Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[santamonica811]

Congrats to me on my baseball predictions, which are spot-on so far. Edge slightly to the Yankees in the World Series, due to the Dodgers having only one decent starting pitcher who is not on the injured list. (And he spent a month or three on that list, earlier this season.) But I expect a strong showing from either Otani or Judge...maybe even 3 or 4 home runs from one of them???

[Mr. Bumble]

Shades of the late 1940s and early 1950s when the World Series was a NYC affair.

[Frank Drackman]

Growing up in 1950s Berlin my mom would follow the World Series on VOA and the Armed Forces station, she thought the World Series was always the Yankees against the next best team

[Commenter_XY]

Yankees in 6

[bernard11]

Hard to see it going less than 7.

These are good, evenly matched, teams.

[Josh R]

If you flip a coin to determine who wins each game, the probability of a 7-game series is only 5/16. 6 games is 5/16, 5 games is 4/16 and 4 games is 2/16.

[Don Nico]

This is a another chance for Otani to show that he is the best ball player since Babe Ruth

[Sarcastr0]

How Japan Took Over Baseball

It's not perfect (it doesn't explain how they went from hardworking failures to so successful), but I found it fascinating.

[Don Nico]

Thanks for the link. It was fun to watch. Indeed, baseball seems to have near religious status in Japan.

[OtisAH]

Does Willie Mays not exist in your reality? That’s a bummer.

[Mr. Bumble]

Say Hey was great but what was his record as a pitcher?

[Don Nico]

What was Willie's record as a pitcher?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ruth started out as a pitcher and was a good one.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The real post-season surprise is how well the Dodgers' patchwork pitching staff has done. That's why they are in the series.

[not guilty]

Schadenfreude rocks!! This is not a good year to be an Alabama football fan. The UT Vols are now in control of their own destiny. The winner of the Tennessee-Georgia game on November 16 is highly likely to wind up in the SEC championship game in December.

[Commenter_XY]

Go Orange! 🙂

[bernard11]

As we used to say,

"Nothing sucks like a big orange."

This was often provoked by Ray Mears, then the UT basketball coach, stomping around the VU gym wearing a bright orange blazer.

[Frank Drackman]

Like the Locusts their fans resemble, UT foo-bawl comes out of the dirt every 17 years, last SEC Championship game was 2007(big surprise, they lost with that Great Pumpkin Phil Fulmer) then a succession of horrible coaches less memorable than 7th Century Popes, more losses to Vanderbilt in 4 years than Alabama had in 60, like the Old Ball Coach said after beating Tennessee again(if you don’t know who that is, please don’t embarrass yourself by commenting)
“You can’t spell Citrus Bowl without “UT”

Frank

[Malika]

Don’t get overly happy, Georgia will likely whup Tennessee.

[Frank Drackman]

Malika, this doesn’t mean we’re going to take long showers together, but I have to agree with you
Nome Sane?

Frank

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for December 4 in United States v. Skrmetti. The issue presented is whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which categorically prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The courts below addressed the substantive due process rights of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their minor children regarding medical care, but only the equal protection issues will be considered by SCOTUS.

The District Court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute, https://casetext.com/case/l-w-v-skrmetti-1 , reasoning as to the equal protection claim that SB1 imposes disparate treatment based on transgender status and that transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, such that intermediate scrutiny is required. Alternatively the District Court opined that the Act subjects individuals to disparate treatment on the basis of sex, thus requiring intermediate scrutiny, and that the State could not meet the rigorous scrutiny that comes with such regulations. The court concluded that the Act’s ban on drug and hormone therapy was facially unconstitutional and issued a statewide injunction.

A divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, with the majority ruling that the applicable standard of review is rational basis analysis. L. W. v. Skrmetti, 83 F.4th 460 (6th Cir. 2023). The Supreme Court granted the cert petition of the Plaintiff-Intervenor the United States, which had weighed in solely on the equal protection issues. The Plaintiff minor children and their parents, along with a physician who treats transgender patients, separately petitioned for certiorari, but SCOTUS has not yet acted on that petition, which also presents the substantive due process issues.

There is a circuit split on what standard of judicial review applies for equal protection purposes to state legislation that imposes disparate treatment based on transgender status. The Sixth Circuit in the instant case and the Eleventh Circuit in Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of Alabama, 80 F.4th 1205 (11th Cir. 2023), have applied rational basis analysis. The Fourth Circuit, Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, 972 F.3d 586 (4th Cir. 2020), the Eighth Circuit, Brandt by and through Brandt v. Rutledge, 47 F.4th 661 (8th Cir. 2022), and the Ninth Circuit, Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2019), have applied intermediate scrutiny. Perhaps SCOTUS will clarify this area of the law.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, would the case come out differently if rational basis is applied as opposed to intermediate scrutiny?

[not guilty]

Well, the lower courts reached different results applying different standards of review. What standard of review applies is always a critical issue in equal protection cases.

The Sixth Circuit did not analyze whether the challenged statute would survive intermediate scrutiny analysis.

