such as to address an emergency, and serve as the tiebreaker if the houses can’t settle when to adjourn [this latter power was never used to my understanding].

[Martinned2]

Yes, I understand it's a rule, but it's a terrible rule, so why does it exist?

And yes, individual states have their own rules, but - and this is an unrelated but equally fascinating issue - the states have progressively converged on the Federal model over the last 100-150 years, as Americans have somehow come to believe that the way the Federal government works is the only way to do democracy. That is why, fore example, every state except Montana has a bicameral system, even wildly rural states like Alaska and Wyoming.

And yes, there is a wider context to this, because the (Federal) US legislative process has lots of other weird veto points too, like giving committee chairs all sorts of power to bring things to a vote or not. No wonder nothing ever gets done in Congress, and the President grabs more power with every passing year.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, I understand it’s a rule, but it’s a terrible rule, so why does it exist?

It’s a terrible rule for each house to set the rules for its proceedings? If other nations have other rules, fine, but doesn’t really to me seem that terrible. It’s a common rule for bodies to decide on its own how they run themselves.

Again, one person in “U.S. democracy” does not have the constitutional power to decide except regarding the president when Congress is out of session & then in special cases. Each house, by majority rule, decides the rule.

I have not studied how each of the 50 state legislatures & territorial bodies decide the question.

A bicameral system has been traditional in the U.S. It is not just something that arose in the last 50-100 years regarding uniformity. It is a reflection of various things, including a tradition of checks and balances, one body being more aristocratic (property based / at least originally), and dividing duties. Again, not sure how unique this is.

We do have many veto points but the committee system in Congress is overall a logical division of power. There is a lot to do and each committee has a specific function. Committee heads are not as strong these days as they used to be.

[David Nieporent]

That is why, fore example, every state except Montana has a bicameral system, even wildly rural states like Alaska and Wyoming.

I know they all look alike to you, but Montana and Nebraska are actually different places, and it's the latter that has a unicameral legislature.

[Martinned2]

Apologies, I was going from memory. (And yes, I am aware that one is a lot flatter than the other.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President to call them back
"in extraordinary circumstances." The document was written for King George (Washington).

[Bob from Ohio]

I imagine it has something to do with British colonial practices.

But practically, those are post WW2 constitutions with modern communications and transportation available. How long would it take to arrange for a majority of congressmen to call a session and then get to the session in 1789 with only horse and ship available?

Its not tiny Netherlands, it is well over a thousand miles from Vermont to Georgia. A congressman wanting a session would have to write dozens of people spread out over 13 states, get replies, assemble the replies, get them to DC and then send out the summons to the session, which would have to be 3 weeks at least in the future to allow the men to get to DC.

[Martinned2]

"This was practical in 1789" is hardly a reason to keep doing things a certain way in 2024.

[Krychek_2]

There is a broader issue here, and that is that in a true free market, most of Florida's coastal areas would be uninsurable. With two or three multi-billion dollar hurricanes blowing through every year, a number of Florida insurers have gone bankrupt over the past few years. The insurance company solution is to refuse to pay claims unless the homeowner files a lawsuit, and the Desantis solution is to make it harder to sue your insurance carrier. Meanwhile, our premiums are four times higher than the national average; mine have tripled in the 20 years I've lived here and I don't live on the coast.

Florida is going to have to decide if having coastal urban areas is worth enough for the state to heavily subsidize the insurance business. Because I really don't see a free market solution that doesn't involve shutting down Miami and Tampa.

[Armchair]

“With two or three multi-billion dollar hurricanes blowing through every year”

No… It’s worth looking up the number of hurricanes that have actually hit Florida. While two major hurricanes have hit Florida in 2024 (as according to the below link), just one did in 2023 and another in 2022. Then nothing until one in 2018 and another in 2017…then a large gap with no major hurricanes until 2005.

That’s hardly “2 to 3 hurricanes every year”.

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

[Krychek_2]

Would you care to respond to my actual point?

I just looked it up. The damage estimate from Milton is 50 billion. The damage estimate from Helene is 200 billion. The hurricane damage from Idalia was 3.6 billion. The hurricane damage from Ian was 113 billion. The hurricane damage from Irma was 50 billion. And those are the ones that actually touched down inside Florida, not counting the ones affecting coastal areas in other states.

According to the Florida Department of Financial Services Web site, 14 Florida insurance companies are currently in receivership.

So my actual point stands — there is no free market solution to Florida’s coastal insurance problem.

But since you’re a pedantic asshole, you’d prefer to correct a statement of fact that has no impact on my actual point.

So OK, it’s not 2-3 a year. It just feels like it if you’re a Florida homeowner.

[Mr. Bumble]

So move.

[Krychek_2]

And how would my moving resolve Florida's insurance crisis?

[Mr. Bumble]

It would resolve yours.

[Krychek_2]

As with Armchair, you've chosen (probably intentionally) to ignore the central point of my argument, which is that there is no free market solution to Florida's insurance crisis. Do you have a response to that central point?

[Martinned2]

There is a public policy view that people should be able to live in Florida, meaning that the (Federal) government will override the pricing signals from the free market. What part of that needs a response? Do you think people shouldn't live in Florida anymore?

[Mr. Bumble]

How is it a "free market" if the government (Federal or state) can override the pricing signals?

[Martinned2]

The government can override the pricing signals in any free market, thus making it not “free” in the sense that that word is used here. See also: strategic petroleum reserve.

[Krychek_2]

My comments were directed to libertarians who insist there's a free market solution for everything.

[David Nieporent]

Do you think people shouldn’t live in Florida anymore?

If they can't afford to without subsidies, then yes!

[Brett Bellmore]

The free market’s solution to Florida’s insurance crisis is to do precisely nothing, and if it doesn’t make economic sense for people to be insured in Florida, they won’t be able to get insurance.

Sometimes the free market solution is, "Don't do that, dummy!"

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, there is a free market solution. Insurers will have to raise rates to accommodate the financial risks attendant to hurricanes. That places homeowners in a bind. Just saying.

[bernard11]

there is a free market solution.

Depends what you mean by "solution." If the necessary premium is large relative to the value of the insured property then maybe only a few people will be able to afford it, insurers may not offer it.

That's certainly a free market solution, even though it doesn't help homeowners very much. A free market does not mean that every conceivable product is offered for sale.

[Commenter_XY]

That was the entire premise of K2, namely, there is no free market solution. There is. It just isn't very palatable.

[Kazinski]

Thats got cascading consequences, since no insurance means no bank will finance it either.

So the only way homes get sold is all cash offers, and owner financing.

Homeowner insurance co-ops won't work, because they won't spread risk. All the homes in a county are substantially at the same risk from a hurricane.

Even State insurance pools don't spread the risk enough.

[Zarniwoop]

Another component of an actual free market solution would consider house construction style and materials.

A concrete bunker might not be airy and pretty, but it’s not going to have the roof regularly ripped off like a stick-built house without building codes (i.e., no hurricane ties).

We all read “Three Little Pigs”, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Florida uses hurricanes to keep the building inspectors honest. If you build to Florida building codes, and you're far enough inland that you don't see the storm surge, your house will generally be fine.

If you're in a position to see storm surge, there are other design considerations, like being up on pilings, but that's generally survivable, too. If you build for it.

[Armchair]

Point being, nothing is "uninsurable" here. Let's do a little math.

The median value of a residential property in Florida is ~$400,000. There are 8.1 million residential properties in Florida. That gives a total property value of 3.2 Trillion. Just residential properties. Milton cost 50 billion. That's about 1.5% of property value. Meanwhile for an average home in Florida, insurance rates are ~1.8% of value.

https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/homeowners-insurance/homeowners-insurance-cost/#cost-by-state

The free market works fine.

As for being a "Pedantic asshole"...facts matter. If you're talking about the insurance market, a major hurricane hitting an area "2-3 times a year" would be a big deal. But if that's not true, and there's a fairly recent 11 year span where not a single major hurricane hits the area...that matters quite a bit. If 2024 is the first year since 2004 that more than 1 major hurricane hit Florida, then it makes a major difference in the "crisis"...and that's more in the realm of normal insurance.

[Krychek_2]

As for being a pedantic asshole, yes, facts matter, but quibbling over ones that don't affect the central point is just a distraction. See the following from New York Times v. Sullivan, a defamation case:

"It is uncontroverted that some of the statements contained in the two paragraphs were not accurate descriptions of events which occurred in Montgomery. Although Negro students staged a demonstration on the State Capitol steps, they sang the National Anthem and not "My Country, 'Tis of Thee." Although nine students were expelled by the State Board of Education, this was not for leading the demonstration at the Capitol, but for demanding service at a lunch counter in the Montgomery County Courthouse on another day. Not the entire student body, but most of it, had protested the expulsion, not by refusing to register, but by boycotting classes on a single day; virtually all the students did register for the ensuing semester. The campus dining hall was not padlocked on any occasion, and the only students who may have been barred from eating there were the few who had neither signed a preregistration application nor requested temporary meal tickets. Although the police were deployed near the campus in large numbers on three occasions, they did not at any time "ring" the campus, and they were not called to the campus in connection with the demonstration on the State Capitol steps, as the third paragraph implied. Dr. King had not been arrested seven times, but only four, and although he claimed to have been assaulted some years earlier in connection with his arrest for loitering outside a courtroom, one of the officers who made the arrest denied that there was such an assault."

Yet despite all of those facts being inaccurate, the advertisement was, taken as a whole, accurate enough to be defamatory.

I occasionally misspeak, as does everyone, and you can quibble over minor misstatements if you like. Or you can engage the substance of what's actually being talked about, O Pedantic Asshole.

[Armchair]

Kryckek....

"As for being a pedantic asshole, yes, facts matter, but quibbling over ones that don’t affect the central point is just a distraction."

If you're talking about insurance premiums as a result of major hurricanes....yes, the relative number of major hurricanes that hit an area definitively affects the central point.

If you don't like that, then fine. But ignoring it as a central point is folly.

[Krychek_2]

As for the free market working just fine, your numbers don't help people being priced out of the homeowners market because they can't afford insurance, and some people being forced to sell homes they already have.

[Commenter_XY]

K2, your contention was there is not a free market solution to the problems experienced by FL insurers and homeowners. I beg to differ.

Insurers will raise rates to cover the financial liability. Homeowners can decide what to do (stay and pay, sell and bail).

There is no free lunch here. Higher risk = higher premiums. Seems pretty free market to me.

[Krychek_2]

With the practical result being that coastal cities, like Tampa and Miami, will at some point become unlivable because only the rich will be able to afford market rate property insurance. Florida, on the other hand, needs the coastal cities or a significant chunk of its economy evaporates.

[Commenter_XY]

K2, how do you know that is the practical result? I don't see an exodus of Floridians crying about the high cost of insurance.

[Magister]

By your numbers, total insurance premiums would be 57.6 billion per year, and Milton wiped out almost all of that. Is that just hurricane insurance, or does it include fires, flooding, lesser storms and other misfortunes?

The free market solution would be that insurance costs whatever the industry needs to be profitable, and people and businesses move to other states if that's too expensive for them. Or they build more hurricane resistant structures that get better insurance rates. Or they pay those rates if they value living there enough. (The most brutal free market solution includes eliminating FEMA.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or they assume the risk of loss themselves.

That's how it was a century ago, and why people exercised discretion in where they chose to live. Shorefront wasn't developed because people knew better.

[Magister]

The unvarnished "sucks to be you" platform has never gotten anyone elected. I can only hope that every politician I oppose takes Dr. Ed 2's political advice.

[Armchair]

"By your numbers,"....

1) I noted that was just residential property (not commercial, not auto, not life).
2) This is just one year. Remember, Florida wasn't hit by a major hurricane between 2005 and 2016. Insurance companies collected premiums for every one of those years too.

[Magister]

You also described the Milton damage as a percentage of the property value. But note that one hurricane is not the entirety of weather damage, you have no numbers for other insurer risks, and the insurance rates you give far exceed property taxes in Florida, which get a lot of hate everywhere. But it is a very conservative thing to tell people to believe statistics over their experience; I've heard that since 1992.

[Armchair]

Yes, if you're talking about insurance rates....you should believe statistics over people's "experience". It's very quantifiable. And while that (1.8% of property value) is much higher than people's property tax rate in Florida (Florida tends to have low property tax rates), it's also much lower than property tax rates in places like New Jersey.

Nobody "likes" to pay it...until they have to use it.

[Magister]

Quoting a rate that people may not get for insurance that may not pay is not better than looking at the reporting of difficulties homeowners in Florida are facing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That gives a total property value of 3.2 Trillion.

