Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The State of Texas is about to execute an inmate despite considerable reason to believe he did not commit the offense as to which he was found guilty. USA Today reports:

Robert Leslie Roberson remains scheduled to die by lethal injection on Thursday despite all evidence indicating he was wrongfully convicted for the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, in 2002. At the time, investigators saw what they wanted to see: shaken baby syndrome. In reality, little Nikki had pneumonia in both lungs, she had pre-existing conditions for which she was prescribed opioids that are now banned for children, and she had undiagnosed sepsis.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/all-evidence-points-to-robert-robersons-innocence-texas-still-plans-to-execute-him/ar-AA1smMyW?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Will the self-proclaimed "pro-life" crowd have anything to say about this?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I see – I thought this was about whether the criminal justice system convicted an innocent man, but actually the issue is abortion.

[not guilty]

The wrongful conviction of Mr. Roberson is one issue -- one which is compounded by Texas officials' horrible determination to execute him. Just last week the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas (that state's court of last resort in criminal cases) vacated and granted a new trial to a man convicted of injury to a child in March 2000 based on evidence of shaken baby syndrome having since become discredited. https://cases.justia.com/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2024-wr-56-380-03-0.pdf?ts=1728478420

The rank hypocrisy of those who call themselves "pro-life" is a separate issue. Many years ago, I was opposed to abortion being legal. I changed my views after multiple doctors and clinic personnel were assassinated. The root of abortion opponents' antipathy is not concern for life.

The first issue is a travesty of justice. The second is just contemptible.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, how do you explain the traumatic injuries to the child? Those repeated traumatic injuries were facts found by the jury at trial. A child is dead.

What's the legal issue here...actual innocence, or something else?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You could bother to read up on the case yourself instead of wasting his time here.

The articles even answer your begged question about the traumatic injuries.

Imagine a world in which you show some initiative.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How does this become capitol murder?

[not guilty]

Forget it, Jake. It's Texas.

Bloodlust now?
Bloodlust tomorrow!!
Bloodlust fo'evah!!!"

(In fairness to Governor Wallace, he eventually repented and repudiated his support of segregation. But not before midwifing today's Republican Party with a boost from Prick Nixon's Southern Strategy.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was Prick Roosevelt (FDR) who built a coalition of Southern racists and New York Jews and I never quite understood how.

[Riva]

There is no hypocrisy. Being pro life means respecting the sanctity of innocent life. The death penalty is imposed for the taking of innocent life.

[Reallynotbob]

Right, so if the accused and convicted person wasn't actually guilty, you'd want the system to fix the error and spare his innocent life, right?

But that's not the Texas mentality. They'll bend over backward for the unborn including the non-viable unborn, but not for those wrongfully convicted and sentenced to die. This isn't the first case.

Heck, Texas decommissioned a committee charged with improving forensic evidence standards in Texas. Wouldn't want actual science getting in the way of "justice."

[Riva]

Whether the factual record in any particular capital murder case supports a conviction has nothing to do with the issue of aborting an innocent unborn life. If you can’t understand this then you’re welcome to your views because we have nothing more to discuss.

[Frank Drackman]

It's "Capital" btw, and it's the law, you want to murder your kids, don't do it in Texas

[Reallynotbob]

No, in Texas you just leave your firearm out and loaded for them to play with and shoot themselves. That won't land you on death row.

[David Nieporent]

capitol murder

That was J6.

[Riva]

you know, I happen to agree. Ashli Babbit was murdered.

[David Nieporent]

Ashli Babbitt committed suicide-by-cop.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, she was murdered by an incompetent DEI hire Federal agent.

[David Nieporent]

Like when people use "Zionist" when they mean "Jew," you're not fooling anyone when you just substitute "DEI" for "black."

[Commenter_XY]

You having a bad day, Jason? I hear one of your hamas homies became fertilizer and is now riding the one-way paradise train to a warm destination. Don’t shed too many tears.

Here is your friend.
https://x.com/Doranimated/status/1846895121121288397

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are the hateful fuck who celebrates death of and the harming of civilians. Don't try to project your moral failings onto others.

It says a lot about the asshole you are that you can't be bothered to actually address what I wrote about your behavior and utter laziness.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, I'm the hateful fuck on this blog!

[Commenter_XY]

I guess you are having a bad day....so sad. Sniff, sniff.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I guess you aren't a man, since you can't seem to stay on topic and won't address your numerous shortcomings.

No wonder you'd gleefully suck Trump's dick around here.

[Commenter_XY]

There are more bad days for your friends ahead, Jason. Sleep well.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What does Israel or Hamas have to do with your refusal to read basic facts and instead beg questions out of others to waste their time while you pretend that you care?

As mentioned below, it says quite a lot about your character that you immediately resort to libel which you have no evidence to support, rather than address direct criticism of your behavior.

You are aware that your accusation is false of course, because even you aren't stupid enough to think that were I actually some kind of supporter or member of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi, or whatever other anti-Semitic terrorist network you can name, that it would be an intelligent thing for you to deliberately try to make an enemy of me.

That means you know your accusation is false, and you just don't care about the truth.

For a piece of shit who has said that only 'very young' children are actually innocent, and by implication that every other civilian in Gaza is a legitimate target, I am not surprised that you would behave in such a manner.

Good luck.

[not guilty]

In all likelihood the child did not die at the hands of Mr. Roberson. The evidence that this was no homicide is overwhelming. And in any event, the appropriate remedy would be a new trial which could consider evidence which was not available in 2002.

The factual and legal issues here are myriad, as discussed in detail in Mr. Roberson's habeas corpus application to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dFalb-46fkza1HJOmzvXF-aMxsl5lrxQ/view?pli=1&authuser=0

[Commenter_XY]

Thanks for this....a lot to consider. Not much time.

I'll grant, it seems murky.

[Commenter_XY]

The TX House has intervened, NG. That is unusual.

[Joe_dallas]

another example of leftists ignoring the forensic evidence.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You pretend to have around 17 different degrees, and yet abject stupidity is the best comment you can muster up?

Anyone else not surprised?

[Reallynotbob]

Joe's got a long history of following the science (that he likes).

[Joe_dallas]

As multiple others have noted and who have provided details of the forensic evidence, its another case of activists ignoring the forensic evidence when it doesnt fit their agenda

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No links. No evidence. Partisan finger-pointing.

Three reasons (beyond your documented history of being a pathological liar) why nobody should believe you.

[Joe_dallas]

Others have provided links - though very typical is you make no attempt to be honest -
Life of Brian 11 hours ago

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I've had LoB muted for a few years now, so you can shove your dishonest remark right back down your own lying throat. Are you going to cite Frank Drackman next, or Dr. Ed 2, or perhaps Bumblefuck? Maybe Riva? I'm sorry to say that they are all muted as well.

You have provided nothing other than you usual bullshit and stupidity, so how about you fuck right off until you man up and provide something different for once. Hang that 18th degree on the wall and tell everyone in your 'expert' opinion how the forensic evidence should be interpreted.

Maybe while you're at it, you can answer not_guilty's question below as to whether you bothered to even read the brief. That would take some balls on your part to admit that you haven't, or an easy lie from your truth-challenged lips to simply say that you have.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fuck You Jason. Oh wait the pussy has me muted.
Nevermind.

[Riva]

He muted me? I'm flattered he thinks of and I hate to hurt his feelings more but I just don't recall who this guy is. I frankly can't keep track of the leftist nuts commenting here.

[Drewski]

Bumble has way too many accounts for you to have muted them all.

[not guilty]

"another example of leftists ignoring the forensic evidence."

Joe_dallas, did you read the habeas corpus application that I linked to? Yes or no?

[Joe_dallas]

I presume you read the appellete courts opinion where they reiterated the forensic evidence

[Joe_dallas]

NG - Below is an exert from the court of appeals - Did you read it?

This is not just a “shaken baby” case. Applicant has suggested the possibility that the two-year-old child victim had been ill and simply fell out of the bed. But evidence in this case showed that the tiny victim suffered multiple traumas.

* * *

The victim was found to have a bruise on the back of her shoulder, a scraped elbow, a bruise over her right eyebrow, bruises on her chin, a bruise on her left cheek, an abrasion next to her left eye, multiple bruises on the back of her head, a torn frenulum in her mouth, bruising on the inner surface of the lower lip, subscapular and subgaleal hemorrhaging between her skin and her skull, subarachnoid bleeding, subdural hematoma, both pre-retinal and retinal hemorrhages, and brain edema.

It is true that the State invoked a “shaken baby” theory. But it also invoked a beating theory. And the evidence was consistent with both theories.

But even if we set to one side—for the moment—the evidence of shaking, the evidence also showed multiple impacts to Nikki’s head. At trial, Dr. Jill Urban testified that she was confident, given the separate areas of dense hemorrhage in different areas of the head, that there were “multiple blows to different points on the head.” She concluded that the victim died as a result of “blunt force head injuries.”

Applicant now suggests there is new scientific evidence calling
into question what some people call “shaken baby syndrome.” Applicant also suggests that a short fall could have caused the victim’s injuries. But the new evidence challenging “shaken baby syndrome” is not sufficient to overcome the evidence of trauma to multiple places on the victim’s body. His theory also would force this Court to simply ignore the testimony presented at Applicant’s trial from a defense expert to the effect that Applicant admitted that he “lost it” and shook the victim because he could not stop her from crying.

Log in to Reply

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Many years ago, I was opposed to abortion being legal. I changed my views after multiple doctors and clinic personnel were assassinated. The root of abortion opponents’ antipathy is not concern for life."

"Until recently, I opposed Donald Trump. I changed my views after the attempted murder of Republicans by a Bernie Sanders supporter who considered Trump a traitor, the murder of David Dorn during the riots accompanying the 2020 campaign, and the 2024 assassination attempts against Trump. The root of Trumps' opponents opposition to him is not concern about humane values."

No, I'm just kidding, what kind of idiot would link these murderous people with all Trump opponents?

[not guilty]

Who said anything about Trump opponents?

The anti-abortion movement has long had an active domestic terrorist wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence I chose not to align myself with that crowd. Protecting and preserving life is not the principal objective -- controlling other folks' sexual behavior is.

[Brett Bellmore]

The pro-abortion movement has an active domestic terrorist wing, too, in case you've forgotten.

There's not really any way for a largish movement about something people care deeply about to avoid generating "terrorist wings".

[not guilty]

"The pro-abortion movement has an active domestic terrorist wing, too, in case you’ve forgotten."

Brett, you are lying and the truth ain't in ya. Why am I unsurprised?

[Brett Bellmore]

Jane's Revenge

[not guilty]

As I have said time and again, whenever I receive a tu quoque reply I know I have hit an exposed nerve.

A fringe group of recent origin is hardly a "wing" of the abortion rights movement. Members of Jane's Revenge are appropriately being prosecuted under the Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances Act by the Department of Justice. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/janes-revenge-biden-prosecution-abortion-1234669486/

Vandalism of property and (especially) arson should not be downplayed, but the mischief worked in the wake of the horrid Dobbs decision pales by comparison to the gravity and frequency of crimes of violence perpetrated by radical blastocystophiles. From the linked January 29, 2023 Rolling Stone article:

It was an impressive level of outrage considering the incidents themselves, more of which followed throughout the summer and fall, amounted to relatively superficial property damage. At the moment, the FBI is seeking information related to 10 instances of arson and vandalism at anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers around the country. As a point of comparison, in 2021 alone, abortion providers reported 123 incidents of vandalism, 123 incidents of assault or battery, 28 stalking incidents, 16 invasions, 13 burglaries and 9 bomb threats, according to statistics kept by the National Abortion Federation. (To take a longer view, there have been 11 murders, 42 bombings, 196 arsons, 491 assaults in facilities that provide abortion care since 1977, per the group’s tally.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite an ego you have.

How about an update on Judge Shitcan's recent rulings?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Vandalism of property and (especially) arson should not be downplayed, but the mischief worked in the wake of the horrid Dobbs decision"

As opposed to the horrid Roe decision?

What's the difference???

[Brett Bellmore]

Tu quoque is a widely misapplied fallacy. It's simply inapplicable when the context is contrasting competing groups.

You want to claim having a terrorist wing discredits a movement, but you don't want to admit your own movement, which also has a terrorist wing, is thus also discredited by your own reasoning.

It's not tu quoque, it's pointing out a double standard.

[not guilty]

Whether abortion should be legalized has been a salient issue since the 1960s. During that time violent crimes against abortion providers -- including targeted assassinations -- have been frequent and severe.

I dispute vigorously that mention of a few property crimes committed by a fringe group of abortion rights supporters during a recent, brief window of time is in any way "contrasting competing groups." To characterize this as "a terrorist wing" of the movement favoring safe and legal abortion is dishonest.

As George Orwell trenchantly observed, “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”

[Riva]

And so, as the dumpster fire that is the Harris Walz campaign grows ever brighter, the diehard partisans make a pathetic last ditch effort obsessing about abortion. Which maniacal support will not improve the campaign’s general appeal and only expose the radicalism of their desire for no limit abortion, something they try to keep hidden.

[M L]

not guilty:

"A long time ago I was against slavery, until John Brown started killing people and doing terrorism."

"A longtime ago I was a vegetarian, until I found out Hitler was a vegetarian."

Etc.

[not guilty]

M L, you do you; I'll do me. I did not bring up my own change of position over time in order to try to persuade anyone else. I merely pointed out what prompted me to reconsider my own position.

I changed my opinions after I realized that the driving force behind the anti-abortion movement is less an affinity for life than it is a yearning for government to control people's sexual behavior. The assassinations, wanted posters, and acts of terrorism -- combined with a lack of concern for quality of life after birth -- helped me to see the control issues and generalized weirdness of strident abortion opponents.

There is quite a difference to me in someone's being actually pro-life and being merely pro-birth.

[M L]

Ok. It makes sense that the behavior or attitudes of some people who are professing a certain viewpoint might reasonably prompt a reexamination of that viewpoint. Granted.

But what’s the next step, then? You’ve revealed what prompted you to reexamine your views. Now how about that examination, the logic and analysis leading to your result? If you don’t want to get into that, surely you can at least acknowledge that the issue itself is logically, completely and totally separate from the motives, attitudes, and behaviors of any person or persons who may or may not have a particular viewpoint.

By the way – for what it’s worth, your assessment of the “driving force” of the pro-life movement, at least as it stands today, is grossly inaccurate.

[Riva]

NG, in the assessment of your abortion views, perhaps you should spend less time impugning the alleged political motives of the pro-life movement, and dedicate a little more time contemplating the unborn human life at issue and the quite compelling if not irrefutable argument that, biologically and logically, life begins at conception. The focus on politics only demonstrates your lack of sincerity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly Brett, and they aren't the only ones.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Your Wikipedia link does not substantiate your claim that "[t]he anti-abortion movement has long had an active domestic terrorist wing."

One might think that at least one of the unhinged killers who (according to the article) carried out 11 murders of abortionists or abortion supporters since the 1970s, would have tried to save their skins by incriminating members of the anti-abortion movement in their crimes. But that didn't happen, because there is no connection.

Your group libel against the prolife movement is at least as bad as my hypothetical example of blaming Trump opponents for the recent assassination attempts and murderous riots.

[Magister]

It's likely that Eric Rudolph, the anti abortionist murdered, was sheltered by pro lifers while a fugitive. "Run Rudolph Run" T-shirts were sold; locals in the area he was being sought expressed support for him. By contrast, Trump opponents are rightly appalled by the attempted assassinations and criticize even the occasional tasteless jokes, while right wingers invent lies about right wing shooters' backgrounds to avoid owning those who heeded major candidates talk of "second amendment remedies".

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You haven't proven ng's contention that these criminals are "a domestic terrorist wing" of the prolife movement.

And you give different treatment to the occasional tasteless jokes about Rudolph vis-a-vis the "occasional" tasteless jokes about Trump.

[Magister]

The wing of criminals was in the link. The many in the “pro life” movement who do not actually commit murders but support someone like Rudolph is their ownership of that wing.

Contrast the two sides of our duopoly. Trump and McCarthy and others joked about Paul Pelosi, only a family member of a political opponent, being critically injured, and their party did not express any condemnation. But they clutched their pearls and fainted in their “Fuck your feelings” shirts when they were called semi-fascist.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Trump isn’t prolife, so I'm not sure why you're calling him in to reinforce your dumb argument.

[Magister]

What an incredibly stupid comment by Margrave, who habitually makes stupid comments rife with failures of logic.

First, Donald Trump has called himself the most "pro-life president ever" and takes credit for the Dobbs decision and has run repeatedly under an anti-abortion party platform (the only thing he wanted changed in 2016 was, famously, to make it more Putin friendly).

Second, the observation was that the right wing embraces and celebrates its crazies; obviously the attack on Paul Pelosi was unrelated to abortion. I previously noted that "second amendment remedies" talk is not from their disavowed fringes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Frankly, looking at how long it took to get Roe overturned, despite having a majority of Republican nominated justices for most of that time, Trump didn't have to be very pro-life at all to be the most pro-life President. Reagan, Ford, the Bushes, none of them were nominating justices who had much interest in overturning Roe.

[Sarcastr0]

To overturn Roe you just ignore everything else you might want from a Justice, and nominate one that is explicitly pro-Life. And then get them through Congress.

Then repeat until you have a majority.

Simple as.

Anyone not doing that just isn't that Pro Life.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, that's not remotely true. There were plenty of available candidates who were good judges by any conservative metric, and who would vote to overturn Roe. They weren't being nominated because the Presidents nominating them didn't actually WANT to overturn Roe.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So you believe Trump is prolife because he says he is? Do you believe Haitians in Springfield eat pet cats, too?

You want the world to believe that the ladies praying and handing out leaflets in front of abortion clinics are part of a terrorist conspiracy. So fuck you if I offend your delicate sensibilities when mocking your bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I believe Trump is functionally, moderately, pro-life, because unlike prior Republican Presidents, he actually got the job done. He didn't make pro-life noises and then nominate justices who'd preserve Roe. And previous Republican Presidents did exactly that.

So, whether he's personally pro-life or not, in terms of results he's the most pro-life Republican President in living memory.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“the most pro-life Republican President in living memory”

That’s hardly saying very much. “Better than George Bush” is not the sort of commendation which gets me all squealing like a fangirl.

Anyway, “at least he isn’t George Bush” isn’t my criterion. If you denounce unpopular prolife laws and want them repealed, you’re prioritizing your electoral prospects over being prolife, and you can’t then seize that mantle.

[Magister]

So Trump says he's pro-life, achieved the pro-life goal of overturning Roe by successive Supreme Court appointments, is endorsed by pro-life groups, but still isn't pro-life? LOL.

If earlier Republican presidents didn't get Roe overturned, it was mostly because Republicans didn't manage to turn a liberal seat until Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and because of misjudgments on the political leanings only of Souter and Kennedy at a time when the Federalist Society did not guarantee fealty to conservative causes. (Rehnquist voted against Roe; O'Connor was willing to be a sixth vote against Roe, much as Roberts turned out to be; Scalia compared Roe to Dred Scott; the rest voted to overturn Roe in Dobbs. So only two failures to appoint anti-abortion justices since the issue became politically significant.).

[Sarcastr0]

There were plenty of available candidates who were good judges by any conservative metric, and who would vote to overturn Roe.

I don't know this to be true, and neither do you.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Do me a favor and educate yourself. It’s not as if there aren’t historical examples you could examine.

The justices who want the fate of the unborn to be decided up or down by a vote in the legislature, or a popular referendum, are no more “prolife” than the Roman emperors who allowed the fate of gladiators to be decided by the vote of the spectators.

Like Stephen Douglas with slavery, these so-called “pro-lifers” don’t care whether abortion is voted up or voted down, so long as the democratic process is respected.

https://iusetiustitium.com/little-giant-constitutionalism/

Don’t be bamboozled by rhetoric.

[David Nieporent]

Frankly, looking at how long it took to get Roe overturned, despite having a majority of Republican nominated justices for most of that time, Trump didn’t have to be very pro-life at all to be the most pro-life President. Reagan, Ford, the Bushes, none of them were nominating justices who had much interest in overturning Roe.

It doesn't get less stupid the more times you say it. Clarence Thomas. Antonin Scalia. Samuel Alito. John Roberts. Robert Bork.

[David Nieporent]

There were plenty of available candidates who were good judges by any conservative metric, and who would vote to overturn Roe.

I don’t know this to be true, and neither do you.

Right. And what we do know to be true is that the last time a GOP president put a non-anti-Roe judge on the court was over thirty years ago.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"It’s likely that Eric Rudolph, the anti abortionist murdered, was sheltered by pro lifers while a fugitive."

One good way to pin down the facts would be to cite cases of people arrested for harboring Rudolph and examining what happened to them. Since I don't actually know who if anyone was arrested/convicted (though I haven't heard of any), then maybe this is your chance to score some major points.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Hmm...maybe nobody *was* convicted of aiding Rudolf?

But even if a few rural hillbillies hid him, though I suppose to an ignoramus that would be the same as the prolife leadership having a terrorist wing, to others your evidence and speculation wouldn't even convince a ham-sandwich grand jury.

[Magister]

Yes, there is never proof of anything unless there's a conviction, and anything that doesn't violate a law cannot be a basis for criticism, and Margrave again fails to find any true Scotsmen in all of Scotland.

[Brett Bellmore]

Conviction is, for legal purposes, proof, but for other purposes other things would constitute proof.

Got any of those other things, either?

[Magister]

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/1998/anti-abortion-loyalists-continue-support-eric-robert-rudolph

As the massive North Carolina manhunt for alleged abortion clinic bomber Eric Robert Rudolph heated up again last July, a deeply troubling phenomenon became increasingly apparent. More and more Americans, from local anti-abortion clergymen to workaday citizens who live in the forested hills around Rudolph's home, were openly showing support, or at least sympathy, for the accused murderer.

"Run Rudolph Run" T-shirts sold briskly in the area, even as more than 200 federal agents, tugged by baying bloodhounds, trekked through the dense Nantahala National Forest without success. A man from whom Rudolph obtained food waited four days to report seeing him.

One pastor, the Rev. Conrad Kimberough, told a reporter that Rudolph "may be right" and added that he doubted Rudolph was "an unprincipled killer." Several other locals described him as a "good" person and an "underdog" and said they wouldn't turn Rudolph in despite the $1 million reward on his head.

In Montgomery, Ala., a hairdresser told a customer, "I hate to say it, but I think they should give that man a medal."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Just to be clear - these hairdressers, etc., are part of the terrorist wing of the prolife movement?

[Magister]

No, just supporters of the terrorist wing of their movement who tolerate and encourage its presence.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The ladies praying in front of abortion clinics are part of a terrorist conspiracy linked to Eric Rudolph!

Yet the right-wing Biden administration refuses to bring conspiracy charges, literally letting these ladies get away with murder.

[Magister]

They arrest the ones who do crimes, like murders and insurrection. And not always all of those. But the ones who don't reject and renounce the terrorists and criminals are culpable, even if it doesn't rise to the level of obstruction or other crimes. For example, you support the party led by a rapist, an insurrectionist, a conman, all in one person, apparently because of your anti-abortion beliefs.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Two “terminological inexactitudes” in one comment.

You say prolife leaders “don’t reject and renounce the terrorists and criminals”

I won’t waste my time citing the innumerable statements by prolife leaders denouncing violence against abortionists, because you’ll move the goalposts and say they weren’t being sincere. Suffice to say you’re full of shit, and the leaders of actual prolife organizations oppose vigilante violence just as much as you do, if not more so. I don’t recall whether you actually denounced the assassination attempts against Trump. Did you?

“you support the party led by a rapist, an insurrectionist, a conman, all in one person, apparently because of your anti-abortion beliefs.”

You just got through denouncing me for pointing out that Trump isn’t prolife. My criticism was in terms which applied to the rest of the leaders of his party. Yet you pivot back to your old talking points, like a dog returning to its vomit.

You’ve obsessively denounced my defense of the rights of third parties, and you’ve defended the two-party duopoly against my criticism of their actions. Seems to me you’re the one supporting the Republican-Democratic blob.

[Magister]

I said nothing about pro-life leaders, stupid stupid Margrave. The frequency with which inconsistent rhetoric comes from that movement is astonishing despite the pressures to maintain good PR, but was not my point. A large portion of the rank and file is happy with murderers like Rudolph.

Margrave has railed against bad election stuff that disadvantages third parties pretty much endlessly, but prefers the party that does most of that stuff to Democratic voters and third parties alike, and thus has to cherry pick the few exceptions that implicate Democrats or both parties. Preferring the Republican party is support for the Republican party which is support for Trump who now owns that spineless and power hungry party. I've been arguing in threads like this with Margrave on election matters for well over a year, and only very recently has he owned up, in this echo chamber that is friendly to anti-abortionists, that he is motivated by his anti-abortion beliefs. Or can you give even one other issue that motivates you to prefer Republicans despite their opposition to fair elections?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You referred to a terrorist wing of the prolife movement and I’m holding you accountable to your own rhetoric, despite your understandable attempt to walk it back.

"Margrave has railed against bad election stuff that disadvantages third parties pretty much endlessly, but prefers the party that does most of that stuff to Democratic voters and third parties alike"

WTF have you been smoking? If you've been following me so obsessively for the past year, you are already familiar with the examples I gave of Democrats disenfranchising third-party voters (not to mention disenfranchising those who want to vote *against* third parties). So I can only assume your awareness of reality has been dulled by Special Extra-Strength Marijuana.

And the idea that you had to pry my anti-abortion views out of me goes beyond dishonesty and into the deepest reaches of Imagination land.

[Magister]

The anti-abortion movement can have a terrorist wing even if its leadership does not directly support it; either Margrave is an authoritarian at hear who cannot imagine that a movement would support someone its leaders do not, or he is again failing at logic. Maybe both.

I have again and again documented that Republicans do far more of the bad stuff; Margrave is apparently unable to process this, and often fails to keep track of what's been said in the current thread. I asked repeatedly why he would prefer Republicans who do more to violate the values that he was advocating, and only recently has he pointed at abortion as an issue he cares about. And Margrave has railed against me even in comment threads where I have not commented, so the obsession is not mine; I reply to comments that are wrong, and if that means replying to Margrave a lot, it's because he is so often wrong.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A Magister comment is a target-rich environment of inaccurate statements. To vary the metaphor, I feel like a mosquito at a nudist beach, unsure where to start. To vary the metaphor once more, I’m not going to play whack-a-mole and deal with every repeated false statement which pops up in Magister’s comments. I’ll just give some quick remarks.

I’ve shown both Democrats and Republicans supporting disenfranchisement or election misinformation laws against third-party candidates. The idea that one wing of the duopoly is uniquely prone to these activities is absurd.

Of course he was implicating the prolife leadership until I called him on it and he realized the evidence was against him, so he backtracked and said “of course I never meant the leadership” and expects readers to believe it.

And so on.

[Magister]

Margrave flatters himself; he is stupider than a mosquito.

Of course he was implicating the prolife leadership

I said nothing about prolife leadership, but Margrave continues to flog his false claim with the weasel word "implicating". My comments were about the rank and file of the prolife movement.

I’ve shown both Democrats and Republicans supporting disenfranchisement or election misinformation laws against third-party candidates. The idea that one wing of the duopoly is uniquely prone to these activities is absurd.

I've shown repeatedly that Republicans do more of this and have more extreme examples. Of course Democrats don't resort to these activities in the same amount as Republicans, because they see (rightly or wrongly) that demographics favor them, while Republicans have won the popular vote for President once in thirty five years. Republicans have long resorted to Nixon's Southern strategy, voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering and even insurrection, along with a laundry list of other dirty tricks.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“My comments were about the rank and file of the prolife movement.”

You didn’t suggest any such limitation when you first called this handful of criminals a terrorist wing of the prolife movement. Your phrase “terrorist wing” is usually used about situations where a political party like Sinn Finn coordinates their activities with the IRA. But when I called you on it, you were aware that you couldn’t link the prolife leadership to the criminals. So you went to Plan B, denying the obvious tenor of your initial accusation.

There’s far more evidence linking your wing of the duopoly to BLM and Antifa than for your fantasy about the women praying at abortion clinics being part of a terrorist conspiracy.

[Magister]

You didn’t suggest any such limitation when you first called this handful of criminals a terrorist wing of the prolife movement. Your phrase “terrorist wing” is usually used about situations where a political party like Sinn Finn coordinates their activities with the IRA. But when I called you on it, you were aware that you couldn’t link the prolife leadership to the criminals. So you went to Plan B, denying the obvious tenor of your initial accusation.

I said nothing about the leadership. I neither implied nor implicated nor suggested anything about them. I don't have to explicitly say I'm not talking about something that I'm not talking about; only a Margrave could be stupid enough I disagree with your tortured analogy of a widespread movement to a political party. And Margrave continues to fail at logic:

There’s far more evidence linking your wing of the duopoly to BLM and Antifa than for your fantasy about the women praying at abortion clinics being part of a terrorist conspiracy.

There is far less support and indifference to murderers from people who share my political beliefs than the common members of the anti abortion movement. That's kinda like support for January 6th insurrectionists from Margrave's wing of the duopoly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NG, you are essentially saying that you supported civil rights for Blacks until you heard about Willie Horton and a few other Black murderers so now you think that Jim Crow was right.

There are legitimate reasons to support legal abortion. Yours is not one. And there are crazies on the pro abortion side as well, remember tie time someone went into the Focus on the Family office with a gun?

[not guilty]

Don't tell me what I am "essentially saying." You have no clue.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that does seem to be the substance of your argument:

"Many years ago, I was opposed to abortion being legal. I changed my views after multiple doctors and clinic personnel were assassinated. The root of abortion opponents’ antipathy is not concern for life."

You seem to take the position that any cause somebody kills in the name of is thereby discredited and must be rejected, unless it's a cause you like.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's more stereotyping -- that Willie Horton is not an outlier, that ALL Black men are like him, that ALL pro life folk murder abortionists, that ALL gay men belong to NAMBLA, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

NG made a distinction between a fringe group and a core one.

You can quibble on that front, though it would be a lift. But you didn't do that, you just ignored his distinction so you could make your shitty analogy, even if it required strawmanning to get there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How's it a shitty analogy? Why should be behavior of others who share your view on abortion change your underlying views, regardless of whether the others are a wing of the group, or a fringe of the group?