Does anyone wish to correct my intuition that you cannot compute that value from terms based on a median?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krychek_2 — Actually, there is a sort of free-market-looking solution, already malignantly at work nationwide. It is the re-insurance solution, calculated to spread Gulf Coast losses to homeowners throughout the nation. That includes homeowners who took special care not to become part of the problem.

When they come to boost your rates by 50% over 3 or 4 years, does it do any good that you took care not to become part of the problem, by avoiding buying at lower prices in stupid flood-prone areas. No, it does not. They boost your rates anyway, to pay the higher reinsurance bills Florida real estate practices inflict on everyone else.

[Life of Brian]

begging him to bring the House back early, in order to add desperately-needed funds to FEMA

This seems like such a cynical, transparent effort to reset the news cycle. One scant week ago, alt-right NPR treated us to the (awesomely alliterative) "Fact-checking falsehoods about FEMA funding" written to combat the pernicious myth that FEMA was out of money. It noted that Congress had already recently put $20B more in the kitty, and quoted the administration as saying that FEMA "has sufficient funding to both support the response to Hurricane Milton and continue to support the response to Hurricane Helene -– including funding to support first responders and provide immediate assistance to disaster survivors."

It went on to patiently explain how longer-term supplemental funding would happen:

Lawmakers could return to Washington to try to pass more aid but they are waiting for the White House to send an updated funding request. President Biden wrote a letter to Congress last week that said FEMA “has the resources needed for the immediate emergency response phase.”

Biden went on to say an updated request is on its way.

“My Administration will keep the Congress apprised of efforts to assess the full resource requirements associated with Hurricane Helene, including for long-term rebuilding and resilience efforts, as those estimates become available,” he wrote.

Just a few days later, now apparently Johnson/'Pubs are evil incarnate because they won't just chuck a bunch more money in the kitty blank-check style, when FEMA has plenty of short-term cash and the administration has not yet provided the promised estimate of what is actually needed for long-term funding.

Oh, and to the extent we needed any more evidence this is less than a nothingburger, I also looked in vain for any sign of Schumer calling his troops back to Washington to do their part and put actual pressure on their supposedly recalcitrant colleagues.

Just the latest drive-by vignette in our sad political theater.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep talking about Helene.

Not hard to see why, since your narrative crumbles if you expand the scope of what you’re looking at.

I also like that Congress can’t convene until the President gives them a number. Seems like that’d be an easy PR coup by Johnson if so – call them in and then the ball is in Biden’s court.

As it is, the ball is in Johnson’s court, and he’s taking it home with him. While the GOP makes up conspiracy theories that FEMA is acting too slow and the far right says to shoot FEMA workers.

A more asymmetrical response to a national-level natural disaster, with one side helping and the other side actively obstructing, I have not seen.

[Life of Brian]

This reply is beneath even your minimal standard for truth-adjacency. You neither addressed nor even alluded to this direct quote from the White House I provided at the outset: "FEMA 'has sufficient funding to both support the response to Hurricane Milton and continue to support the response to Hurricane Helene – including funding to support first responders and provide immediate assistance to disaster survivors.'"

There's no actual need to allocate more money right now -- just a need for a manufactured political talking point.

Do better.

[Magister]

The cynical transparent ploy is to pretend that we can wait until a disaster has happened to fund FEMA properly. The earlier ploy was to pretend that disaster relief was spent on illegal immigrants, and that FEMA did not have money for Helene or Milton, and that it was because of that.

Life of Brian is the master of cynical transparent ploys, and he's just getting started.

[Life of Brian]

The cynical transparent ploy is to pretend that we can wait until a disaster has happened to fund FEMA properly.

They just got $20B -- their entire annual disaster relief budget for last year -- at the tail end of the hurricane season.

Just let us know what today's new standard for "properly" is, so we can more completely reflect on the fever-pitch sense of desperation to distract.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you claiming the cost is being overblown, or fake, or they're hiding money? What is your main issue, even?

You're just carping and throwing out BS from a week ago about a pretty fast moving situtation.

[Life of Brian]

Are you claiming the cost is being overblown, or fake, or they’re hiding money?

What cost? What money? What in the world are you sputtering about?

You’re just carping and throwing out BS from a week ago about a pretty fast moving situtation.

You've had plenty of opportunity to say what you believe has changed that's relevant to what I said. Instead you're just banging pots and pans.

[Magister]

Life of Brian, master of cynical transparent ploys.

[Sarcastr0]

Did anything happen between October 07 and now?

Nothing?

You're smart enough that this is you being a liar, Brian.

[Life of Brian]

Not my job to read your mind, friend -- in fact you usually frown on that.

What happened that you would like to present as relevant to this discussion?

[Riva]

As the eminently competent Karine Jean-Pierre has acknowledged, FEMA funds are going to shelter and feed the millions of illegals our border Czar has let slip, or flown, into the country. One wonders how much cash would be available for Americans suffering from the effects of a natural disaster if FEMA hadn’t decided to reorient its mission to sustaining illegal populations.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva, as always, busts in with last week's already laughable talking point.

[Riva]

I wish it were a joke, well it is but unfortunately also true. You must have encountered truth at some point in your life? Think back. Before you embraced the democrats and Marxism. Maybe there’s some small bit of integrity there that survived. I actually doubt it but you never know.

[Magister]

It was debunked here in two successive open threads; money spent on immigrants (who were legal) was not money allocated for disaster relief.

[Riva]

No, it was not “debunked.” FEMA is actually now dedicating millions to supporting illegals. Not their mission. Money is fungible and transferable. It happens all the time. Monies that are being used to facilitate the Biden/Harris resettlement of illegals is not now available to aid American citizens in need.

[Magister]

Money is fungible but Congressional appropriations are not. The money was transferred by Congress from Customs and Border Protection to FEMA, to help communities with an influx of migrants, not for disaster relief. And the people in question are not illegal anyway.

[Riva]

Cite your authority that certain monies allocated to FEMA were specifically and only to be dedicated to supporting the lifestyles of illegals and there was absolutely no other funds available for shifts/transfers. You can’t because there is no such restriction in fund shifting, which happens all the time. In fact, I suspect FEMA itself transferred/rearranged monies allocated to the organization for the specific purpose of supporting of illegals through various mechanisms when the organization decided to redeploy itself to support the Biden/Harris open border agenda.

[Sarcastr0]

You suspect a lot of bs Riva.

Federal budgets are public. Do your own homework.

Not that you will. Lazy ipse do it is more your speed.

[Riva]

Uh huh. Like your bs "debunked." Only when you're called on it, you've got nothing. I'll stick with what that moron KJP acknowledged in lieu of your bullshit "debunked."

[Sarcastr0]

No, everyone else has moved on Riva; you are the only one clinging to utter ignorance of the federal budget process at this late date.

[Magister]

There is some interesting history to all this, including responsibility on Reagan, Trump and various Republicans.

[Riva]

Reagan? And you buffoons tell me to move on from a timely news store? People are still suffering from the mismanagement of Biden/Harris’ FEMA. But I bet the illegals have their rent paid.

[Magister]

Riva did not read the story.

[Riva]

Sorry but if you can’t bother to make your own point with your own words, I’m not going to click on a link and do it for you.

[bernard11]

There’s no actual need to allocate more money right now

Then why are Trump and his cult repeating lies about how FEMA has no money because it was all spent on migrants?

I guess it's hard for pathological liars to keep their stories straight.

[Life of Brian]

repeating lies about how FEMA has no money

Keep an eye on the pea, now -- that lie came directly from Mayorkas, and, even more troublingly, came shortly after Congress had just given him $20B of new money.

Your focus on the people that listened to the lie and said in response, "um... priorities?" is interesting.

[ReaderY]

What makes you say he’s doing nothing? He’s doing his absolute durndest best to make sure that the Biden administration doesn’t have the resources it would need to be able to respond to the disaster effectively, so that he can then blame the Biden administration for having an ineffective response.

What do you think he’s supposed to be doing? Commit treason against his party by enabling its enemies, giving them aid and comfort to do something beneficial to the country and thereby claim a success that might give them some sort of electoral advantage? Why would he possibly want to stab his party in the back like that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The case for yanking CBS TV licenses.

In the 1970s, the FCC yanked the license of Boston's WHDH-TV Channel 5 and gave it to WCVB, who has it to this day. I'm not quite sure why they did this, but it had something to do with "the public interest" and the mandate that the limited resource of the public airwaves be used in the "public interest."

Opinion is opinion, but if CBS is broadcasting fake facts, theoretically knowingly broadcasting false facts, why shouldn't that be considered a violation of its mandate to serve "the pubic interest"?

Maybe not yank the licenses for the first offense, but hold the local stations accountable for what CBS is doing.

Likewise if ABC gave Heels Up the debate questions, which if it did, is beyond the pale of mere bias.

[santamonica811]

Man, you must have really lit into Fox News, after their deliberate airing of knowingly-false election bullshit led to their historic 3/4 billion dollar settlement.

I'll have to go back and read all the scathing posts you undoubtedly made at the time, where you certainly must have excoriated Fox. Unless you want to save us a lot of time and just post the links to those past posts?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fox News is not on broadcast TV stations.

And did you note my first line?

[not guilty]

According to Wikipedia, Fox Broadcasting Company currently has 18 owned-and-operated television stations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fox_Broadcasting_Company_affiliates_(by_U.S._state)

[Frank Drackman]

Wikipedia? it can't even get the Gilligan's Island episodes right and you trust it for anything?

[Michael P]

What’s your point? Fox News is a cable channel and is not broadcast over the air, so it’s not covered by the broadcast provisions of the statutes in question.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has called for the broadcast licenses of ABC and CBS to be revoked. That shows his ignorance. Broadcast networks qua networks are not licensed.

The networks, however, do own and operate local stations that are licensed by the FCC. So Trump's threats are insidious if he is threatening to revoke licenses of network properties because he doesn't like the content broadcast by the networks.

But I suspect you know that.

[Michael P]

Trying to change the topic doesn't answer the question.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fox Broadcasting is a separate division that doesn't broadcast Fox News content.

[Riva]

People who live in Russian collusion fraud houses shouldn’t throw stones. And I won’t even bring up the laptop lie. Just because I’m nice and don’t want to embarrass you. Well not too much anyway.

[Kazinski]

I don't think they care, all the main stream media wants Kamala to win, and they've stopped pretending.

Just like we've stopped pretending to to pay attention to anything they broadcast.

They did have a relatively fair debate in June, but they didn't like the results, so they don't want to make that mistake again.

So they are making a bigger mistake.

[Frank Drackman]

National Pubic Radio should just get rid of their "News" department and simulcast Al-Jizz-eera, (Once you get past the Arab-Israeli conflict AJ is a pretty decent news network), then we could get more of Terri Gross interviewing men who've had their dicks cut off.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

DE2, there is no legal case to yank the broadcast license for CBS.

The most that you, or I, the tree stump, or Pres Trump can do is name and shame them. Or shun them. Or lambaste them publicly for the mistakes that they have made.

I vastly prefer a free and unfettered press. Even a shitty press.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let me be clear -- the local tv stations.

[Commenter_XY]

I will be clear too.

There is no legal case to yank the broadcast license for CBS (national, or local affiliate). None.

I vastly prefer a free and unfettered press. Even a shitty press.

[Frank Drackman]

To borrow from what the great NY (Baseball) Giants manager Bill Terry (No, it wasn’t Yogi Berra, Yogi didn’t say 1/2 the things people say he didn’t say) said about the then Brooklyn Dodgers
“Are they still in the League?”
Does CBS still do News? They couldn’t even do SEC Foo-bawl right, thank J-hovah they finally lost the contract for the Saturday 3:30pm game
and Beth Mowins (where is she now?) hands down best College Foo-bawl play-by-play announcer out there, it's like she actually prepares for the games, unlike the former players (if I hear "University of Auburn" one more time.....)

Frank

[John F. Carr]

Nothing will happen unless Trump takes over the FCC. Treated as an illegal campaign contribution, nothing will happen unless Trump takes over the FEC.

[John F. Carr]

Relevant, but not dispositive, is the case New World Communications of Tampa v. Akre. Akre claimed she had been discharged for refusing to distort a story whe was working on. If there was a legal duty not to slant the news, she would be procted by a whistleblower statute. The state court found that there was no FCC regulation on the subject.

The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters' licenses. The policy's roots can be traced to 1949 when the FCC first expressed its concern regarding deceptive news in very general terms stating that "[a] licensee would be abusing his position as a public trustee of these important means of mass communications were he to withhold from expression over his facilities relevant news of facts concerning a controversy or to slant or distort the news."[...]In a series of opinions issued in licensing proceedings between 1969 and 1973, the FCC stated that when considering the status of a broadcaster's license, it would take into consideration proven instances of "deliberate news distortion," also called "intentional falsification of the news" or "rigging or slanting the news." In re CBS Program "Hunger in America", 20 F.C.C.2d 143, 150-51 (1969). This series of FCC opinions has come to be known as the FCC's news distortion policy.