[myself]

No, you distort the substance of his argument.

His argument was that the violence by members of the pro-life movement, and the acceptance or even celebration of that violence by members of the movement, demonstrated that the pro-life movement didn't really hold life in high regard.

That's completely different from some nutter doing a bad thing that's widely condemned by the mainstream movement.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, the important thing is that he was arguing from a false premise that, if true, would support his position, not that the premise was false.

While I didn't bother pretending that the pro-choice movement celebrates Jane's Revenge, he DOES pretend that the pro-life movement celebrated violence.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The rank hypocrisy of those who call themselves “pro-life”

The problem here is your simple-minded inability to distinguish between the substance of an issue and the equally simple-minded euphemisms used to describe positions on it.

[not guilty]

Just as a matter of personal preference, I hesitate to use pro-life without scare quotes. I also decline (in most cases) to use pro-choice. Both are euphemisms that do a poor job of describing what is at stake. I think the more accurate phrases are in favor of abortion rights and opposed to abortion rights.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I saw what was coming as soon as I read this...
"Many years ago, I was opposed to abortion being legal. I changed my views after multiple doctors and clinic personnel were assassinated. The root of abortion opponents’ antipathy is not concern for life."

It is entirely possible for your erstwhile principled opposition to abortion (assuming there were principles supporting it) to coexist with opposition to the beliefs of or methods employed by a small or even a large number of your fellow abortion opponents.

You chose to change your principles. You have not explained why.

I am admittedly ambivalent about abortion. Human life cannot logically begin at any point other than conception, but no society has ever fully embraced the implications of that recognition and no society is ever likely to do so. (No, I didn't bother to research that statement, but if I'm sure I will be corrected if I've left out some weird religious sect extant somewhere.)

Roe v. Wade was an idiotic, unconstitutional decision and cannot be supported for any reason, so perhaps Dobbs was the best way to allow the people to decide the abortion issue for themselves (at least on a state-by-state basis)? The federal government should stamp out the extraterritorial tendencies of the extremist states, and then just let it be.

[not guilty]

As I have expressed elsewhere on this thread, I remain philosophically opposed to abortion in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, such as conception from rape or incest, serious threats to maternal life or health or fetal abnormality which will likely preclude a meaningful life after birth. However, I do not favor government imposing its will on a pregnant mother of a non-viable fetus or embryo.

The nut graph of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022), is this:

A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” . . . It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. . . . These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, . . . the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.

142 S.Ct. at 2284 (citations omitted). Let me illustrate by means of an admittedly extreme hypothetical the pernicious consequences of applying mere rational basis analysis.

Suppose a state enacts a statute requiring, upon penalty of imprisonment, that no person under the age of 21 within its borders shall carry a pregnancy to term and give birth. Under Dobbs, that would pass constitutional muster.

A legislature could think that the statute protects maternal health and safety — mortality rates for abortion at an early stage are lower than the mortality rates for childbirth. A legislature could think that more mature females are more likely than teen mothers to seek appropriate prenatal care, resulting in healthier babies. A legislature could think that younger mothers and their offspring are more likely to depend on public assistance — a State has a valid interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its programs, and it may legitimately attempt to limit its expenditures for public assistance. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 633 (1969).

[AmosArch]

Conservatives like to accuse liberals of caring too much about a handful of mostly definitely guilty with an occasional once in a blue moon possibly innocent, felons convicted of committing horrific death row tier crimes while not caring at all about tens of millions of definitely innocent babies per year. While liberals like to accuse conservatives of caring too much about tens of millions of definitely innocent aborted babies per year while not caring enough about a handful of mostly definitely guilty with an occasional once in a blue moon possibly innocent, felons convicted of horrific death row tier crimes.

Even assuming this stupid false dichotomy is true and you had to pick one group to care about what would be the more logical group to pick? Tens of millions of definitely innocent babies killed per year or a handful of mostly definitely guilty with an occasional possibly innocent, felons convicted of horrific death penalty tier crimes?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The only way to win is not to play.

People who support abortion would love to change the subject to the death penalty or some other controversial issue in order to muddy the waters and get people talking about something other than the fact that they support the mass killing of innocent human beings in the womb and in the lab.

[Kazinski]

i support the death penalty, but as a libertarian I support a woman's reasonable right to choose.

In my state, Arizona, the current law is 15 weeks, I think thats more than a reasonable amount of time for a woman to make a decision.

There is a measure on the ballot, to make a state constitutional amendment extending it to viability or 24 weeks. i voted against that, not only is the current law adequate, i also oppose codifying a bunch of crap in the constitution.

The wierd thing is the number of political ads trying to convince people the 1868 territorial abortion bad which was briefly reinstated by the state supreme court after Dobbs is still good law. tThe Legislature passed a new law 4 or 5 months ago.

[not guilty]

It is not a “false dichotomy.” Government is poorly equipped to determine who lives or dies. It is also poorly equipped to determine who gives birth or not, whether that is the sterilization of Carrie Buck, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), the selective sterilization of prison inmates, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), the criminalization of contraception, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), or outlawing abortion based on mere rational basis analysis, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). None of that is any of the government’s freaking business.

Consider this hypothetical, AmosArch. Suppose you have a young adult relative or close friend facing an unwanted pregnancy. Because she trusts your judgment — hey, I said it is hypothetical — she asks you for advice about what to do. Are you going to say to her, “I’m sorry, but you are incompetent to decide what to do, and I am not the right person to advise you. Go ask the governor and do whatever he decides.”?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

NG, suppose a relative of yours has a newborn baby, and she tells you she is considering killing it. She asks your advice. What do you tell her?

[Martinned2]

WTF does that have to do with anything?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave — As of course you know, that has nothing to do with NG's hypothetical unwanted pregnancy. Why does it never get tiresome to reiterate, out of context, unresolvable definitional differences in the abortion controversy? What point do you think you are making? What do you expect to change?

Isn't there really only one issue which can change: the question who has political power sufficient to dictate the policy answer? Is desire to affect that the motivation for your remark?

[Brett Bellmore]

Whether or not it has anything to do with NG's hypothetical is exactly the issue we disagree about.

[Martinned2]

If you think murdering a living baby is in any way comparable with an abortion, and you know most sane people disagree (as do you, since I don't see you proposing the death penalty for abortions), what's the point of asking the question?

[Brett Bellmore]

I personally think that abortion starts out morally comparable to biting off a hang nail at conception, and by the time the baby is viable outside the womb achieves moral equivalence to infanticide. It's a process, not a step function, but all the moral significance resides in the nature of the baby, NOT its location.

[Sarcastr0]

So you ignore the woman in all of your calculous.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, what I said sounds like that, if you're a moron.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m just reading what you wrote.
You may not have meant to tell in yourself but…I see womb, and baby twice. That’s it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro is correct that the woman's interest in her autonomy should be balanced against the life of the baby. As the toward the end of the pregnancy, that balance probably tips in favor of the baby. At the beginning, in favor of the woman.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Sarcastro is correct that the woman’s interest in her autonomy should be balanced against the life of the baby."

I don't disagree with that. I was discussing how much I weight the life of the baby in that calculation. It's a continually increasing weight, and at the point where viability has been achieved, that interest in autonomy can justify an early delivery, but that's not the same thing as "abortion".

[TwelveInchPianist]

That was pretty clear, it was a cheap attempt at a gotcha by Sarcastro.

[Joe_dallas]

Comparable ?
Both are killing an innocent baby. The only difference is timing

[NOVA Lawyer]

Just for starters, a blastocyst is not a baby.

If you're not willing to have a good faith conversation, then just say so. Oh, wait, I guess you did.

[Joe_dallas]

Heart beat as early as 7-8 weeks
feeling pain as early as 12 weeks

A reasonable cut off in most European countries is around 12-16 weeks .

Nova throws out the term blastocyst knowing that blastocyst is not longer blastocyst after 9 weeks

Nova – You didn't really want a good faith conversation did you.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Do we believe Joe Dallas or peer-reviewed studies and OB-GYNs?

Joe: “feeling pain as early as 12 weeks”

ACOG: “The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks.”

No functioning brain, no experience of pain.

Of course, “blastocyst is not longer blastocyst after 9 weeks” (aside from being weirdly ungrammatical), is entirely irrelevant. You lot want to treat a blastocyst as morally equivalent to a newborn baby.

If you want to have a good faith conversation, you would have to admit that the “life begins at conception” is a metaphysical answer, not a biological one, and is not one that most of us find convincing. Thus, the comparison of aborting a 9-week or earlier pregnancy to killing a newborn child is not reasonable, rational, or grounded in biological facts.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"A reasonable cut off in most European countries is around 12-16 weeks ."

And most have generous exceptions for abortions after that for mental or physical health of the mother.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And most have generous exceptions for abortions after that for mental or physical health of the mother."

The issue here is that 'mental' health has routinely been, at least in the US, construed to include the woman simply being upset over the prospect of giving live birth. This is due to Doe v Bolton, which saw to it that doctors couldn't be sanctioned for making pretextual declarations of medical necessity in order to justify an abortion. So such pretext as a way of circumventing medical necessity requirements became routine.

Trivially, Doe v Bolton wasn't binding in Europe, where they could sanction doctors for lying about medical necessity, and so declarations of medical necessity remained meaningful.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The issue here is that ‘mental’ health has routinely been, at least in the US, construed to include the woman simply being upset over the prospect of giving live birth.

You think it isn't in Europe?

Trivially, Doe v Bolton wasn’t binding in Europe, where they could sanction doctors for lying about medical necessity, and so declarations of medical necessity remained meaningful.

Denmark is in Europe, it has the following exceptions through the 2nd trimester:

** Pregnant woman considered incapable (for the time) of giving proper care to child due to her youth or immaturity

** Pregnancy, childbirth or care of child considered to constitute a serious burden to pregnant woman (which cannot otherwise be averted)

As well as mental health exceptions.

Germany, up to 22 weeks for:

** Danger of grave impairment to physical or mental health of pregnant woman

** Exceptional distress (at discretion of court)

Netherlands:

** Up to viability defined as 24 weeks (22 weeks in practice) where a pregnant woman attests to a state of distress, to be jointly defined by her and a doctor

Norway, up to viability defined as 22 weeks:

** Pregnancy, childbirth or care of child may result in unreasonable adverse physical, mental, or economic impact on the woman

** Major risk that the unborn child may suffer from serious birth defects

As just some examples. Europe was held up as a model. Sure, let's go with the European model rather than the Texas/Alabama model. Roe was consistent with the European model. Red state approaches after Dobbs are not.

[not guilty]

“The issue here is that ‘mental’ health has routinely been, at least in the US, construed to include the woman simply being upset over the prospect of giving live birth. This is due to Doe v Bolton, which saw to it that doctors couldn’t be sanctioned for making pretextual declarations of medical necessity in order to justify an abortion. So such pretext as a way of circumventing medical necessity requirements became routine.”

We have had this discussion about Doe v. Bolton before, Brett, but you continue to lie about the import of that decision.

If a state has a statute criminalizing post-viability abortions with an exception for an abortion necessary to preserve the physical or mental health of the mother, and someone performs an abortion which in fact is not necessary to preserve maternal health, that person can be criminally prosecuted and convicted.

It would likely be necessary for the prosecution to offer expert medical proof as to the absence of necessity, but expert medical proof is often necessary in criminal cases. If the statute exempted the formerly pregnant woman from prosecution, the State could call her as a prosecution witness against the provider, and she would have no privilege against self-incrimination.

As Mark Twain (may have) said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

[Brett Bellmore]

"If a state has a statute criminalizing post-viability abortions with an exception for an abortion necessary to preserve the physical or mental health of the mother, and someone performs an abortion which in fact is not necessary to preserve maternal health, that person can be criminally prosecuted and convicted."

In theory that's true, but then you get to the holdings of Doe V Bolton:
"3. The requirement that a physician's decision to perform an abortion must rest upon "his best clinical judgment" of its necessity is not unconstitutionally vague, since that judgment may be made in the light of all the attendant circumstances.

...

b) The interposition of a hospital committee on abortion, a procedure not applicable as a matter of state criminal law to other surgical situations, is unduly restrictive of the patient's rights, which are already safeguarded by her personal physician. Pp. 410 U. S. 195-198.

(c) Required acquiescence by two copractitioners also has no rational connection with a patient's needs, and unduly infringes on her physician's right to practice. Pp. 410 U. S. 198-200."

The bottom line of Doe v Bolton was that, once a woman's physician has declared an abortion to be "medically necessary", there was no way that you could challenge that determination. So the only way you could convict for a medically unnecessary abortion was for the physician themselves to confess that they'd lied about it being necessary!

[NOVA Lawyer]

So the only way you could convict for a medically unnecessary abortion was for the physician themselves to confess that they’d lied about it being necessary!

That's not what that means, Brett.

It means you can't require certain procedures (prior approval of an "abortion committee" and concurrence, before the fact, of two other physicians) prior to a physician performing an abortion.

What you appear to be misunderstanding is that this is similar to prior restraints on speech. Just because, consistent with the First Amendment, you can't require someone to submit their speech to a three-person free speech committee before tweeting it out, doesn't mean you can't criminalize certain speech.

Likewise, nothing in the Doe v. Bolton decision forecloses criminal prosecutions of abortions where life or health of the mother was mere pretext. Is the proof difficult? Sure. Which, given reasonable doubt, medical judgment, etc., it absolutely should be. That's how our system works. But it is not impossible unless "the physician themselves [] confess that they'd lied..." That's simply not an accurate summary of the holding of Doe v. Bolton.

[not guilty]

Brett, your claim is that “Doe v Bolton . . . saw to it that doctors couldn’t be sanctioned for making pretextual declarations of medical necessity in order to justify an abortion.” That is a lie. I described how a doctor could be prosecuted and convicted of a crime for performing an abortion which is not necessary to preserve physical or mental maternal health.

The specific provisions of the Georgia statute in Bolton did not pass constitutional muster. These provisions were not limited to medically necessary abortions, but likewise applied where the fetus would very likely be born with a grave, permanent, and irremediable mental or physical defect; or the pregnancy resulted from forcible or statutory rape. (Georgia Code § 26-1202, reproduced at 410 U.S. at 202.) The Court opined:

We conclude that the interposition of the hospital abortion committee is unduly restrictive of the patient’s rights and needs that, at this point, have already been medically delineated and substantiated by her personal physician. To ask more serves neither the hospital nor the State.

410 U.S. at 198. As to the required confirmation by two Georgia-licensed physicians in addition to the recommendation of the pregnant woman’s own consultant (making under the statute, a total of six physicians involved, including the three on the hospital’s abortion committee), the Court opined that “Required acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient’s needs and unduly infringes on the physician’s right to practice.” Id., at 199.

The invalidation of these particular provisions did not mean that “once a woman’s physician has declared an abortion to be ‘medically necessary’, there was no way that you could challenge that determination.” If a state were to adopt similar provisions, they would be constitutionally suspect, but that is a far cry from your claim here.

“So the only way you could convict for a medically unnecessary abortion was for the physician themselves to confess that they’d lied about it being necessary!”

That, Brett, is simply a falsehood. As I said above, suppose a state has a statute criminalizing post-viability abortions with an exception for an abortion necessary to preserve the physical or mental health of the mother, and someone performs an abortion which in fact is not necessary to preserve maternal health. A grand jury could subpoena the formerly pregnant woman and examine her under oath about her physical and mental health before and after the abortion. The prosecutor could compel the woman’s testimony at trial. The state could subpoena records of the patient’s medical and mental health history for evaluation by experts, who could give opinion testimony at trial as to whether the abortion was or was not medically necessary. The state could compel testimony from other persons who interacted with the patient up to the time of the abortion about what they observed of her behavior. If the doctor testified at trial, the prosecutor could cross-examine him until the cows come home. The state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the abortion was not medically necessary, but that is also true of every essential element of every criminal offense.

I realize that this is difficult for someone who has never tried to persuade a judge or jury of anything, but a good rule of thumb is: don’t make shit up!“

[NOVA Lawyer]

"a good rule of thumb is: don’t make shit up!"

That's gonna be a heavy lift for MAGA apologists. it's kind of their go-to style of argument.

[Riva]

Yeah, NG, the science guy who believes life cannot begin at conception because that would be equivalent to believing that there could be a “microscopic human being.” Obviously, because we all know human beings begin as fully formed babies brought by the stork. A human being growing and developing? That’s crazy talk.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Go update your software, Riva. You’re making less sense than usual.

[not guilty]

"NG, suppose a relative of yours has a newborn baby, and she tells you she is considering killing it. She asks your advice. What do you tell her?"

That is not germane to my hypothetical, but since you asked I am nevertheless pleased to answer. I would acknowledge postpartum depression as a serious matter which can be debilitating, for which she should seek treatment. I would strongly encourage her to seek inpatient psychiatric care in a secure facility. If the homicidal inclination persisted, I would encourage her to surrender the child for adoption.

Do you fancy that you have a point, Margrave?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I would encourage her to surrender the child for adoption."

That part of your answer sounds germane to your own question, doesn't it?

[not guilty]

Uh, no.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sure it is.

[not guilty]

No. You asked what my advice to the mother would be. Everything I wrote above recognizes the mother's free agency and does not depend on governmental action.

That having been said, if I knew to a moral certainty that a newborn were in imminent danger, I might seek to have the mother involuntarily hospitalized for treatment, which would necessitate government intervention. But that is beyond the scope of the question you asked.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Everything I wrote above recognizes the mother’s free agency and does not depend on governmental action."

So, begging the question.

[not guilty]

No. You asked what my advice to the mother would be, and I told you what I would say to her. Don't crawfish away from your question now.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought your free agency quip was about the “right” to abortion.

And by urging the woman to seek care in “a secure facility,” you wouldn’t be fully allowing her free agency, would you? Once someone signs in to a secure facility in the way you suggested, the facility has the option of trying to get her *involuntarily* committed.

[not guilty]

Your hypothetical did not have anything to do with the right to abortion, in that you posited the existence of a newborn. You asked me what I would say to the mother, and I told you. I would strongly encourage such a woman to act on her own to ensure both her own well being and the safety of her infant.

Don't fight your own hypothetical.

And FWIW, one who voluntarily admits for psychiatric treatment can leave on her own initiative. What the hospital may do after she arrives is up to the hospital personnel. It may well be that an appropriate course of treatment would mitigate the danger.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I genuinely misunderstood your free-agency quip - it sounded so much like the standard pro-abortion argument that I thought it *was* the standard pro-abortion argument.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Everything I wrote above recognizes the mother’s free agency and does not depend on governmental action."

Even though you presumably agree that it's perfectly appropriate for the government to deprive the mother of her free agency in order to protect the baby. So what's the point of the hypo?

[not guilty]

As I explained to The Margrave of Azilia, the question put to me was what advice I would give to the mother of the newborn. I was not asked what else I might do in an emergency situation.

Abortion rights present a question of substantive due process. Involuntary hospitalization is a deprivation of liberty which implicates procedural due process.

Confinement in a hospital in an emergency situation is a last resort, which is temporary and which must be supported by facts indicating that the patient is a danger to herself or another person. Procedural due process must be afforded to the patient, including an adversarial hearing within a short time after the initial deprivation.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Procedural due process must be afforded to the patient, including an adversarial hearing within a short time after the initial deprivation."

Which reminds me, what procedural rights is a living human being entitled to before being killed?

[not guilty]

"Which reminds me, what procedural rights is a living human being entitled to before being killed?"

Before being killed by the government? That would be a boatload of due process rights, the full range of which may take 20 years or more to exhaust.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You are familiar with the concept of outlawry? What procedural formalities should the government observe before declaring a living human being outside the protection of the law?

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you wouldn't tell her, "I’m sorry, but you are incompetent to decide what to do, and I am not the right person to advise you. Go ask the governor and do whatever he decides."

Good to know.

[Riva]

NG, you seem incapable of acknowledging that there is another life involved here. It is not just the mother who has decided that she’d rather not be inconvenienced.

[not guilty]

Au contraire, Riva. I acknowledge, as did the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), that there is a legitimate governmental interest in preserving fetal life, which grows weightier as the pregnancy progresses. I don't have a problem with Congress or a state legislature prohibiting post-viability abortions, provided there are exceptions for pregnancies endangering a woman's life or health.

Prior to viability, however, a pregnant woman's interests in liberty, privacy, bodily integrity and personal autonomy should outweigh that governmental interest.

[Riva]

You would do better to read Scalia’s brilliant evisceration of the Casey majority in his dissent. “But ‘reasoned judgment’ does not begin by begging the question, as Roe and subsequent cases unquestionably did by assuming that what the State is protecting is the mere ‘potentiality of human life’… The whole argument of abortion opponents is that what the Court calls the fetus and what others call the unborn child is a human life.” You simply adopt the (now thankfully overturned) majority view based on their value judgement “that the human fetus is in some critical sense merely potentially human.”

[not guilty]

Justice Scalia was a brilliant writer with a formidable intellect. He was also a result-oriented scold.

[Riva]

I would say then either you are projecting the majority’s writing on Scalia, or never actually read the dissent. By “begging the question,” the majority exposes themselves as results oriented. As for being scolds, plenty to choose from, as Scalia notes later in the dissent (quotations from the majority), “The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life-tenured judges–leading a Yolk who will be ‘tested by following,’ and whose very ‘belief in themselves’ is mystically bound up in their ‘understanding’ of a Court that ‘speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals’-with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.”

And a bonus, just because its too damn good not to reference:

“Roe's mandate for abortion on demand destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level. At the same time, Roe created a vast new class of abortion consumers and abortion proponents by eliminating the moral opprobrium that had attached to the act. (‘If the Constitution guarantees abortion, how can it be bad?’--not an accurate line of thought, but a natural one.) Many favor all of those developments, and it is not for me to say that they are wrong. But to portray Roe as the statesmanlike ‘settlement’ of a divisive issue, a jurisprudential Peace of Westphalia that is worth preserving, is nothing less than Orwellian. Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular and ever since.”

[M L]

“Hey guys, it’s not ok to kill innocent humans for the sake of convenience and sexual gratification.”

“Man, what a scold! Party pooper!”

[Reallynotbob]

“Kill innocent humans” requires human life. Pre-viability fetuses are not “alive humans” except by fiat driven by religious or philosophical ideas.

There’s no way to satisfy all groups here, but the Roe court drew a defensible secular line.

[Riva]

How are they “not human”? They have their own unique human DNA. They are living by multiple measures, they have a heartbeat They are growing and aging. Is there some living human who isn’t? That they depend on the environment of the womb to survive this stage of life does not make the unborn, substantively, “not human.”

[Reallynotbob]

Well we don't count them on a census. Depending on the stage of development (zygote? blastspore? embryo?) they don't meet various tests for life. We don't bury them (although some families do). We don't criminalize tampering with a body after miscarriages. And I'm quite certain "has human DNA" is not the test you really want to propose. We're growing human tissue in the lab now, and I don't think anyone is proposing to call that a human life.

[Riva]

That the unborn are not counted on a census is laughably irrelevant as to whether the unborn are human. I didn’t know a loss of one’s humanity was a consequence of not completing the census. Sounds like a cruel and unusual punishment for a misdemeanor. And yeah, that the living growing life is genetically human is the test I want. That means it’s human actually. Don’t think we are growing humans in a lab but don’t keep the info to yourself if you know otherwise, sounds newsworthy. And that some may, in some macabre way, “tamper” with the remains of the unborn doesn’t make the unborn not human, it makes those doing the tampering as repulsive.

[not guilty]

Most fertilized ova naturally fail to implant and are washed away with the menstrual flow.

Riva, if there are women in your household, do they give their feminine hygiene products Christian burials on the chance that one may contain a microscopic "human being"?

[Riva]

I can’t speak to the validity of “most,” and ignoring your obnoxious sarcasm, the loss of a fertilized egg that fails to implant is the loss of a life if one accepts that life begins at conception.

[Riva]

And NG, “microscopic human being”? Really? How do you think human beings begin? As fully grown babies brought by the stork? So much for your “science.”

[M L]

Reallynotbob - "Pre-viability fetuses are not “alive humans” except by fiat driven by religious or philosophical ideas."

Wrong.

Cold, hard scientific facts establish irrefutably that it is a human life.

However, the idea that because it is a human life, it should not be killed for the sake of convenience or profit, can only established on religious or philosophical/moral grounds. The same is true of any moral claim.

[not guilty]

I have posed this "Go ask the governor" hypothetical numerous times. I have yet to see anyone provide a coherent response supporting the proposition that decisions regarding other people's childbearing should be delegated to folks like Elliot Spitzer, Andrew Chomo, Rod Blagojevich or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Riva]

Here’s a response you pretend to ignore. Your hypothetical leaves out an interested party, the innocent life snuffed out by someone who would now rather not be bothered.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Would you consult a governor on whether a born citizen should by lynched, or is that simply a matter of individual conscience for the lyncher to decide for himself?

[Reallynotbob]

Depends if the lyncher is a member of law enforcement, apparently.

[not guilty]

Correction: that should be Andrew Cuomo, not Andrew Chomo. Mea culpa!

[Commenter_XY]

You are forgiven, NG. 🙂

[Reallynotbob]

If only one could choose both.
Good news....

[Life of Brian]

Your newspaper article omits both a huge swath of physical injuries to the infant, as well as the prosecution’s alternative theory that those injuries were caused by Roberson beating her. Judge Yeary walks through these points in his concurring opinion in last week’s denial of Roberson’s motion for reconsideration/stay:

This is not just a “shaken baby” case. Applicant has suggested the possibility that the two-year-old child victim had been ill and simply fell out of the bed. But evidence in this case showed that the tiny victim suffered multiple traumas.

* * *

The victim was found to have a bruise on the back of her shoulder, a scraped elbow, a bruise over her right eyebrow, bruises on her chin, a bruise on her left cheek, an abrasion next to her left eye, multiple bruises on the back of her head, a torn frenulum in her mouth, bruising on the inner surface of the lower lip, subscapular and subgaleal hemorrhaging between her skin and her skull, subarachnoid bleeding, subdural hematoma, both pre-retinal and retinal hemorrhages, and brain edema.

It is true that the State invoked a “shaken baby” theory. But it also invoked a beating theory. And the evidence was consistent with both theories.

But even if we set to one side—for the moment—the evidence of shaking, the evidence also showed multiple impacts to Nikki’s head. At trial, Dr. Jill Urban testified that she was confident, given the separate areas of dense hemorrhage in different areas of the head, that there were “multiple blows to different points on the head.” She concluded that the victim died as a result of “blunt force head injuries.”

Applicant now suggests there is new scientific evidence calling
into question what some people call “shaken baby syndrome.” Applicant also suggests that a short fall could have caused the victim’s injuries. But the new evidence challenging “shaken baby syndrome” is not sufficient to overcome the evidence of trauma to multiple places on the victim’s body. His theory also would force this Court to simply ignore the testimony presented at Applicant’s trial from a defense expert to the effect that Applicant admitted that he “lost it” and shook the victim because he could not stop her from crying.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How does this become CAPITOL murder?!?

[David Nieporent]

How does this become CAPITOL murder?!?

How did you get so bad at SPELLING?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The article notes that the former police detective who led the investigation and subsequent arrest of Roberson agrees an execution would be a travesty of justice.

The dispute over evidence here suggests the case might not be as crystal clear as some say. OTOH, the level of dispute over the evidence, including a major theory put forth to convict, is very concerning when a person's life is at stake.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The victim was found to have a bruise on the back of her shoulder, a scraped elbow, a bruise over her right eyebrow, bruises on her chin, a bruise on her left cheek, an abrasion next to her left eye, multiple bruises on the back of her head, a torn frenulum in her mouth, bruising on the inner surface of the lower lip, subscapular and subgaleal hemorrhaging between her skin and her skull, subarachnoid bleeding, subdural hematoma, both pre-retinal and retinal hemorrhages, and brain edema."

She feel out of bed!

[Bob from Ohio]

Darn, fell, nor feel

[SRG2]

Here's a good idea - if someone is executed, one of the judges who approved his execution can be summarily executed by a close family member who would have an absolute defence if he can prove the innocence of the person executed on balance of probabilities.

Of course, no judge should object to such a measure because as no-one is executed who's not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they are at no actual risk of being killed, right?

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2...Why stop with the judges, you might as well include the jurors too. And maybe counsel from both sides, on the theory that a world with fewer lawyers in it is a better world.

I don't think your proposal is a good idea.

[SRG2]

I hold judges to a higher standard than jurors

[Riva]

Uh what? Are you in HS? Grade school? You think, I assume you’re proposing a new law, imposing death for a party who presided over a criminal trial and rendered a judgement based on available evidence, would not be construed as cruel and unusual punishment (let alone as violating due process)? Seems a tad unusual. Did some moronic AI tool suggest this to you, or did your little playmates bring it up on recess while you were on the jungle gym?

[Reallynotbob]

I agree with you, but I don't see how "cruel and unusual" is the argument. We commit murderers to death, even when they claim mistaken identity or whatnot. That seems to pass 8A muster.

[SRG2]

What's cruel and unusual? Isn't executing an innocent person cruel and unusual?

And also you're unable to handle - or possibly, perceive - my underlying point.

[Riva]

Who says they’re innocent? You ain’t the trier of fact here or a Texas judge. In fact, with your “balance of probabilities” I doubt you’re an American.

[Sarcastr0]

Lost the bubble of the thread here, eh?

It's not about that case.

[SRG2]

In fact, with your “balance of probabilities” I doubt you’re an American.

I am originally British. Obviously you confused threads, which happens. But this sentence implies that somehow because I’m not an American, I can’t make the argument, or perhaps, I’m just wrong. Idiotic implication in either case.

[Riva]

No, you’re not wrong because you’re British. Maybe you have bad teeth because you’re British, or unfortunately believe soccer (or you may pervert the word “football” to describe it) is actually a sport because you’re British. But you’re wrong because you have a poor understanding of American constitutional norms, American criminal law, or American culture in general. And that’s even if you are a “solicitor.”

[SRG2]

An idiot writes: " soccer (or you may pervert the word “football” to describe it)"

Soccer is played with the feet, American ":football" isn't. So it's hardly perverse. BTW "soccer" is of British origin - from "Association Football" as opposed to "Rugby Football", then abbreviated to "Assoc." from whence soccer.

As I became a US citizen a while ago I acquired a respectable layman's knowledge - as opposed to what you display, a disreputable layman's ignorance - of US law but occasionally I will use an English term, not an American one, that would nonetheless be understood by everyone, I think.

Furthermore, they mean the same thing.

[Riva]

I wouldn't call your knowledge respectable. And, in case it wasn't clear, i was showing my contempt for that trash mob euro pastime that some confuse with real sports. I thought the English had more wit. I guess your homeland has lost that too.

[Magister]

BTW “soccer” is of British origin – from “Association Football” as opposed to “Rugby Football”, then abbreviated to “Assoc.” from whence soccer.

Would soccer be more or less popular in the US if the name had been abbreviated to "assball"? Hmm.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This is similar to an idea I read in an essay by H. L. Mencken, though I haven’t found it online.

This doesn’t mean I *agree* with Mencken, whose worldview was based on premises a bit different from mine.

[Michael P]

Shucks, by that standard, Derek Chauvin is double super innocent.

Additionally, four separate doctors testified Nikki had “multiple blows to different points on the head,” which could not have been caused by falling off a bed. At trial, Roberson's defense expert admitted that Roberson “lost it” and shook Nikki because he could not stop her from crying; two young girls who lived with Roberson testified that they saw him shaking Nikki.

Funny how you didn't mention that the cause of death was ruled to be blunt force trauma to the head.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Derek Chauvin wasn’t convicted of CAPITOL ,murder.
How does this meet the SCOTUS special circumstance standard for execution?

[Michael P]

The punishment is not relevant to this argument. NG's argument is that evidence of other potentially fatal conditions is evidence of a convicted killer's innocence.

[not guilty]

The State indicted Roberson on two counts of capital murder, alleging that (1) he had “intentionally or knowingly” caused the death of “a person under the age of six” and (2) he had killed his child “in the course of committing or attempting to commit the offense of aggravated sexual assault.”

Many states provide that the murder of a person who is especially vulnerable because of age and murder committed in perpetration of another violent felony are aggravating circumstances that will support imposition of the death penalty.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sexual assault on the child?

[not guilty]

That was the government's theory, supported by speculative testimony from a nurse who claimed to have observed "anal tears" on the child. Mr. Roberson's habeas corpus application recites the following at page 25:

The “abuse” accusation was inflamed by a local nurse, who held herself out as a “Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner” (SANE), although she was not actually SANE-certified. 41RR141. She summoned the police to Nikki’s hospital room and then took it upon herself to perform a sexual assault exam on the comatose child. 6EHRR105-06. This nurse then told colleagues and investigators that she saw signs of “anal tears,” an observation not corroborated by any other treating physician or the medical examiner. Nor was the nurse’s leap from purported “anal tears” to “sexual abuse” ever substantiated by any evidence. APPX62; APPX6. Nikki had had diarrhea for over a week and been prescribed suppositories, which fully explains the condition of Nikki’s anal region. But at trial, the nurse doubled-down on her false accusation by incorrectly testifying that diarrhea would not cause the tender skin in a child’s anal region to crack or “tear.” 41RR127-28. Then, in a highly inflammatory and prejudicial false accusation, the nurse insinuated that Robert was a “pedophile,” explaining to the jury that pedophiles prefer anal penetration to vaginal penetration, stating: “So that’s not, you know a particular area that a pedophile wants to go.” 41RR129.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"At trial, Roberson’s defense expert admitted that Roberson “lost it” and shook Nikki because he could not stop her from crying..."

How would the defense expert know what he did?

[Michael P]

He's an expert witness, and is supposed to be screened so that the court understands his qualification to testify competently. In turn, the witness is supposed to limit their training to what they can competently assert.

I didn't investigate the context of that specific testimony; I only quoted Wikipedia on what happened at trial.

[myself]

So was she struck or shook? Because those are different things.

And just because he shook Nikki doesn't mean he shook her severely, or if he shook her severely it caused her death. When medical experts insist it was "shaken baby" everyone assumes it was true and the shaking becomes much more severe in their recollection.

And even if he actually did cause her death by shaking (seems unlikely given current medical understanding) the way it got escalated to a capitol offense is kinda insane.

[Joe_dallas]

Michael P 8 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Shucks, by that standard, Derek Chauvin is double super innocent.
Funny how you didn’t mention that the cause of death was ruled to be blunt force trauma to the head.

MP - That is two cases where the forensic evidence didnt fit the narrative.
One case where the forensic evidence didnt support the states theory of the cause of death and a second case wants to deny the forensic evidence .

[David Nieporent]

High school biology strikes again!

[Frank Drackman]

So I guess he was found "Guilty"?, Not Guilty?
and has had plenty of appeals? all denied?
He beat a fucking baby, mother fucker should have been shot in the head in 2003 (actually, if he'd been in prison for his earlier crimes, instead of being released early, none of this would have happened, unless they had babies in prison)
I'm glad he's now an obese fuck, after 20+ years of tax payer funded prison food, I hope they miss every vein and have to stick a Subclavian line in, and he gets a pneumothorax, and then pneumonia when the chest tube gets infected, and dies, wow, could be a "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" episode

Frank

[Reallynotbob]

I like your world. The one where the legal process is infallible unless it's inconvenient.

People like you need to be indicted for something. Really anything will do. I hear one can indict a ham sandwich. The infallible legal process will surely acquit you.

[Riva]

Uh no. There is, in general, no contradiction between supporting the death penalty, punishment for taking an innocent life, and being pro-life, opposed to the taking of an innocent life. Whether there actually is evidence supporting his innocence is another matter entirely. I have no idea but wouldn’t accept an msn article as definitive proof one way or the other.

[not guilty]

You "have no idea," Riva? For once you have told the truth.

Read this and then tell me how a new trial for Robert Roberson would have been inappropriate. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dFalb-46fkza1HJOmzvXF-aMxsl5lrxQ/view?pli=1

[Riva]

No, I’m not an appellate court. Let them sort through the facts. Without any strong background on the evidence here, I’ll concede, for the sake of argument, that factually, guilty or innocence is a debatable question. My main point is that it is not hypocritical to support the death penalty for the taking of an innocent life and being pro-life, against aborting an innocent life.

[Roger S]

That's right. The argument here is not over the facts. The OP claim is that a pro-life person should be against executing a baby murderer.

[Reallynotbob]

"I'm not an appellate court."

Good, good... the Pontius Pilate defense lives.

[Riva]

The Pontius Pilate defense? Is that how you rationalize your support for the abortion of innocent life?

[bernard11]

There is, in general, no contradiction between supporting the death penalty, punishment for taking an innocent life, and being pro-life, opposed to the taking of an innocent life.

Of course there is a contradiction, you just assume it away. As we all know, (well, most of us. Scalia didn’t) the whole process by which someone is convicted of murder, sentenced, and executed, has flaws, makes mistakes and condemns innocent people.

So the death penalty is not “punishment for taking an innocent life,” but rather "punishment for being convicted,” which sometimes leads to the taking of innocent life.

And of course this leaves aside the inequities in who gets the death penalty and lots of other flaws. Is having a crappy lawyer a capital offense?

[Armchair]

If this was as straightforward as NG claims, it would be easy for him to go down pro-bono and overturn it in state court. He could take his words and put them into action.

Alas, it's not.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In other words, you don’t know jack shit about the criminal justice system.

Thank you for your useless and incorrect contribution.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Most of the "shaken baby" stuff is junk science and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a courtroom. But the "experts" keep testifying, and the judges keep sending people to jail.

This should call into question other instances where people insist that we rely on the views of scientists.

[Joe_dallas]

Shaken baby is junk science

Plenty of other junk science out there. Good to see the woke finally recognizing junk / agenda driven science, though the woke only seem to recognize when it suits them

[Krayt]

Recovered memories was bullshit. Satanic rituals was bullshit. Lie detectors are 80% bullshit. Drug detection dogs suffer from the Clever Hans effect.

These things appear from time to time, do their damage, society suffers.

[Joe_dallas]

concur - lots of junk science out there - However Leftists embrace junk science and dubious science when it fits their agenda

[Sarcastr0]

Leftists embrace junk science and dubious science when it fits their agenda

Joe has never seen a mirror in his life.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sure he has. He pointed into it and asked "Who are you, asshole?"

[Reallynotbob]

You have somehow happened on a true statement. YES we should examine the qualify of scientific conclusions. YES we shouldn't just bow to the technocrats who make pronouncements.

NO that doesn't mean facts are unknowable and scientists are all witches. What is wrong with you?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

NO that doesn’t mean facts are unknowable and scientists are all witches.

What if those scientists weigh the same as a duck?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"NO that doesn’t mean facts are unknowable and scientists are all witches. What is wrong with you?"

What's wrong with you? I never said they were all witches.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"This should call into question other instances where people insist that we rely on the views of scientists."

That is an acceptable conclusion if you happen to be a six-year old. You MAGA types really are the dumbest members of society.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Because I don't think we should unquestioningly rely on the view of scientists? OK then.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Of course a bunch of scumbag lawyers screwed this up.

That's why our justice system is so racist. It's operated and executed by dumbass partisan racist lawyers.

[not guilty]

Mr. Roberson was poorly served by his first round of lawyers. After he obtained competent lawyers, they did an admirable job, albeit an unsuccessful one.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I support abortion rights & oppose the death penalty.

We know the usual arguments on why abortion is wrong & the death penalty is right. “Pro-life” is not the same as being a pacifist.

Numbers-wise, executions are a drop in the bucket next to abortions. I’m all for consistency.

But, the issue here is more that the specific execution is problematic. Compare this to the one scheduled in Alabama, which is not based on a mistaken conviction.

And, the link itself suggests some “pro-life” people are concerned:

“Last month, a bipartisan group of 84 Texas lawmakers urged the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles to recommend clemency for Roberson “out of grave concern that Texas may put him to death for a crime that did not occur.”

Any “bipartisan group” of Texas lawmakers is going to involve people self-labeled pro-life.

[myself]

Maybe if he finds a way to murder a BLM protestor Abbott will give him a 2 for 1 pardon.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Potential BLM protester?

[Commenter_XY]

"You gotta take responsibility for what happened in your administration" -- VPOTUS Kamala Harris

Truer words, never spoken. 🙂

[Kazinski]

She also blamed the polls on right right/wrong track on Trump over the last 3 1/2 years.

I guess if he is responsible for everything, and the current administration so helpless, then the best thing to do is to give Trump the authority too.

By the way here Is Gallup's satisfied/dissatisfied ratings. Its usually a rough question for any administration, but the answers for Trump in Jan 2020 were the highest going back to 2005, especially the "very satisfied" at 17%, next highest was 13% in 2005, Trump's combined very/somewhat satisfied was the 2nd highest at 41%, in 2005 it hit 46%.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1669/general-mood-country.aspx

[jb]

Yeah, look at that amazing 11% combined very/somewhat satisfied rating at the end of his term. Good stuff!

[Krayt]

Given Trump was largely fought to a draw on almost all his initiatives, stuffed, in a sense Democrats are more responsible for what happened during his term than he is.

[Kazinski]

As I've said before the rather stiking rise in real wages, especially for the bottom quintile, was due to Trumps corporate tax cuts increasing domestics capital investment, and his crackdown on illegal immigration tightening the unskilled labor market.

Those policies actually do a good job explaining what we saw, and the low inflation and fairly steady growth we saw until the pandemic hit.

But just not screwing things up, like cancelling pipelines, freezing oil leases, and putting a moratorium on new LNG export facilities, certainly helped too.

[jb]

"As I’ve said before the rather stiking rise in real wages, especially for the bottom quintile, was due to Trumps corporate tax cuts increasing domestics capital investment, and his crackdown on illegal immigration tightening the unskilled labor market."

No it wasn't. It was because (to Trump's credit because he pushed for this) the Fed kept interest rates low even as the unemployment rate fell. This allowed for the labor market to be tight enough that employers had to offer real wage increases in order to hire competitively.

Job growth, GDP growth and inflation were roughly consistent between the last few years of the Obama administration and the first few years of the Trump administration. The change in the corporate tax rate doesn't explain anything because it didn't change the trajectory of the economy from Obama to Trump, and because Biden has the exact same corporate tax rate and hasn't managed to turn it into real wage growth (mostly due to Covid era inflation, though).

[Kazinski]

Why wouldn't the FED keep interest rates low while unemployment is falling?

They correctly determined there was little inflationary pressure, and there would be no justification to raise interest rates unless the economy was already at full capacity, and additional growth would be inflationary.

[jb]

I guess you're arguing that Trump didn't even bully the Fed, so deserves no credit at all? I'm cool with that.

In any case, prior to 2019, the Fed considered 4 or 5% unemployment as "full employment" and that further improvements in the job market would "overheat" the economy so their default reaction was to raise interest rates and slow things down. During Trump's Presidency they realized this was wrong which allowed for continued tightening of the labor market and the real wage growth that would not have been possible if they continued their initial plan of raising rates in reaction to Trump's policy. This article is a pretty good view into the way the Fed revised its approach:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/11/year-federal-reserve-admitted-it-was-wrong/

If you think that is something the Fed would have figured that out on their own without Trump pressuring them, then the real wage growth you're so enamored with turns out to be despite Trump and his tax cuts, not because of them.

[Sarcastr0]

the rather stiking rise in real wages, especially for the bottom quintile, was due to Trumps corporate tax cuts increasing domestics capital investment, and his crackdown on illegal immigration tightening the unskilled labor market.
Capital investment would not increase wages.

You have no proof of causality, hence your 'do a good job explaining' which is not how you establish anything, it's how you find a narrative you like.

Conventional wisdom is that Presidents have little ability to directly help or hinder the economy as compared to the Fed. And less when you drill down to a particular economic indicator.

Absent truly off the beam behavior, the main place Presidents have an effect is in foreign policy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Capital investment would not increase wages."

Who do you think works on capex projects? Operates equipment, etc.?

[bernard11]

I've heard rumors that capital investment is sometimes undertaken with an eye to reducing labor costs.

Not so?

[Kazinski]

Proof of causality?

Well there is a rather simple equation, they cover it in Macro Economics 101:

M = 1/ (1–MPC)

Of course not all increase in spending is equal. Just a one time increase in transfer payments may not provide the same ooompf to the economy as building a factory with a permanent increase in production, employment, and wages.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think Presidents are the ones in charge of spending?

[bernard11]

the rather stiking rise in real wages, especially for the bottom quintile, was due to Trumps corporate tax cuts increasing domestics capital investment,

Unfortunately for your argument, the tax cut did not have a big effect on domestic capital investment. It mostly went for stock buybacks.

The underlying logic for the TCJA was that allowing companies to keep a greater share of profits, would stimulate investments in long term growth. Instead, the dominant company response to the TCJA was stock buybacks. For the first three quarters of 2018, buybacks were $583.4 billion (up up 52.6% from 2017). In contrast, aggregate capital investment increased 8.8% over 2017, while R&D investment growth at US public companies increased 12.5% over 2017 growth.

You are pushing GOP spin.

[OtisAH]

TBC, this is you agreeing with Harris that Convicted Felon Trump is bound to his administration’s record, right? It’s not you pretending that the Vice President controls the president’s administration?

[AmosArch]

While everybody else OCDs about nothing but politics and Holyweird probably the biggest news of at least the past few months happened with relatively little fanfare outside of tech enthusiast circles as Elon Musk's Starship Heavy Booster successfully made it back to its tower. The video is pretty amazing and sort of looks like some fake cgi out of a sci fi movie.

[Martinned2]

Yes, I saw it, and it's impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYUr-5PYA7s

It shows the benefit of having a CEO who is great at getting idiots to part with their money.

[AmosArch]

If you think NASA, the military, and the governments of several countries and corporations that collectively comprise 90% of the total mass launched from Earth are idiots what does that make you?

[Martinned2]

Someone who understands the difference between a customer of SpaceX and an investor in SpaceX.

[AmosArch]

What are you talking about? Which side do you think is getting ripped off? The investor or customer? NASA has literally never just 'given' Spacex money without getting something in return if that is what you are trying to imply. I have no idea where you people are getting this nonsensical notion.

[Martinned2]

The investors. Musk's projects are all investment sinkholes where he shuttles thinks back and forth between his different business with no regard whatsoever for getting anyone an actual return on their investment. Even Tesla, which is publicly traded, just up and gives him tens of billions of dollars in return for nothing at all, simply because he asked.

[Commenter_XY]

What timeframe are you talking about = investors getting ripped off

[Michael P]

Whatever timeframe allows him to make inane claims based on jealousy about the richest man on earth being a successful serial entrepreneur.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do realize the price per pound of items put into space and that re-usable rocket technology will dramatically drop that, and the economic gain to Musk if he is successful, don't you?

[Martinned2]

I'm sure Musk will get rich, and it's definitely good for humanity. But innovation isn't necessarily lucrative for the perso who put their money in. There's lots of literature showing a first mover disadvantage in high R&D markets. And that's without accounting for Elon Musk's wild indifference to whether anyone but him gets rich.

[Michael P]

I realize that. Martinned2 doesn't.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cost-space-launches-low-earth-orbit
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/space-launch-costs-growing-business-industry-rcna23488

[Commenter_XY]

M2, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Andrew Carnegie. You would better understand what Elon Musk is actually doing.

[Michael P]

"Elon Musk’s wild indifference to whether anyone but him gets rich."

Why should he spend time or attention on whether anyone else "gets rich"? From what I've heard, people who stick it out at SpaceX DO get rich, and both investors and customers seem to think the company's services are good for their pocketbooks.

[Martinned2]

People who invest in Musk companies get rich - in the sense that share prices go up - as long as there's a bigger sucker also waiting to invest. In that sense it's like a Ponzi scheme. From the investors' POV, the share price is held up by sheer faith.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to Martinned2:
So the whole stock market is a Ponzi Scheme?

[Martinned2]

To a degree, sure. Most corporate valuations are based on forecasts of future cash flows, and forecasts are hard.

Then there are meme stocks, where the share price bears no relation to the actual business. Trump Social is the most extreme case of that. It has a valuation of, last I checked, several billion on the back of a revenue of a medium-succesful Substack and a loss in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Musk's companies are, with the exception of Tesla, not publicly traded, but they sit somewhere in between these two extremes. There's real activity happening there, and most of them have real revenue, or at least plausible business cases for where that revenue will come from in the future. But what they don't necessarily have is a credible business case for how that revenue will result in profit/cash for the shareholders. Typically what we're talking about is a company where costs are certain and increasing exponentially, and revenues that are currently orders of magnitude smaller, and may or may not increase in the future.

Blasting rockets into the sky (and landing them again) is extremely useful, but in the short term it costs an absolute fortune, and in the longer term the government is never going to let you earn a monopoly profit on that activity. This is not going to be an Amazon scenario. The same goes for Generalised AI. Tesla, ironically, is much more able to occasionally earn massive profits, because it competes more.

Anyway, it's a long story and I should occasionally do my actual job...

[jb]

Elon is kind of unhinged lately, but SpaceX has absolutely transformed space launch capabilities in the past couple of decades. One can appreciate the good things one of his companies is pulling off despite criticizing the way he has fucked up Twitter and squandered the potential of Tesla.

[Martinned2]

I can. That's what I started with upthread. He's great at raising investment funds for projects that are good for humanity but not necessarily good for investors. SpaceX is a classic example of that.

[jb]

SpaceX is still private so presumably all of the investors are notionally sophisticated, so I don't really care whether they're going to make a good return or not. As far as I can tell, none of them seem to be complaining about their investments and in particular no one is claiming that Musk defrauded them.

And unlike Tesla, SpaceX is doing a pretty good job of delivering on its promises. Whereas Full Self Driving doesn't seem any closer to being a reality today than it was 5 years ago (and some legacy companies arguably have better L2 automation capabilities than Tesla at this point), SpaceX managed to recapture the Starship Heavy booster on the very first try. And meanwhile we're at the point where Starlink is being used by United airlines and now in cell phones. This is stuff that basically sounded like science fiction a decade ago.

[Martinned2]

And think of how much better Starlink would be, as a business, if its owner didn't insist on using it to play politics. Very few things are more likely to get it regulated up the wahzoo than cutting off the Ukranians in Eastern Ukraine.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think Tesla actually had as much potential to squander as you think; EVs are not really competitive with ICE vehicles once you set aside the massive subsidies and mandates. Even with the mandates they can't achieve much market penetration, because getting major market penetration would make the cost of the subsidies and mandates politically insupportable, as well as exposing that the infrastructure for charging simply wasn't there.

Tesla dominates this artificial market, and would be a successful niche auto manufacturer without the subsidies, because they realized that the real EV market was for sports cars and luxury cars, not commuters. But they never had the potential to be a large fraction of the overall car market. Absent MAJOR governmental interference in the market, EVs are a niche product, even with the subsidies and mandates they're a single digit fraction of the market.

[jb]

The only "major government interference" you need in the market to make EVs competitive is to start including gasoline externalities in the price at the pump. (You would want to do the same for, e.g., coal-generated electricity but unlike with IC cars there's a way to decrease the carbon footprint over time by changing how you generate your electricity.)

Beyond that, I think the price of Chinese EVs shows that there's plenty of potential for EVs to be competitive with IC cars even without subsidies, but I agree that there's still work to be done on reducing the price of the cars themselves.

[bernard11]

The only “major government interference” you need in the market to make EVs competitive is to start including gasoline externalities in the price at the pump.

Exactly right.

As usual Brett presents only his side, and acts as if that's all there is to say about the economics of motor vehicles.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The only “major government interference” you need in the market to make EVs competitive is to start including gasoline externalities in the price at the pump."

Like a gas tax?

[jb]

Sure, like a gas tax but one that covers more than just the cost of roads:

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/carbon-tax/

[Brett Bellmore]

That proposed carbon tax works out to 44 cents per gallon of gasoline. This is substantially less than existing gas taxes.

You're dreaming if you think a gas tax increase of 44 cents per gallon would make EVs competitive. The cost of gas has gone up way more than that in just a few years, without having that effect.

[jb]

First, the current federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. That's one theoretical tax, not necessarily the one that properly prices in the externalities. The median state tax is 30 cents, so the 44 cents tax is in line with the current gas tax and higher than the gas tax a few states. Definitely not substantially less than existing gas taxes.

In any case, one of the plausible reasons that demand for EVs has subsided recently is that gas prices have gone down since their Covid peak. EV demand seems pretty sensitive to gas prices.

[bernard11]

That proposed carbon tax works out to 44 cents per gallon of gasoline.

Two things.

First, the proposal calls for a 5% annual increase.

Second, and more important, I see nothing to suggest that the proposed $50/metric ton actually covers the cost of all the externalities associated with gasoline vehicles. Where is the effort to calculate those costs?

[bernard11]

What then, except a sort of irrational exuberance, accounts for the performance of Tesla stock?

Usually, investors make judgments about a company's likely future performance. The better they think it will be, the higher they bid up the stock price.

What, in your opinion, accounts for the mismatch you describe between Tesla's prospects and the performance of its stock?

[Kazinski]

Actually most of seed money was.from his own funds, funds he got by successfully tackling a problem governments desperately wanted solved: making EV's commercially viable.

Now he's tackling other problems that governments needs solving, reliable broadband internet without running fiber optics the last mile.

And the less pressing, but still vexing problem of getting space crews into and out of orbit alive without depending on the Russians.

[Martinned2]

His own funds = Elon fanboys. That's what I meant with "idiots".

[AmosArch]

The vast majority of Spacex funding are from sales and contracts. Again where are your documentation that he was just handed boatloads of money for nothing?

[Martinned2]

Here's a list of Tesla shareholders. The other Musk companies are obviously less transparent. https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/TESLA-INC-6344549/company-shareholders/

And here is Musk's $46bn pay package: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-pay-package-vote-cbs-news-explains/

[AmosArch]

Which the investors willingly gave him. Why are you being a member of the eat the rich faction suddenly so concerned about the welfare of 1%ers with riches beyond your imagination even when they themselves are fine with their decisions.

[Martinned2]

That's what I said upthread: Musk's great skill is to get idiots to give him money for negative IRR projects. Normally the only people who fund things that are (possibly) good for humanity but not for investors are the government.

The problem with Musk is that he thinks that he's also good at lots of other things. Which is why his companies, or at least the successful ones, have to employ all sorts of Musk handlers whose job it is to distract him with shiny things and stop him from actually screwing up the business.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-11-14/elon-musk-toxic-boss-timeline

[Kazinski]

Elon's great skill in getting idiots to give him money is based on delivering on his promises, and making them money.

Were you so offended by Elon before he bought Twitter and stopped them from throttling speech that governments didn't like?

[Michael P]

Do the people giving Musk money get a reasonable return? If so, what qualifies them as idiots? Is it just Martinned2's dislike of Musk?

[Martinned2]

In any bubble and/or Ponzi Scheme people get a reasonable return right up until the moment that they don't.

[Commenter_XY]

So the combined investment staffs of Vanguard, Blackrock, Goldman-Sachs, Fidelity, and a boatload of pension fund managers are all idiots...since they all have millions of shares in their portfolio. But not Martinned2. Oh no, M2 is here to tell us how they are all wrong. Completely ignorant and asinine.

Just run TSLA through portfolio visualizer, 10-yr return. The 10 year investment performance of TSLA is roughly 1,350%. Yes, One thousand, three hundred and fifty percent over 10 years. BTW, the price for TSLA 10 years ago was $14, and it has split twice (5X, 3X). It currently sits at $220.

I would LOVE my portfolio to have that 10-yr investment performance. Martinned2, you're an ignoramus when it comes to evaluating investment performance.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Musk handlers whose job it is to distract him with shiny things and stop him from actually screwing up the business."

Seems like it would be easier to just start a successful company without Musk.

[Martinned2]

It might well be, but then you wouldn't have people throwing billions at you from all sides.

Basically a successful start-up with very little Musk is OpenAI. He was involved in that initially, and then Sam Altman manoeuvred him towards the door.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz, commercial space is if anything more subsidized than EVs.

Nothing wrong with chasing the federal dollar that is the intent of the subsidies anyhow.

But its pretty silly fanboyism to claim Musk built SpaceX with his own funds.

[Brett Bellmore]

Subsidy is when X buys Y, and Z pays part of the price. It's not when X buys Y for more than you think X should pay.

[Sarcastr0]

The government has committed $$ in advance, give loans, give in-kind infrastructure contributions, lend their people and expertise, and of course lots of research grants to develop new vehicles.

Those are subsidies.

And there's nothing wrong with that investment if you believe in the benefits of space flight - commercialization is an incredible energy for innovation if you can get it off the ground.

But Musk as independent self-financed genius has never been the case. Not for EVs, not for space launch.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is how NASA ordinarily gets the services it wants, if they're not already available on the market. Complain about ULA if you really want to complain about subsidies, at least SpaceX is delivering.

But as of last year, SpaceX was launching 87% of everything going into orbit. They're not doing that because of subsidies, they're doing that because they're able to do it much cheaper than the competition.

Likewise, Telsa's cars aren't half the EV market due to Tesla specifically being subsidized; The whole EV market basically only exists due to subsidies and mandates, but why is Tesla dominating it?

No, it's actually as true of Musk as it's ever been of anybody. I think you'd realize that if his politics didn't offend you so much.

[Sarcastr0]

I am not describing fee for service above.

Yeah I’m describing the whole commercial space industry.

And then you change the subject to a specific success metric that has nothing to do with the presence of absence of subsidies.

You don’t seem able to follow, you are too focused in defending Musk.

And I’ve know what Musk was since 2013. I went pretty deep into space policy; you seem the one with the partisan push.

[OtisAH]

He’s not focused on defending Musk. He’s focused on assuming the opposite position on whatever subject you’re discussing. Brett is, has been, and always will be a basic bitch contrarian.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do enjoy arguments, but I very seldom argue for a position I don't actually hold. On the rare occasions when I do, I explicitly state that I'm doing it.

Sarcastr0 thinks he's describing the entire commercial space industry, but I think he's missed that the commercial space industry has largely evolved past what he's describing.

[Sarcastr0]

Sarcastr0 thinks he’s describing the entire commercial space industry, but I think he’s missed that the commercial space industry has largely evolved past what he’s describing.

Then establish that assertion.

Don't accuse me of bias and move on.

[OtisAH]

No, Brett, you just enjoy arguing. And while it’s technically true you never argue a position you don’t hold, you never hold any position longer than a given situation requires. You have no values, you have no principles. You just “enjoy arguments.”

[Riva]

At least the pursuit of space travel is a real objective, whether one supports it or not. A man made climate catastrophe is just a fraud promoted by the climate grifters,

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But its pretty silly fanboyism to claim Musk built SpaceX with his own funds."

He said the seed money came from Musk's own funds. That may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with subsidies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, THAT is what somebody poisoned by hatred sounds like.

[Martinned2]

Musk's crazy is professionally offensive to me.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why do you hate a successful African-American immigrant?

[Martinned2]

Because he's a grifter.

[Brett Bellmore]

But he's obviously not a grifter. His companies make money for those who invest in them. As Commentor XY points out above, you're simply objectively wrong about this.

[Commenter_XY]

Don't confuse them with objective facts. They'll get the vapors.

[Martinned2]

Musk's companies typically don't pay dividends. Even Tesla has never done so. Any returns that investors in Tesla earn are based on finding other investors who are willing to pay a higher price for the stock than they paid.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's true, but an awful lot of the stock market is like that now.

I personally think it's a bad development, it makes it very hard to generationally accumulate wealth, because you have to divest yourself of your ownership to take a profit. But it's not a Musk specific problem, over half of all stock companies don't pay dividends.

[Martinned2]

over half of all stock companies don’t pay dividends

Is that true? I assume you mean listed companies, because an owner-managed company not paying dividends is less of a practical issue.

[bernard11]

I personally think it’s a bad development, it makes it very hard to generationally accumulate wealth, because you have to divest yourself of your ownership to take a profit.

No. You don't have to sell all your stock to take a profit. You can sell a little bit. Then you have fewer shares, it's true, but if the company continues to grow they will increase in value.

With a dividend it's the reverse. You still have all your shares, but they are worth less.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So what? That's a perfectly valid way for shareholders to get paid.

[Martinned2]

It is. But in this case there is every reason to believe that the reason why shares go up is less to do with the value of the underlying business and more to do with the ability of the CEO to accumulate a cult-like following.