This case gave birth to the Internet legend "Fox sued for the right to lie."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fabricate is a step way beyond distort.

But with all TV moved to the less desirable UHF band and most of it on Cable or Internet anyway, how valuable *are* tv broadcast licenses anymore? Radio giant Entercom is bankrupt...

[Brett Bellmore]

"But with all TV moved to the less desirable UHF band"

Admittedly I don't watch much broadcast TV, (For a value of "much" approaching zero.) but this was news to me. In fact, after checking how many VHF TV stations are in range of my house, (Over a dozen, but my antenna needs to be on a mast due to my being in a low spot.) it's still news to me.

[John F. Carr]

With the switch to digital channel numbers no longer correspond to frequency. Stations got to keep their low channel numbers after being kicked out of the VHF band. Your TV has to scan the airspace to learn what is out there. It might tune into physical channel 66 and decode a signal saying the station on this frequency should be presented as channel 5.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A low spot? In SC? Smarten up and move to a high spot. Or maybe avoid the rush, and register now with FEMA.

[bernard11]

What "fake facts" is CBS broadcasting?

Trump is angry at them because he was broadcasting fake facts, and they called him on it. He was afraid CNN would do the same, so he withdrew from his appearance there.

Correcting lies is not broadcasting fake facts, you gibbering idiot cultist.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An investigation by the Maine Wire has found multiple votes cast in the names of Maine Democrats who are described in Medicaid records as legal or illegal immigrants.

https://www.themainewire.com/2024/10/exclusive-records-show-votes-cast-under-names-of-non-citizens-in-multiple-maine-elections-since-2016/

"When the identities of the 18 legal and illegal aliens named in the records were cross-referenced with voting records from the Maine Secretary of State, six of the individuals were registered to vote, five had voted in elections since 2016, and all were registered Democrats."

That's a third!

"Several of the medical records indicate that the registered Democratic voters have severe intellectual or developmental disabilities and cognitive impairment.

One voter, who has not voted but was registered to vote as a Democrat in June, is described in the medical records as having “no cognitive capacity.”

WTF?!?

[David Nieporent]

One voter, who has not voted but was registered to vote as a Democrat in June, is described in the medical records as having “no cognitive capacity.”

So there's hope for Dr. Ed having his voting rights restored!

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the records show what is claimed, and that they haven't done the typical thing of assuming two people with similar names are the same people, or assuming that someone who was at one point a non-citizen didn't become a citizen. In that case, they've found 5 illegal votes in 8 years. Wow. That could have swayed an election for homecoming king, maybe.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it could be viewed as an existence proof, and one might suggest devoting more effort than the Maine Wire brought to bear would uncover more.

[Sarcastr0]

That is not how you prove things, actually.

The burden is on the one asserting the thing to be proven.

You've flipped the burden and now you believe the thing you want to believe, lack of quality evidence dedamned.

You do this more than anyone else I know.

[Brett Bellmore]

When somebody says something doesn't exist, demonstrating even one example of it proves them wrong.

At that point, when the argument becomes, "Not enough of it exists to matter!", establishing whether that's true requires a rather more extensive investigation.

All I would argue here is that, the existence of non-citizen voting having been established, have a bit more agnosticism about how much of it there is, until that investigation has actually happened.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn’t formal logic this is real life.

Vanishingly small isn’t something to rest your argument on.

There are lots and lots of Republican politicians and groups investigating the bejeesus out of this. If this is the best they got, that should give you pause.

It nothing ever does.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This isn’t formal logic this is real life."

The cry of everyone who wants to be irrational.

[Sarcastr0]

Counterexamples apply to superlatives.

In actual discussion you haven’t been responsive to what DMN actually said.

[David Nieporent]

The Heritage Foundation has been tracking every instance of voter fraud (defined broadly) they can find — this isn't in their database, but I suppose the argument may be that it's too new — and has found a few hundred instances, nationwide, in recent years.

[Martinned2]

Philosophical question of the day: Why is someone allowed to vote who thinks the government can create tornadoes and send them to Florida?

[Dr. Ed 2]

They once said that about walking on the Moon.

[Martinned2]

Who did?

[Frank Drackman]

No, Who's on First

[Mr. Bumble]

What?

[Frank Drackman]

He's on Second

[ThePublius]

No, What's on second.

[Mr. Bumble]

Then who is on third?

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know

[Mr. Bumble]

...and for your viewing pleasure and for anyone who hasn't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t4PzWSLhqQ

[Frank Drackman]

same reason you, who thinks Hurricanes are caused by guys like me, driving their Corvette with the Catalytic Converters removed (You think I’m bad, Parkinsonian Joe’s 1967 Corvette requires Leaded gas (Explains a lot, “Vroom Vroom!”) gets to vote, good thing I get to vote in 2 states or our votes would just cancel each other’s out.

Frank

[Michael P]

Have you heard about the history of poll tests in the US?

[Frank Drackman]

is that like the Wasserman test you obviously failed?

[Martinned2]

I have. You guys sure are super-racist.

[Michael P]

You should double- and triple-check your sources. Even Sarcastr0 disavowed your hot take last time.

[Martinned2]

Wait, I should double- and triple-check the idea that poll tests were used during the Jim Crow era to keep black people from voting?

[Frank Drackman]

they kept a lot of illiterate white people from voting also.

[Michael P]

No, you should double- and triple-check your sources that historical use of poll tests, and a current refusal to adopt anything analogous, means "You guys sure are super-racist".

[Sarcastr0]

What are you invoking me for re: I’ll tests?

Martinned and I are not in lockstep about everything, but the idea that supporting poll taxes is a tell you are a racist is something we agree on.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, the literacy tests in California, New York, Tax-a-chussets and Connecticut probably were.

[Z Crazy]

Poll tests are common sense, just like gun safety tests to allow people to own handguns.

[Martinned2]

Gun safety tests to allow people to own handguns are stupid policy. When it comes to guns, the only sensible policy is to not let civilians have them.

[Mr. Bumble]

Spoken like a true Nazi or Communist.

[ThePublius]

+1

[Michael Ejercito]

We should bookmark this link.

He really objects to civil rights!

[Martinned2]

There is no civil right to own a gun, any more than there is a civil right to own a sword or a tank. This entire branch of ideas is plain dumb.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do know that in America, what the Bill of Rights says about that trumps your personal opinion, right?

[Martinned2]

What the US Constitution says defines what are, in the US, *constitutional* rights. But there is no right to own a gun that is somehow prior to it being codified in the US constitution, in the way there is a right to free speech and a right to privacy.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Indeed Martin, it is much better to ensure that only the government is armed.

Worked well for the Jews, didn't it?

[Martinned2]

It does, yes. Jews, like everyone else, are much less likely to be murdered in countries that don't have US-style gun ownership.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except when they are, of course.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Is that conclusion before or after factoring in the ~5 million from the Holocaust?

[David Nieporent]

Poll tests are common sense,

Agreed. Ask people, "Did Donald Trump win in 2020?" Anyone who says yes should automatically and permanently be disqualified from voting.

[Michael Ejercito]

Would you disqualify Jimmy Carter?

https://theweek.com/speedreads/849983/jimmy-carter-says-trump-didnt-actually-win-election-2016

Or is the 2016 election different?

[verochkax]

Yes. I would rather not beat around the bush and use it as an indirect way of disenfranchising blacks. I'd rather just amend the Constitution to put in a set of criteria for voting, like having an IQ above 100, not having any illegitimate children, and not having any felony convictions.

That would by definition disenfranchise 90% of blacks, the Democrat 90%

[Riva]

I was thinking the same thing about self destructive idiots who regularly vote for Democrats.

[Frank Drackman]

Love hearing that Stuttering Prick Barry Hussein Osama telling Black Men they’re not woke for not warming up to a Bee-otch who jokes about smoking the Pot, and putting millions of Black men in prison for smoking the Pot.
“The lack of enthusiasm (for Cums-a-lot) seems to be more pronounced with the Brothers.”
“P–P-P-P-Part of it m-m-m-m-m-m-akes me think — and I’m speaking to m-m-m-m-m-m-en directly — part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.”
“45” got the highest % of the Black Male vote since Richard Milhouse in 1960, and he doesn’t need to get that many to win.

Frank

[Z Crazy]

It looks like a huge majority of Teamsters members opened their minds.

[Krayt]

Punishment without explanation as to why is pointless.

They should be running ads, "We sent tornadoes to you because you vote the wrong way!"

[Martinned2]

Voting is an exercise of power over others. As such, there is a perfectly sensible argument that it should be subject to safeguards. The reason why we don't have many of those is, as Michael P alluded to rather inarticulately, that those safeguards have historically been abused. But of course we do have a minimum voting age, and in many democracies people who have been declared legally incapable of handling their affairs can also not vote.

[bernard11]

Not only vote, but get elected to Congress.

[Commenter_XY]

Last week, VC Conspirator Nelson started a fascinating thread on 9A. Great discussion. Toward the end of the thread, I asked SRG2 and Brett Bellmore what rights fall under 9A. Very informative. Maybe one day I can distill my own spirits at home.

Now I would like to ask about 10A.

10A - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What rights would fall exclusively under 10A?
And further, it that right a state right, or people right?

[Commenter_XY]

As a thought starter, here are some examples from last Thursday's thread on 9A. There are rights we have arising from the penumbras and emanations of 9A. 🙂

Travel
Privacy
Freedom to farm
First sale doctrine (???)
various economic rights (undefined)
Home distilling (my personal fave)

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — Consider the possibility that you and other rights mavens are reading the 9A and 10A incorrectly. You presume, "the people," referred to are citizens, acting in their individual capacity as subjects of government, instead of the People jointly, exercising their collective sovereignty.

The latter interpretation delivers a better fit for what has actually happened. Which is an interpretation in practice that novel individual rights do not get invented pursuant to those amendments. Read them instead to say the existence of the Constitution does not preclude further declarations of individual rights by the jointly sovereign People, if it pleases them to do so. That way you get a match between Constitutional text and historic practice, instead of a conflict.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, I am asking what specific rights do we have from 10A, and which are state rights, and which are individual rights. I assume for individual rights, there will be nearly perfect overlap btwn 9A, 10A. The 9A partial list is a real 'grab bag' of different rights.

Do you want to take a concise (emphasis on concise) swing at elucidating those 10A rights?

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — The point you seem contriving to ignore is that there exists in American constitutionalism a two-level hierarchy of sovereignty—state sovereignty and national sovereignty. Those Constitutionally acknowledged powers—and not alleged mumbo-jumbo preexisting-but-totally-speculative grab bags of made-up assertions—are the source of all your personal rights and powers.

You have personal rights and powers because those sovereigns, state and national—understanding that you lacked personal power to defend yourself against government abuse—agreed to vindicate for you certain rights the sovereigns explicitly decreed. The 9A and 10A reiterate that sovereigns on two levels stand behind not only personal rights and powers you enjoy now, but potentially others it might please the sovereigns to decree later. Of course no one can elucidate speculative future possibilities.

[Frank Drackman]

As Tommy the J wrote, the rights we enjoy come from (Insert Mythical Surpreme Being Here) He also had some pretty good ideas on how to keep your Liberty Tree healthy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Some states are explicitly articulating the right to farm -- they feel a need to do that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let’s do the Ninth Amendment since I missed that particular discussion when it originally came up. Also the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States under the 14th Amendment – I would think that the rights under the one would have corresponding rights under the other.

The right of any person injured in person, property or reputation to a judicial remedy. A frequent state-constitution provision at the founding.

“That all persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great…” [an example of a common provision, this particular one in Alabama] All but two of the states admitted since 1789 had such provision in the state constitutions under which they were admitted. Sounds like “retained by the people” to me.

From the English Bill of Rights: “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”

Freedom from monopoly

Freedom to pursue the ordinary avocations of life subject to bona fide restrictions under the public interest

Freedom to direct the upbringing and education of your children (upheld by the Supreme Court, but under substantive due process not P&I and 9A)

I’d think of more if I had time.

[Commenter_XY]

Good list, grounded in history.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not grounded in history. Not at all.

The English Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the vast majority of the English population. History teaches that everyone in England who worked for wages, or was subject to apprenticeship, or who was under indenture, or of the wrong religion, or worked in certain places or trades, was subject to arbitrary law, dictated at the whim of local barons and justices of the peace. For instance, in many places, and during centuries-long intervals, agricultural workers were not even at liberty to change their places of residence without the leave of some higher-status authority, which was not customarily granted.