[Commenter_XY]

M2....you ever hear of price appreciation and stock splits?

[Martinned2]

I have. What made you think that I might not have?

[Commenter_XY]

You idiotic comments about TSLA investors, who have actually made astounding profits on TSLA over the last decade. If you bought 10 years ago, you made beaucoup money.

10K became 1.35MM in 10 years.

Stick to what you know, and investment ain't it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Stick to what you know,"

He could never comment!

[bernard11]

I thought splits were becoming rare, since they are largely pointless.

[Commenter_XY]

Depends on the company, bernard11, and where they are incorporated, the percent of institutional ownership, etc.

[bernard11]

How does it depend on those things? Under what circumstances does taking a stock selling for $50/share and doubling the number of shares outstanding, which cuts the price to $25/share, increase value.

It used to be argued that a split was used to bring the price per share down, to make the stock more accessible to small investors, but that's not much of an issue, since it's much easier than it used to be to buy very small numbers of shares.

[Martinned2]

10K became 1.35MM in 10 years.

Yes. Bubbles can be very profitable for, sometimes, a very long time. See upthread.

[Commenter_XY]

M2...don't be a yutz. Musk is a very successful entrepreneuer because he is an incredible engineer. That isn't a bubble.

Don't let your politics cloud your investing; it is a bad mix.

[Martinned2]

Elon Musk doesn't know a screwdriver from a hole in the ground. He's about as much of an engineer as you are. He's a rich kid who lucked into some succesful ventures and, as a result, became even richer and started to believe that his farts didn't smell. And, like grifters across the ages, nothing gets you a large following like extreme self-confidence.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're confusing him with Jeff Bezos.

[Martinned2]

Bezos had a long-term vision and built a profitable company. (Even though even at Amazon the most profitable part is not the marketplace but AWS.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"May 5, 2024Amazon declined to pay a dividend after its first-quarter earnings, citing its growth opportunities and high valuation. The company has never paid a dividend and is unlikely to do so anytime soon, but its interest income and share count are increasing."
fool.com

[Martinned2]

Yes, and that was news because Amazon did pay dividends for many years before that.

[Mr. Bumble]

When was that?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Amazon did pay dividends for many years before that."

Are you sure? Everything I see says it has never paid one.

[Commenter_XY]

Like LLM generative AI, Martinned2 hallucinates = imaginary AMZN dividends from years past

[Martinned2]

Correction, Amazon has never paid a dividend. But it has bought back its own stock, which is functionally (though not fiscally) equivalent: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/09/amazon-announces-20-for-1-stock-split-10-billion-buyback.html

[zztop8970]

Dividends return cash to all shareholders while a share buyback returns cash to self-selected shareholders only. (https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/accounting/dividend-vs-share-buyback-repurchase/) so not, they are not equivalent.
I'd recommend (as other have) that you stick to commenting about stuff you actually know something about, but I suspect that it an empty set

[Mr. Bumble]

Like so many left wing loonies, Martin cannot just stop at admitting he was wrong.

[Martinned2]

Likewise. Because trying to pick a fight with me about the difference between dividends and share buybacks is like you trying to argue about the merits of Arsenal vs. Tottenham. (Trying to give an example that might actually mean something to you.)

Speaking of which, are you also bowled over by how delightfully weird England's series against Pakistan is?

[bernard11]

ZZtop,

No. They really are equivalent.

Suppose company worth $10M, for example, decides to pay out $1M in dividends. This is just a transfer from the corporation to the shareholders. The shareholders get $1M in cash that used to belong to the company, and the company has $1M less than it used to. The total is the same.

Suppose instead it spends $1M on a buyback. The remaining shareholders now own a $9M company, and the sellers have $1M in cash. Same total.

How could it be otherwise? Moving money from one pocket to another doesn't make you wealthier.

Now of course there are complications wrt taxes and other things. Some argue that consistent dividend payments are a sign that the company is doing well, because it is able to pay the dividend every quarter, and there might be other reasons to choose one strategy over another.

[Frank Drackman]

I think it's more that he's better looking, richer, and gets more Grade A Choice Pussy in one afternoon than you've dreamt of in your most explicit wet dreams, and he has "Go Fuck Yourself" money

Frank

[Armchair]

It was amazing.

[santamonica811]

The first time I saw it; I thought it was a doctored video, and was showing a launch, but played back in reverse. It just doesn't look like the process should or would work. But it (obviously) did. A visually-amazing video.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and an actually amazing feat.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I had not really expected them to nail both landings on this try.

People say, "But the Starship had to land within centimeters, and Falcon boosters routinely miss by meters!" But what those boosters are missing is a circle drawn on a barge. Is it the booster that's missing the designated landing point, or the barge, tossed about by waves, that's failing to be AT the designated landing point?

I suspect SpaceX was pretty confident they could nail the booster landing, because they've been nailing booster landings for years now, much more closely than people realize.

The issue with the upper stage is less the actual landing, which should be as precise as for the booster, as it is the rentry precision leading up to the landing. But that was apparently good enough, too, so they'll be catching the Starship, too, on the next try.

[Armchair]

And an actually amazing feat.

SpaceX is doing truly amazing things that few other companies can replicate, and may be setting itself up as a modern day West India Trading Company for the future. A company that has the ability to explore a whole new world, where governments cannot.

[Sarcastr0]

No need for market worship.

This represents a public private partnership. And it looks good right now but the risk isn’t out yet.

The days of Bell Labs are alas behind us.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Pointing out that the free market has advantages is "market worship"?

Why don't you knock off the government worship?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Why don’t you knock off the government worship?"
Because he depends on the government for his lively hood.

[Bwaaah]

Exactly. It was his backhanded way of saying, “Fuck your markets!”

The fundamental reason they hate Musk is that his initiatives are effectively making a huge contribution to the world, and he is not the state. That's power where they *don't* want it. (And Musk says thing that offend Democrats, the preferred party of statists.)

He talks up his “public private partnership” while the Biden administration tries to subvert Musk’s efforts everywhere now. People like Sarc and Martinned and all statists cheer for the good guy: the state.

[Martinned2]

The fundamental reason they hate Musk is that his initiatives are effectively making a huge contribution to the world, and he is not the state.

On the contrary. That is literally the only thing I like about Elon Musk. If only he would do it consistently.

[Bwaaah]

So a huge contribution to the world isn't enough? Your emphasis is on not that?

He doesn't look right. He doesn't speak right. He doesn't water himself down. He doesn't align properly with others. He doesn't fall into place. Why can't he be an innovator who falls into place? He could be in a book titled, "Great Innovators Who Fall Into Place".

[Martinned2]

I would rather he didn't make a huge contribution to the world by grifting and lying, and I would rather he didn't constantly switch between doing good stuff and doing bad stuff. Is that so unreasonable?

I mean, other billionaires manage it. From Bill Gates to George Soros they promote the common good without lying and without, say, buddying up with dictators and wannabe dictators. Seriously, my standards aren't crazy high.

[Bwaaah]

I don't consider either of those people, George Soros or Bill Gates, to be innovators. They are rich and powerful and philanthropic, but not particularly innovative.

I give Gates credit for mostly avoiding doing things that make the world worse. But George Soros' stands silent about the precipitous rise in all kinds of crime, especially felonious assaults and petty theft, while he continues his efforts to sponsor prosecutors who do everything they can to avoid prosecuting crime. New York state emptied half its inmates from its prisons over the past 10 years. You should see the kinds of scary people who now live on New York City's streets, doing what they will to people and their property with little fear of repercussions; only jail stops them, and we don't do that anymore. (Note, for example, how felonious assaults are up a whopping 71% over 14 years ago in NYC.)

Just out of interest...tell me one great "innovation" that each of those two people, Bill Gates and George Soros, brought to our world.

[Martinned2]

Small challenge, no big deal:

Any time we talk about guns, after I've explained the difference between a constitutional right (i.e. something that's codified in the constitution) and a human right/civil right (i.e. something that's somehow prior to the constitution, and that any constitution needs to protect in order to be legitimate), what we basically end up missing is a workable theory of what is and isn't a human right. Is abortion? Is the right to own a gun?

Obviously Locke's 'life, liberty, and property' is a slogan, not a theory. The only theory that I know of is Rawls's Theory of Justice, but I wouldn't exactly call that workable. It's not like you can do Rawls's thought experiment in order to come up with a (clear) answer for a particular alleged right. At best it gives you some kind of general framework for having the discussion. But then so does Kant's categorical imperative. (In fact, I'm not even so sure that they give very different answers, when applied to rights.)

So how do we decide what is and isn't a human right?

[Kazinski]

Well, as for what is a human right, its whatever those currently in power are welling to concede at the current moment.

It used to encompass freedom of speech, religion, and conscience, and the right to self defense, at minimum.

But no longer, if it isn’t written down its worthless.

Of course a lot of “human rights” now seem to consist in the right to have a government bureaucracy flail at a problem, like health care, shelter, etc.

[Martinned2]

Well, in theory that's not the idea. More generally, I'm getting increasingly nervous that "my side" in various debates has tried - and occasionally succeeded - to constitutionalise their policy preferences.

The fact that I don't think there's any valid/coherent argument against a right to same-sex marriage, abortion, or euthanasia might mean that any legitimate constitution ought to protect those things. But on the other hand that's a conclusion I should carefully examine, because all else equal it's better to leave the realm of political debate as wide as possible. Let the people make laws that reflect their values, and resist the temptation to declare certain decisions out of bounds unless the case for them being out of bounds is very strong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've said all along that my primary concern in the SSM debate was not whether SSM should exist, but whether the courts were entitled to 'interpret' it into the Constitution. I don't think they were.

Essentially what happened was that a fad swept the legal world, they realized their power to impose SSM on an unwilling nation, and decided to go ahead and do it, the public be damned.

Now, it swiftly became evident that the judiciary were not going to let the voters overrule them democratically, and SSM had enough legislative support to hobble opposition to what the courts were doing, even if it didn't have enough support there to have expected the legislatures to do it themselves. So the public eventually became resigned to the fact that what they thought about it didn't matter, and that they risked retaliation of they didn't submit.

If SSM did not have obvious destructive effects, (And there was little reason to expect it would have obvious ones.) resignation would turn into support, and the courts' victory would eventually be secure. As didn't happen with Roe.

I was, of course, worried about the inevitable consequences of this being done, such as criminalizing refusal by florists, photographers, bakers, to be involved in such marriage. But mostly, I'm worried about what fad comes next, now that the judiciary have realized they can steamroller democracy.

[Martinned2]

I was, of course, worried about the inevitable consequences of this being done, such as criminalizing refusal by florists, photographers, bakers, to be involved in such marriage.

That, you will note, is a consequence of non-discrimination legislation, not the equal protection clause or any kind of constitutional jurisprudence. On the contrary, those poor florists rely on the constitution to avoid a statutory obligation.

[Brett Bellmore]

The non-discrimination legislation pre-existed Obergefell, and it was perfectly obvious that if SSM were constitutionalized, the legislation would be applied to it.

Indeed, no left-wing victory is complete without forcing the opposition to become complicit. That's long been the case, no separate peace is ever permitted.

[Martinned2]

Sure, but if you don't like that outcome the solution is to change the statute. So that makes it a different discussion than the question of what should and shouldn't be constitutionalised.

[Sarcastr0]

Indeed, no left-wing victory is complete without forcing the opposition to become complicit. That’s long been the case, no separate peace is ever permitted.

Aweome rights-based argument, Brett.

Your worldview is so riven with partisanship, you can see nothing else.

[SimonP]

Brett – do you feel that churning, crunching feeling? Of poorly-maintained gears grinding at each other as they struggle to turn? That’s the clue that you’re wildly off-base here.

I’d call what you’re doing a kind of “acrobatics,” but it isn’t nearly as nimble as that analogy would suggest. You just plow through contrary accounts and say whatever it is you need to in order to support your woe-is-me martyrdom story.

Roe v. Wade was an extension of prior holdings on privacy rights. Once established, people quickly became accustomed to having more freedom over their bodily autonomy. Notwithstanding a dogged, decades-long campaign to overturn it, resulting in Dobbs and decades of legislation drafted when no one had to worry about the consequences of draconian bans now becoming law, broad majorities still support abortion rights, within at least certain limits. No one is “resigned” to anything. They want their rights back.

Similarly, with same-sex marriage. Once the Supreme Court “steamrolled” legislative harassment of gays and lesbians, people quickly have come to see that same-sex marriage isn’t really that big of a deal, and now broadly support it. No one’s “resigned” to anything.

(And it is important, in your account, to distinguish between two things: same-sex intercourse and same-sex marriage. Constitutional protections for the two come from two different places, which has implications for your “anti-democratic” drawling. The former is an extension of the “privacy rights” jurisprudence from which Roe itself sprung, while the latter builds upon that earlier finding and just applies “equal protection” principles. By collapsing the two, you are essentially arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong to overrule the democratic process, when it held that legislatures couldn’t officially discriminate against same-sex couples. This fails to grasp the primary import of the EPC, which is precisely to limit what the majority might by law wish to do against disfavored minorities, meaning that your argument just makes you look like a fool.)

And we might walk you through modern Second Amendment jurisprudence, of which you have proven generally supportive. You no doubt would argue that the Supreme Court has properly expanded the “right to bear arms,” in line with what the Constitution requires. But it is there where Americans have become increasingly resigned, as the courts tell us that there is very little we can do to prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who would do us harm. Majorities still support moderate controls on gun ownership, despite this purported “liberalization” of our rights. Why do you suppose that is?

Unlike you, Brett, I don’t feel any particular difficulty in making sense of the world. I can acknowledge when the Supreme Court has expanded our liberty, and when it has contracted it. I can observe how people’s opinions shift when the Supreme Court has changed the status quo, and when it hasn’t. I don’t need to come up with some narrative that always points to my being right, in every circumstance and whatever the facts.

[Ed Grinberg]

Unlike you, Brett, I don’t feel any particular difficulty in making sense of the world. I can acknowledge when the Supreme Court has expanded our liberty, and when it has contracted it. I can observe how people’s opinions shift when the Supreme Court has changed the status quo, and when it hasn’t. I don’t need to come up with some narrative that always points to my being right, in every circumstance and whatever the facts.

Apparently you're happy being ruled by the arbitrary whims of nine (and usually it's more like five) unelected judges. As for me, I prefer the system we were supposed to have: If you want a fundamental change, convince a majority of your fellow citizens (as opposed to five unelected judges "discovering" it in the Constitution).

[SimonP]

When it comes to fundamental liberties, I think these should be uniform throughout the country, they should be strengthened as much as possible against attack by legislators and executive officials, and they should be as broad as possible.

It's not about the Court "ruling" our lives. When the Supreme Court says, "You have the right to do X, no matter what the government says," it's explicitly about not ruling us. When the Supreme Court says, "You actually have no right to do X," then it is ruling us, specifically by giving that power to legislatures and executive officials.

I'm not talking about other policymaking.

[Krayt]

Those who doubt this or that right do so because they wish to control it. That's sufficient reason to look askanse at them, given the miserrable state of humanity where rights are abridged by the powerful and corrupt.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The fact that I don’t think there’s any valid/coherent argument against a right to same-sex marriage..."

What would a "human" right to same-sex marriage look like? The right to cohabitate with a member of the same sex and hold yourselves out as married? The right to have other people see you as married?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Are you talking about civil marriage? Well, for people to be treated equally by the state, yes, people have to respect to the legal consequences of an SSM marriage.

If you just mean religious marriage, no one has to “see you as married” for religious purposes. Just as many don’t acknowledge the legitimacy of divorce except in certain cases. But, legally, the two are still divorced, even if it was just because one of them didn’t want to be married anymore.

Clarity of thought and communicating that thought is imperative to doing anything beyond sloganeering or posturing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why is civil marriage restricted to exactly two people?

[Martinned2]

What NOVA said. The right not to be discriminated against by the state on the basis of sexual orientation when the state adminsters this thing called marriage, or attaches legal consequences to the married state.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the state did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation before the judiciary legalized SSM. The state never asked if a guy was marrying a lesbian, or a woman marrying a gay.

[Magister]

It is indirect discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in the same way that a generally applicable dress code is indirect discrimination on the basis of religion if it forbids certain clothing that only members of a particular religion want to wear. Maybe it should just be considered sex discrimination.

[bernard11]

Of course it did. That argument sucks.

You could say the same about Loving. None of those anti-miscegenation statutes prohibited anyone, black or white, from marrying someone of the same race.

The discrimination was aimed at a couple which had certain characteristics, just like the bans on SSM.

[bernard11]

What would a “human” right to same-sex marriage look like? The right to cohabitate with a member of the same sex and hold yourselves out as married? The right to have other people see you as married?

The right to enjoy the same privileges, especially those conferred by the government, as are enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So how do we decide what is and isn’t a human right?

Depends. Totally contextually dependent. Does the case implicate a major question? Is the party allegedly violating the right a POTUS performing a core function (or maybe a tangentially-related function) of the office? Does the subject matter touch on any issue involving waters of the United States, gerrymandering, climate change, fracking, solar or wind energy generation, racial equality, or diversity equity and confusion? What are the gender angles? Is there an elephant hiding in a mousehole?

For most stuff, to answer a question like that you have to know a lot of political particulars. But count on one clarifying principle which always applies. If the subject matter of the case somehow touches on an election win for Republicans, the Rs get the victory. That can affect a human rights outcome for either team.

[Krayt]

Point of order? The question about deciding if something is a right presumes not-a-right is the default position, or, more accutately, the power hungry exercising the right of kings and gods to boss you around is the default position.

Quit starting the argument having already lost it, having already conceded your serf position, begging for permissions from your master.

[Martinned2]

In a democracy, the default position should indeed be that things aren't rights. In the entire universe of things that could be constitutional rights, we should reserve for ourselves the power to determine the rules on the vast majority of them. (See the 10th Amendment.)

[Krayt]

The Internet was a government toy for two decades, until capitalism found a use for it and in flowed trillions. Everyone, including persidents, have been trying to get a viable capitalist hook into the space industry to lift off, so to speak, for decades.

Communications satellites are about it so far. And now launchers for same are reaching critical mass.

The question is how much does government dump into this or that industry’s heartbeat to keep such going before giving up? For something like space launches, indefinite, because of spy and military needs.

EVs? Hmmmmm...

And even in 100% government funded initiatives, there’s a role for capitalism. Many large vessels during WWII were made by capitalist processes, taken from military processes, and spit out like popcorn because of it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I reject your starting point. Civil rights ARE human rights, who else do you suppose exercises them? They're legally recognized human rights. Human rights a government has formally been obligated to respect.

I think the term you intend isn't "human right", but instead "natural right". In a sense they don't exist. It's the whole is/ought gulf; Morality isn't objective in the sense you're trying for.

There are no categorical imperatives, only hypothetical imperatives. They're ALL of the form, "If you want X, do Y."

So, the first step is to determine what X is. NOT what Y is; Y falls out of X. X is the whole game.

I haven't time to expound in long form on this right now, but I think this essay is fairly good in its explanation of why categorical imperatives are bunk.

[Martinned2]

I was trying to avoid the term "natural rights", because it has connotations from a body of philosophical thought that I didn't necessarily want to adopt.

[Brett Bellmore]

But you're just replicating the concept by distinguishing "human" rights from legal ones.

[Martinned2]

It's the traditional distinction between lege lata and lege ferenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_ferenda

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think that saying "what the law should be" in latin makes that concept any different from natural rights. WHY should the law be that way?

[Martinned2]

That's what I was asking. Talking about "natural rights" imports a whole theory about god-given rights, or about the state of nature, neither of which is either necessary or sufficient to answer the question of what the law should be, in Latin or in English.

[SimonP]

I think the term you intend isn’t “human right”, but instead “natural right”. In a sense they don’t exist. It’s the whole is/ought gulf; Morality isn’t objective in the sense you’re trying for.

Philosophical jargon bandied about by an engineer. Classic faceplanting stuff.

Brett, I'd suggest taking the time to re-familiarize yourself with what is actually meant by the "is/ought gulf" and "objectivity" in morality.

And no, that essay from the Ayn Rand Institute is no guide. It's astonishing to me how that guy gets pretty much every ethical account he critiques wrong. Kant, Rawls, etc., are talking about the structure of reason itself, and how everything they say about ethics of human behavior is predicated upon a rational person deciding how best to behave. He similarly mistakes Aristotle's virtue theory as just some kind of hedonism or egoism, while abstracting it away from Aristotle's political theory, which is an essential framework for understanding his ethical theory. Eudaimonia, in Aristotle's theory, is just the ultimate "good" that is desired in itself, and not in furtherance of achieving some other good; it is not necessarily that state of human thriving where we feel "pride" or "honor" or "good." It is just the end-for-which humans exist (and so ties into Aristotle's unscientific metaphysics, which the author you linked also ignores).

Put simply, Brett, if you believe that reason is objective, that a rational person is one who acts in accordance with reason, that people should seek to be rational, and that rational people living in society with one another naturally seek to organize that society in accordance with the dictates of reason and rationality, then you believe everything that is necessary to construct an objective ethics that ought to guide our actions.

The objection that such an objective ethics is not "empirically" or "scientifically" based is actually incoherent, because it finds no purchase but for the application of reason itself, and there is no such thing as an "empiricism" or "science" without a broad acknowledgment that reason is objective.

I suppose that your apparent embrace of hedonism or egoism helps to make sense of why you describe yourself as a "libertarian," since your animating mentality seems to be, "leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone." It's almost charmingly sophomoric. But it's woefully underdeveloped, as an organizing principle for society and government, to say nothing of your nationalist and authoritarian leanings (where your putative ethical and political principles run up against your nativist and supernaturalist prejudices).

[Ed Grinberg]

I suppose that your apparent embrace of hedonism or egoism helps to make sense of why you describe yourself as a “libertarian,” since your animating mentality seems to be, “leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone.” It’s almost charmingly sophomoric. But it’s woefully underdeveloped, as an organizing principle for society and government, to say nothing of your nationalist and authoritarian leanings (where your putative ethical and political principles run up against your nativist and supernaturalist prejudices).

“Leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” may be "sophomoric," but I like it just fine.
"[I]t’s woefully underdeveloped, as an organizing principle for society and government"
Hmmm... I thought freedom -- I can do as I like, as long as I don't bother other people -- was the founding idea of this country. We seem to have developed / organized ourselves just fine...

[SimonP]

“Leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” may be “sophomoric,” but I like it just fine.

That's fine. It just means I'm talking over your ability to comprehend.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Human rights a government has formally been obligated to respect.

Bellmore — Unpack the passive voice, to discover a subject with agency to accomplish the respect, and you will begin to make headway against befuddlement.

[John F. Carr]

Human rights is a marketing term. I don't believe in human rights.

I was considering the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That can't be right, because we don't insist the government house and feed you. The government ought to give you a chance to house and feed yourself. Life, liberty, and the purſuit of happiness? (Thinking about Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America where the actors playing revolutionaries anachronistically read the ſ as a f.) On the right track but awfully vague.

[Martinned2]

Human rights is a marketing term. I don’t believe in human rights.

Then how would you tackle the task of drafting a constitution for a new country?

[John F. Carr]

Some mortals decide what is self-evident to them, overlooking things that are so obvious they go unsaid while failing to predict what can not be predicted. We can remember to put in an axiom about abortion or guns if we want the rule to stick around.

If I write a constitution I will spend more time on the form of government. It has been observed that the American model tends to fail elsewhere. On the other hand, I do not like a parliamentary system where 50%+1 makes you dictator. Unfortunately, the American model is now headed that way in its homeland.

[Martinned2]

A parliamentary system with coalition governments makes no one dictator. (Particularly when there is also a constitution that locks down various things.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems that those "parliamentary" governments are more dictatorial than the US.

[Martinned2]

Are they though? As far as I can tell, the US is the country that has a president with wide-ranging and ill-defined power, where the only constraint is that they might not be re-elected. Even the UK, which has single-party government, bounced out Cameron, May, Johnson, and Truss simply because they screwed up enough, without any need for voters to step in.

[Frank Drackman]

You/We don’t, our Creator already did. Yeah, “Creator”, look at a simple House Cat, a Felix Domesticus, fangs perfect angle and distance to pith the common mouse, retractable claws, nose that can smell your farts 2,000 miles away, instead of the rooms you routinely clear out, whiskers to judge distance in the dark, where it has built in Night Vision, Ears that can rotate independently 270 degrees to triangulate it's target,
and you think all of that “Evolved” over the last 6000 years? You can’t have a watch (or Cat) without a watch/cat maker. Like Hebrew National, I answer to a higher Authority (and Mrs. Drackman)

Frank

[hobie]

In my opinion, liberty/essential liberty/personal liberty should mean that I can do whatever I like to myself as long as it does not harm another person. To wit: eat what I want; remove my own dick; take drugs; abort my foetus; move my ass from one place to another; and to even kill myself. And all of that should not be any of yours or the government's concern...as much as you'd like them to be

[Martinned2]

Or, as the French revolutionaries put it:

Article IV - Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.

Article V - The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.

[hobie]

That sounds about right. I wish we had them two articles in our Constitution. It would solve a lot hate and problems

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds good in principle. In practice, those revolutionaries gave us, (Well, you anyway.) "The Terror".

The problem, I think, is how you define "harmful to society".

[Martinned2]

In that case the problem was "how do you enforce the rights you've just drafted?"

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, the USSR famously had a great bill of rights, too.

[Ed Grinberg]

Scalia: The Soviet Union’s Constitution Was ‘Much Better Than Ours’

[Ed Grinberg]

"The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society."

The problem, I think, is how you define “harmful to society”.

I'd say. A constitution that says that (see quoted language above) allows the government to do whatever it wants. No wonder their revolution ended up as it did...

[bernard11]

The problem, I think, is how you define “harmful to society”.

Yes. It is.

Suppose the government decrees (which may not be entirely hypothetical in a few months) that political criticism or opposition is harmful to society, because it interferes with the smooth functioning of its wondrous policies.

[Bob from Ohio]

"French revolutionaries"

Not a good role model.

[Ed Grinberg]

It is if you ask a leftist!

[Martinned2]

The declaration of 1789 is part of the French constitution to this day. (At least since the founding of the 5th Republic in 1958.) Are you accusing General De Gaulle of being a revolutionary or a "leftist"?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

So how do we decide what is and isn’t a human right?

Alan M. Dershowitz has a lot of baggage these days & I'm not a big fan. Nonetheless, I found some of his writings quite helpful.

He wrote a book entitled Rights from Wrongs: Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights, which argues that human rights generally are determined when injustices occur. We agree that such and such is wrong and that we should have legal rights to stop it.

I think human rights arise from experience. We determine certain things are very important for human happiness as well as societal well-being. Philosophers and legal minds will provide complicated analysis. But, that is the basic core.

[Commenter_XY]

So we discover the right we had when we feel it was violated. Interesting.

[Ed Grinberg]

So how do we decide what is and isn’t a human right?

I think the Founding Fathers did a fine job on this. I am happy with what they came up with — see the U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights).
Of course, others have their own ideas. For instance, there’s the Canadian constitution. I hear they have all sorts of additional rights in there (and I’m pretty sure they don’t have a right to keep & bear arms).
If I thought the list of rights offered by the Canadian constitution was better than ours, I’d move there. Apparently millions of people from all over the world really like the rights we have here in the U.S. (As Prof. Somin calls it, “voting with their feet.”) Pretty convincing…

[Martinned2]

I hear they have all sorts of additional rights in there

If only the Canadian constitution was in English, so you could read it for yourself.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html

[Martinned2]

Apparently millions of people from all over the world really like the rights we have here in the U.S.

Or, and hear me out here, they move for reasons that are entirely unrelated to the US Constitution.

[Ed Grinberg]

LOL
That's just silly. Of course there's a relation between our founding document and whatever it is they like about our country. (I don't think it's just the (indeed magnificent) mountains, lakes, etc.)

[Commenter_XY]

But no longer, if it [human right] isn’t written down its worthless.

Kaz...Sadly, even when it IS written down, it can become worthless = the daily violations of 4A against American citizens by federal government alphabet agencies

[Kazinski]

Yeah well, they made the mistake of only forbidding "unreasonable searches and seizures,"

You don't need much of an imagination to figure out what would happen if the government could institute "reasonable" restrictions on speech, or "reasonable" gun control.

They'd be mostly gone too.

[Martinned2]

The US constitution is a common law constitution. The written text is so short that, effectively, the constitution is whatever 200+ years of case law say it is. The Constitution Annotated is thousands of pages. That is basically the Constitution.

If you don't like it, take it up with the people who assigned the Judicial Power to a Supreme Court and a bunch of inferior courts, and then gave those courts lifetime appointments and a common law methodology.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not so much a common law constitution, as it is a constitution for a government that wasn't supposed to be doing very much. The federal government isn't intended to be the primary government in America, it's intended to just cover those few issues that the states can't effectively handle themselves. Defense against invasion, foreign policy, making the federation a free trade zone.

In the constitutional scheme here, almost all your interactions with government should be at the state or local level, you should virtually never have to concern yourself with the federal government, because very little that you do is properly that federal government's business.

The Constitution had to be "common law" ized because the federal government up and decided to become the big kahuna, and the states weren't about to ratify amendments actually authorizing it. The common law constitution is essentially just a work of sophistry rationalizing federal usurpation of power, nothing more.

[jb]

Mostly, when you replace horse-drawn coaches with trains then planes and the printing press with the telegram and then the telephone and then the Internet it turns out that the amount of interstate and international activity increases a lot!

The Constitution was also intended to be periodically amended, but since we now care more about tribal political warfare than actually trying to figure out how to make the country work we're pretty stuck with an outdated Constitutional framework at the moment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, those are common excuses for federal usurpation of undelegated authority.

[jb]

More like those are facts that explain why the scope of the federal government's delegated authority has increased by a lot.

Just because the federal government was indeed small when interstate interactions were rare does not mean that the Constitution requires that the federal government remain small when most people are, e.g., engaging in interstate commerce every day of their lives.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, and Willie Sutton explained why he robbed banks, too: "Because that's where the money is."

Explaining why the federal government wanted to usurp power doesn't make it not a usurpation.

[jb]

Missing from your analysis is any indication of what the federal government is usurping.

[Kazinski]

Thank God they did write it so succinctly, the more words they used the less effective it would be.

[Martinned2]

By that logic, why write a constitution at all?