Laws reliant on rigid class hierarchy cannot be held up as historical precedents to elucidate legal texts premised on equality. To insist, "But in this nation everyone was intended to be as free as an English Freeman" is as much a historical counterfactual as any other outlandish hypothesis. To rely on a historical counterfactual would be like pure guesswork, except the former usually suffers from demonstrable specific errors that make it even less likely than guessing to deliver useful interpretations. For instance, in relation to the English Freemen critique, it is historical child's play to show that in 17th and 18th century Virginia, leaving the fraught question of slavery aside, not all white citizens were entitled to legal equality.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, the difference was that they DID apply to everyone in America.

[Josh R]

The 10th sort of speaks for itself. If the power for Congress to act is not found in the Constitution, then it belongs to the states. The only question is how to interpret such broad grants of power such as the spneding power, the commerce clause power and the necessary and poeper clause power applied to the former two.

[SRG2]

I don’t think we can tell from 10A itself what rights belong to the states and what to the citizens of the states. It seems reasonable to me that 10A recognised that the Constitution is a limited delegation of power from the citizenry to the Federal government and what they don’t got (sic) was a matter between the citizens and their states. And if a state’s constitution permitted a tyrannical executive or theocratic legislature, that was a matter for the citizens of the state.

And then along came 14A…any right that the Fedz cannot infringe upon, the states cannot likewise, which leads me to the conclusion that FAPP 10A was repealed by 14A inasmuch as it concerned the rights of citizens – a conclusion I did not think about reaching when I started writing this reply!

But IANAL

[Brett Bellmore]

No rights. The 10th amendment is about state "powers", it's the 9th amendment that's about rights.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The main Reason blog features a thread about efforts to have Texas secede from the Union. From that page to God's ears is my response. Let them do it. Help them do it.

And encourage Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida to go along. I suppose that implies loss of Louisiana as well, which would be a shame. But maybe divide Georgia vertically, east of Atlanta, so you could finish the job by adding South Carolina to a nice compact bloc of state miscreants along the extended Southeastern Seaboard—a Hurricane Coast Republic.

I don't think the concentrated ignorance and fecklessness those states feature today is proof the Civil War was a mistake. But absent the will to start another Civil War today, just to punish them, far better to just say, "Times have changed," and let them go.

For the U.S. as a whole that would be a far better solution than the alternative, which will be likely secession of the Northeastern Seaboard, down to the South Carolina border. Maybe let North Carolina decide by referendum whether it wants to swing North, or swing South. I have little doubt North Carolinians, like Virginians, would prove smart enough to go with the Northeast. That would create an economic and cultural powerhouse nation strong enough to become a world power on its own, maybe joint NATO.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, are you related to Dr Ed 2? = advocating secession

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — People are saying. That was my response to a thread on Reason. I said so.

But I am glad that you at least show sense enough to recoil a bit. I would not have expected that of you. Maybe I just goaded you into unaccustomed consideration of the economic realities of Red State America.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There was an article recently cited here about State Sponsored Disinformation.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/13/journal-of-free-speech-law-hostile-state-disinformation-in-the-internet-age-by-richard-a-clarke/

I’m skeptical of the article, but for those who buy into it, it says:

“Such disinformation can erode trust in government, set societal groups—sometimes violently—against each other, prevent national unity, amplify deep political and social divisions, and lead people to take disruptive action in the real world.”

You know what would really get hostile foreign governments excited? Encouraging literal national division in the U. S. As in, division into different countries.

If State Sponsored Disinformation is actually as pervasive as the article suggests, then hostile foreign states would be boosting the strength of secessionist propaganda.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sure, Margrave. Why wouldn't hostile foreign powers do that? The Hurricane Coast Republic would present easy pickings for hostile foreign powers. A Northeast Seaboard Republic, allied with NATO, not so much.

It's fun winding you guys up. Cite by mere implication a few facts which undermine the basis for corrupt minority governance in the U.S., and you get back incoherent spluttering outrage. Which makes it pretty plain that everyone agrees on the facts, whether or not some of them want to admit the facts.

How about you? Do you agree or disagree that my hypothetical Hurricane Coast Republic would at least take a huge hit to its standard of living if it seceded? Do you suppose it could survive long-term as a viable nation? I doubt it.

On the other hand, I think a Northeast Seaboard Republic would continue as the most powerful nation on earth—and enjoy a better standard of living for having seceded.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“How about you? Do you agree or disagree that my hypothetical Hurricane Coast Republic would at least take a huge hit to its standard of living if it seceded? Do you suppose it could survive long-term as a viable nation? I doubt it.”

I think all seceding countries, including your NE corridor republic, would by the simple fact of secession develop all sorts of problems, including I suspect a loss of standards of living.

We’re all fellow Americans. Let’s work out our problems together.

“corrupt minority government”

Agreed that we have such government; disagree that secession would deal with the problem in any way.

Or are you one of those folks who think corruption means the wrong party being in control? That quaint view ignores the entrenched bureaucracy and the permanent government in general.

Aren't you the sophisticated one with the wall of text posts? Now you're sounding like a regular partisan poster.

[Commenter_XY]

Amein vimru amein = We’re all fellow Americans. Let’s work out our problems together.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I invite readers of this thread to discern any difference in the general length of my posts compared to Margrave's.

And no, Margrave, I am neither a partisan poster, nor a fellow American of Donald Trump. For both points, I can point to my support of Liz Cheney. I comprehensively disagree with her on policy and political particulars, but we agree on institutionalism. That makes us fellow Americans.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

My posts are broken up into shorter paragraphs.

So don’t let my multiple paragraphs fool you.

I try to give the reader a visual break.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, the secession question was decided 160 years ago.

[Frank Drackman]

what Faulkner said about the past

[Stephen Lathrop]

It came up again, on REASON.

[Commenter_XY]

The answer is the same: The secession question was decided 160 years ago.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In the same way Roe v. Wade was "decided" 50 years ago? You're trying to shut down debate. I wonder why...

[Dr. Ed 2]

I seem to remember it being about ownership of Federal property located in a state that had seceded, i.e. Fort Sumter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, see below. If you throw in Red Canada, i.e. Atlantic Canada and the Canadian Prairie, the economics change dramatically. You will have lost all the domestic oil/gas production and ALL of the refineries. What would $10/$15 gallon gasoline do to your Blue Republic? How about food (and an export tax on it)?

[bernard11]

Why would gas cost $10-15 a gallon?

Oil is bought and sold in the world market, with price reacting to the usual supply and demand forces. That wouldn't change.

[Frank Drackman]

Current gas price in Saudi Arabia, which is about as close as you can get to the wholesale price is a little over $2/gallon

[Frank Drackman]

That's almost as funny as when Al Franken said it 30 years ago, which of his material are you going to steal next, molesting women while they're sleeping? (I'm in!)

Frank

[Riva]

This from the party that gave us the Civil War. And slavery. And Jim Crow. And if Harris wins, we can add communism.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Different party; same name.

Kinda like how "your party" started all those wars in the Middle East?

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't realize Hilary Rodman and Lurch were Repubiclown Senators when they voted for the Iraq War

[SRG2]

Alternatively, it was the South gave us the civil war, slavery and Jim Crow. - and much of the South apparently still approves, while the Democratic Party no longer does.

Why don't you criticise the South?

[apedad]

Note on Virginia.

The Great State of Northern Virginia is solid blue now as are Richmond (capital) and Norfolk.

And fuck the mouthbreathers in the rest of VA.

If your plan is realized, then they can move their asses outta my country.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

NOVA is filled with federal midwits and other assorted dipshits who have gotten wealthy by taking their corrupt vig off of the backs of those who are economically productive

[Frank Drackman]

You Mad Apedad?
Hey, that rhymes, You-Mad-Ape-Dad? I made
Yes, Fairfax County probably has more Moose-lums than Gaza.
and No-Fuck-Vagina is just a smaller version of Atlanta that also gets the occasional Hurricane,
like most Blue States, once you get out of the Shitholes, it's not a bad place

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm assuming that, by "Northern Virginia" you mean "Virginia", as opposed to West Virginia? Since Trump actually carried the latter in 2020.

Still false, though, if you look at any election map. It's actually mostly "red", it's just that the small blue areas are densely populated. It is not by ANY definition "solid blue".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — What do you call that particular political misperception? I propose, "Cartographic Illusion."

[David Nieporent]

Still false, though, if you look at any election map. It’s actually mostly “red”, it’s just that the small blue areas are densely populated. It is not by ANY definition “solid blue”.

For voting purposes, a state is defined by its human population, not its acreage. You might as well argue that New Zealand isn't Anglophone because it is "actually mostly sheep."

[Dr. Ed 2]

" be likely secession of the Northeastern Seaboard, down to the South Carolina borde"

Maine east (not north) of the Kennebec River and NH & VT north of US Route 2 and upstate New York would then secede from this secession. This might provoke Atlantic Canada (particularly Nova Scotia and PEI) to secede from Canada and join Northern New England which will be connected to the MidWest by the St. Lawrence Seaway (currently controlled by a US/Canadian coalition).

Atlantic Canada has been pissed at Canada for 60 years now for Canada's pandering to the French in PdQ (Quebec Province, e.g. Montreal, not the city which is 100% French).

Then you well could have this Northern New England/Atlantic Canada -- connected to the MidWest by the St. Lawrence Seaway -- joining the US that has been shorn of its coastal pestilences. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Canadian prairie join this as well.

You would wind up with a Left Coast from British Columbia on down, and an Acella Coast from southern Maine to northern Virginia, and then a bigger, wealthier country in the middle.

Let's take shipping -- Mexico is already talking about a "rail canal" so it would love to replace LA/Long Beach as a port, shipping containers by rail through Texas, and the East Coast ports could be replaced by the deep-water Maine ports of Searsport and Eastport, along with existing Canadian ports in places like Halifax, NS.

The wealth of the Left Coast is technology that (as China shows) can be stolen and the Acella Coast is government and finance which would inevitably shift once these states were no longer in the union. Metro Boston (100 miles north and south) is medicine and biotech but Israel is into that as well and well might move into this now more friendly country.

So be careful what you ask for, you might not like what you get.

[OtisAH]

The answer remains “no.”

[Michael P]

Apparently, allies of trans people should not vote for Colin Allred: https://www.advocate.com/election/colin-allred-transphobia-ted-cruz

[Martinned2]

Ugh, they gave the Nobel Prize to Daron King-of-data-mining Acemoglu. He doesn't know it, but he's been my nemesis since my grad school days.

[John F. Carr]

I listened to an interview with him over the summer. I thought the subject matter he was discussing had already been well covered by The Technology Trap by Carl Benedikt Frey. Frey discussed at length how workers were affected differently by the different industrial revolutions. Acemoglu seemed to think one could simply tweak AI to turn it from a worker displacing technology to a worker enabling technology.

[Michael P]

A Spanish study claims that Christopher Columbus was actually a Sephardic Jew. Does this mean we'll see a tag-up of Ta Nehisi Coates with Tucker Carson on how evil he was? (If so, today would be the ideal day for it to land.)

[John F. Carr]

A Sephardic Jew right at the time of peak oppression of his kind. Americans should give him his holiday back as a victim of the white Christian imperialists.

It's a great story. I would be more confident in its accuracy if it had been presented in the form of a scientific report instead of a documentary.

[Frank Drackman]

Nah, just send Silvio, Furio, and Pauly Walnuts over to “Discuss” the Columbus Day situation with them

[Ska]

If Furio went with them, Artie probably wouldn't have got his head busted open by a Connecticut casino owner's goons.

[Frank Drackman]

oh Artie, that Jean-Phillipe was tougher than he looked (if I ever get in a fight with a guy wearing an Earring 1: I'll be dead, 2: I've gotta pull that "Rip-the-earring-out-of-the-guys-ear/snear as you toss it on the rug" move

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, it was not a "study" at all.

My take: They tested some bones. The bones were apparently from a Jewish Spaniard.
...
Therefore, Christopher Columbus...

[Riva]

If the study had come from a US institution, I’d say antisemitic Democrats were looking for new and clever ways to hate him. Not sure if the Spaniards play the same politics.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes = Spaniards play the same politics

Laliga has a real problem with racist abuse of players (EU soccer).

[Martinned2]

Interesting case out of the Chancery Division, with an unexpected minor role for Sir Keir Starmer:

Husband who escorted his wife to Switzerland not denied access to her estate under Forfeiture Rule
(...)
“Where the public interest required no penal sanction, it seems to me that strong grounds are likely to exist for relieving the person who has committed the offence from all effects of the forfeiture rule.” [para 437]

On the basis of the evidence regarding Myra’s intentions and Philip’s response, the Court concluded that Philip should not be denied access to Myra’s estate, and therefore relief should be granted in respect of the operation of the forfeiture rule. It was also modified in relation to the other family members who had travelled with Myra to Switzerland.

Once again, we see in action the guidelines put forward by Sir Keir Starmer, then DPP, regarding the criminal offence of travelling with a person to Switzerland to seek doctor-assisted death (which is the factual context of most of these cases). As former Court of Appeal judge Sir Stephen Sedley observed,

“In modern public law the value of policy as a way to blunt the sharp corners of the law without sacrificing consistency has been recognised by the courts as creating a legitimate expectation that published policies will be adhered to. But none of this constitutes an alchemy that can turn policy into law. This has consequences that I will come to.”

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2024/10/14/husband-who-escorted-his-wife-to-switzerland-not-denied-access-to-her-estate-under-forfeiture-rule/

[Martinned2]

Of course, the grey area between policy and law is exactly the sort of thing that the Dutch authorities have used to great effect in areas such as euthanasia, prostitution, and soft drugs, and which has caused no end of problems in the US in areas such as DACA.

[John F. Carr]

For clarity, this is about the UK equivalent to the rule of my state which says you can't inherit from your wife if you kill her.

[Frank Drackman]

What if I send her blackmail letters and then blackmail an old fraternity brother to strangle her, of course since our Apartment only has 2 keys I'll have to hide hers under the mat for the guy to get in, or am I hiding my key? dammit, 50 years and I still can't keep the keys in "Dial M for Murder" straight.

Frank

[Krayt]

It was doctor-assisted suicide, to also translate it into US-speak.

[Frank Drackman]

AKA First Degree Murder

[Frank Drackman]

You know how I know "45" is going to be "47"??
Morning Schmoe is going on about how "Migrants" commit violent crimes at lower rates than "US-born" Citizens (so of course, the obvious answer is to send all Violent Criminals to Saudi Arabia)
and going on about how Cums-a-lot released her "Medical Records" (oh wow, she wears contacts, takes allergy medications, and drinks "Socially" (Like Dean Martin drank "Socially") no height, weight, BP, Pap, Mammogram, EKG) at the same time, "45" spoke for over an hour in the California Desert, wearing a Suit, (and Tim Waltz? he makes Dick Chaney look healthy)
Gotta room full of Shysters here, so how're the Bush-Chaney-Osama-Biden Assholes of Evil gonna keep "45" out of Orifice when he wins November 5? pay off enough Erectors? find a competent Sniper? Pre-emptive Impeachment?

Frank

[Krayt]

I'm not sure how all that supports your initial claim.

[Frank Drackman]

You will

[John F. Carr]

A Stoughton, Massachusetts man is facing felony charges for leaving rubber ducks in the nearby town of Canton as a show of support for Karen Read. Read was accused of murdering her boyfriend, a Boston police officer. The case looks, walks, and quacks like a police coverup. Proclaiming Read's innocence is felony witness intimidation. According to the police whose honor is being impugned. A criminal complaint can be filed by police acting on their own. I have not seen a statement by the local prosecutor who would be responsible for seeking an indictment.

https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/10/04/karen-read-case-rubber-ducks-witness-intimidation-charges/

[hobie]

Is this chick, like, the next Ashtray Babbitt for the hayseeds?

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank! thought you’d gone all Judge Crater on us, better get that Lube ready, Yankees are gonna give it to you long and hard, Lionel Richie-Style, All Night Long.
Hey, I like that, “Ashtray Babbitt", it was funnier when you joked that’s where my Hayseed great grand parents ended up. Now I've got one for you,
"MLK Jr, John Louis, and Malcom the Xth walk into "Bob's Country Bunker" and order a round of beers.
The "Hayseeds" take them back out, lynch them, burn the bodies, and put the ashes in ashtrays
see how funny that is?

Frank

[hobie]

I come from a non-baseball town (San Antonio). Couldn't care less about these teams or baseball itself. But I do wish my new hometown's team well.

[Frank Drackman]

San Antionio has a Pro Baseball team, the "Missions" oh wait, you're right.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If we still had an ACLU or even "small 'l'" liberals, people would be screaming about this -- and the related murder of the pregnant girl that cops started sleeping with when she was 14.

The Feds are prosecuting the murder of the pregnant girl, the Commonwealth still considers it a "suicide."

So if the "hayseeds" are the only true liberals left, well.....

[hobie]

Well, if people like you are running around calling us communists and pedophiles - it makes it harder to weed out the real ones.

[Frank Drackman]

Prediction: Dodgers scored more runs in Game 1 of the NLCS than the Mets will score in the whole series, and in another round of the "Curse of Chief Wahoo" the Guardians set up the first Dodger/Yankee series since 1981 (such a weird year with the Strike, Split Season)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

File this in "Things have gone to Hell in a Hand Basket, and the Hand Basket costs 50% more than it did 4 years ago"
"Former Army soldier Cole Bridges was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Friday for his attempt to help ISIS ambush and kill American troops in the Middle East. The sentencing comes more than a year after Bridges pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support for ISIS."
I know the Military doesn't execute peoples anymore (Seriously, how is Dr Nidal Hasan still alive 15 years after his crimes, I thought prisoners had some sort of moral code) but 14 years?

Frank

[Z Crazy]

He must've struck a deal with military prosecutors to provide intelligence.

Maybe they even gave him a complimentary bottle of mouthwash, so that his breath wouldn't smell like jizz his first week inside USDB Leavenworth.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was under the impression that Lavenworth was a well run prison.

[Frank Drackman]

Lavenworth may well be, we're speaking of the Federal Prison at Leavenworth Kansas

[bernard11]

You know a lot of alums, do you?

[Commenter_XY]

Q: If a POTUS deliberately sends American troops into a war zone, and there are no direct hostilities involving America, should Congress vote on this?

The US has deployed THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system) to Israel, ostensibly to protect Israel from future ballistic missile attacks from Iran (who is about to get hammered by Israel, in retaliation for the two attacks against Israel). This puts a company of US troops directly in harms way, and makes them targets.

If the answer is no, then at what point does Congress get involved.

[Martinned2]

I would argue that Congress should get involved whenever it wants to, at least with respect to deployments that are publicly known. If Congress votes that the President should discontinue a military deployment, that should normally be it. The power to declare war belongs to Congress.

The more difficult question is how/when the President should inform Congress in the first place.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which country involved with Desert Storm declared war on Iraq?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Desert Storm was coming to the rescue of Kuwait.

[Martinned2]

In international law, the last time anyone declared war on anyone was the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s, if I remember correctly. But as a matter of US Constitutional law, Congress should be able to say that it does not consent to a particular war, and terminate the US involvement that way. (In addition to its obvious power to refuse to appropriate funds for a particular war.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Nowadays the thing about Congress declaring war is regarded as quaint - part of the Constitution under glass in Washington but not supposed to be implemented in the real world.

It sounds like this would put the U. S. in the position of helping a non-allied nation's war effort - I think this activates the constitutional tripwire into war. Congress should decide. Not that they'll want to.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are unlabeled rockets fired by unknown persons State Action or an Act of Piracy?

In 1787, it would have been if the cannon fire was coming from a fort flying a nation's flag, or somewhere in the woods?

I'd argue that the Laws of Piracy apply, and any nation can suppress Piracy. As long as we are just shooting down incoming.

The flip side of this is the Somali Pirates versus what Chinese-flagged vessels are doing with fire hoses to other nation's boats in International waters.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This refers to the same Congress which has gone on recess until after the election?

I'm sure they'll get right on it when they get back!

[Dr. Ed 2]

What about when Thomas Jefferson sent his new Navy to that part of the world to deal with the Pirates?

What mutual defense treaties do we have with Israel.

And how do we define a "War Zone"? What is the legal status, under the rules of law, of random rocket fire?

How is this different from our troops in South Korea, which technically *is* a "War Zone" because no peace treaty was ever signed.

As to the President informing Congress, probably the only person who doesn't know about this IS the President...

[Brett Bellmore]

That fell under "enforcing the laws of nations".

[Moderation4ever]

Yes. Congress should vote on the matter. My guess is the Congress does not have the balls to do so.

[M L]

If Trump somehow wins another term as President and continues to survive their assassination attempts . . . What sorts of tumultuous things might happen during his second term? Will we see another "whoopsie" virus lab leak causing a global pandemic? Other sorts of catastrophes?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

[John F. Carr]

Millions of registered voters being happy in 2028.

[Commenter_XY]

+1 LOL, yes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As they say "Four More Years" and vote for Vance.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you preparing excuses not only for losing the election, but also for winning it? Wow, 4D chess, indeed!

[Sarcastr0]

Not in the mood for a 'why won't anyone engage my Breitbart link' game today?

Just fucking join QAnon already, ML.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment!

[Longtobefree]

The same disasters as the first time:
A better economy
Less federal regulations
Real borders
Better judges
More peace treaties
No new wars
In other words, a more free country
etc

[Roger S]

Plus a couple of more bogus impeachment attempts, and endless complaining from all the woke nuts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ONLY if the Dems win the House. They may not…

If the GOP has a majority in both houses, the easiest way to do this is having the GOP speaker introduce a pro-forma impeachment on some laughable grounds (e.g. upsetting Leftist cupcakes) and *pass* it, and then have the GOP vote cloture (60 votes) and immediately defeat it.

Then that Congress can't bring it up again, they have to wait until the next Congress in 2027. This is why they had to wait for the Congress elected in 2020 to impeach Trump a 2nd time.

Reductio ad absurdum -- and I *think* that even if the motion to impeach is defeated in the House, it STILL can't be brought up again. And the GOP goes out and tells everyone exactly what they are doing. Impeach him for "making America great again."

[John F. Carr]

The House can vote to change the rules, similar to the nuclear option in the Senate. Or the House can consider the next impeachment resolution to be distinct from the last. The "votes are final" rule works better in states where bills are prefiled before a short legislative session.

[David Nieporent]

Then that Congress can’t bring it up again,

I'll take "Things Dr. Ed made up" for $1,000, Alex.

This is why they had to wait for the Congress elected in 2020 to impeach Trump a 2nd time.

No, that's because time only flows in one direction, and you can't impeach someone before January 2021 for something that didn't happen until January 2021.

[hobie]

Avoiding impeachment is pretty simple. Don't strong-arm an ally for political purposes, and don't try to overthrow the government using fake electors. If you can manage to avoid shit like that...you're golden

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1

[Moderation4ever]

It seems pretty clear that Trump is almost total senile. So, the question is who will be the person or persons running the White House? There is a group that thinks JD Vance will lock Trump in some WH closet with a TV set and run the show himself. While I don't agree with Vance I think he has the skill set to do the job of shadow President. But what we saw after the 2020 election is that Trump is very susceptible to people flattering him. Guiliani, Powell, and Lindel for example. Could Don Jr and Guilfoyle be running the show or some other shadow group. Some group that itself lacks the skill and will mess everything up.

[bernard11]

More aggression by Putin.

Serious inflation.

Huge increase in deficits.

Lots of immigrant deaths as part of his "roundup" and concentration camps.

Considerable economic problems from the loss of immigrant labor and tariffs, with a likely recession.

Major weakening of the North Atlantic alliance, and of other cooperative efforts by the industrialized democracies.

Loss of confidence in the US by other countries.

Attacks on First Amendment rights, and efforts to restrict voting by those suspected of not being Trumpists.

[Commenter_XY]

That is quite a draconian list. Concentration camps? I don't think so.

[Sarcastr0]

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

Not all concentration camps are death camps.

[Brett Bellmore]

If illegal aliens are appropriately deported, what exactly is the objection to their passing through camps on the way to that deportation?

What you're doing here is trying to use the WWII stink of German death camps to tar detaining probably deportable people while confirming that they're to be deported, instead of simply releasing them with a pinky promise to show up if they need to go.

[Sarcastr0]

So when I said not death camps that was a clever ploy?

Words mean things. Bernard made a point.
You want to claim the connotation is bad, good luck with that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Congratulations to Jill Stein. The Democratic Party and the Harris/Walz ticket are now running an attack ad on her in “battleground states.” This, of course, is a problem of the legacy parties’ own doing, as they could provide Ranked Choice Voting or other alternative voting methods to the American public."

https://ballot-access.org/2024/10/11/if-theyre-attacking-you-you-must-be-doing-something-right/

[Ed Grinberg]

Isn't "ranked choice voting" just a ploy leftists use to keep Republicans out of office? I hear it's been very "successful" (in this sense) every place it's been tried.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

When it's combined with an "open primary" it truly sucks. But I see no logical reason to combine the two.

[bernard11]

Huh?

How does ranked choice voting keep Republicans out of office? (Other than by accurately reflecting the will of the voters.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It doesn’t; the ranked-choice policies in the news are combined with “open primaries,” where (as I understand it) the parties lose the right to designate candidates with the exclusive right to use the party label. A logical culmination of making party "primaries" into a state-run enterprise.