[Kazinski]

I think watching Kamala Harris' interviews would illustrate how using 100 words when 10 will do is less effective rather than more effective.

I'd also make the same criticism of Trump, but he usually does come to his point.

[Martinned2]

Does he though?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/us/politics/trump-rally-speeches.html

At the Economic Club of Chicago on Tuesday, he answered a question about whether he would break up Google by complaining about a Justice Department lawsuit against Virginia election officials. When he was reminded the question was about Google, he said he “called the head of Google the other day” to grouse about the difficulty of finding positive news stories about his campaign on the company’s search page.

During the same event, Mr. Trump suggested his digressions were part of a communication strategy when his interviewer tried to focus on a question.

“You’ve got to be able to finish a thought because it’s very important,” Mr. Trump told the interviewer, John Micklethwait, the editor in chief of Bloomberg News. “This is big stuff we’re talking about. You can’t go that quickly.”

Mr. Micklethwait pointed out that Mr. Trump had started talking about reserve currency and then moved to a story about President Emmanuel Macron of France, among other digressions. “It’s called ‘the weave,’” Mr. Trump said, using a phrase he often uses to describe his speaking style, as he waved his hand in front of him to suggest he was connecting various dots.
(...)
In Prescott Valley, Ariz., on Sunday, Mr. Trump’s scripted remarks hewed tightly to the anti-immigration message that has become central to his campaign. He stayed on track for the first half-hour of the event before taking a more scenic route to the finish.

After about 25 minutes, he told the crowd he wanted to tell “one quick story” about a friend with a car plant in Mexico.

But he never finished his tale. Instead, he lost the thread one minute later as he complained that if he mispronounced one word he would be accused of being “cognitively impaired.” Then, he botched the phrase by saying President Biden was the one who was “cognitively repaired” and referred to the election as three and a half months away, not three and a half weeks.

About 20 minutes later, Mr. Trump seemed ready to wrap up his speech. He promised the crowd would see him again soon and said he was thinking about residents on the East Coast suffering after the recent storms.

“So in closing,” Mr. Trump continued, “I just want to say Kamala Harris is a radical left Marxist rated even worse than Bernie Sanders or Pocahontas.”

He proceeded to speak for 17 more minutes.

[Krayt]

Yes! The argument was if we don't write down a list of rights, future politicians would claim they don't exist. Others warned that by doing son, future politicians would claim those are the only rights that exist.

And both fears turned out to be true.

[Martinned2]

Speaking of abortion and of things that should or shouldn't be constitutionalised, in Germany four women made a complaint in the Constitutional Court arguing that they should have been entitled to maternity leave following their miscarriages. They're arguing that a distinction between live births and women who miscarry after 12 weeks is constitutionally impermissible discrimination.

https://verfassungsblog.de/mutterschutz-fehlgeburt-diskurs/

The German constitution is drafted much better than the US one (or the Dutch one, which is almost as old as the US constitution). As a species, we get better at such things. But Germany still has an ever growing body of constitutional case law that pulls in ever more issues.

[Michael P]

I was going to respond to Brett above by pointing out that the more important distinction between the US Constitution and many modern ones is that the US one doesn't engage in the fool's errand of trying to stamp out ambiguity or grey areas by exhaustive enumeration, but this seems like a better place to make that point.

[Martinned2]

If that's what so good about the US constitution, why do you guys constantly talk about the US constitution as if it resolves every ambiguity without discretion? (And, purely coincidentally, resolves it in line with your policy preferences?)

[Krayt]

How do you get there without 8000 page addendums to state constitutions spelling out this or that program?

Arguably by that point, you've lost the point of a constitution, which is to decide the form of government, and what powers it should have, and no others, leaving law creation underneath it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The US constitution doesn't resolve every ambiguity without discretion. Several of the amendments in the Bill of Rights explicitly embody ambiguity that cries out for discretion, using words like "reasonable".

The problem is people trying to treat the parts of the Constitution that don't embody those sorts of judgement calls as though they were just as ambiguous.

[Frank Drackman]

German criminal law is much better than the US, not leaving the question of guilt/innocence to 12 randomly selected rubes (and not including anyone with real skills/value, as they can easily get out of Jury Duty, at least I have, except for 1983, when I needed the $20/day and free lunch)
Would you have 12 randomly selected peoples design an Airliner? a Nuke-ular Power Plant? perform Brain Surgery? But we do with trials, leaving it to 12 knuckleheads, if you’re lucky a few might have finished High-Screwel, maybe even a few Semesters at Itawamba Community College, and they’re gonna decide if a Surgeon missed a Common Duct stone? The center of gravity on a 747 wasn’t calculated correctly? in 1983 I was the foreman on the one Trial I got picked for, if that gives you any idea, at lunch me and one of the other guys would go out and smoke (and not tobacco), one of the older members was as demented as Sleepy Joe, and a few of the others wanted to keep deliberating for an extra week just to get the $20/day, Judge had to threaten a few of the other Jurors with contempt for sleeping during testimony (it was pretty boring)

Frank

[ducksalad]

It seems what they’re really arguing makes more sense– that it’s unconstitutional and arbitrary to discriminate between stillbirth and miscarriage. Apparently stillbirth already gets maternity leave in Germany.

What I really want to know is a different question: why stillbirth gets maternity leave. (As opposed to the brief medical leave that applies in general to any medical event that is painful or exhausting, and would require a doctor’s note.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I would assume because a still birth of a wanted pregnancy would be highly traumatic, in a psychological way, while an abortion of an unwanted pregnancy would not be.

[ducksalad]

Seems like the death of an already born child, or a spouse, would be at least as traumatic, but I imagine they don't call it maternity leave.

Maybe the Germans have a comprehensive government ranked list of traumas with various lengths of entitled leaves. In that case placing something in the maternity category rather than the bereavement category is just a terminology issue.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

German constitution is drafted much better than the US one

A firm argument that would have to be defended by examining both documents and the context they were drawn up.

I think that the U.S. Constitution is due for a rewrite to update it to the 21st Century. All the same, it was drafted quite well for the times. The ability to retain workability for this long alone suggests it is rather well done.

As a local aside, New York has a state amendment on the ballot:

"This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy."

The U.S. Constitution can already be interpreted to cover that ground though additional verbiage (looking, the German constitution is much longer than mine) would help some.

[ducksalad]

That New York proposal, like most of its type, doesn't clarify or solidify much of anything.

First, there is no doubt that in the absence of the amendment, people would (and already do) claim in court that those things are already constitutionally protected. It's not like if the amendment doesn't pass you'll say, oh well, we lost, I guess they're entitled to discriminate against gays.

Second, it does nothing to clarify the meaning of "unequal". For example, my reading of equal treatment with respect to pregnancy would mean that I, a never-will-be-pregnant male, am strictly entitled to exactly as many days of leave and exactly the same insurance payouts as a woman who does get pregnant. But I assume your definition of equal is very much the opposite.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“Most of its type” can mean a large stream of amendments including multiple amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Or constitutional text in general.

Many argued the First Amendment was unnecessary. It also is not overall too clear what the terms mean. There are great disputes among readers here about what the 1A means in many specific contexts. Ditto many other constitutional provisions.

Amendments have limited value by themselves and often are put forth to some extent as a message to address current concerns.

Open-ended legal terms will regularly require future clarification. Many laws, for instance, speak in broad language that won’t answer all questions just by citing the text.

[SRG2]

Another DP case only with an interesting twist - the governor who's being asked for clemency was the state AG and boss of the prosecutors who fought the prisoner's appeals. I don't think the US justice system is equipped to handle these unusual instances. And I don't think it's reasonable to expect an individual to suffer because of that, though, as we know the Supreme Court does not agree,

[Stephen Lathrop]

One way to put all the DP issues in sharper perspective would be to bring back public executions. Then, simply by observing the ghouls who show up to watch, the public would get a sharp reminder about what is out there in the jury pool.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Entire families with small children used to go to Klan lynchings and then have a picnic lunch afterwards. We have photos of this.

[Krayt]

People used to love a bag of cats heaved into a fire screaming in agony, too.

While shoving these things into modern peoples' faces seems good, because it assumes they are, or at least view themselves as, good people, I would not rely on that hanging together long term.

[not guilty]

I am opposed to the death penalty, but if executions are inevitable, I believe the method should be public hanging. That would remain true to the historical antecedents.

[Frank Drackman]

If done properly it's probably the most humane (and "Green") method

[Mr. Bumble]

Just make sure you get the drop right.

[Frank Drackman]

I keep my "Official Table of Drops" as issued by the British Home Office in my Wallet, just in case somebody needs a Hangman.
I did a Surgery Internship, I got the knot tying down.
Body weight 1888 drop 1892 drop 1913 drop
Stone lb kg ft cm ft cm ft cm
14.0 196 89 6′5" 196 4'3½" 131 5′1" 155
13.5 189 86 6′8" 203 4'5" 135 5′3½" 161
13.0 182 82½ 6′11" 211 4'7" 140 5′6" 168
12.5 175 79¼ 7′3" 221 4'9½" 146 5′8½" 174
12.0 168 76¼ 7′6" 229 5'0" 152 5′11½" 182
11.5 161 73 7′10" 239 5'2½" 159 6′2½" 189
11.0 154 70 8′2" 249 5'5" 165 6′6" 198
10.5 147 66⅔ 8′7" 262 5'8½" 174 6′9½" 207
10.0 140 63½ 9′0" 274 6'0" 183 7′2" 218
9.5 133 60¼ 9′3" 282 6'3½" 192 7′6" 229
9.0 126 57 9′6" 293 6'8" 203 7′11" 241
8.5 119 54 9′9" 297 7'0½" 215 8′5" 257
8.0 112 51 10′0" 305 7'6" 229 8′6" 259

[Bwaaah]

Question: Is your wallet thick or thin?

[Frank Drackman]

Definitely Thick, like George Constanza's

[Bwaaah]

A lotta stories in that wallet, eh? Some people like to look through old pictures. I find a wallet like that much more entertaining.

"Who is 'Alan' and why do you have his phone number on a scrap of paper?"

"Alan was Jodie Foster's pharmacist."

[bernard11]

I got the knot tying down.

Do surgeons customarily tie hangman's knots?

[Riva]

Then why aren’t you opposed to abortion?

[not guilty]

As a matter of fact, I am philosophically opposed to abortion in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as conception from rape or incest, serious threats to maternal life or health of fetal abnormality which will likely preclude a meaningful life after birth.

I also have enough humility to realize that my personal views are irrelevant unless and until a woman experiencing or contemplating pregnancy asks for my input.

I favor abortion being safe and legally available until viability because it is none of the government's damned business.

[Riva]

Sounds like the life growing in the womb might have to fire you and get a new advocate, if he or she ever wants to see the light of day.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I also have enough humility..."

If you want to see exemplary instances of humility, just ask an abortion advocate, they'll tell you all about how humble they are.

Often, they're also humble enough to support government-subsidized abortions.

[Michael P]

What makes that an interesting twist? Unless he had a close hand in directing the actual prosecutors' case, simply being the state AG at the time doesn't mean he will be any more partial than any former prosecutor or AG.

How many murder cases are there per four or eight years in SC (McMaster was AG from 2003 to 2011)? Should the AG be presumed to be biased with regards to every one of those?

[SRG2]

I would expect every single last AG to be biased in any case where people under his command or authority had successfully prosecuted it unless proven otherwise and I strongly doubt you're sincere in your implicitly disavowing such bias.

What is interesting, however, is not the specific case but the question of clemency in the general case where the governor has a conflict of interest. It does not seem to have been envisaged as a possible outcome yet could lead to adverse outcomes if not addressed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What is interesting about that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Forest Service informed FEMA that some of its rescue and aide workers were being stalked by armed militia members during a declared emergency in North Carolina. Except for seemingly futile case-by-case justice enforcement, the Biden administration and its Justice Department seem not to have responded, except by encouraging such intimidation by withdrawing apparently-endangered workers.

How many previous presidents would have remained similarly passive in the face of such a frontal challenge to emergency response? I suspect either Truman, Eisenhower, or Johnson would have declared martial law. Maybe Kennedy too. After that, it gets harder to imagine. By the time you get to Bush II and subsequently, passivity looks to be bi-partisan consensus. What changed?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte.

It was ONE PERSON who made a threat to soldiers who immediately reported it to the Sheriff's Dept who immediately arrested the perp.

No stalking. No truckloads of militia. FEMA admitted that they were wrong, that these were false rumors.

[bernard11]

Dr. Ed is outraged by false reports about threats to FEMA efforts in NC.

But not about MAGA lies about them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Arrest made in threat that forced FEMA operations to pause briefly in North Carolina

"Initial reports suggested that the threat included "armed militia," however Rutherford County Sheriff's Office said deputies determined Parsons acted alone.

"There were no truck loads of militia going to Lake Lure," the department said in a statement about the case."

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Idiot, Deer Season for Gun Hunters opened October 12. The “Armed Militia Members” were “Stalking” somebody allright, but it had pointy antlers and a white tail.
FEMA Idiots are always in Season, like Coyotes.
OK, I’m joking about being able to shoot FEMA Idiots, but can they just go home?, I mean the peoples of Western North Carolina already had a horrible Hurricane, and now they have to deal with FEMA too? I've seen these guys, they couldn't poor piss in a boot with written instructions on the heel.
Frank

[Riva]

Define “militia.” If your dictionary defines it as one guy who owns a firearm, I recommend you buy a new dictionary.

[Frank Drackman]

It's like you can have a one-man-band, I'm a one-man-militia

[Riva]

Sounds like a good name for a professional wrestler.

[Michael P]

So, Kamala Harris's very brief interview on Fox News: bad performance or worst performance by a candidate? How quickly will we see its effects in polls and prediction/betting markets?

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if you see what you want to see.

[Michael P]

So that's one vote conceding "worst".

[Kazinski]

NPR’s headline is amusing:

Harris interview on Fox gets testy — but also gives her a do-over

“About half way through the intense 30-minute interview, Baier asked Harris a question she didn’t answer very well in more friendly interviews last week on The View and on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert: What would she do differently from President Biden? This time, she was prepared.”

Her answer this time wasn’t as horrid, but it certainly doesn’t erase the absolutely horrid answer she did give on the view, an answer i saw at least a half dozen times during the evening on political advertisements.

You can imagine how bad her internal polls were to induce her to take the risk of the Fox interview, a risk I don’t think paid off.

[Commenter_XY]

Speaking of polls, they are interesting. My prediction is this interview does nothing to change the general downward trend for Kamala. It won't stop the bleeding. And, the down ballot races are showing increased volatility in the Rust Belt.

[Josh R]

Harris has lost about 1%-point in the blue wall in the past 2 weeks, but has lost nothing nationwide or in NC, GA or AZ. You "bleeding" is greatly overstated.

[Commenter_XY]

11/5 is not so far away. 🙂

[Josh R]

Nov 5 is 19 days away. As I posted below, Japan is holdng their national general election after only a total of an 18-day campaign.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree with you...it would be nice to have a short campaign. Alas, the structure of our system doesn't permit that.

[Kazinski]

Here is RCP's battlegrounds list, and it is certainly close:

Arizona Trump +1.1
Nevada Trump +0.5
Wisconsin Harris +0.3
Michigan Trump +1.0
Pennsylvania Trump +0.5
North Carolina Trump +1.2
Georgia Trump +0.9

But something certainly happened in the betting markets, where in the last month the odds have gone from 52-45 Harris, to 58-40 Trump.

Whether that is just a conviction that a close raise has firmed, or a perceived shift, I don't know. Even 58% is hardly a slam dunk.

[Frank Drackman]

Sleepy Joe was 6% ahead in PA in 2020, "won" by less than a percent, and that was with all the mail in ballot bullshit.

[Kazinski]

I should note that after I posted that, RCP did post another poll from WI, switching the race in WI to a narrow Trump margin.

Giving all 7 "battlegrounds" a narrow Trump margin, but certainly within the margin of error.

[bernard11]

The difficulty with this kind of data is that the outcomes in these states are very far from being independent of one another. Similarly, polling results are not independent.

If RCP's method is flawed then it's going to affect all the states.

[Sarcastr0]

Not many are talking about it, like the Veep depate.

On the other hand, Trump blue screened of death last week, and the next day had a town hall where he was utterly unable to focus on any of the questions.
Followed by cancelling his next interview that day.

Trump's recent issues have been getting some more attention in the aggregate (and the 30 minutes of random music itself as well).

Though perhaps not in the media diet you seem to have.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0, that "blue screen" incident was totally manufactured by the Harris campaign in one of their ads, and has been totally debunked. He paused because there were medical emergencies in the crowd, and Harris' campaign deceptively edited it to make it appear as if he blanked.

As far as "Not many are talking about it," that's not so in conservative news, and it's so in mainstream media because they don't want to expose how bad it was.

[Sarcastr0]

He paused because there were medical emergencies in the crowd

Haha you are a sucker. Plenty of unedited footage for you to check out, if you care to. Which you do not.

The very fact that you have a shitty talking point is a sign this is a thing.
Will it matter? Hard to say. But you don't get your own facts.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro spouting partisan bullshit again?

CBS News confirms the emergencies and says, "What we can tell you is that the attendees at the event didn't seem particularly bothered or disturbed by what happened, but certainly it's something that the Harris campaign is seizing on..."

[Mr. Bumble]

He's not Il Douche for nothing.

[Commenter_XY]

TiP....It is a day ending in 'y' = Gaslight0

[ThePublius]

"Kamala Harris Humiliated After ABC Debunks Her Dishonest Attack on Trump – ‘Even More Pathetic’"

"During a recent campaign event in Oaks, Pennsylvania, former President Donald Trump faced ⁢interruptions due to medical emergencies among attendees. In light of these incidents, Trump transitioned the event ‌into an informal concert, playing music for the audience, which some social media users, including Vice President Kamala Harris, commented on.‌ Harris ⁣expressed concern for Trump, noting he‍ appeared “lost” ⁢during‌ the situation. ‍However, ABC News later clarified ‌the events, stating‍ that the atmosphere inside the venue remained positive, with many attendees enjoying the unexpected concert. Trump’s campaign⁣ responded to Harris’s comments by sharing reports that painted the event in a more favorable ⁤light.⁣ Despite initial impressions from social media, on-site reporters described the mood as intimate and cheerful,⁤ with Trump even mingling with supporters afterward."

Sarcastr0, you are full of shit.

[Kazinski]

He is just gullible.

[bernard11]

A Trump fan calling someone else gullible is hilarious.

[Frank Drackman]

She did pretty well for being shitfaced

[santamonica811]

I thought that, overall, she did just fine. She was evasive in regards to immigration, which was both annoying and expected. I don't like it when Rep. candidates are evasive, and I don't like it when Dem candidates are the same.

A simply miserable performance by Bret Baier. He asked lots of tought and fair questions. And also talked over her, interrupted her (when she was, as Trump would say, answering the questions by doing the weave.), deceptively edited Trump's comments, so his audience would be fooled into thinking Trump hadn't said what everyone who follows the news heard him say. Trump (in the days preceding the interview) did a masterful job of working the ref, and had poor Bret Baier quaking in his boots. We don't often see him carrying water for Trump. But it was the most biased interview I've seen from him in years, and quite out of character for a generally serious newsman.

Now, let's try and imagine if Trump were not a pussy, and he sat down for an interview at MSNBC . . . nope, none of us can imagine Trump having the balls to go into the lion's den in 2024, now that he's feeble and mentally incoherent.

(On the other hand; his 30 minutes of bizarre dancing and swaying this week--rather than taking questions as scheduled--has convinced everyone other than the pro-Trump TDS sufferers that he's now well past his "sell-by" date. Sad to see. Almost as painful as watching Biden slowly and helplessly implode during the first 30 minutes of this year's Trump-Biden debate.)

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, so it was Bret the Brute? The interview was a mixed bag; something for everyone.

[jb]

That's probably a fair summary, which just shows how silly Michael P's initial framing was.

It's a little sad how many people (even smart people!) don't seem interested in doing anything other than looking for evidence to confirm their priors.

Speaking of being open to challenging your priors: I don't see any meaningful movement in the national polling average. What makes you think Harris's lead is shrinking? https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

[Commenter_XY]

The national average is meaningless, other than general sentiment. It is the battleground states that matter, jb. There has been movement in one direction; Pres Trump gaining ground within the MoE band in the battlegrounds.

For 3 weeks, I have been saying that PA is moving/has moved. I feel more comfortable with that assessment.

The race is a statistical tie, for now. If the election stays close, it will come down to AZ, GA and WI.

[Josh R]

How do you figure that WI and AZ (10 and 11 EC votes respectively) are more important that MI and NC (15 and 16 EC votes respectively).

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R....It is not a question of 'more' or 'less' important. For some time, many months in fact, I have said that a close election will come down to those three states, because of idiosyncratic issues to each. I have detailed those before. The candidate who sweeps those three states will win the election. A split makes PA critical.

AZ and GA are inching toward Pres Trumps column.

wrt MI, NC...I don't think VP Harris has a very realistic shot at NC. One caveat: We don't know how Buncombe county will turn out, and the Helene factor.

[Josh R]

The candidate who sweeps those three states will win the election. A split makes PA critical.

Wouldn't the same hold true for GA, MI and NC?

[Commenter_XY]

No, and the EC math is complicated.

RCP has a 'build your own EC map' to explore different scenarios if you like to play with different return models.

[Josh R]

Yes, and the math is simple. It's 226-219 Harris without the 7 battlegrounds.

If Harris wins WI/AZ/GA it's 263-219. Even if you give her NV, it's 269-269 and she would lose in the House. So, she still would need to win one of NC, MI or PA. In contrast, if she wins MI/NC/GA it's 273-219 and she wins.

If Trump wins WI/AZ/GA it's 226-256. He too would still need to win NC, MI or PA. If he wins MI/NC/GA it's 226-266 and he would need to win any one of NC, MI, PA or NV.

It baffles me how you think the GA/AZ/WI trio is important than the GA/NC/MI trio.

[Commenter_XY]

Keep thinking about it.

[Josh R]

In other words, I am right and you can’t counter it.

[jb]

I agree that the election will hinge on swing states, but it doesn't really have anything to do with your hypothesis. Your theory is that Kamala is dumb or something and that people are going to catch on, but why would people in Pennsylvania be more likely to figure this out than people in Florida or California or NYC?

I agree the race is very close from an electoral college perspective. It's so close in so many states that (since results tend to be correlated at the end of the day) the end electoral college vote is likely not to be that close, but it's hard to speculate right now who will win.

[Michael P]

Mark Cuban thought she did great! After all, she understood and responded to every question. She didn’t call Bret Baier a lying, dog-faced pony soldier. Even if some of her responses were incoherent, shouty, nonresponsive or clearly recited, she exceeded the expectations we all have of Joe Biden, and that counts as a huge win! in Cuban’s book. Something for everyone, indeed.

[jb]

Not clear why you think Mark Cuban's opinion is any less valid than the various people already in the tank for Trump that thought she did terribly.

She did fine. She is more coherent and has more actual policy proposals than Trump. She's not a great extemporaneous speaker, but she mostly makes sense. The interview probably didn't change very many people's minds, but it does make it a lot harder to argue that she's not willing to engage in unscripted events. That's basically it.

[Kazinski]

Mark Cuban also said a month or so ago that Kamala's unrealized capital gains tax plan would tank the market, but he was confident she'd never get it through Congress so.he still supported her.

That's a ringing endorsement.

[bernard11]

Well, we hear that kind of thing from Trump supporters all the time.

"X is a bad policy, but will never pass, so who cares?"

[bernard11]

It certainly wasn't the disaster for Harris that some here claim. I thought she did more than well on the "enemies within" business, for example. Baier looked awful on that.

[Frank Drackman]

Wasn't bizarre at all (which is pronounced the same as "Bazaar" stupid Engrish Language, I'd never heard of "Bazaar" when while dating the future Mrs. Drackman she said she wanted to "go to the Bizarre" boy, was I disappointed)
After 2 in the audience had "Medical Emergencies" he asked if they'd rather just listen to some of his favorite music, only the Poindexters would rather hear him go on about M1, M2, the IMF, so he played some great tunes for 30 minutes, and sorry he can still move, unlike the Frankenstein Monster Joe B.

Frank

[Kazinski]

Did you see Trump's interview with the Association of Black Journalists?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-trump-speaks-at-national-association-of-black-journalists-conference-in-chicago

He has hardly hidden from hostile interviews.

He also had at least an hour long interview on Bloomberg yesterday, which is not a friendly venue, although the audience, the Economic Club of Chicago was very receptive.

[bernard11]

He has hardly hidden from hostile interviews.

Is that why he's cancelling appearances left and right, and cancelled on CNN because he found out they were going to fact-check him. Poor little lying sack of shit couldn't face that, could he?

[David Nieporent]

Did you see Trump’s interview with the Association of Black Journalists?

You mean the one he stormed out halfway through when he found out it was hostile? Yes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now, let’s try and imagine if Trump were not a pussy, and he sat down for an interview at MSNBC . . . nope, none of us can imagine Trump having the balls to go into the lion’s den in 2024, now that he’s feeble and mentally incoherent.

Trump did an hour long interview with the editor of Bloomberg News (not typically considered a Republican partisan) on Tuesday, which you can watch here: https://youtu.be/HlWT6nYZ4OU (Harris declined the opportunity to participate).

[Martinned2]

Yes, The Economic Club of Chicago, that's really an example of Trump going into the Lion's den!

[Kazinski]

The interview was with a Bloomberg editor, and Bloomberg is not a Trump friendly outlet, however the audience did seem friendly.

But it was an interview with a knowledgeable questioner with contrary views in front of a knowledgeable audience, and it was just a few days ago.

That is probably more useful than interviews on Fox or MSNBC for testing a candidate.

[TwelveInchPianist]

79% say the country is on the wrong track... You’ve been in office for 3 and a half years.”

“And Donald Trump has been running for office… "

"You've been the one holding the office."

"C’mon, you and I both know what I’m talking about.”

“I actually don’t. What are you talking about?”

[Dr. Ed 2]

How Israel blew the balls off the terrorists:
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS/HEZBOLLAH-PAGERS/mopawkkwjpa/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

[Commenter_XY]

DE2, I must point out that Israel has not claimed responsibility for The Night of the Thousand Bris'. AFAICT, The Almighty smote hezball-less.

There are maybe 3 or 4 countries that could do this: US, RUS, CHN, UK. How could it possibly be ISL....

Since muslims in that region of the world believe Jews are descended from apes and pigs, ISL could not possibly be smart enough to do the dastardly deed. ISL are only 12MM people. No way.

This video is significant, though.
https://x.com/OliaOnX/status/1843660487747350584

The location is significant, and the actions (abjectly weeping over their defeat) are significant. Most significantly, the entire muslim world is watching how their finest and bravest 'warriors' are being maimed and turned into eunuchs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you can develop pharmaceuticals you can build bombs -- it's the same level of technical knowledge, and I'm not so sure that Russia or China could do this.

Remember that the Soviets stole everything from the atomic bomb to the B-29, having to specially make aluminum sheets in SAE rather than metric dimensions to fit the US design.

And the Chinese are stealing our technology today and everyone knows it.It's one thing to steal and copy -- it's something else to be able to invent on your own. Israel has that ability.

Of course, the two questions I would have asked are (a) why TWO batteries, and (b) why they weren't holding a charge with TWO batteries in them. I'd probably have taken one apart and noticed that I was only getting a voltage from one of the batteries and started asking questions that I doubt I'd get acceptable answers to.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not two batteries. It's two cells. A "Battery" is actually a set of cells, usually in series to increase the voltage.

People often colloquially refer to cells as "batteries", but there's an actual distinction.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, LI-ion cells are in the 3.6-3.7 volt range that this stuff generally operates at so I would be suspicious as to why there were two, and if it appeared they were wired in series, I'd be really suspicious as to why I wasn't seeing 7+ volts.

I wouldn't be thinking bomb as much as radio transmitter, either tracking or possibly sound.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ed, sometimes you make my eyes roll as badly as Lathrop.

The packaging SAID 7.4 v. It was two lithium cells in series, in an integrated package, it would produce 7.4 volts. The only thing suspicious was the low amp-hour rating; The battery capacity was low for its size, because part of the volume was explosives, not battery. Explosive and detonator packaged BETWEEN the two cells.

But terrorists aren't typically electrical engineers, they didn't run this thing through a full teardown right down to disassembling the batteries and seeing what was inside them, they just ran it through an airport bomb detector, and it was carefully designed to not set one of those off.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Version I heard was only one battery produced power, the other one was the explosive.

Don't know about amp hour rating, but I'd notice it going dead quicker....

[bernard11]

Remember that the Soviets stole everything from the atomic bomb to the B-29

The Soviets would have had the atomic bomb, albeit slightly later than they did, without any theft.

The main "secret" they got from us was that it was possible to build such a bomb.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, they got quite a bit more from us thanks to the work of many spies.

I agree they'd eventually have gotten one, once you know the general concept, basic atomic bombs are embarrassingly easy to build. It's the mass isotope separation that's grueling.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You can't use the gun type with plutonium, you have to do an implosion and that is pretty difficult to do correctly. That's the one they tested, the only gun type one was Hiroshima.

[bernard11]

I don't know the details of what they got from spies.

I do know that problems are a lot easier to solve once you know there is, in fact, a solution. It's a major piece of information. I also know that the Soviet scientists weren't stupid, and Dr. Ed's suggestions otherwise are absurd.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They had at least two spies in New Mexico, and Stalin knew the test was successful before Truman did. Then there were the Rosenbergs.

The OSS was so full of Soviet spies that Truman simply shut it down, and this is just what we know about. Joe McCarthy was drunk, but there were real Reds for him to chase.

[Krayt]

But Jews, and Muslims, and all humans are descended from apes.

Descended? Hell, we are classified as Great Apes, along with gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans, the only living species of such.

[Martinned2]

Humans and apes have shared common ancestry, is (I think) the better way to put it.