[David Nieporent]

Ranked choice voting has nothing to do with open primaries; they are completely separate concepts. A jurisdiction can, of course, have both, but they are independent of each other. Obviously the above mention of RCV had nothing to do with primaries, since it was talking about Jill Stein vs. Democrats; it was discussing the general election.

RCV is another name for instant runoff voting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, in theory they're independent.

At present 3 states use RCV; Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine.

If what he meant by "open" primaries was top 2, or "jungle" primaries, that's Alaska, California, and Washington state. Not an impressive overlap.

If he did mean "open" primaries, though, about half the states use them.

I think, frankly, that top 2 primaries have the unfortunate effect in states that are dominated by one party, of totally locking any other party out of the general election. Thus suppressing turnout for the 2nd place party.

As for RCV, it's a mistake. It assumes that most voters actually HAVE well ordered preferences between candidates other than their first choice, which I think is simply, objectively wrong.

It's much better to use actual runoff elections, where the voters have the opportunity to genuinely form such preferences.

[David Nieporent]

I think, frankly, that top 2 primaries have the unfortunate effect in states that are dominated by one party, of totally locking any other party out of the general election. Thus suppressing turnout for the 2nd place party.

They have no such effect. California elections generally — though of course not always — have a candidate from each party. The more heavily skewed towards one party the electorate is, the more likely there are to be multiple significant candidates splitting the vote of that party's electorate.

As for RCV, it’s a mistake. It assumes that most voters actually HAVE well ordered preferences between candidates other than their first choice, which I think is simply, objectively wrong.

It’s much better to use actual runoff elections, where the voters have the opportunity to genuinely form such preferences.

No, it's much better to not hold two separate elections weeks apart where many fewer people vote in the second election. Your concern is imaginary. If a voter has no preferences beyond his first choice, then it doesn't matter how the runoff is structured. If a voter does have such preferences, then this makes it much easier for him. It's sadly ironic that the guy inventing imaginary 1970s attempts to suppress third party votes opposes the one reform most likely to boost third party votes.

[David Nieporent]

Isn’t “ranked choice voting” just a ploy leftists use to keep Republicans out of office?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

Modern MAGA Republicans are just so fucking pathetic. Ignorant — and proud of it. They can't — and don't want — to think, so they just substitute "Did this hurt a Republican? Oh, then it must be a conspiracy to get Republicans."

[John F. Carr]

NPR has obtained internal documents from TikTok. It looks like a tactical leak from one of the states suing TikTok. The documents were allegedly obtained in discovery and subject to a protective order. Somebody in the company was concerned about teens' mental health. To the plaintiffs' lawyers that means every person in the company was solely obsessed with destroying teens' mental health, which might be tortious or otherwise illegal. One of the documents claims 95% of teens used the service in the previous month. The only way to get more teen eyeballs on the site is to increase per-user screen time. And the lords of the algorithms decided that feeds should show more attractive people and fewer ugly ducklings. Nothing shocking here.

In other online addiction news, I saw a story of a woman who divorced her husband after he spent all their money on OnlyFans. At least the husband didn't pick up any diseases like men of a previous generation. I recommend Brendan Koerner's report on going to work behind the scenes. ("I Went Undercover as a Secret OnlyFans Chatter. It Wasn't Pretty.") Behind every popular OnlyFans account is a call center providing fake personalized interactions to keep the money flowing. While the girls in the pictures might be real the person you are chatting with is a man in a call center. A lawsuit was threatened. It looks to me like OnlyFans is also due for some ineffective chest-beating by Attorneys General.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A fool and his money...

[John F. Carr]

OnlyFans looks scammy enough to justify an investigation.

It appears some of the suckers are giving gifts in excess of the tax-exempt amount. Suppose Mr. Sucker saw a message like "You have reached your annual untaxed gift limit. If you send more tips to XXXHottie we will send a reverse 1099 form and your wife will see it." First the IRS would require some legislative or regulatory action to clarify when "overpaying for porn" turns into "giving gifts to strangers." There is no financial incentive for the IRS to change policy. Either the guy or the girl is taxed, not both, and the existing system should work well to tax the girls.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How is this different from some tobacco employees worried about cancer or Maura Healey's lawsuit against Exxon?

As an aside, have you noticed how she's aged as Governor? It's only been 2 years, and Charlie Baker aged as well in the last two years of his reign. Kinda makes you wonder what we *don't* know about...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

item: Lilly Ledbetter, Whose Fight for Equal Pay Changed U.S. Law, Dies at 86

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/obituaries/lilly-ledbetter-dead.html

[Ed Grinberg]

Christina Hoff Sommers made two videos for PragerU debunking the "gender wage gap" myth:
1. The Myth of the Gender Wage Gap (2014)
2. There Is No Gender Wage Gap! (2017)
(I'd provide the links, but, based on past experience, they'd probably make my comment disappear.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The exclamation point is what convinces me.

Ledbetter was involved in a specific SCOTUS case involving legislation to address sex discrimination that led to further legislation.

This is, to be clear, a narrower issue than the wider matter addressed by those videos.

[Ed Grinberg]

AFAIC, the government has no business telling a private employer what to do. If a private employer wants to “discriminate by sex” (or by any other criteria) in whom it hires or how much it pays them, I don’t think the government should interfere.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And if one could pay women less, who would hire men?

[bernard11]

Two videos!!! For Prager U (lol)!!! by someone who seems not to have any training in economic research, and Ed is convinced.

I wonder if you've checked any other research on the matter.

[Z Crazy]

Has anyone seen this video?

https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1845463966782230686

This is exactly like saying only a handful of schools experience shootings.

And yet, this doesn't stop school shootings from getting national media attention.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You are more likely to get hit by lightning than to die in a school shooting....

Yet we aren't building Fariday cages in our backyards, are we?

[Z Crazy]

It is like people are pretending that shootings only happen inside schools.

Why?

[Martinned2]

Yes, how unreasonable of the MSM to report on kids getting gunned down in schools! Don't they have something more important to report on?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, Fentanyl deaths in schools...

[Z Crazy]

What about people gunned down OUTSIDE schools?

https://www.wlfi.com/news/2-gary-men-arrested-charged-in-2018-fatal-shootings-of-3/article_f184e20a-852e-11ec-8376-a7f6dfd0e99e.html

Did THIS shooting get as much attention that the murders in Georgia?

[Magister]

People do have lightning rods and surge protectors and seek shelter from thunderstorms. 40 million lightning strikes per year in the US; 9 billion rounds of ammunition produced per year in the US. Hmm.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is asinine. I don’t know how many rounds I have used, and I assure you I have never shot anyone.

And a lightning rod is a far cry from a Fariday Cage.

[Magister]

One can protect oneself from lightning without building a Faraday cage; lightning rods aren't even that common anymore. And of course those 40 million lightning strikes mostly don't hit people; around 20 people die in the US per year from lightning, and tens of thousands die from gunshot wounds.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lightning rods are mostly necessary for exposed buildings that are the highest thing around. Thanks to the existence of "power lines", they're pretty much unneeded for most residential construction, since single family homes are seldom the highest thing around.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

More kids died from the DTP vaccine than school shootings.

[Paladin_44]

Stats, please. Otherwise just bs.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html

After the COVID lies, they made their data harder to search. You used to go see in a summary table the number of reported "no-fault" deaths. And DTP was a mass murderer. 600+ deaths over the course of the first one.

Since there's a special, no fault, extra-legal court system for vaccine injuries and no vaccine, legally, can be found to have caused any harm, you gotta use your ol' noodle.

Here's one study that investigated 2000+ "SIDS" deaths. Yuck, was what they found.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750021001268

[Magister]

Multiple research studies and safety reviews have found that vaccines do not cause and are not linked to SIDS.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/sids.html

Not worth rebutting dishonest use of VAERS data; "no-fault" death does not mean death caused by whatever you want to blame, but anti-vaxxers do it all the time.

The number of children who would die from the diseases vaccinated against would be well over 10,000 per year; the number of children whose deaths are prevented by guns is much lower than the number whose deaths are caused by guns.

[Sarcastr0]

This year’s Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to three men who traced the institutional roots of national prosperity by exploring the vastly different outcomes in former European colonies.

“Rather than asking whether colonialism is good or bad, we note that different colonial strategies have led to different institutional patterns that have persisted over time,” Acemoglu said during a news conference in Stockholm where the prize was announced.

Colonies where a large share of settlers survived tended to establish inclusive, democratic institutions and subsequently prospered, the prize-winning researchers found. Those where relatively few settlers survived often formed more autocratic, extractive institutions and ended up languishing.

China, has grown to become the world’s second-largest economy and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, despite its autocratic governing structure.
Acemoglu argued that autocratic governments can boost growth temporarily by pouring resources into favored industries, but that tends to be hard to sustain. He acknowledged democracies don’t always deliver on their potential for widespread prosperity. He pointed to survey data showing support for democracy is at an all-time low.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/14/nx-s1-5151812/nobel-prize-economics-2024-acemoglu-robinson-johnson-wealth-poverty

[Brett Bellmore]

"China, has grown to become the world’s second-largest economy and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, despite its autocratic governing structure."

The question is, if they hadn't had that autocratic governing structure, mightn't they have been lifted out of poverty FASTER? Perhaps the Chinese government only deserves credit for slowing things down...

[Sarcastr0]

Read literally the very next line.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As someone with some Italian heritage, personally, I think we need a better representative than Christopher Columbus.

https://teachnthrive.com/history-passages/challenges-of-pre-columbian-exploration/

[Ed Grinberg]

Columbus was a great man of vision and courage.
On a completely unrelated note: The elections are coming up. I wonder: are you going to vote for Kamala Harris? (I bet you are.) Is she the sort of "better representative" you desire? (I bet she is.)
The sort of person who'd deny Columbus's greatness is the sort of person who'd vote for a non-entity like Kamala Harris.

[Frank Drackman]

He discovered America is what he did! He was a great Italian explorer! And in this house Christopher Columbus is a hero! End of story!

[Mr. Bumble]

Your link seems to justify the honor given to him.
If you think it should be someone else, why not offer up some candidates.

[Moderation4ever]

How about Enrico Fermi who developed the first sustainable nuclear reactor. These reactors would go on to be the basis of nuclear electrical energy and would produce many useful new elements.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean the guy who helped create the A-bomb and nuclear reactors (that we can't build anymore) to generate carbon free power?

[bernard11]

Here you go.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The link talks about the perils of pre-Columbian exploration. It doesn’t say that Christopher Columbus himself changed the nature of exploration to make things easier.

In 1938, Enrico Fermi was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on radioactivity and the discovery of new element. Not a bad choice in some ways. I suppose some around here might think Scalia has at least an honorable mention!

Columbus was chosen by Italians in an era when they were often seen as not real Americans. So, it is an understandable move on their part. He has a lot of baggage all the same.

The Irish celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. Two days later is St. Joseph’s Day, which is an Italian feast day. Something to that name …

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ditto, and agree.

Columbus had courage, I'll give him that. But what he started was a global (well, maybe hemispheral) holocaust.

[Frank Drackman]

So go back where you came from, and it wasn't like the Injuns were skipping around throwing flowers everywhere, they had Slaves, and slaughtered each other, and chased Buffalo over cliffs, and ripped people off in Casinos, oh wait, that's what they're doing now.

[Bwaaah]

Columbus is the apex of a "hemispheral holocaust?" You sure you don't want to go with the internal combustion engine and the ensuing mass extinction due to burning of fossil fuels?

You are a true scholar. And you're serious. And there are many like you. And you vote!

Is Evil History a major now? Does any major escape its rubric? Or does everybody graduate as a genius now?

You arrive, now, as a better man than Christopher Columbus. Behold the intersection of righteousness and aimlessness.

[Z Crazy]

Columbus really only visited one island.

[Roger S]

No, Columbus made four trips, and visited many islands and even mainland Central America.

[Frank Drackman]

And Neil Armstrong only walked on one Moon, the Wright Brothers boat was a flop, JD Salinger only wrote 1 Novel, Michael Jordan couldn’t hit the Curveball, Jeezo-Beezo, if you had a brain you’d be dangerous

[Michael Ejercito]

In the aftermath of Hurricane Milton,. people on threads have been balming climate change and how we need to do something now.

Here is something.

https://www.threads.net/@mejercit/post/DBHSpEfyEmc

We can blast enough smoke and debris into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight for, say, a thousand years, which will cause global temperatures to plunge drastically in a few days.
Of course, we should use non-radioactive explosives.

[Dr. Ed 2]

People forget the storms 1898-1954.