[John F. Carr]

While Reuters was using the Wayback Machine to investigate the history of online discussion about the battery bomb hackers took the Wayback Machine offline.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes it's true, this man has no Dick!
I mean, these pieces of shit have no Dicks (did they before?)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is disturbing:
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/10/16/jewish-students-are-left-to-face-antisemitism-alone/

[Swede425]

That Harris interview last night was edifying.
A disaster that could be seen coming a mile away.
I wonder what her internal polls are showing that her campaign thought they reached the threshold where she had to go on Fox?
Not good, apparently.
They gambled because they had to. And they lost.
She was unprepared and how the hell did that happen?
Not a surprise question to be found. And she was awful.
The DEI selected candidate, who couldn't and didn't win a primary, is obviously not ready for prime time.

[santamonica811]

I think you watched a different interview than then one I and others saw.

[Swede425]

Of course you do.

[Krayt]

Ha ha, you guys watched politicians from a religious viewpoint of angels and demons!

[ThePublius]

You mean the one where four of her staffers were gesticulating wildly to cut the interview short? That one?

[SimonP]

That Harris interview last night was edifying. A disaster that could be seen coming a mile away.

As the debate showed us, there is a committed core of MAGA supporters who will insist that down is up, even while they're falling. Suffice it to say, there are plenty of disinterested parties who disagree with this assessment.

I wonder what her internal polls are showing that her campaign thought they reached the threshold where she had to go on Fox?

I'd wager that it's polling suggesting that voters still want to know more about her, and would like to see how she performs off-script in a hostile situation. Also useful for driving a news cycle. (Not that I see it making much of a blip in my leftie news media.)

The remainder of your comment is dismissed as repetitive delusion.

As long as we're inferring - I wonder what it says, about your true feelings about the state of the election and Trump's very public decline, that you feel the need to lie so blatantly and bizarrely about the evidence we can all see and hear for ourselves.

[Kazinski]

Well that is true, that voters feel like they want to know more about her, I pointed out the NYTimes poll with those results a couple of weeks ago.

But do you think this helped?

Bret Baier (16:54): More than 70% of people tell the country is on the wrong track. They say the country is on the wrong track. If it’s on the wrong track, that track follows three and a half years of you being vice president and President Biden being president. That is what they’re saying, 79% of them. Why are they saying that? If you’re turning the page, you’ve been in office for three and a half years.

Kamala Harris (17:17): And Donald Trump has been running for office since-

Bret Baier (17:21):

But you’ve been the person holding the office.

Kamala Harris (17:22): Come on, come on.

Bret Baier (17:23): Madam Vice President-

Kamala Harris (17:24):You and I both know what I’m talking about. You and I both know what I’m talking about.

Bret Baier (17:28): I actually don’t. What are you talking about?
---------

Entire transcript here:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kamala-harris-interview-on-fox-news

As for Trumps "very public decline", here is the entire hour long interview he did on Bloomberg this week, I don't see a decline, maybe you could direct me to a couple of timestamps you think best illustrate his decline:

https://youtu.be/HlWT6nYZ4OU?feature=shared

[SimonP]

You seem to be accustomed to your preferred presidential candidate rambling on like an idiot. Truly magical thinking going on there.

[Michael P]

The P in SimonP is for Projection.

[SimonP]

I suppose this has to be some kind of ironic joke.

[John F. Carr]

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Roberto Cruz vs. Commonwealth is now the second interesting precedent generated by Mr. Cruz's overly affectionate behavior towards a 13 year old intern. Originally Cruz was convicted of indecent assault on a child under 14. That conviction was reversed because he didn't cross the line between "creepy" and "indecent". He didn't touch her breasts or butt or stick his tongue in her mouth. I gather he spent some time in prison waiting for the conviction to be overturned. He sued under the state law allowing compensation for wrongful felony convictions. The Attorney General cited dicta in the original appeal saying he committed simple assault. The law compensates the factually innocent, not all whose convictions were overturned. Yesterday the SJC said Cruz could proceed with his claim. Simple assault is a misdemeanor. If a person is imprisoned for a felony when the real crime is a misdemeanor, the state still has to pay.

The District Attorney had dropped the misdemeanor charge of simple assault, probably because lack of consent would be hard to prove. The Attorney General (different constitutional office) argued in the compensation case that the defendant had committed simple assault. His factual guilt turned out not to matter. Left open for a future case is the question of whether an abandoned felony charge can be used to deny compensation. Nolle prosequi is not a declaration of innocence.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/cruz-v-comm-13503/download

[Frank Drackman]

Ah, give this to ah, Clemenza. I want reliable people; people that aren't gonna be carried away. I'm mean, we're not murderers, despite of what this undertaker says.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Nolle prosequi is not a declaration of innocence."

What's the statute of limitation?

And HOW do you HAVE a 13-year-old intern? Mass.gov says
"Persons under 14 may not work. There are a few exceptions to this such as working as news carriers, on farms, and in entertainment (with a special permit)."

[John F. Carr]

I wondered about her age too. There are a few exceptions. Maybe it was a family business or unpaid internship.

There is a difference between "can't be convicted" and "factually innocent". The law was designed to compensate people who were sent away due to police misconduct or unreliable evidence. It was not meant to protect people who waited out the statute of limitations or "got off on a technicality." As it turns out, it also protects defendants when the cops were honest and the evidence properly admitted, but the system made a mistake in returning a guilty verdict.

When the evidence is borderline and especially in cases of white collar crime the judge will often let a convicted defendant out on bail waiting for the appeal to decided. Then there will be no wrongful imprisonment to compensate for.

[John F. Carr]

An amusing case of somebody projecting "Trump 2024" onto a municipal water tower in a blue state.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/10/16/south-shore-town-still-fighting-water-tower-trump-2024-projection-hanson/

The fine for political signs on town property is $100 per day, although the ordinance against political signs may be unconstitutional content discrimination. Paying the fine may be cheaper than renting a billboard. Meanwhile the town is spending more than $100 per day to fight the sign.

The town should offer to rent space on the water tower for $10,000 per day.

[OtisAH]

A blanket prohibition against political signage on public property is not unconstitutional content discrimination. But if it is, then “politics” is the only individual with standing to sue.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He is not putting a sign on the water tower -- he is shining a light onto the tower. Which the town is also doing.

What does the town have for ordinances about shining lights onto the property of others? Most have one.

His light's a different color, and has different content, but light is light.

Question: Could content neutrality apply to colors of projected light?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Question: Could content neutrality apply to colors "of projected light?"

^ This

Dr. Ed goes where no man has gone before.

[Armchair]

It's time we talk about the election finance fraud case of the century - Smurfing.

"Smurfing" is stealing someone's identity, then making dozens to thousands of small donations to political campaigns and causes, using their name. This is designed to get around FEC guidelines. People who couldn't realistically donate...retired or unemployed individuals...were "donating" tens of thousands of dollars in aggregate to political campaigns. But the primary criticism has always been "well, you don't really KNOW they didn't donate".

Now we do. Mark Block alleges that a total of $884.38 given in his name and without his knowledge between May and October was designed to circumvent federal election law. To who? Many groups, generally through the Democratic mega-fund raising platform - ActBlue.

Mark Block is one of thousands, tens of thousands of victims who have their identity stolen to evade federal reporting laws on donations. And we need to ask the question...Where is all this money coming from? Who is going to all this effort to illegally donate? Who can't donate legally? Who needs to use this sort of criminal enterprise to affect US elections?

There's a reason we have reporting laws on donations. And that some "organization" is evading reporting laws to funnel hundreds of millions to favored groups, should worry us all, and requires immediate investigation.

https://nypost.com/2024/10/15/us-news/dem-fundraiser-actblue-stole-gop-strategists-identity-to-make-donations-lawsuit/

[Martinned2]

Wouldn't that scenario, by definition, result in the identity of the donor not being known to the recipient? Obviously the donor can tell the recipient separately, but then talk is cheap, why would the recipient believe such a claim?

[Armchair]

"Obviously the donor can tell the recipient separately, but then talk is cheap, why would the recipient believe such a claim?"

China: "Hey Harris, we're going to donate $100,000 to you each week, anonymously through multiple small donors. Here are their names.

Harris: "Hey I got another $100,000 in donations from these donors! Nice! China, I don't believe you did it.

China: "Watch this" - Donations cut off

Harris: "What happened, why didn't they keep donating?"

China: "And turning the spigot back on"....

Harris: "Oh, the money came back...oooohhh..."

[jb]

And the evidence for this fantasy is one dude pointing at $800 of donations?

By the way, I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but lots of people are retired because of how much money they have, not because of how poor they are. In fact, people 65+ have much higher average net worth than younger people. So if you start with the premise that a bunch of donations must be fake because they're made by retired people, you probably have a pretty terrible foundation for your conspiracy theory.

[Dr. Ed 2]

One easy way to determine is to find out if they live in subsidized housing for the elderly. That's essentially public record -- you have their address and then check to see who owns it.

Even easier is see if they own the residence they are using to vote from. Some of them may have it in a trust so you have to know the state's property laws, but this is helpful.

And then there are all kinds of net worth data commercially available. Set some arbitrary line of net worth and then see which donors are below it.

[hobie]

Eh, so what? Dems got China, Reps got Russia.

[Martinned2]

Unless China donates completely implausible amounts of money, that would all be random noise in the weekly donation amounts.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're tacitly assuming that the recipient isn't in on the scheme.

You will perhaps recall a scandal during Obama's campaigns, concerning his having the identity verification for credit card donations shut off, and accepting pre-paid cards that could be purchased anonymously with cash.

Sure, he didn't "know" that he was getting illegal donations. That was because he'd arranged not to know. But, why would he arrange not to know, if he didn't expect them?

I expect Act Blue's smurfing issue is of the same nature; It's not that they couldn't detect the fake names if they wanted, it's that they've chosen not to. You have some choice about how much security to apply to card transactions, you know. Minimize the security enough, and it becomes possible for people to route money to you under somebody else's name.

[OtisAH]

If someone is assuming “the recipient is on the scheme,” that’s probably due to the complete lack of evidence the recipient is in on the scheme.

But the best part about Brett is, if this was about allegedly shady donations to ConvictedTrumpPAC, Brett would insist it’s a false flag operation by democrats trying to make Convicted Felon Trump look shady. As it is, it’s ActBlue, so it “suggests,” or it’s proof, that Harris is corrupt. Funny old world, innit?

[hobie]

How do you know Brett so well? It's like you've all this before from Brett

[OtisAH]

Over 20 years reading his dissembling and bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, people using credit card clearing services can chose how much security is applied to the transaction. That's why some places you'll have to enter your PIN, where another place your transaction will complete without it.

You can chose anything from completing the transaction if the 16 digit number matches SOMEBODY'S card, to requiring a matching name, expiration date, and security code.

At the low end of security, I could use my card and your name, and the transaction would complete, and the recipient would record for FEC purposes that you had made the donation, not me. That's the sort of "Smurfing" Armchair is talking about.

And it does require some degree of complicity on the recipient end, they have to choose to not verify that the name matches the card. It's a software setting, and not the default, either.

We could ask why, in a legal setting where you're mandated to record names, you wouldn't require the name to match the card. But I get the impression you don't want to think about that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett — it isn’t as bad as you think — one of those digits is a check digit, it is calculated based on the other digits and some fancy math and has to match what the digit on the card is.

Back in the ’70s, cashiers entered these digits by hand and this was to reject the transaction if the cashier got one of the *other* numbers wrong, so it didn’t get billed to someone else’s card.
Randomly generated credit card numbers will not work.

LaVerdere's -- a Maine drug store that lived off the Blue Laws -- had 5-digit credit cards and I always wondered how many errors they got.

[bernard11]

The usual Bellmore selective account. There were similar problems in the McCain campaign which also received a number of (small) donations like this.

The amount each candidate received was very small in relation to total contributions.

The simple explanation is administrative problems, not a nefarious plot by either of them to circumvent campaign finance laws.

[ducksalad]

Now we do.

No, all we know is that Mark Block claimed it.

Suppose next week I say that the baddies made 100 donations of $8 each, in my name, to Republicans. I go around marketing my story to MSNBC, NPR, NYT, etc, saying I've proved that Republicans are engaged in criminal conduct requiring immediate investigation. I think I could afford $800 and an evening cruising campaign websites.

Incidentally, Mark Block used to work for Americans for Prosperity (AFP). AFP has come under criticism itself for doing political activism using sources of funding that it keeps secret.

Not saying he's lying. Just that the burden of proof is on him, and that charges to his credit card don't prove anything at all.

[Voize]

Mark Block alleges that John Doe used the identity of a Bernard L. Cain, Jr. to make numerous small donations through ActBlue. The complaint further alleges that an objective was to avoid FEC reporting requirements and that since each donation was under $200 none of the campaigns receiving the money reported it to the FEC.

If so it was a tactical error on John Doe's part. Although the campaigns don't report donations under $200 ActBlue itself does report and itemize to the FEC all donations to federal campaigns, no matter how small. Oops.

But a more puzzling question is why Mark Block is suing over the theft of someone else's identity? The connection seems to be that a dozen or so years ago Block used the email pseudonym "Bernie Cain" when he was associated with Herman Cain's 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination and ActBlue has been sending donation receipts to a dormant email address associated with that pseudonym, presumably because the donor gave that email address as their contact information. Block claims the pseudonym and email are his PII, even though they relate to a fictional identity.

And what of Bernard L. Cain, Jr.? There may or may not be an actual person by that name living in California or Colorado. Letters were delivered but received no reply. To me that would first suggest that Bernard L. Cain, Jr. exists and was the one who donated in the name of Bernard L. Cain, Jr., but Mark Block seems to think otherwise.

[Joe_dallas]

FBI quietly corrects their violent crime stats. Several commentators here were attacked for pointing out the flawed stats showing violent crime was down.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/10/16/stealth_edit_fbi_quietly_revises_violent_crime_stats_1065396.html

[ThePublius]

Indeed. In the article it's noted that the FBI didn't really announce that crime was actually up from their initial report, one had to actually compare the data to find out that. A true, deceptive stealth edit.

The are clearly a tool of the Democratic party.

[Joe_dallas]

Worth noting how many commentators believed FBI's falsified data.

[M L]

The question is, just how many people need to be fired for the FBI to no longer be a tool of the Democratic party?

Then apply that to other agencies as well - all of which are within the executive branch and derive their constitutional powers from this sentence: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

[Dr. Ed 2]

They may be a tool of the Democrat party, but never underestimate governmental incompetence.

Never.

I would not be surprised if they were that stupid.

[hobie]

The hayseed praying at his bedside: "Please Lord, make our crime statistics worse"

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Please Lord, make our crime statistics worse more accurate.” FIFY.

I mean, you get that adjusting the statistics doesn't increase the level of crime, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Please make our statistics less fake."

You're literally angry that somebody would dare to object to the government putting out fake statistics.

[M L]

“Please Lord, make our crime statistics dishonestly cover up murders and rapes so we can get away with continuing our radical pro-crime open borders agenda.”

[Commenter_XY]

You ok, hobie? You make any good brisket or beef ribs lately?

[hobie]

Today I'm making two things: Catabrian Cocido Montañés; and crookies.

The latter is the recent worldwide phenomenon of combining cookie dough with croissants and it couldn't be easier. Just get some deli croissants and a tub of chocolate chip cookie dough. Smear dough inside split croissant allowing some to spill out, and also across the top. Bake 350 for 8-10 minutes. I swear it's like crack, especially to kids

[Commenter_XY]

I'll have to try that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’m cooking pork loin for supper.

Put loin in square glass Pyrex dish.
Pour Applesauce in to fill dish.
Insert meat thermometer in Pork.
Bake at 350-400 depending on how hungry I am.

The applesauce keeps it from drying out and it actually winds up tasting fairly good. I like Pyrex dishware, the only two things are you (a) can’t add cold water to it (when it’s hot) and (b) have to soak it afterwards to clean it. So???

And I'm using an electric oven right now, so the oven temperature is pretty accurate. Not so much with a wood/coal stove's oven, but the nice thing about this is what is important is the internal temp of the meat. (And yes, I use TWO thermometers and take the lower reading -- not sure if we still have much trichinosis anymore, but why risk it?)

[Commenter_XY]

Try adding 1 TBSP of apple cider vinegar, and 1 TBSP of caraway seeds next time. 😉

[M L]

I was going to post this.

Like, really? This is incredible.

While I don’t follow these arguments that involve parsing Trump’s words with an exacto knife – wasn’t this another one of those things?? Seems like this pattern repeats endlessly for the last 8 years:

-Trump says some thing that makes media libs really angry.
-Media firestorm ensues furiously denouncing “lies” and “liar” with a level of moralizing certainty and self-righteousness never before seen.
-Facts subsequently dribble out vindicating Trump and showing the real liars to be media libs, as usual accusing their opponent of the very thing they’re doing.

Obviously not always the case, to be sure. Just a notable pattern, that tends to be more likely to apply when the topic is more substantive and meaningful.

I mean, a quick Google search turns up dozens of lying media propaganda pieces on this specific thing in recent weeks. Didn’t the “moderator” David Muir “fact check” Trump live on TV in a presidential debate on this, and now it turns out Trump was right?

By the way, did “moderators” ever argue with Presidential candidates in the Presidential debates before Trump? Did that ever happen in history?

[Commenter_XY]

Candy Crowley and Mitch Romney.

She was wrong, too.

[jb]

Trump wasn’t right, though.

First, the whatever is going on with the 2022 statistics is confusing and I have yet to see anyone try to actually explain what’s going on. Almost all of the articles on this topic are just regurgitating the realclearinvestigations piece. Here’s the closest you can get to someone actually analyzing the data (and this is the source that realclearinvestigations cites), which notes that according to the revision the crime data what actually happened was that (for murder) the 2021 number was revised down by even more than the 2022 number was revised up, the net result of which is that murders increased year over year, but the overall number of murders went down, and the 2023 number is still lower than either of the previous years. It seems like no one is attempting to understand any of the adjustments through any lens other than “the FBI is cooking the books to help Biden” which seems pretty implausible given that the overall adjustment was down not up, so really there seems to be something more going on here that is not being well explained at the moment. In any case, the current data does show crime being down in 2023 so it doesn’t in any way support Trump’s argument.

Second, even if you look at the National Crime Victimization Survey, which a lot of people on the right are pointing to as contrasting with the FBI data and probably the most favorable set of data for Trump’s argument, it shows violent crime in 2023 was basically on par with 2019 when he was President. So there’s absolutely nothing to support Trump’s narrative that crime has increased under Biden, just maybe that it hasn’t been decreasing as much as Biden wants to take credit for.

[Bob from Ohio]

"FBI quietly corrects their violent crime stats."

Somebody at the FBI is worried about a Trump win.

[Frank Drackman]

took them 3 weeks to figure out "45" was shot.

[Sarcastr0]

You guys truly hate facts. Every stat updated towards a narrative you like (i.e. things being worse in America), is a sign of a coverup.

Every stat updated in a positive way, you never mention. Probably don't see it, given your media diet.

1. You're paranoiacs about our statistical institutions based on nothing but confirmation bias.
2. You root for America to be worse. Because party over country.
3. You don't care about actual truth, only partisan weapons.

Economists and crime stats folks will continue to put out their numbers and continue to update them as needed. Reality and professionalism continue, even if you yell about it.

[Kazinski]

Well if this sort of update is typical then you would have a point, but its not typical:

“I have checked the data on total violent crime from 2004 to 2022,” Carl Moody, a professor at the College of William & Mary who specializes in studying crime, told RealClearInvestigations. “There were no revisions from 2004 to 2015, and from 2016 to 2020, there were small changes of less than one percentage point. The huge changes in 2021 and 2022, especially without an explanation, make it difficult to trust the FBI data.”.

Nobody would be complaining if the revisions were less than 1%, which would be more typical.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I'd like to see an explanation too - that's good science.

But going beyond that to some kind of coverup is not supported by the sole data point of 'revision magnitude went up.'

[not guilty]

In the D.C. prosecution of Donald Trump, Judge Chutkan on October 10, 2024 ordered unsealing of the Appendix (as redacted) to the government's September 26 filing regarding immunity from prosecution. She stayed here order for seven days. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.260.0_2.pdf

Today is day seven, and it does not appear that Team Trump has sought relief from the October 10 order. The Appendix should make for some interesting reading.

[not guilty]

Since I posted that comment. counsel for Donald Trump have moved Judge Chutkan to extend her own stay until November 14, 2024. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.264.0_6.pdf The only rationale put forth is concern about how the release of materials may affect Trump’s electoral prospects.

In an order filed October 2, Judge Chutkan wrote:

In addition to the assertions discussed above, Defendant’s opposition brief repeatedly accuses the Government of bad-faith partisan bias. See Def.’s Opp’n at 2, 5–6. These accusations, for which Defendant provides no support, continue a pattern of defense filings focusing on political rhetoric rather than addressing the legal issues at hand. See Oversized Brief Order at 2–3 (identifying two recent instances of this pattern). Not only is that focus unresponsive and unhelpful to the court, but it is also unbefitting of experienced defense counsel and undermining of the judicial proceedings in this case. Defendant has had an opportunity to make his case that his prosecution is improperly motivated. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution, ECF No. 116. Future filings should be directed to the issues before the court.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.251.0_4.pdf In light of the Court’s multiple, previous pronouncements that “Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings” is not a cognizable legal prejudice, it is difficult to see how Trump’s filing today comports with that October 2 directive.

If Donald Trump had wanted to conclude this prosecution in the District Court before election day, he could have had a jury trial beginning on March 4, 2024 as originally scheduled. If he were acquitted, he could then have stood before the electorate having been exonerated.

[not guilty]

Judge Chutkan wasted no time in denying Trump's motion to extend the stay of her October 10 order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.265.0_3.pdf

The Appendix to the government's September 26 filing, as redacted, will be unsealed tomorrow.

[not guilty]

Four volumes of the Appendix have now been unsealed. I haven't read the yet, but for those who may be interested, Volume I is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.266.0_3.pdf

[not guilty]

Volume II: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.266.1_6.pdf

[not guilty]

Volume III: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.266.2_1.pdf

[not guilty]

Volume IV: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.266.3_1.pdf

[Estragon]

Can I get an update on the ABC whistleblower? Kaz? Weren’t you flogging that one pretty hard? What’s the latest?

[OtisAH]

Awkward…

It’s okay though, he’s probably busy writing up a real stemwinder about Convicted Felon Trump’s “Women’s Town Hall”…

https://mockpaperscissors.com/2024/10/16/celebrated-sexist-interviewed-by-gop-skirts-on-fox-news-who-knew/

[jb]

Even MTG had to retract that one.

[Kazinski]

Actually, I don't remember flogging that one hard, although I might have mentioned it.

But when I looked at my comments history and searched for ABC, and I could only find two about the debate, neither mention the allegation.

I might have mentioned it, but honestly don't remember. I do remember thinking at the time, if he actually did what he claimed post marking letters before the debate then it would come out, if he didn't then it would be debunked.

Bill Ackman did send a note asking about it to ABC's President, and he has now acknowledged that the report did not pan out and appears to be a hoax.

[Estragon]

“Actually, I don’t remember flogging that one hard, although I might have mentioned it.”

Well I certainly do apologize if that’s the case. I’ll take a peek later.

I suppose I associated it with you because it was prominently pushed by one of your favorite sources… nypost.com

I wonder on a larger level— between this and the Butler “Chinese national” just from the last few weeks— have you reevaluated your willingness to take at face value what they are saying?

I ask this as a loved one of someone who I am losing to that particular publication.

[Estragon]

Oh my mistake: it was Joe Dallas:

Joe_dallas 1 month ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
debate prep is coordinating with the ABC and the debate moderators

[Kazinski]

Well thanks for clearing the record, but do give me full credit for Hunter’s laptop, and Joe firing the prosecutor, I did flog those ones hard.

[Estragon]

“Hunter’s laptop”

Oh lord here we go. How many “laptops” do you think there are?

[Kazinski]

Only the one the DOJ verified and introduced evidence at Hunter's gun trial.

Which is also the same laptop featured in the NYPost in the series by Miranda Devine. And famously mislabeled as Russian disinformation by the 51 democratic intelligence stooges.

Evidence that got Hunter convicted (although I do think the charges are constitutionally suspect).

[Martinned2]

Wait, Hunter Biden was convicted? I thought there was supposed to be some kind of Huge Democratic Conspiracy to stop that from happening? Or to pardon him? What happened to that?

[Estragon]

You mean the one the FBI said they didn’t check for tampering?

[Kazinski]

Actually they said the opposite, they verified the contents against Hunter's ICloud backups:

""Investigators also later came into possession of the defendant's Apple MacBook Pro, which he left at a computer store," the court filing reads. "A search warrant was also obtained for his laptop and the results of the search were largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple."

[Estragon]

That is not correct. “Largely duplicative” are the key weasel words here.

The FBI expert Weiss called testified they did not look for signs of tampering.

[David Nieporent]

Which is also the same laptop featured in the NYPost in the series by Miranda Devine.

False. The NYPost never saw or had access to the laptop. What was featured in the NYPost story was a purported copy of a laptop hard drive.

And famously mislabeled as Russian disinformation by the 51 democratic intelligence stooges.

Also incorrect. They did not say that.

[Estragon]

Brett was curious:

Brett Bellmore 4 weeks ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I can see two scenarios under which they might want to do it:

1. They think they’re innocent, and want to be able to prove it to everybody.

2. They think they’re guilty, and want to do something to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

The problem is, we’re probably, based on other reports of scripted interviews, and debate questions being leaked, in scenario 3:

3. They think they’re guilty, and want to continue doing it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, Republicans have plants in the audience, too? Who'd have seen that coming? [/sarc]

Did you have a complaint about my comment?

[Sarcastr0]

You speculated your way into another false narrative, and now you just want to walk away declaring victory?

I guess this is how Brett is able to keep on being Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I speculated, how nefarious of me. We're not allowed to do that here!

Recall the context: (Alleged) Whistle blower says ABC provided Harris debate questions and other aid in the debate. We discuss whether they (ABC) would investigate the claim. I provided a couple reasons they might want to, and a possible reason they wouldn't want to. Quelle horreur!

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you speculate your way into *belief*. Extremely confident even unshakeable belief.

You do it all the time. You're well known for that here.

Don't pretend you're just idly tossing off possibilities - you were already on your way with this bit - you were onto probably it was fixed and with you definitely is not far behind. But it got blown up or you lost interest first.

[Brett Bellmore]

A belief about what's probable. Yes, I all the time form beliefs about what is likely, which is something distinct from forming beliefs about what is verifiably true. You can't go through life totally agnostic about everything that you don't have 100% proof of. It's both psychologically impossible and a bad idea.

You do it, too. Everybody does. The difference is that if I think something, based on the evidence, is likely the case, you treat it as me swearing it's absolutely true.

Well, that's consistent with your habits of motivated bad reading comprehension, so no surprise there.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, maybe your reasoning processes are pretty crude.

I personally distinguish between my opinion of something's likelihood, and my confidence in that opinion. It's a point on a two dimensional space. So I can think that, based on the evidence I've seen, something would be very likely, but given the quality of the evidence, place little confidence in that evaluation.

I'm guessing that you crudely collapse these into one measure, or even a binary "true/false" evaluation without any hint of confidence levels or probabilities?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, you don't distinguish between what is likely and what is verifiably true.

You may think you do, but you regularly decide things are true with little or no supporting facts.

Liberal cabals in a coordinated partisan takeover of just about every institution?
Well schools have a bunch of liberals pretty quickly, and big businesses make decisions you disagree with so...
You don't understand updating the basket of goods in the CPI and don't want to learn. That's another factually established liberal conspiracy for Brett!
The Constitution isn't interpreted as you've decided it should be. You guessed it, another liberal conspiracy! Not likely, factually esablished!!
You don't like the GOP's political choices? It's those liberals at it again, you're certain!

Below, *this morning* you are arguing that if Biden weren't so feeble he'd be bombing Americans. Not likely, you're taking it as true.

My main critique of your take on human reason here is that you're bullshitting yourself - your whole worldview is driven by emotions, Not probabilistic heuristics.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "My main critique of your take on human reason here is that you’re bullshitting yourself – your whole worldview is driven by emotions, Not probabilistic heuristics."

What pile of bullshit. Yes, Brett shows inclinations and predilections. But when you argue with him, you have the stature of a kid in diapers. You almost invariably begin with insults, and then false, conjured mischaracterizations of his positions. And you resort to a type of name-calling, typically invoking a style of rhetorical literation appropriate for a person who has nothing to say, but knows how he wants to say it.

It's astounding to me how patiently and sincerely Brett responds to your comments, and actually accounts for his positions. Despite your vacuous protests, there's an incredible asymmetry between the serious regard Brett shows for what you actually say versus the almost complete lack of regard in your responses. You simply ignore anything of substance, like a bullfighter deftly turning out of the way of a bull, ignoring the fact that the bull is standing still at the other side of the ring waiting for you to do something that matters.

Carry on hurling your large round insults at Brett. You're a small, small man who knows little of himself. And your diaper needs changing.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's because he is a:
Douche

someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.
"Wow he's such a Douche"
"That was a Douche move"
by solvingworldproblemsoneatatime October 21, 2013

[Bwaaah]

LOL. Douche in Urban Dictionary:

someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.

See, Sarc? Bumble invokes substantial authority in calling you a douche. And his name-calling is similarly thoughtful, ergo, you are Il Douche.

[Estragon]

“A belief about what’s probable. Yes, I all the time form beliefs about what is likely”

Birther Brett has ideas about metaphysical certainty! LOL

[Commenter_XY]

My main critique of your take on human reason here is that you’re bullshitting yourself – your whole worldview is driven by emotions, Not probabilistic heuristics.

Pure comedy gold, considering the source.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The FBI revised their crime data amd instead of a dip there was a massive increase under Harris/Biden.

The BLS also continues to revise numbers downward.

These agencies are acting in ways to influence our elections with their partisan manipulations and lies.

Is it illegal for a government agency to act to influence our elections? Is it unconstitutional?

Should bureaucrats start serving jail time?

[Bwaaah]

That the FBI revised its numbers is forgivable. That they did so without pointing it out is not. The New York Times even trumpeted the FBI's September press release showing the continued decline in crime, carefully stepping over the revision of 2022 that now makes 2023 look better.

That's the pattern: revise the prior year, that was previously reported to be good, to be bad, and then use that revision to make the following year look better. And don't mention the revisions. When talking about a Democratic administration, ALWAYS REPORT GOOD NEWS.

Democrats: good for inflation, good for crime, good for borders, good for equal opportunity. Are you going to believe your eyes, or the "facts?"

Sarcastr0 usually chimes in with some vacuous remark that says, "They good; you wrong."

[Brett Bellmore]

Federal crime and job statistics are maybe a little better than harvest reports in the USSR, but getting worse fast.

[bernard11]

You
You're fucking laughable, Brett.

You don't like the numbers, so you're convinced they're phony. No question in your mind.

What a tool you've become.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are they phony if they always seem to get quietly revised worse than first reported?

[Brett Bellmore]

As JHBHBE says, if you continually, quietly revise them to be worse, after loudly announcing the wrong numbers, they ARE phony.

Errors are random in direction. If your revisions are always in the same direction, that's not error, it's "bias".

[Sarcastr0]

So Kevin Drum looked into this, and surprise it's bullshit.

"Here's an odd one. John Lott wrote a piece today claiming that the FBI has "quietly" revised their crime figures, and they now show that violent crime rose in 2022. This is all over the place on right-wing sites but hasn't been reported anywhere else, as near as I can tell.
...
Most of the revisions are fairly small, and even the revision for 2022 isn't large. But the downward revision for 2021 was substantial, and that was enough to change the direction of the trend. Instead of being down -1.7%, violent crime was up 4.5%.

I'll add two things. First, the crime figures for 2021 are known to be unreliable for technical reasons, so no comparisons with 2021 should be taken too seriously in the first place. Second, the violent crime rate over the past decade has been pretty steady. There's just not much to see here for partisans on either side."
https://jabberwocking.com/did-crime-go-up-or-down-in-2022/

The moment you start questioning our base statistics as false just based on not believing or liking their values, is when you've left the reality-based community.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again: If your revisions are consistently in a particular direction, that's not error, that's "bias".

[Sarcastr0]

It’s not all in one direction! Where did you pull that from?

Click through.

Or read what I excepted about 2021.

Did you just do the assumption to factual certainty thing in less than an hour??

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah....don't believe your lyin eyes, lol.

[bernard11]

You too.

[David Nieporent]

That’s the pattern: revise the prior year, that was previously reported to be good, to be bad, and then use that revision to make the following year look better.

There is in fact no such pattern.

[Mr. Bumble]

Looks as if Yahya Sinwar is enjoying 72 virgins.

[Commenter_XY]

Pending DNA testing

[Mr. Bumble]

According to Newsmax the IDF has confirmed that there is a DNA match.

[Martinned2]

If Newsmax says it, it must be true...

[Commenter_XY]

Better start your wailing and gnashing of teeth, looks like your pal Sinwar is taking a dirt nap.

[Martinned2]

Sure, why not accuse random people of supporting Hamas? How could that possibly do anything other than contribute to a useful conversation?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who accused "random people" of anything?

[Martinned2]

Commenter_XY. Do you not understand how this commenting thing works?

[Commenter_XY]

https://x.com/Doranimated/status/1846895121121288397

Here is his picture.

[Frank Drackman]

I’ll bet it blew his mind (out of his skull apparently) when he saw the IDF guy. Hope they feed him to the dogs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure Martin. We should wait for a true source of news like BBC or CNN.

[Frank Drackman]

Al Jizz-eera is actually pretty reliable except for the whole Israel ish-yew, they're not confirming it, but reading between the lines (from right to left of course) looks like they know it's true.

[Martinned2]

Yes. That way you might actually find out what the IDF said.

[Mr. Bumble]

"According to Newsmax the IDF has confirmed that there is a DNA match."
You needed more details and the video?

[Martinned2]

If Newsmax reported it, for all I know the IDF said that Santa Clause is real.

By the way, what happened to all the Trumpists on this blog swearing up and down that they never watched Newsmax, OANN, or Fox?

[Mr. Bumble]

You’re starting to sound more and more like Il Douche.

If it makes you feel better I’ll admit to watching Newsmax but have never watched the other two you mention.

[Joe_dallas]

Worth noting that Biden / Harris are and were opposed to the IDF attacking hamas in rafah
Which team is Harris on? the US / Israeli team or the Hamas/Iran team.

Whttps://x.com/Khaledhzakariah/status/1846929815850586219?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1846929815850586219%7Ctwgr%5E31050e6191f9df70eafa62b985e78412444dea6e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2024%2F10%2Ftwo-sinwar-footnotes.phphere was Sinwar killed?

Rafah.

Yes, it's where the Americans, Egyptians, British, French......and the beautiful, brilliant Kamala Harris said Israel shouldn't go because "she studied the maps".

We said Israel needs to take Rafah. Israeli officials/experts said they need to take Rafah. The choice is, and always has been clear, believe us or spineless, inept politicians who would probably do nothing for you if you were kidnapped/killed by terrorists.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. Seems like a really good thing Israel refused Harris and Biden's demand that they work out a ceasefire.

[Martinned2]

Exactly. Why wouldn't Israel want to live in a state of perpetual war?

[Joe_dallas]

It really shows how poorly she and the rest of the biden administration understand the geopolitical dynamics.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, is it now over?

Good to see the hostages home safe and sound, anyway.

[Josh R]

Our presidential campaign has been going on for a year and half now. Maybe we should instead emulate Japan. The House in the Diet was dissolved on Oct 9. The general election will be held on Oct 27.

[Estragon]

At his Townhall for Trump lovin’ women, Trump specifically mentioned “the Peolsis” as part of the “enemy within” he was been referencing recently.

Question for the hucklers: given the enemy status of the Pelosis, would you support a pardon of David DePape?

[Bwaaah]

How much time do you spend each day fantasizing about talking to people smaller than yourself?

[Estragon]

Not sure, but on occasion I do think about my old high-school girlfriend who is now married to a pelosi. An enemy within as well?

Free DePape? Yes or no?

[Commenter_XY]

No chance....the SOB can stay in the clink for a long time.

[hobie]

Paul Pelosi wasn't brained enough to suit the hillbillies

[bernard11]

How concerned are you about a Presidential candidate referring to his political opponents as "the enemy within?"

One step further, how concerned are you about his use of that phrase in general?

[Commenter_XY]

About as concerned with the use of the phrase, 'Danger to Democracy', by other political opponents.

[Bwaaah]

How concerned are you about a Presidential candidate referring to his political opponents as “the enemy within?”

OMG!!! Did somebody say that???!!!

Watch out for those people, because there’s one thing you can be sure of: THEY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY!!!

Seriously: I think it’s rhetorical drivel. And for the most part, I don’t even bother reading the daily “Did You Hear What They Said?!” Most of it is best viewed as little more than propaganda. Why sift through rhetorical drivel when there are much better ways to understand our problems than to consider a political candidate’s remarks about his/her opponent.

You are undoubtedly “seriously concerned” about such remarks. I think you are seriously moved by what matters little.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So you really don't know--and don't care.

Well, that's one way of dealing with reality...

[Bwaaah]

I consider reality to be composed of much, much more than what people say, especially politicians and journalists. As a matter of fact, most of what politicians say is quite purposefully intended to twist our understandings of reality.

There's a lot of noise. And, yes, I really don’t care about noise, other than the simple fact that many people who vote pay it serious mind. That’s a serious problem.

[Izzy1948]

I sometimes wonder, when hearing about the free speech argument for allowing people protesting Israel's existence and "river to the sea" argument for wiping out Jews there....

And that's fine, and advocating exterminating Jews is fine.

If universities would be equally as tolerant because of free speech if we had folks dressed in clean, white sheets strolling the campus carrying nooses and urging all Black people to be killed.

(Note: That was a rhetorical question, son. I understand that Jews don't matter)

[Dr. Ed 2]

You would be surprised at what some (not all) of the Afro-Am and Black Studies professors are saying...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sympathies to Mets fans.

A RICO dispute involving medicinal marijuana this week at SCOTUS involved two women advocates. SCOTUS veteran Lisa Blatt & up and coming Easha Anand (she was in part involved in the Take Care Blog, which was a strong critic of the Trump Administration).

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/supreme-court-considers-truck-drivers-rico-case-over-cbd-product-that-cost-him-his-job/

Last week it was a dispute over pet food.

[Estragon]

“Sympathies to Mets fans”

Pretty brutal experience. But it’s not over yet!

[M L]

I saw a few clips of the Harris Fox News interview and it seemed absolutely horrendous – hard to watch.

What do others think - was it really as bad as I think ?

Some lib media pieces are actually trying to say "oh she was tough and did great, faced tough questions." I don't think they really believe that, it's just spin. I clicked a CNN link and they aired the most ridiculous mashup of the interview. I've never seen anything like it. But I don't watch cable news usually. Here it is: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/16/politics/video/kamala-harris-fox-news-interview-ebof-digvid

I really thought it was devastating for Harris. But even so it can’t be as bad this: That Fox News Interview May Have Done To Kamala What The Debate Did To Biden

[Commenter_XY]

No, it was not as bad as you think, but it was not a 'good' interview, either. The interview will not have the same impact as the debate did on POTUS Biden.

Her answer regarding noticing Biden's cognitive decline was not good; lacked credibility. It is the lack of credibility that will hurt her.

[SimonP]

You people are really delusional. "Kamala didn't affirm the right-wing narrative of Biden's cognitive decline, which is definitely a reasonable thing to expect a Vice President to do in the last weeks before an election. Thus, she has no credibility."

I think that Kamala perfectly understands Biden's cognitive decline, including both where he's good and where he's not. I think that's why she stood up for this role in the first place. I think she saw his performance in the debate the same way we all did, marshaled her resources, and found a way to pressure him to step aside.

But I also think that, as a VP running to replace the incumbent president she is still currently serving, she can't just throw him under the bus. That much is politically obvious. She can't say, "I think Biden's strategy on Israel is mistaken," or "I think that Biden's mental decline has been increasing in the past couple of years, and I've done my best to support the continuing function of the federal government even as he has had to step back," or any of that. Not only would it drive MAGA chuds like you crazy, in an ecstatic moment of fury and orgasmic joy, but it would lose her core Democratic support, which would view those kinds of remarks as unfaithful to the president and indicative of poor character.

You know that thing you're doing now, where you wave off Trump's own decline by telling yourself that you'd be happy with Vance, even if Vance were to invoke the 25th Amendment early in 2025? It's like that. You see the political messaging, but look through it and understand that the reality is pretty complex and actually more reasonable.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, we agree = But I also think that, as a VP running to replace the incumbent president she is still currently serving, she can’t just throw him under the bus. That much is politically obvious

Then that plays into how Kamala would not change anything, policy-wise, from her boss.

SimonP, it will all be over soon. 😉

[SimonP]

I’m not temperamentally inclined to empty triumphalism, personally. Strikes me as a bit childish.

I’m aware that Trump and his camp are projecting confident bravado, because that’s part of their GOTV strategy. That’s why they’re putting out goosed polls, campaigning as victorious, etc. Not that Trump’s appearances betray that confidence, in their choice of venue, frequency, difficulty, etc. But I appreciate that’s what they’re putting in your water over there, in MAGA land.

If you all believed that the country was about to reject your insanity again, after having already done so in 2020, 2022, and various other off-cycle elections, you’d probably just stay home, wouldn’t you? Because you don’t believe in democracy. You just believe in winning.

[Commenter_XY]

I know SimonP, it is all bullshit. Kamala really IS a wonderful extemporaneous speaker, and spellbinding too! We really don't have millions of illegal aliens running around the country on her watch. We really didn't have inflation, and real wages didn't decline.

I know, I know....delusional. What does the country just not see?

[SimonP]

Do you think Kamala's supporters are all stupid?

[Commenter_XY]

No, not at all.

[Frank Drackman]

Supporting a candidate who proposed tax payer funded Sexual Reassignment Surgery for State Prisoners? Yes.

[Roger S]

Her interview performance was terrible. She says she wants to turn the page, but cannot explain what she is turning the page on. Except to go on anti-Trump rants, and promise a new generation of leadership. Biden, even with his cognitive decline, is more fit for the office than Harris.

[Commenter_XY]

And Kamala has yet to be asked about her plagiarism.

[M L]

What struck me is the refusal to even engage on any questions combined with just being really unskilled at evading or redirecting. Instead it's pure filibustering. Really not able to make a case for anything at all.

Then the rants she does go on to try and hit her stride, are just the worst lies and projections. E.g., https://reason.com/2024/10/16/no-trump-did-not-endorse-a-military-assault-on-people-simply-because-they-oppose-his-candidacy/?itm_source=parsely-api Oddly enough I guess that piece was written before or during the Harris interview but she repeated the NYT talking point verbatim. Which party is really more hostile to free speech? Which is more willing to weaponize government to go after political opponents?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Which is more willing to weaponize government to go after political opponents?"

One of them is literally saying repeatedly that he's going to do it and that the radical left is the enemy from within that has to be rooted out. One of them already attempted to court-martial military officers who spoke out against him because he's a malignant narcissist who can't handle criticism. One of them thinks loyalty to himself is more important than loyalty to the Constitution.

The other is Kamala Harris, who is not saying, doing, or thinking such things.

So fuck off with your Putin talking points.

[Roger S]

Harris supports the Biden-Harris prosecution of political enemies, notably Trump. Trump did not prosecute any political enemies in his 4 years.

[SimonP]

Trump directed the DOJ and IRS to investigate or prosecute several political enemies during his term. It's not even hard to confirm this. Much of it was very public and scandalous at the time.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, well, Senator Menendez was (a Senator) and is a Crook

[SimonP]

And also not prosecuted by Trump's DOJ.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. We should not expect a political candidate to be akin to someone on truth serum.

They are not going to be totally open about their opinions about things. It is silly to be all shocked or concerned about this.

It can be a fine line & a good interviewer can press. She is not going to want to bad-mouth Biden. She will focus on Trump since he is on the ballot. It is typical control the narrative stuff.

I think it’s fair to ask her why Biden stepped down but understand why she would avoid the question.

Also, not having the wherewithal to go another four years is different from him being overall mentally unable to do the job now. But, fine-tuning like that in a soundbite answer is tough, and again can see why she would focus on Trump.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Shorter SimonP: You see, she isn't telling the truth because fewer people would vote for her if she did.

[SimonP]

Which of those tax cuts do you think Trump will actually pursue, if we're stupid enough to give him the chance?

[Frank Drackman]

All of them

[SimonP]

If I wanted your opinion, Frank, I could have just asked a potato what it thinks.

[Frank Drackman]

Opinions are like Assholes, except mines not all loose and stretched out like yours. My opinions are tight, tight! my farts sound like a cross between Alvin and the Chipmunks and Jack Benny's Violin, while yours are a barely filled whoopie cushion.

[OtisAH]

If anyone knows about assholes, it’s piece of shit.

But this is a modestly interesting development. Previously, piece of shit’s go-to insult was to call people pedophiles. At some recent point, however, piece of shit must have decided calling folks “fags” in his oh so clever Temu Dennis Miller-like manner is sufficient.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think SimonP prefers "cock holster".

[SimonP]

I have openly identified myself as a fag.

What's been surprising, to me, is to see how many commenters have quietly taken note of that fact, in order to bring it up in various other discussions - despite my never having mentioned it personally to them in a relevant context. They usually bring it up in the manner that Frank has done, here.

Takes me back to the homophobia of my youth.

[Kazinski]

But I also think that, as a VP running to replace the incumbent president she is still currently serving, she can’t just throw him under the bus.

Despite that being her constitutional responsibility under Section 4 the 25th amendment?

[Sarcastr0]

Make up things and you can prove anything you want.

Not many are arguing the 25th threshold has been met. Especially since it no longer has much political benefit.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Certainly not Trump!

[SimonP]

Kamala has just as much "constitutional responsibility" to oust the president as the Senate had to toss Trump from office.

The authorities are there. There is no mandate that they be used in any particular fashion. That is a fabrication entirely of your own making.

[Kazinski]

Heh, "fabrication", " make up things".

I assure you Section 4 of the 25th amendment is actually really a thing.

Now we can debate whether Biden's apparent and continued disability is or was enough to trigger the 25th amendment but it certainly was enough to throw him out on his ear as the Democratic candidate.

It is absolutely up to the voters to determine just what VP Harris' culpability was for not acting long after the polls showed the American people had real concerns about Biden's competence.

And a reasonable question to pose in an interview.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz do you know how time works? Because a risk right now versus over the next four years are very different things.

You exclude the middle, and don’t even realize it.

[Kazinski]

Yeah I'm talking about right now.

The viewing audience of the June debate were reacting to what they saw right then on their TV.

You make your own decision, we made ours.

And it actually helped the Democrats, but probably not enough.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I agree with Biden leaving the ticket. Biden didn't leave the ticket because of people like you, but because of people like me.

That doesn't mean Amendment 25 is Harris' Constitutional Duty.

You're still excluding the middle. And still don't realize you're doing it.

[Don Nico]

"but because of people like me."
wow, you are conceited. you had nothing to do with it.
It was Nancy and th big money crowd that did him in.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it's fair to say that the polling showing the massive dropoff of Dem voters had something to do with it as well.

No need for you to be a dick.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not only a douchenozzel, but a self-important one.

[SimonP]

So what are you going to say when Vance invokes it, to kick Trump out?

[Kazinski]

If he invokes it and Congress backs him then i guess it was justified.

[Sarcastr0]

What a shitty dodge.

Biden - it's a Constitutional duty to invoke it.
Trump - eh, if it's invoked you guess it was justified.

You don't get to take a position on one and then hide behind process on the other.
In fact, hiding behind process is in general a dodge to avoid moral consequences.

It's rarely successful.

[Kazinski]

I think Biden is incompetent to hold office now.

I think its possible Trump may become incompetent in the future, but certainly is not incompetent now.

I don't think that's a dodge at all.

[Sarcastr0]

What a great and well supported single standard you've got there.

Amazing how it aligns with what you want.

[SimonP]

It seems that Trump, like Biden, has good days and bad days. Sometimes needs to be propped up by meds.

Sometimes you can sit him in front of a Bloomberg journalist and he just sounds like an idiot.

Sometimes he's at a town hall and decides to dance for half an hour.

Sometimes he gathers his supporters at an out-of-the-way spot they can't easily leave, to ramble on for a couple of hours on whatever drifts across his mind, such as it is.

"Competent to hold office" only in MAGA world.

I won't stoop to the diaper stuff.

[OtisAH]

JFC, the fabrication they refer to is your claim of a constitutional obligation to act, not the existence of Art. 4 of the 25th, you clown.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Multiple people commenting on FOX News said she was repeatedly effective & that she would be pleased overall with how she did.

A Federalist link will convince perhaps those who want to be convinced.

As to liberals, yes, they believe that someone willing to go into “enemy territory” and hold their own against strong opposition did well. Someone from either side should respect when a person is willing to be questioned by non-friendly platforms.

A single event, especially one in an enemy camp, is not likely to be “devasting” to a campaign. Yes, it was not akin to the debate, which is different for a variety of reasons, including that the debate was set up as a special test not akin to this.

[M L]

Yes, I thought the Federalist article was way over the top wishcasting.

Still, I thought it was quite bad. But it's probably quite subjective.

I do respect that she went into enemy territory to answer questions. Absolutely. It's 180 degrees from what she had been doing. She is now 0.1% of Trump on that score.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"She is now 0.1% of Trump on that score."

She went on FOX News. Unless Trump went on MSNBC with Lawrence O'Donnell or something, I would rank her higher.

She also had ordinary media interviews. She did not just go on "soft" interviews like The View etc.

[bernard11]

You're full of shit.

At least she didn't dodge an interview when she found out she would be fact-checked, like Trump did.

You know, I' really tired of all this stupid criticism of Harris' appearances, from Trump cultists, when Trump himself is utterly incoherent and approaching dementia.

You people really are deranged.

[Frank Drackman]

Already to the anger stage?

[bernard11]

Already?

I've been angry about Trump and his supporters for a while.

He's an incoherent, dishonest, ignorant, bigoted, idiot and those who want him to be President are fools who believe a lot of obvious lies, and are willing to send the country down the toilet to satisfy their prejudices.

That seems to include you.

[Martinned2]

So I guess you've finally made up your mind and decided you're not voting for Harris?

[M L]

Given the above, will Harris retract this statement now?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/09/23/statement-from-vice-president-harris-on-record-declines-in-crime/

[Commenter_XY]

No

[M L]

The Biden-Harris administration just made a change to DOD policy. The change reportedly involves some degree of expanding the allowed use of the military domestically against US persons, including lethal force.

There seems to be very little reporting on it so far. Anyone able to offer insight, or care to speculate? Is this no big deal? Cause for concern or objection? Is the change not what it’s being made out to be, or not even a change at all? Is it just slightly worrisome or objectionable but not a big deal? Or is it a good thing, actually? Etc.

Rep. Harris to Newsmax: ‘Scary’ New DOD Directive ‘Totally Uncalled For’

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/andy-harris-dod-national-security/2024/10/16/id/1184340/

A new federal directive authorized last month that could potentially legalize military action against citizens on U.S. soil is “worrisome,” Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., told Newsmax Wednesday.

The Biden-Harris administration updated DOD Directive 5240.01 on Sept. 27 to include provisions authorizing lethal force in certain circumstances when assisting civilian law enforcement.

Harris told the “Chris Salcedo Show,” “This is very worrisome. I think there’s a reason why, you know, it’s released kind of without Congress being around, without publicly saying that we have a real change in Department of Defense policy. But this is very scary.”

He told host Chris Salcedo: “This is exactly what the Democrats said Trump would do. And they’re doing it. I mean, this means that after an election, they could declare national emergency and literally call out the Army in the United States, because all you have to do is declare a national security emergency.”

There is also a piece from PJ media: Did a New Federal Directive Just Legalize Lethal Military Action Against Citizens on U.S. Soil? https://archive.is/OSU7h#selection-857.0-857.95

That piece cites this: DoD Directive 5240.01: The Stealth Expansion of Military Intelligence Powers in Life-or-Death Domestic Scenarios https://greenmedinfo.com/content/dod-directive-524001-stealth-expansion-military-intelligence-powers-life-or–0

[ducksalad]

It's bad and since Harris hasn't condemned it, she is disqualified from getting my vote.

On the other side, Republicans are claiming that since we're under an "invasion", this kind of stuff is already authorized. They talk about using it only against immigrants, but I assume the troops would also deal with any citizens doing stuff like helping immigrants to cross, transporting immigrants within the US, hiding immigrants in their attic or basement, or otherwise giving them aid and comfort. So Republicans who push this "invasion" crap, or make common cause with those who do, are also disqualified.

[apedad]

You know, you can read the directive on line: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/524001p.PDF?ver=UpTwJ66AyyBgvy7wFyTGbA%3d%3d

It's only 22 pages and check para 3.2.

Not sure what the directive previously said.

[Sarcastr0]

Breitbart Guy chooses NewsMax but wants us to know there is also a pj Media article.

Never cites the language he's concerned about, of course. Just predigested hot takes.

[Voize]

The previous directive is here https://dodsioo.defense.gov/Portals/46/DoDD5240.01thru2014p.pdf?ver=2016-08-11-191801-340

Concerning working with law enforcement it says

This Directive:
[...]
2.3 Does not apply to authorized law enforcement activities carried out by the Defense Intelligence Components, or to individuals executing law enforcement missions while assigned to the Defense Intelligence Components.

so I guess there were no rules.

[Sarcastr0]

Or there are other rules.

Come on man.

[Voize]

You mean like this one?
Last updated in 2018, it permits military assistance to civilian authorities with different levels of authorization depending on the circumstances and whether the assistance is lethal. However, it doesn't apply to the Defense Intelligence Components that are governed by Directive 5240.01.
It seems the update that is getting so much attention just extends similar constraints to Defense Intelligence that the rest of the military was already operating under.

[M L]

"It seems the update that is getting so much attention just extends similar constraints to Defense Intelligence that the rest of the military was already operating under."

I suspected it might be something like that.

Either way, it raises an occasion to consider the fact that the military thinks it has legal authority to use lethal force, domestically, on US soil, against US citizens.

The founders of this country of course generally did not think that we should have standing armies at all.

[Sarcastr0]

What a vague and lame thing to get spun up about?

Yeah, we have a pretty big example of the US military using lethal force on US soil against US citizens. I know you rooted for the other side, but that was a legal use of force.

[M L]

If you had clicked the links you would have seen that they include the directive and links to it and also what the directive previously said.

[Sarcastr0]

And you didn't bother to excerpt any language from the pretty obstruse docs.

Because this isn't about actual concern from you, it's about chaff.

[bernard11]

Yet one more reason not to trust Newsmax or a GOP Representative. Contrary to (Rep. Andy) Harris' statements, this is no "license to kill."

The authority to use lethal force only applies when lives are in danger, and requires approval by the Secretary of Defense.

Now, you may reasonably think that there should be stronger restrictions, but please read the document you refer to, rather than trust the kinds of dishonest accounts NewsMax and Rep. Harris promote.

[M L]

So it sounds like your answer is that this is no big deal or in fact a good or at least reasonable thing? From the greenmed link:

The Differences Between the 2016 and 2024 Versions
1. Focus of the 2016 Version

The 2016 version of the directive did not mention the use of lethal force. Instead, it focused on:

Civil liberties protections: Ensuring strict oversight for operations involving U.S. citizens.

Intelligence collection restrictions: Limiting when and how U.S. person’s information (USPI) could be collected.

Privacy safeguards: Protecting privacy rights and preventing unauthorized data collection.

The 2016 directive centered around intelligence gathering, with no mention of lethal force.
2. New Provisions in the 2024 Version

The 2024 update introduces a dramatic shift, particularly regarding domestic operations. Section 3.3.a.(2)(c) now explicitly permits lethal force in cases of imminent threats or national security emergencies, provided the action complies with legal oversight, specifically DoDD 5210.56, which governs the use of deadly force by DoD personnel.

Key updates include:

Use of lethal force: The directive allows military intelligence components to assist law enforcement in operations that involve lethal force.

Conditions for force: The directive specifies lethal force can be used under conditions involving imminent threats.

Legal oversight: Any use of lethal force must comply with DoDD 5210.56, ensuring proper legal frameworks are followed.

[Martinned2]

Fortunately you can always prosecute the President if he has someone killed. O, wait...

[Brett Bellmore]

You kind of have to expect something like that, given how frequently Biden muses about having the air force strafe Americans.

[apedad]

Which in 3+ years hasn’t happened.

However, your preferred candidate said, “I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical-left lunatics. And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by [the] National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

So……who is the potential future threat?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd say Biden is disqualified from being a future threat on account of not being long for this world, and in any event not occupying his present office for more than a few more months. He's a present threat, certainly, not merely "potential", though we might argue over the magnitude of that threat.

I'm just saying that it's hardly shocking that a President who frequently threatens military attacks on the American people would issue a directive authorizing the military to use deadly force on Americans. It fits.

Doubtless he was thinking in terms of only using said force when he thinks it justified. How widely would his opinion of when it was justified be shared? Hard to say until he tried it.

....

I think that what Trump was talking about was not sending Seal teams to assassinate political rivals, but instead, the next time somebody creates a "CHOP" or "CHAZ", meeting the insurrection with military force instead of blowing it off.

[Sarcastr0]

You think a younger Joe Biden would use the AF to go after American citizens.

You're fucking nuts, Brett. Just utterly off your rocker with hating and demonizing Democrats. There is no way that shit'd happen.

And of course Trump is normal.

I mean, I guess this is no worse than the camps you keep promising Dems are gonna make, but it really curls the hairs to see what you think of Dems.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said he's talked about doing it. Do you care to deny that?

[Sarcastr0]

No actually. Biden does not frequently threaten military attacks on Americans.

You are as I said off your rocker. Like Alex Jones levels.

Were you one of those Jade Helm wankers back in the day?

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden blasted for mocking ‘brave’ Second Amendment defenders: 'You need an F-15' to fight America, not a gun'

That wasn't the only time, he's done it several times.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha what weak sauce!

No, that is not Biden lusting to kill right wing Americans, you utter lunatic.

Do you disagree with that factual claim?

[Voize]

Biden isn't threatening Americans with the military in that story. He's saying that 2nd Amendment boosters who dream that with their personal firearms they could defy tyranny are delusional. Do you think nobody will click on these links you post?

[M L]

It’s subjective maybe, but Biden’s remarks can arguably be interpreted as threatening Americans, not only with F-15’s but also nuclear weapons – in the context of his aggressive assertions that Americans are powerless against a tyrannical federal government notwithstanding the 2nd amendment.

(Incidentally, as has been explained cogently many times over the years, such assertions are not compelling.)

And Biden done this several times.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/08/31/joe-biden-threatens-political-enemies-f-15-jets/

[Voize]

What he has said several times is that anyone who thinks they can fight the US military would need F-15s and maybe nuclear weapons. My best attempts fall short of interpreting that as threatening to use F-15s and nuclear weapons against the public.

[apedad]

And yet AGAIN BB, Biden has taken ZERO action and with only 94 days until the next president, he won't be taking any action.

So your fears are simply baseless noise.

But your boy - if president?

I just realized, Inauguration Day is 20 January 2025 - which is also Martin Luther King Day.

The stars are aligning....

[M L]

Personally, I don’t think Biden or Harris is going to kill Americans with F-15s. But they do want to take guns away and they do want to threaten and bully people into submission, including by the use of violence. By the way, there still hasn't been any comeuppance for the COVID authoritarianism and bullying, I think people want to forget.

If you look at history, it would seem that it's only a matter of time until a government turns against its citizens. And how do they do it: "The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." The government could call up an army to invade and slaughter people if they try to exercise the legal right of secession, for example. Imagine that. The alternative I suppose is that we've reached "the end of history" but that seems doubtful. So we're stuck with having to exercise "eternal vigilance," and the question isn’t just, what will this particular politician do in the coming weeks or months, but what direction are we heading in, big picture?

[apedad]

Legal right of secession you say?!?

Go ahead and try….

And if the US federal govt (left or right), started to slaughter citizens then your little pop guns won’t stop it – even though I would be elbow-to-elbow with you trying to stop that from happening because it would mean the end of our democracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

The US government isn't going to fire on Americans, and we've got you outgunned anyway!

The usual "We're not doing that and it serves you right!" denial/confirmation.

[Magister]

It is the obvious retort to the militia fantasy that their entire supply of guns is going to be significant against any country with a significant military, let alone the United States. Americans are safe from their own country through the many norms and institutions that restrict the likelihood of the government attacking its own people, not because a few nutcases are willing to use their guns to murder government employees. The best idea might be to support those norms and strengthen those institutions.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, I'm back from a neighborhood clean up drive, so I've actually got time to reply to that.