[Kazinski]

RealClearPolitics has posted what purports to be an internal memo from the Trump campaign entitled:

Is the Kamala Campaign Cracking?

https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/d6/d6a841f1-9730-4647-be79-c7e25495d68f/10.13-memo-2.pdf?_nlid=uBC3JNVZ9f&_nhids=5j4jUYX987

[Moderation4ever]

There have been number of comments on Columbus Day. My feeling is that there should be no national holiday for any individual. I say this partly because there are really too many deserving individuals. Rather I suggest that Federal Holidays should be limited to recognition of events, Independence, Labor, Memorial, etc. Not real sure about Christmas and Thanksgiving. I do think we should recognize individuals important to our country's history and that we should do that on the third Sunday of every month and it should not be for a fixed person but for different people who have made their contribution to American History.

[Frank Drackman]

Why do ya care? (HT L. King)

[Moderation4ever]

Because we get hung up on a few people and really fail to see all the people who made real contributions to our country.

[grb]

Yesterday, Trump gave a speech in Arizona that included this:

“We have Aseurasians in our room. We have some incredible people in our room. We have so many that we just can’t. But we have some people, we have some people….”

Given Trump’s obvious cognitive decay, people often have trouble understanding his slurred words, bizarre non sequiturs, or word-salad ramblings. But this is an even more pronounced example of his cranial cavity rot : The totally Trump-created word.

You’re welcome to quibble over the spelling – the audio is available below – but it’s clearly a word from the Planet Dementia. All across the mighty internet, people are trying the work-out an Earth-bound translation. Some think it’s a new way of saying Arizonans. Others believe (strangely enough) Trump was trying to say Assyrians.

But no one knows. Since Trump’s brain now has the consistency of worm-ridden mush, it’s impossible to tell.

https://x.com/Acyn/status/1845620977419554925

[Harvey Mosley]

I'll just wait for all of Biden's previous defenders to chime in with a comment about how it's impossible to diagnose something like that unless you are a neurologist who has examined the patient in person.

[grb]

Oh, why wait? We’ll let Trump do a Biden diagnosis!

in the same speech, Trump (somewhat defensively) insisted his mind is still firing on all cylinders. Of course that’s what people say when they feel mental control slipping away. It’s the kind of plaintive comment they make after the embarassing incidents begin to pile-up. But we’ll let that slide: Trump is (per Trump) still a “very stable genius.”

Unlike (per Trump) Biden. In yesterday’s speech he insisted on it, saying Joe Biden was “obviously cognitively repaired.”

Of course the poor thing meant to say “impaired”, but there’s so little left of his brain these days. And he didn’t start out with much to begin with.

[Sarcastr0]

I was a Biden defender.

I would note that grb hasn’t made a neurological diagnosis. Unlike the squadron of specific diseases postulated by the Trump folks about Biden since 2019.

Feel free to argue against his point about Trump's cognitive decline - we're all laypeople here, after all. But it looks like you’d prefer to deflect rather than call Trump comps mentis straight up.

[grb]

I’m certainly not suggesting any specific diagnosis. I just note Trump can’t make it thru a day now without showing some sign of mental decay – often in bizarre or embarassing fashion.

You don’t need medical training to see that. Hell, even Frank could manage it …....

[Mr. Bumble]

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest"

[Moderation4ever]

I am waiting for the Biden attackers to use the same criteria to evaluate Trump. After the Trump Biden 2024 debate, I accepted that Biden could no longer run. Republicans should have made the same conclusion after the Trump Harris 2024 debate.

[Roger S]

Except that Harris was the one who could not answer a single question. She should have been removed.

[grb]

Watched the debate in an alternate universe, did you?

[Roger S]

I also some of her interviews. She does not answer questions. If asked a reasonable question, she will babble about growing up middle class, or something else irrelevant.

[Sarcastr0]

Roger, why would anyone believe your takes on Harris when you just unsupportedly assert them and they happen to align directly with what you'd want to say?

[Frank Drackman]

We have a demented President now, I'll take my chances

[OtisAH]

Piece of shit doesn’t mind having a demented president since, he claims, we have a demented president already. Of course, he also insists the current demented president shouldn’t be president because he’s demented. Piece of shit is obviously one of those overeducated VC’ers I hear so much about.

Oh, and he loves the line so much he posted it twice. Probably once for each of his Super-PhDs.

[Moderation4ever]

What I want to know is what is the plan if Trump is elected? Does JD Vance lock him in a WH closet with a TV set and run the country? Does some shadow group of nuts run the country. I don't agree with Vance's views but he could do the job. What worries me are the nut cases that could control Trump through flattery.

[Frank Drackman]

We have a demented President now, I'll take my chances

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone think any of the actors in the "Man enough to vote for Kamala" Commercial aren't Homos?
and the guy who "Eats Carburetors for Breakfast"?
He's been eating a lot more than Carburetors

Frank

[Roger S]

I saw a clip of the maker of that ad defending it. The ad is not a joke. He seemed to have the view that real men are subservient to women. The actors are just actors, reading their lines.

[Commenter_XY]

When I saw it the first time, I thought: No way a creative agency is that dumb, this must be parody. Alas, they were that dumb. It was so contrived and inauthentic; Gen Z hates inauthenticity with a passion.

This ad backfired horribly, and supports the narrative that VP Harris has a man problem.

[Dr. Ed 2]

hell, I can live with homos as long as they understand that I am not interested,

What I CAN'T live with is bullshyte like this.

They may not even be homos -- it really doesn't matter as I have more respect for REAL homos.....

[OtisAH]

I love dred’s assumption that, somehow, homosexuals are interested in him despite the fact absolutely no one else in his life is.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Reference is made in one subthread to the Ninth Amendment, which was discussed recently as well.

The right of any person injured in person, property or reputation to a judicial remedy

I think the Due Process Clause already covers this. Reputation in the late 18th Century would be a form of property. See, e.g., the dissent in Paul v. Davis.

There is also reference to bail and fines. Again, if due process doesn't cover that, the 8th Amendment addresses it.

The 9th Amendment covers unenumerated rights.

Freedom from monopoly

There was some belief about that. Jefferson cited freedom from monopoly as a possible provision of a bill of rights. I don't think the matter was clear enough in 1791 though.

Freedom to pursue the ordinary avocations of life subject to bona fide restrictions under the public interest

Yes. A free person, unlike a slave, had such a freedom.

Freedom to direct the upbringing and education of your children

Yes.

Other examples would be travel, what you ate and wore, self-defense [2A had a narrower purpose], freedom to alienate (a major dispute that helped lead to the War of 1812 when the Brits impressed American sailors who they said were still British subjects), to marry, and health care decisions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think that we should legalize violence against women.

OK, not really, but as a society we do need to deal with the consequences of our legitimate efforts to address violence against women over the past three decades. A situation that happened today:

I am cooking lunch, something that needs to be continually stirred so it doesn't burn on, and I have a "No Solicitation" sign conspicuously posed. There is a persistent knocking on my front door so I presume something is wrong (I have elderly neighbors) and instead it a woman in a NASA jumpsuit who identifies herself as being "from NASA conducting a survey for Verizon" (one of the local landline vendors).

When I point out the "No Solicitation" sign, she states that she's aware of it "but it doesn't apply to me because I am with NASA."

I ask her to leave and she responds by saying "don't you dare raise your voice to me, you will answer my questions or I will call the police on you. "

Discretion is the better part of valor, and I shut down because I know that I am about to totally lose my temper and silently stand there.

She decides (wisely) to leave my residence.

I've never hit anyone, male, female, or confused -- and I am proud of that. But it wouldn't take much to guess what I really wanted to do.

But in a society that is based on equality ought not permit women to have this power over men. I should fear being arrested if I didn't give her my personal information for a service (Verizon telephone) that I didn't want? This is equity?

Did I mention the posted "No Solicitation" sign?

To those on the left -- how do you propose to continue to address the (very real) problem of violence against women while also (

Impersonating an NASA employee to conduct Verizon solicitations is bad enough, but my issue is to threaten (implicitly) to have me arrested for not giving her my personal information is beyond the pale.

[Estragon]

Just… wow

[hobie]

You could have stopped here:

"I think that we should legalize violence against women."

I mean, I say what I want to here, then I just drop it if I feel I'm making a fool of myself or being a troll. But it looks like you don't have that compunction. I've seen people like you on the street that act this way

[David Nieporent]

Come on, he doesn't really believe that. Dr. Ed only thinks that violence should be legalized against women who have sex.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Of course David NoDick will misunderstand -- both that I have an issue with prostitution (ie SALE of sex) and that the issue I am raising here is a wee bit different.

The question I am asking is if the heavy hand of government should be in interpersonal relations to the point it is.

[David Nieporent]

Sure. That's why you routinely use misogynistic language about Kamala Harris. Because you respect women.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I respect women, she's a slut.

[Magister]

This pretty much bears out David Nieporent's observation

Dr. Ed only thinks that violence should be legalized against women who have sex.

[David Nieporent]

In what way exactly does a woman being in two relationships in her life (that you know of) make her a "slut"? QED.

You hate women.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, you got some serious attention-seeking weird issue going on. This is not a realistic story. It is a bizarre lie.

Seek help.

[Estragon]

I have to say, out of all the contributions Ed has graced us with over the years, this may be the most disturbing

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why????

[David Nieporent]

Why????

Because you fabricated a series of events that never happened for the sole purpose of fantasizing about assaulting women.

[Mr. Hook]

The curiosity I have is whether "Dr" Ed knows it didn't happen or he legit believes it did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Seems that there was a complaint about something quite similar happening elsewhere in town the day before.

I'll admit that I was starting to wonder myself -- that's how gaslighting works -- but an impeccable source told me that the town got a similar complaint about a mile NW of here the day before.

QED....

[David Nieporent]

Making up an even more absurd claim does not actually corroborate your original absurd claim.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0, I thank you for convincing me that I will insist on a full criminal prosecution of her.

If this is your conclusion, then it is an accurate summary of the harm she did me and why I should insist on criminal prosecution of her.

[Sarcastr0]

More lies.

You don't have her name; you have no proof of anything you claim, and you didn't really lay out facts that involved any cause of action, let alone harm.

This didn't happen, and you're not filing shit.

[David Nieporent]

You don’t have her name; you have no proof of anything you claim, and you didn’t really lay out facts that involved any cause of action, let alone harm.

Also, one cannot "insist" on criminal prosecution even if there actually were a crime, which this was not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Question: Isn't threatening to maliciously file false police report a crime? I know that filing the false report is, so wouldn't threatening to do so for malicious purposes also be?

Conversely, what constitutes extortion?

[Sarcastr0]

You are behind a pseudonym; your bluster is useless.

[David Nieporent]

Isn’t threatening to maliciously file false police report a crime?

Um, that's what you were proposing to do.

[David Nieporent]

At this point, I don't even believe that Dr. Ed was cooking lunch, let alone that any of the rest of it happened. Not one word. It's not clear whether he's deliberately lying or just hearing nonexistent voices.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because Dr Ed doesn't eat lunch, or because Dr Ed eats his food raw?

Ever hear the expression "I am not creative enough to make something like this up"?

[OtisAH]

That’s very obvious, dipshit. It’s a very poorly made-up story.

[Estragon]

“I am not creative enough to make something like this up”?

Yes, Ed, you were teeing up this excuse with the bizarre opening aside about your fake extra-stirred lunch that was completely out of place in your totally not-made-up story about almost assaulting a woman. Teenagers do this all the time— imagining that anecdotes or details with lots of specifics will somehow inoculate the entire bullshit story.

Allow me to close with a quote from my favorite TV jurist: “if it doesn’t make sense, it’s probably not true.” You are suffering bigly from this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

you clearly don't know any cops.

They see a lot of weird stuff that doesn't make sense.

[David Nieporent]

Um, they're just testing how gullible you really are.

[OtisAH]

The guy who constantly talks about violence against Americans has “never hit anyone, male, female, or confused.” Of course. Ooo, but he sure came close with that bitch who interrupted his pot full of Kraft mac&cheese.

I hereby nominate dred as the avatar for all the other lonely, pathetic men here. The avatar will represent all the other losers at store openings and other events. Nominations are open until 11:59pm Wednesday and we will vote on Thursday.

[Estragon]

Where are all my “$14.88 for a MyPillow is just a random number” people?

Some of these dudes at Lara Trump’s Florida boat parade didn’t get the memo…

https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1845880663750394194

[hobie]

Just a bunch of America-loving, Jew-hating (note the Nazi flags) Trump supporters. By all means, put these psychopaths back in charge...'will be wild'

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because the Dems don't hate Jews....

[David Nieporent]

Jew-hating (note the Nazi flags)

Hey, I have it on good authority that those are very fine people!

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, identify one person with a Nazi flag at a Trump rally by name and date of birth and prove that person is REALLY a Trump supporter and not a Leftie under a false flag.

Just one...

[verochkax]

They're obvious Democrat Party plants. Real neo-Nazis hate Trump, as his daughter converted to Judaism and lets a tiny-peckered Jewish real estate developer bust in her.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep talking dirty like that and you won't be Chosen

[verochkax]

I ate a delicious pulled pork sandwich on Yom Kippur, covered with cheese to boot, so I won't be chosen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not just that -- NeoNazis have a fundamental difference with populism.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, because when has populism ever resulted in an authoritarian regime taking over?

[Michael Ejercito]

Are these Trump supporters?

https://x.com/ManhattanMingle/status/1844072695006363760

[David Nieporent]

Probably not. But they're also almost certainly not Harris supporters.

[Estragon]

Why is Trump holding a rally in Manhattan two weeks before Election Day? It’s not as if NY is a battleground state.

Oh…. I see:

NEW YORK CITY
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2024
ADDITIONAL DETAILS PROVIDED UPON RSVP. ALL EXPERIENCES TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE RALLY VENUE.
ULTRA MAGA EXPERIENCE
$924,600 GIVE
TEAM TRUMP 2024 EXPERIENCE
$250,000 GIVE OR $500,000 RAISE
TEAM AMERICA FIRST EXPERIENCE
$100,000 GIVE OR $200,000 RAISE
CLUB 47 EXPERIENCE $50,000 GIVE OR $70,000 RAISE
MAGA 24 EXPERIENCE
$35,000 GIVE
PRESIDENT'S CLUB EXPERIENCE
$5,000 GIVE

Any hucklers shelling out 925k for the ultra experience?

[Frank Drackman]

You may have heard of this Invention called "Television" and a new Invention of AlGore's called "The Internets" and on these inventions they can show Political Rallies,
I only gave whatever 10-20 Coffee Mugs T-shirts for the Inlaws costs, I'm a Multi-millionaire, I don't worry about money, but at least I'm contributing to the next POTUS, where Cums-a-lot will be the Michael Do-Cock-Us of the 21st Century

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

Also, there are competitive districts in New York.

FJB visited Texas in the 2020 election.

[Estragon]

“I don’t worry about money”

This is a pretty laughable comment coming from someone who has repeatedly bragged, on a blog ostensibly devoted to discussion of legal topics, about “how rich” he is.

You know what people who truly have IDGAF money don’t do?

I’m sure Trump appreciates the contribution to his legal bills, though.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s why I don’t worry about money, and can take months at a time off working for free(Free? I friggin pay to work for Free) passing gas for the po people’s in the Dominican, Israel(OK not poor), and you really want to see some doom, despair, agony and poverty, South GA(and Hobie-Stank, if they’re “Hayseeds” they’re the Chocolate Variety)

Frank

[Estragon]

Do you mention to your patients how rich and good looking you are? Because you’ve told us dozens of times. Do they find it more or less believable the 10th time you say it?

[Commenter_XY]

Why is Trump holding a rally in Manhattan two weeks before Election Day?
Answer: Brooklyn and Staten Island; Orange, Rockland counties.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump's so far ahead that he can afford to try to pick up a few friendly CongressCritters as well.

[Estragon]

Rockland county LOL. So did you spring for the 925k or not?

[Commenter_XY]

I am of very modest means, E. It used to be that it only cost 25K to sit at the same table with the candidate. Now it is 900K. Seems like inflation hit everything. 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

Heck, I've sat at the same table with Presidential candidates a couple of times, and it just cost $500. Things are cheaper in third parties. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

Heels Up does wholesale fundraisers, Trump does retail.

[Frank Drackman]

It's time for Amurica's Favorite Game Show,
"What Idiot Said That?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"
Today's entry,
“You got a case in Georgia not very long ago – didn’t you, they made an ad about it – a young woman, Laken Riley, who had been killed by an immigrant. Yeah, well, if they’d all been properly vetted that probably wouldn’t have happened,” “But if they are all properly vetted, that doesn’t happen, and America is not having enough babies to keep our population up, so we need immigrants that have been vetted to do work.”

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

Whoever has the sad task of boning Hillary Clinton?

[verochkax]

I'm sure the Rev Kirkland would stick his pecker into someone as gross at Hillary.

[grb]

During an appearance Wednesday night on Fox News, Trump’s obsession with crowds got out of hand. He was whining about the presidential debate with Kamala Harris and said this:

“And they didn’t correct her once, and they corrected me, everything I said, practically. I think nine times or 11 times,” said Trump. “And the audience was absolutely, they went crazy.”

There was no audience at the debate. But you often see behavior like that in people afflicted with dementia or some other form of advanced cognitive decay. They drift off into another world. Given his brain now has the consistency of worm-ridden mush, Trump can probably hear the yells of that non-existent crowd.

[Roger S]

There was a TV audience.

[Sarcastr0]

Which Trump calls ratings.

[David Nieporent]

There were people watching on TV. Since TV sets only work one way except in the book 1984, Trump could not see those people, so he could not see anyone "going crazy."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly. And IT went crazy about the bias.

[David Nieporent]

Trump had yet another mental breakdown today at a "town hall" in which he answered only 5 questions and then stood on stage looking confused while music played. He needs to drop out as he's obviously cognitively unfit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exhaustion. (noun) The state of being exhausted; extreme fatigue.

[Sarcastr0]

He's doing like one rally a day, maybe 2.

If that's all it takes to make him exhausted, he's not up for the job of being President.

[Frank Drackman]

You talk for an hour in the 100 degree California desert wearing a suit(instead of your usual dress)

[Estragon]

I agree that sounds draining. Luckily for Trump, this rally was indoors in Pennsylvania. That dog-killing, goat-winging lady who blew up her own political career was there too!

[Commenter_XY]

Bill Ackman summarized the thinking of many, when he wrote this on X.

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1844802469680873747

[David Nieporent]

Not sure I'd really call it thinking. I mean, he listed 33 (!) things. Half of them are false; half of them apply to Trump; half of them are things that someone who claims that he used to support Democrats would not object to because they're things Democrats have always done; half of them are nutty; and half of them are things that no human being has ever based a vote on and never would. (Yes, I know how many halves that is.) In short, Ackman is lying. Why he supports Trump I will leave to others. But he obviously decided he wanted to support Trump first, and then desperately searched for excuses to justify that decision.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sorry NoDick, they are actually true.

Heels Up is bad news, and hasn’t EVER won a state primary — EVER….

Imagine the outcry if the GOP did this…

The Dems had a better candidate -- Tulsi Gabbard.

[David Nieporent]

and hasn’t EVER won a state primary — EVER…

Is that as true as everything else you've ever said? Why, yes, yes it is. She won a state primary in 2010. She won a state primary in 2014. She won a state primary in 2016.

Imagine the outcry if the GOP did this…

I prefer to focus on facts rather than your imagination. But did what? Replaced a candidate who dropped out of the race? I don't think there'd be any outcry at all.

The Dems had a better candidate — Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard is a nut, and also isn't a Democrat. Other than that, you're correct.

[Frank Drackman]

Colonel Gabbard is a Combat Vet, but you should know Nuts, (despite not having your own) as often as you have them in your mouth

[Commenter_XY]

That is a lot of halves, David. 😛

[Estragon]

“Bill Ackman”

lol, you huckleberries truly get the heroes you deserve. Hope you didn’t put your nest egg into his last fund!!!!

[Commenter_XY]

No, not at all. I only invest in low cost index funds.

[M L]

That's a surprisingly good post.

[M L]

NR: Kamala Harris Is an Idiot

Well that's pretty straight forward.

Archived version: https://archive.is/AWv1l#selection-639.0-639.26

[M L]

What T. S. Eliot said of humankind, that it “cannot bear very much reality,” must be doubly true for Americans. It’s a feature of being a providential nation, protected by two oceans and mostly spared the harsher existence that habituates other societies to corruption and tyranny, while left free to cultivate its uniquely optimistic political culture. The drawback of this good fortune is that, at decisive moments, a hopeful people can be blind to self-inflicted disasters. The reality facing America now is that of widespread, coordinated efforts to control our politics, carried out by a self-interested elite grown openly disdainful of the nation’s traditions.

If not for a last-minute postponement, a Manhattan judge would have sentenced Donald Trump for the former president’s conviction last May by the time this article appeared, in what could fairly be characterized by an objective observer as a politically motivated trial, intended to hamper his 2024 presidential campaign. The charges pushed the “outer boundaries of the law and due process,” according to a former federal and state prosecutor, now working as an analyst for CNN—not exactly a bastion of conservative bias. . . .

All of which is to say that current efforts to manipulate the American electoral system are not subtle or restricted to working around the law. The Democratic Party’s strategy to win the presidency in 2024 hinges in large part on preventing a normal election from taking place. Procedural and voting irregularities that would have triggered alarm across the political spectrum until recently have become an accepted feature of the landscape.

Read the whole thing: https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-plot-to-manage-democracy?skip=1

[Magister]

The reality facing America now is that of widespread, coordinated efforts to control our politics, carried out by a self-interested elite grown openly disdainful of the nation’s traditions.

Somebody just noticed the Citizens United decision and the resulting dark money.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Election certification in Georgia is mandatory, judge says”

What I don't get is why anybody would WANT to be on one of these county election boards. At least real rubber stamps aren't sentient; What's the appeal of being a figurative rubber stamp?

The very definition of 'certify' means to attest that you personally believe something to be the case. If you have to 'certify' even if you actually don't believe it? What's the point in reviewing information you have no discretion about certifying?

Why don't they just call it "counting"?

[Sarcastr0]

Rolling 2024 truther already?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm actually fine with saying the election board has to just report the count, and refer any discrepancies to a prosecutor. As long as the board can also issue a press release saying they've done so, and that they think the numbers they just reported are highly dubious.

I'm questioning why they call doing this "certifying", when that word has a meaning, and it's not "mindlessly reporting information you doubt the accuracy of".

[Martinned2]

You're only now finding out that US law is sometimes really confusing and opaque, with terminology that really doesn't match any sort of common sense?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm kind of generally aware of it, but it is always a fresh outrage when I'm confronted with an egregious example of it.

[M L]

The same judge, the next day, blocked a rule passed by the state election board requiring ballots to be hand counted. The judge says it might be a good rule but was passed “too late.” Of course, the much more drastic last minute changes passed by Democrats last time around making elections less secure rather than more secure, were A-OK! Because lab virus or something.

The certification issue doesn’t make sense, either.

Election cheating is a time-honored tradition since Tammany Hall in Democrat strongholds. There are limits to how much cheating they can do, and for decades Republican operatives have understood they have to overcome those margins to win.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The same judge, the next day, blocked a rule passed by the state election board requiring ballots to be hand counted. The judge says it might be a good rule but was passed “too late.” Of course, the much more drastic last minute changes passed by Democrats last time around making elections less secure rather than more secure, were A-OK! Because lab virus or something."

Of course you don't have any actual examples to point to, nor do you quote any judicial decisions.

Why? Because you're a shit-posting idiot, and yet you think people are just going to take your word for it.

LOL.

[Magister]

Hand counting is not a response to any emergency, unlike changes made in response to a pandemic.

Strangely, it's Republicans who mostly get caught cheating. Because Republicans fail to win elections outright, they instead resort to numerous methods of cheating: discrediting the election process, voting twice or where not eligible, voter suppression, gerrymandering, ghost candidates, disinformation, frivolous lawsuits, and even insurrection.

[Brett Bellmore]

The pandemic changes weren't an actual response to a pandemic, either; They came long after normal life had largely been restored, and they were largely changes Democrats had already advocated.

The pandemic was just an excuse to force them through.

[Magister]

The election was before vaccines were available, and death rates were still near 1000 or more per day (and peaked even higher before vaccines were widely distributed). Normal life had in no way resumed at that time; lots of restrictions still existed and continued months after the election.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember Trump getting raked over the coals for saying crime was up, despite the official numbers saying it was down?

Stealth Edit: FBI Quietly Revises Violent Crime Stats

"When the FBI originally released the “final” crime data for 2022 in September 2023, it reported that the nation’s violent crime rate fell by 2.1%. This quickly became, and remains, a Democratic Party talking point to counter Donald Trump’s claims of soaring crime.

But the FBI has quietly revised those numbers, releasing new data that shows violent crime increased in 2022 by 4.5%. The new data includes thousands more murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults.

The Bureau – which has been at the center of partisan storms – made no mention of these revisions in its September 2024 press release.

RCI discovered the change through a cryptic reference on the FBI website that states: “The 2022 violent crime rate has been updated for inclusion in CIUS, 2023.” But there is no mention that the numbers increased. One only sees the change by downloading the FBI’s new crime data and comparing it to the file released last year."

[David Nieporent]

Why are they talking about crime increasing from 2021 -> 2022, given that it's 2024?