There is a huge, fundamental difference between waging war on another country, and waging war on your own country.

There are all sorts of things you can effectively do, get away with doing, when your army is recruited from, and your logistics chain starts in, a place that's far removed from where you're attacking, that you simply can't do with you're attacking the place your army was recruited from, and where your logistics chain begins.

You can't pacify your own population by high altitude bombing, you can't burn their crops and destroy their infrastructure, when their crops are YOUR crops, their infrastructure is YOUR infrastructure. You can't sic the military on your neighbors, when the military IS your neighbors.

So thinking it's privately held rifles vs F-15s betrays a fundamentally problematic mindset: The person who thinks that is thinking of the foe as a different country. Not their own.

[Brett Bellmore]

In reality, the reason repressive governments are desperate to disarm their own populations is because, when it comes down to it, they can't fight them effectively if they're even minimally armed. Because you can't fight rifles with high altitude bombing of your own country.

[Magister]

My argument is that the privately held rifles are an infinitesimal factor in the calculus of a country's military power; the Soviet Union did not attack the US in the Cold War because it would have led to global nuclear annihilation, but beyond that because of the US military, not because of privately held rifles.

With respect to defending against one's own government, privately held rifles are also irrelevant; the power of the US military is in people, who will not (generally) attack the US population out of respect for the norms, morality and legalities (they're sworn to uphold the Constitution, right?). It would be an insult to members of the US military to suggest that they would be at all scared off from taking on civilians armed with privately held rifles, and also insulting to suggest that they would not crush those civilians if action were justified. (One can observe an outlier that the police initially present at the Uvalde school shooting were scared to go in after one guy with guns, though.)

But all those privately held guns do cause police to escalate the force they will use, to the detriment of the armed and unarmed alike. If some wacky cult invites government attention by abuse of its members or whatever but they were known to have no guns, the government would send ordinary social workers rather than Waco level force. If the people observing Rodney King being beaten had used privately held rifles to shoot the police rather than cameras to document their wrongdoing, it would have been a story of widespread criminality among civilians rather than police wrongdoing. Privately held rifles are useful for holding off FEMA workers trying to provide disaster relief, but irrelevant to preserving anyone's liberty against the government.

The "military is your NEIGHBORS" argument is a sensible part of Brett Bellmore's comment, but Trump is stoking up "enemy within" and "poisoning the blood" and other fascist rhetoric precisely to destroy the norms that would protect us.

[Commenter_XY]

It is official: Kudos to the IDF for killing Yahya Sinwar.

Khamenei is next.

[Joe_dallas]

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/texas-dps-officers-arrest-more-special-interest-aliens-including-men

Kamala - the border czar & biden own their corrupt behavior of creating a border crisis

This goes along with the venzulian gangs that have taken over apartment complexes in san antonio and Aurora CO

[OtisAH]

Convicted Felon Trump: You can get the prices down.

Harrison Faulkner: How? How would you do that? Inflation is already coming down.

CFT: You make donuts. You have the stoves. You have the this. Everything has evolved.

[Martinned2]

For the record, when inflation is coming down but is still positive, prices are still going up.

[OtisAH]

You think that’s a salient point, do you?

[not guilty]

In the D.C. prosecution of Donald Trump, the Special Counsel has filed a response in opposition to Trump’s supplement to his motion to dismiss on statutory grounds. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.262.0.pdf The response deals mostly with the continued applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) to Trump’s conduct alleged in the superseding indictment in view of the Supreme Court decision in Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. ___, 144 S.Ct. 2176 (2024).

The response does a commendable job of showing how the indictment pleads that Trump and his co-conspirators’ obstruction of the electoral count by Congress included the creation of false evidence, namely fraudulent electoral certificates. That is expressly within the ambit of § 1512(c)(2) per the Fischer opinion, 144 S.Ct. at 2186.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

And people should definitely trust your analysis!! It's so rational and only based on a straight reading of the law and the facts!

[not guilty]

JHBHBE, what part of my analysis do you dispute? Please be specific. I write from a partisan perspective, (I have never pretended otherwise,) but I show my work.

When I comment, I ordinarily support my positions with legal authority and links to original source materials where available. I do this out of respect for readers, who can check my work in real time. I also realize that I am subject to confirmation bias, so citing such materials helps me to check myself as well.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, JHBHBE. Do you dispute any part of my analysis, or did you just take a cheap shot for its own sake?

[Roger S]

Or maybe they were facilitating the function of Congress by working towards a more accurate vote count.

[SRG2]

...which is not a presidential function.

[not guilty]

"Or maybe they were facilitating the function of Congress by working towards a more accurate vote count."

Where does that proposition appear in the superseding indictment, Roger S?

For purposes of a motion to dismiss an indictment, the courts must regard the factual averments of the indictment as being true. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952). This is because “[a] defendant has no right to judicial review of a grand jury's determination of probable cause to think a defendant committed a crime.” Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 333 (2014).

“In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense, a district court is limited to reviewing the face of the indictment and, more specifically, the language used to charge the crimes.” United States v. Sunia, 643 F.Supp.2d 51, 60 (D.D.C. 2009). Whether the facts averred in the indictment can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a matter which twelve men and women of the District of Columbia will eventually decide.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"In the lynching of Donald Trump...."

There, fixed it for you.

[Martinned2]

That's just sad.

[SRG2]

One of the respectable right-wing posters here recently condemned Harris for her poor extemporaneous public speaking - word salad, incoherence, etc (or words to that effect.) Superficially it's a bizarre and blind criticism to make if you're a Trump supporter because Trump is demonstrably worse, but judging by other posts I've read on social media, it's common enough. Assuming a measure of good faith (not always a legitimate assumption elsewhere), how are we to account for this double standard?

I think this goes back to points identified aboutTrump's first campaign speeches. Forget grammar, syntax, coherence of argument, etc. Trump delivers keywords, key phrases, dog whislles and emotion. His speeches and replies are like word clouds. And like word clouds they don't need to be re-assembled into any kind of order at all. For his followers, that is sufficient. They don't need to pay attention to the quality of the speech itself, all the verbal infelicities, meandering, run-on sentences (paragraphs, chapters...) and indeed they don't pay attention.
They hear the message of those word clouds.

Meanwhile, Harris does not communicate like that and so the actual "text" of her speeches and replies is more apparent, as is the word salad.

IOW they judge Trump on his message, Harris on her English, and think that they're judging the same thing in both cases. They're not.

[Michael P]

There's no double standard. Trump has disfluencies and run-ons that lose a lot of clarity when written down rather than heard. Harris just emits copious clouds of bullshit of elitist doublespeak and circumlocution. She also cannot string together a responsive answer without a teleprompter or memorized cue.

You have the relative standards backwards -- you're dinging Trump for how he talks, and ignoring the problems in Harris's underlying messages.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yeah, clarity is completely lost when Trump speaks. That's because he's a fucking idiot and so are the scum who support him.

The following sounds so much better when it's said aloud instead of just written down:

“Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down. You know, I was somebody — we had, Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka, was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue.

"But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about — that, because look, child care is child care, couldn’t — you know, there’s something — you have to have it in this country. You have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers, compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to. But they’ll get used to it very quickly. And it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us. But they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care. We’re going to have — I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country.

"Because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care. But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just — that I just told you about. We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers will be taking in.

"We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people. And then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people. But we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about make America great again. We have to do it because right now, we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.”

[SRG2]

Yup.

The Trumpists hear, IMPORTANT, CHILD CARE, TAXING FOREIGN NATIONS, NO DEFICITS, REDUCTIONS IN WASTE AND FRAUD, GROWTH, TAKING IN TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, MAKE THIS AN INCREDIBLE COUNTRY, TAKE CARE OF ITS PEOPLE, AMERICA FIRST, and finally, ONE PEOPLE, ONE NATION, ONE LEADER. Oh wait, that he didn’t say. Yet.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've said this before, I'll doubtless say it again: Whether in sports or politics, believing your own trash talk is always a mistake.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes. That is 100% true.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

By all means Brett, explain how that quotation only sounds like fucking gibberish when it's written down, or you can be a pussy and avoid engaging with the subject entirely.

Oh wait: I see you've already made your choice. Shocking.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fucking idiots don't become billionaires. If they luck into money, they lose it.

Anybody with even a lick of sense, who didn't have their mind poisoned by partisan hatred, would understand that, no matter their reasons for not liking Trump, one thing he isn't, is a fucking idiot.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“Fucking idiots don’t become billionaires.”

Generally, for sure.

But more importantly, I think you fail to account for:

Trump failed repeatedly and ultimately succeeded on salesmanship and branding. Two things that aren’t very intellectual.

General intelligence is a fairly questionable concept. Just because he is an obviously accomplished salesman (being able to sell Trump University and, basically, Timex watches for $100,000….have you bought one?….shows that), does not mean he has any particular intellectual abilities. Money buys you smart people. Plus, he’s quite ethically challenged which, with money and enough sense to hire smart but unethical people, can turn lots of money into more money.

Further, you aren’t taking into account obvious mental decline. He may not have been an idiot in 2004, but looking more like one every day.

But the bigger issue you are missing is Dunning-Kruger. He is the poster child for Dunning-Kruger. Only a fucking idiot would say they know more about the military than generals, more about medicine than doctors, and so on. If we are talking about native, general intelligence, no, he is not an idiot. But Dunning-Kruger and his utter lack of intellectual curiosity about substantive issues, including because he is primarily a conman/salesman with an overriding interest in propaganda techniques (hence Mein Kampf fascination, etc.), makes him a functional fucking idiot even if he has enough native intelligence that he doesn’t have to be a fucking idiot.

And, frankly, that’s worse.

So, for him, it’s tariffs all the way down. Which is a solution only a fucking idiot or conman or both could love. And it's no more cows or windows, which only a fucking idiot or conman or both could say and only a fucking idiot could believe.

Which means even if he isn’t a fucking idiot, he takes his non-billionaire supporters for fucking idiots. And he seems to be right about that.

[Magister]

Trump has a talent for self-promotion, as narcissists often do, and has often been cunning enough to stick other people with his losses. But the idea that very stupid people who inherit wealth always lose it is itself very stupid, and ignores his bankruptcies and losses along with his luck, in addition to excusing his mental decline of the past decade.

Trump received around $500 million from his father in gifts and other wealth transfers (in 2024 dollars). Had he invested that money passively in Manhattan real estate, it would have been worth over $80 billion dollars by 2017 instead of the $2.5 billion that Forbes estimated. Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig argue that Trump was quite lucky due to factors like the Manhattan real estate boom and narrowly escaping the multiple occasions that "ought to have sunk him into total and irrevocable bankruptcy".

[David Nieporent]

Fucking idiots don’t become billionaires. If they luck into money, they lose it.

Counterpoint: Donald Trump.

There are plenty of fucking idiot failsons of rich people.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are you illiterate, or just a coward?

I asked you a direct question and you failed to address it whatsoever, and then got smoked for the foolish non-answer you offered up.

[SRG2]

"Trump has disfluencies"
LOL

"You have the relative standards backwards — you’re dinging Trump for how he talks, and ignoring the problems in Harris’s underlying messages."

No. I did not go into messages at all. I was noting that a good-faith explanation for why Trump supporters have problems with Harris's speech but not Trump's was that they're not judging the same thing. I did not consider the actual messages of either and nor did I need to.

But the urge to respond to any criticism of Trump or his supporters is obviously too great for you. even if the result is garbage.

[Frank Drackman]

Still in the "Anger" Stage, next will be Bargaining, then Depression, then Acceptance.

[Kazinski]

The thing is Trump eventually gets.to the point and makes himself understood. Otherwise you wouldn't be so upset about what he says. He isn't trying to hide his views.

Harris meanders around and never comes to a point, and almost never says anything of substance. She Is trying to either obscure her positions, or she doesn't know what they are.

That's the difference.

[SRG2]

I'm not upset. It seems you lot are constitutionally unable to read any criticism of Trump or his followers without over-reacting and under-comprehending.

[SimonP]

Yes, we know with a great deal of clarity how Trump plans to manage the economy: Tariffs!

Jobs? Tariffs! Hike 'em up high, and all the manufacturers will onshore the factories they're building overseas.

Inflation? Tariffs! Everything will be cheaper once the companies relocate to the U.S.

Strength of the dollar? Tariffs! Impose 100% tariffs on any country that doesn't rely on the dollar as a reserve currency. That'll show China!

China? Tariffs! Hike 'em high, force China to buy our shit!

Allies? Also tariffs! They're eating our lunch by trading freely!

Deficits? Tariffs! All of that money we're making American importers pay will go to pay for tax breaks on car loan interest payments, overtime, and tips. And also day care.

Hey Teddy - do you have any idea why Trump likes tariffs so much? Could it have something to do with the fact (or Trump's belief, anyway) that it can be exercised unilaterally, without involvement by Congress?

[Mr. Bumble]

"https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-biden-trump/index.html
Biden finalizes increases to some of Trump’s China tariffs

[Kazinski]

While I am a favor of punitive tarrifs, like for instance against China for slave labor camps, and aggression in the South China Sea, or the EU for targeting American tech companies for not censuring social media enough, I am for the most part a free trader.

However we both have to admit Trump has been clear about what he believes, which was my point.

[Martinned2]

Yes, the problem has never been about understanding what Trump believes. The problem is why more than 20% or so of Americans would vote for someone who believes those things.

[SimonP]

So for you the choice is between:

One candidate who is very clear about what he wants to do, including rapidly rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants, imposing hefty tariffs on broad swaths of the economy, siccing the DOJ on his political opponents, and using the military to suppress unruly protests against his presidency, all of which demonstrates his lack of respect for the Constitution, the presidential role, and the American people, as well as his overwhelming incompetence and ignorance.

Another candidate who is not very clear about what she wants to do, issuing only marginal tweaks to existing policy platforms and arguing that's what's need is to continue building on the work that Biden has begun, while demonstrating (at least) that she has the temperament to be president, respects even those Americans who choose not to support her, and has a sufficient command of the issues to do the work of the presidency.

And you'd rather go with the first?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah; Why not be clear about what you mean to do, except that you believe that if you were clear, the voters would reject you?

The voters should basically automatically reject any candidate who tries to keep them in the dark about what they'd do if elected. By the very effort to keep you ignorant, they've informed you that they don't think you'd like what they'd do.

[SimonP]

So, given that Trump has done exactly this, vis-a-vis the comprehensive program of reforms outlined in Project 2025, in his plans for Ukraine/dealing with Putin and Israel/Gaza, and his approach to abortion rights at the national level, you would agree that you would "automatically reject" him?

You obviously give Trump a pass when he refuses to take clear positions on matters where he'd be politically vulnerable. Well, I do the same for Kamala. Trump doesn't want to talk about abortion; Kamala doesn't want to talk about taxes. Trump doesn't want to talk about Ukraine or Putin; Kamala doesn't want to talk about Israel/Gaza. Meanwhile, Trump is pulling the same shit he did in 2016, when he promises everyone a pony and allows his supporters to construct an image of him they find appealing. He isn't the president, so he can say whatever he wants. Kamala is notably not a fabulist, and she can't be seen as undermining Biden, so she doesn't do that.

[Commenter_XY]

They hear the message of those word clouds.

Yes, that is the answer, SRG2, you have said it yourself. The message gets through, doesn’t it. You’ve hit on why Pres Trump is a very effective candidate. You don’t need me to tell you why his message is heard and VP Harris’ is not (note – if you do not know, you would not believe me if I told you).

They are both being judged on their effectiveness of message delivery by the American electorate.

There is no double standard here. It is neither racism nor sexism.

One, they each have a record they’re running on. The core issues of the election – economic affordability, immigration – are areas where Pres Trump is perceived as better (rightly or wrongly). Yes, abortion is an important issue as well. It doesn’t have the same immediate urgency or salience as economic affordability and immigration. There are many polls out there telling us what is important to the electorate, they all point to those two issues as top of mind.

Two, Pres Trump is a practiced, and accomplished story teller (pun intended). The key to understanding Pres Trump’s success in getting his underlying message across to his audience is his story telling ability, regardless of audience composition. He has had a lot of practice, story-telling (heh), with his children, NYC union shops at his construction sites, EU bankers to finance development for his EU holdings, his ex-wives, or in a courtroom. ???? There is a qualitative difference between making a speech and story telling.

These two factors, by themselves, explain a lot of why Pres Trump is even close in this election (and could well win it). It is not rocket science.

VP Harris has an entirely different set of issues. That is a separate post.

[SRG2]

So you should have criticised Kamala for her message, not her speech.

[Commenter_XY]

VP Harris has an entirely different set of issues. That is a separate post.

[Frank Drackman]

“How many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has released into the country over the last three-and-a-half years?”
"Oh, Brett, who knows? 10-15 million, but you know there are hotel rooms to be cleaned, Taco's to be Taco-ed, and if, umm, what was her name again? Lincoln Riley? a few women get raped and murdered?, well, we just have to Vet them better"

Frank

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran. You're just going through the same pangs the natives did when white crime exploded across the continent. But fear not Frankie, the natives (the mesoamerican one's) are coming home and bringing a brown crime wave with them. And in 200 years, some other group (probably Haitians) will give all the brown racists running the country their own comeuppance. But you'll be dead by then Frankie and your descendants will have long since interbred with the brown masters

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank, you’re just strengthening the suspicion that me and you are one and the same (I’m Tyler Durden and you’re Ed Norton’s character, although I suspect you’ve got more the body habitus of Robert Paulson), and while I never plan past the next few weeks, I come from a long lived fambily on both sides, both parents in 80’s (and Mom still smokes), 1 grandparent died young at 91, he was the non-drinker/smoker, at 62, good chance I’ll be around for many moons. I'm all for the in-breeding, it'll be like Charlie Manson's plan, have the mud peoples kill all the whites, and after a few years of stone knives and bear skins, they'll need the few remaining whites to make the trains run on time (or at least the ovens), see the current paradises of South Africa and Zimbabwe

Frank

[Michael P]

Rooftop solar is regressive. I am shocked, shocked to find a leftist cause being regressive in actual practice. (OK, not actually shocked.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/10/16/rooftop-solar-emissions-climate-change/

[jb]

Interesting article.

Seems like it's only actually regressive when the state mandates a payment for energy generated by rooftop solar that's greater than it contributes to the grid; that's an easy fix. Also seems like we should look at ways to get the cost down to utility-scale installations, which is how the article says it works elsewhere. Getting rid of some forms of subsidies would probably help.

I do think it's cute how rightists only care about policies being regressive if it's things they don't like in the first place.

[hobie]

Superstitious hillbillies like Michael always fear the new and the other. Change is hard for them so they lash out

[Brett Bellmore]

It's going to be mildly "regressive" even if you didn't connect the solar to the grid at all, because even then it lowers the number of customers without lowering the infrastructure costs materially, increasing the cost per customer. Grids are cheapest when 100% of the potential customers in their area are relying on them.

But, yes, getting rid of the subsidies would help a lot. All of them.

[jb]

I don't think this is true. Long haul transmission is expensive, so local power generation that costs roughly the same as remotely generated power should decrease grid costs. Solar production also tends to peak at the same time as demand, so it allows you to run a grid that doesn't need as much headroom versus average demand.

[Brett Bellmore]

Most of the distribution cost, and certainly most of the distribution maintenance costs, are "last mile" costs.

But customer generated power fed back into the grid does NOT substitute 1 for 1 for utility generated power. Say you've got your nuke plant plugging along at typical 98% uptime, with the downtime scheduled months in advance. And the sun peeks through a hole in the clouds, and some neighborhood goes from pulling power off the grid to dumping power onto the grid.

It's not like you can just shut the nuke plant down for a few minutes, or suspend interest payments on having built it. But you don't have any choice about taking that solar power, so you must shut something down on an emergency basis to avoid over-driving the grid and causing voltage surges.

I will grant you that solar, though not wind, peaks close enough to the daily peak in power consumption, that at a LOW level of grid penetration, a few percent, it maybe improves things. At anything above a few percent it causes terrible problems for grid administration. At best, you're shutting down baseline power plants you paid good money for, just so some people who put panels on their roof can run their meters backwards for a few minutes.

[ThePublius]

"local power generation that costs roughly the same as remotely generated power should decrease grid costs"

How do you figure that? I surmise power generated with PV panels is enormously more expensive than remotely generated power, when you account for the cost to produce and install the panels, and their lifespan.

[jb]

Maybe next time you should read the article?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not seeing anything in the article that contradicts ThePublius.

First, the article does mention the subsidies that PV panels enjoy. Which means that the price paid by the homeowner who installs them is only a fraction of their actual cost. It mentions that sometimes the subsidies exceed the entire value of the electricity the panels generate.

Second, it points out that rooftop panels make the less expensive solar farms uneconomical. That's certainly a case of being more expensive than remotely generated power, no?

"But rooftop solar costs much more than a giant solar farm. Installing solar panels on the roof of a house or apartment building will cost a homeowner around $4.20 per watt before tax breaks and incentives — while installing them in a large solar farm costs closer to $1.16 per watt."

Wow, almost four times more expensive than the remotely generated power it's displacing, even if you ignore the baseline plants being idled.

Seems to me the article agrees with ThePublius, and that's with it lowballing the cost by failing to note all those baseline plants being idled.

[jb]

Rooftop solar in the United States also costs more than in other places around the world. In other countries, rooftop solar and large solar farms cost approximately the same amount per watt.

And way back in my very first message I wrote "Also seems like we should look at ways to get the cost down to utility-scale installations, which is how the article says it works elsewhere." So yes, I'm suggesting that we try to address some of the problems raised in the article since it seems like rooftop solar has the potential to be helpful whereas it does indeed seem problematic at the moment.

[Michael P]

WTOP sounds shockingly based in https://wtop.com/local/2024/10/who-am-i-a-south-korean-adoptee-finds-answers-about-the-past-just-not-the-ones-she-wants/: "after access to birth control and abortion crushed the supply of domestic babies."

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck is it with right wingers and weirdo takes on women as breeding sows? Women get a choice. You know what's not an element in that? The supply of domestic babies.

Of course it's gotta be a domestic supply, too. Immigration might darken our complexion.

Force birthing it is!

[Michael P]

I’m 99% sure that a right-winger didn’t write that, chief. The only named contributor is an “Investigative Journalist Equity Initiative” filmmaker: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/person/lora-moftah/

[Sarcastr0]

You offered it as a right winger for the thesis I stated, weirdo.

‘Domestic babies’ really jumped out at you did it?

[Sarcastr0]

The Missouri AG, is suing claiming that abortion pills are causing Missouri teens to not reproduce thereby injuring the state because of a population decrease.

Is pulling out a RICO?

[not guilty]

Here is a pdf of the amended complaint: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2024/10/17/671142b3e4b0b6831a121611.pdf

I may have more after I have finished reading it.

[not guilty]

I’m still reading, but I haven’t seek anything yet which would support venue in the Northern District of Texas. The applicable statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), provides:

A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action. Additional persons may be joined as parties to any such action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with such other venue requirements as would be applicable if the United States or one of its officers, employees, or agencies were not a party.

The absence of any nexus to the Northern District of Texas would require moving the lawsuit away from the result-oriented goofball Matthew Kacsmaryk.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Convoluted goings on in the ROBERT LESLIE ROBERSON III case.

The Supreme Court refuses a request for a stay/cert with Sotomayor dropping a ten-page statement saying there is no federal jurisdictional hook but there is a clear actual innocence claim. The only route would be statewide:

"An executive reprieve of thirty days would provide the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles with an opportunity to reconsider the evidence of Roberson’s actual innocence. That could prevent a miscarriage of justice from occurring: executing a man who has raised credible evidence of actual innocence."

Meanwhile, separately, a judge handed down a temporary reprieve.

https://www.tpr.org/criminal-justice/2024-10-17/robert-roberson-granted-last-minute-reprieve-minutes-before-execution

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Update: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has vacated the temporary restraining order that had halted Robert Roberson's execution. Now the state legislators are expected to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Texas Supreme Court has stayed Robert Roberson's execution.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Kamala interview on Fox was such a disaster, FEMA denied her $750... get ir? Because she's White amd lied about hee maid being her black grandmother and FEMA denies White people aid for Disaster Equity Justice.

[santamonica811]

Does someone have a language translation programme, so I can see what that comment means, when translated into English?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sorry, GIGO...

[Moderation4ever]

The disaster was that Fox New staff's thought they could put the wrong video clip past her. They did not.

[ThePublius]

Anyone else watch the Al Smith dinner? I like Jim Gaffigan but I didn't think he was particularly funny last night. Kamala's video was cringe-worthy, and borderline insulting to Catholics. Trump was on his game, and ruthless.

Best lines:

'Kamala isn't here because she's receiving communion from Gretchen Whitmer.'
'Tim Walz isn't here, but he'll say he was.'

[Martinned2]

Why are those good lines?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because they both make the opposition's screwups into punch lines.

If Whitmer hadn't parodied communion, if Walz hadn't genuinely earned a reputation for claiming to be places he wasn't, those lines wouldn't have made people laugh, they'd just have been confused.

But they both skewered the opposition over real stupidities.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Those are pretty weak sauce. Meanwhile, this is an account from the NY Times:

He made raunchy jokes about adultery and menstruation and swore while standing feet from a cardinal. He praised Rush Limbaugh and talked about “the China Virus,” and the “Democrat party” and he emphasized Barack Obama’s middle name (Hussein). When he said Ms. Harris wanted to bail out looters and rioters, the room groaned.

Classy.

[ThePublius]

Well, yea, that's what I'd expect of the NY Times.

[NOVA Lawyer]

ThePublius, he made a classless joke about Doug Emhoff that the audience audibly let know was pretty low and disgusting and Trump acknowledged it was bad, but, of course, blamed the writers. I told them not to put it in there, or some such.

And that's one example. Do you dispute any of the NYT's examples? Of course not, because they happened. And they are disgraceful. If you're going to defend him, you have to engage with his tasteless, bigoted discourse too and not just one-liners someone else wrote for him.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, when "45" joked about how "Second Gentelman" Doug "Jack" Emhoff fucked his Nanny and paid for her Abortion?, Yes, not very “Gentlemanly”, of "Jack" Emhoff, not “45”.

[Mr. Bumble]

…and in other news:
Yaya Sinwar is still dead.

[Martinned2]

Excellent. Now let's hope the next leader of Hamas is more incompetent.

[Mr. Bumble]

If this keeps up the next "leader" might wind up like Benito Mussolini.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

His granddaughter becomes a model and actress before entering politics?

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

[not guilty]

Defense counsel for Ryan Wesley Routh have filed a motion for Judge Aileen Cannon's recusal in the case where Routh is accused of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.675703/gov.uscourts.flsd.675703.48.0_1.pdf

[John F. Carr]

If she didn't have to recuse from the case against Trump she doesn't have to recuse from this one. Conversely, if she does have to recuse from Trump's case she ought to recuse from this one too.

All five justices of the Supreme Court of South Dakota disqualified themselves when former governor Bill Janklow appealed his manslaughter conviction. State v. Janklow, 2005 S.D. 25. Janklow had appointed four justices to the Supreme Court. The fifth was appointed to the Circuit Court by Janklow and to the Supreme Court by a different governor. There was no question of future appointments being granted as favors, as Routh's lawyer suggests could happen. There was nowhere left to promote the justices to and Janklow was no longer governor. They still thought it looked bad to hear his appeal.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"If she didn’t have to recuse from the case against Trump she doesn’t have to recuse from this one. Conversely, if she does have to recuse from Trump’s case she ought to recuse from this one too."

You could at least read the motion, JFC. The first two pages lay out a reasonable rationale for why Cannon should recuse herself, including the fact that she presided over Trump's most straight-forward criminal case which she miraculously decided against all jurisprudence to simply dismiss after two years of unquestionably biased rulings in his favor.

Were those facts present when the Trump case was assigned to her? No?

Congratulations: Now everyone knows you didn't even bother to read the motion before making a decision on its merits and sharing your ignorant opinion here. That will make it easier to dismiss anything you say in the future, because you clearly don't take the time to make informed comments even when the information is presented directly for you to click on.

[not guilty]

"If she didn’t have to recuse from the case against Trump she doesn’t have to recuse from this one. Conversely, if she does have to recuse from Trump’s case she ought to recuse from this one too."

The issue was not litigated before the District Court in the case against Trump. The Special Counsel did not move for her recusal and has not asked the Court of Appeals to order reassignment on remand to a different judge. Two amicus curiae briefs have requested the Court of Appeals to order reassignment.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.33.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.34.0.pdf

[grb]

During an appearance on Fox & Friends Friday morning, it was embarrassingly obvious Trump is suffering from advanced cognitive decay. We’ve all seen afflicted old people struggle to speak at the level of a child while thy strive to produce some kind of meaning – any kind whatsoever. That was the case here:

“I’ll tell you what I love, I love cows,” Trump slurred. “But if we go with Kamala you won’t have any cows. I don’t want to ruin this kid’s day. I love cows, I think they’re so cute and so beautiful and so.… But according to Kamala, who’s a radical left lunatic, you will not have any cows anymore,” he added.

Even the cult bootlickers can't deny something so clear: At this point Trump’s brain is barely functional – no better than worm-ridden mush.

[ThePublius]

Yea, keep beating that drum, you and the rest of the knucklehead Dem leftists. That's all you got - nothing positive about Kamala, just attack Trump. You're all pivoting to the cognitive decline script.

It's obvious to the casual, unbiased observer that nothing could be further from the truth. Did you watch the Al Smith dinner last night? He's firing on all cylinders. The same can't be said of Joe, unfortunately, or even Kamala, who can't put a cogent statement together extemporaneously.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's obvious to the casual, unbiased observer that you're a fucking idiot desperate to get some Trump dick in your mouth.

"That’s all you got – nothing positive about Kamala, just attack Trump."

The only thing Trump has done for the last 8 years is insult anyone and everyone about race, gender, intelligence, and anything else he can muster up.

Speaking of the Al Smith dinner, why don't you go take a look at what he said there and apply your own allegations to it and tell me what you come up with.

Firing on all cylinders eh?

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/17/thursday-open-thread-213/?comments=true#comment-10764202

You are all lying hypocrites.