[Commenter_XY]

What the right standard of review, and why?

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case, I'd say that rational basis must be the correct standard of review, given that bans on conversion therapy haven't routinely been struck down. How else could that be justified?

[Michael P]

Courts have certainly moved in that direction, although the increased clarity on the underlying science -- such as what Kazinski mentioned below about WPATH's guidelines and international findings like the Cass report -- mean that even strict scrutiny might not be enough to block these laws now. The evidence presented in cases like Brandt by the American Crazy Leftists Union and others looks a lot like perjury.

[bernard11]

Think about it, Brett, and you'll figure it out.

[Brett Bellmore]

I did think about it. Did you?

"Medical autonomy" would be a great candidate for an uneumerated right, but it's a 'right' that is routinely violated in so many contexts that anybody arguing on the basis of it must know that their odds in court are poor. At least conversion therapy has a 1st amendment claim.

[bernard11]

I did.

One procedure has a decent level of support among medical professionals.

The other- conversion therapy - is crackpottery that often descends to the level of abuse of the patient.

[Michael P]

Except for WPATH, which ended up advocating policies that its own members were surprised by and thought were unsupported, every notable study and government policy has found that transing kids is what you call "crackpottery that often descends to the level of abuse of the patient".

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Medical professionals" don't have a special constitutional status.

If voters feel that our medical instructions have failed us and are producing crackpottery, they are free to pass laws reflecting that.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Unless what the voters want to pass violates the Constitution.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure, but I'm not sure what violating the Constitution has to do with the opinions of medical professionals.

[Josh R]

It would not surprise me if Gorsuch concluded intermediate scrutiny applies because there is sex discrimination based on the same reasoning from Bostock. Perhaps Roberts joins him and the liberals? Barrett was not on the Court when Bostock was decided.

Bans on coversion therapy don't run into the same problem.

[Krychek_2]

I think it *should* be strict scrutiny but I'm not sure the courts would agree with me. Strict scrutiny applies to fundamental rights, and bodily autonomy strikes me as about as fundamental a right as it gets. Especially if the minor and the parents are in agreement.

And I would apply that rule consistently: Abortion, sodomy statutes, prostitution, recreational drugs, medical drugs not approved by the FDA. It's your body, not the state's. I realize there needs to be some protection against snake oil salesmen, and the government occasionally wins even when it's strict scrutiny if it can show a compelling state interest. But that would be my default position.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bodily autonomy would be a great right, (If generally applied, not just used as an occasional excuse.) but it is painfully obvious that it isn't remotely treated by the judiciary as a right. Medical regulation would look completely different otherwise.

And I don't think, if the courts were going to start treating it as a legitimate 9th amendment right, that this would be a sensible place to start. This really looks like a case where strict scrutiny would still leave the government winning, because, as I note below, gender dysphoria almost always resolves unless treated. "Gender affirming" treatment is roughly the equivalent of treating juvenile diabetes by surgical removal of the pancreas.

As I said, if conversion therapy bans aren't going to be struck down, with their 1st amendment implications, why would this be struck down?

[Krychek_2]

There's a wrinkle with medical regulation, because bodily autonomy does not, by itself, preclude government regulating the practice of medicine. And there does need to be some protection against snake oil salesmen. So that one would probably have to be resolved case by case.

[not guilty]

"What the right standard of review, and why?"

IMO, intermediate scrutiny should apply, for all of the reasons relied upon by the District Court. Under this standard a party seeking to uphold government action must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the classification. To succeed, the defender of the challenged action must show "at least that the classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996), quoting Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724 (1982). The burden of justification is demanding and it rests entirely on the State.

[Commenter_XY]

That sounds pretty formidable = The burden of justification is demanding and it rests entirely on the State.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Perhaps you could be a little less biased in reviewing a case...

The district court's decision was asinine.

[not guilty]

Where does my comment reflect bias? I described objectively what the issue before the Supreme Court is (taken verbatim from the Appellant’s brief,) https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/323551/20240827210326240_23-477tsUnitedStates.pdf , what the lower courts ruled, and what the intercircuit split is.

Dr. Ed 2, have you actually read Judge Richardson's district court memorandum opinion? Yes or no?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Taking just the brief of one side is inherent bias.

[Sarcastr0]

You are welcome to a full refund.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I want my country back. Can you imagine even gay marriage being taken seriously in the '80s?

Can you imagine states not being able to ban slicing off healthy body parts to further mental illness -- which WAS mental illness as late as the DSM IV.

Can you imagine the Warren Court, as left-leaning as it was, even hearing this case?!?

[SRG2]

I want my country back.

It was never yours to own.

[Riva]

Aren’t you British? Didn’t we send you guys packing a while ago?

[SRG2]

I became a naturalised US citizen 10 years ago. And, btw, thje "liberal elites" in Britain at the time of US independence were supporters of independence and the Liberal opposition stood up and cheered in the Commons when the PM announced that the colonies had declared independence.

And of course your comment is ad hominem, hence the presumption that you couldn't actually address my point.

[Riva]

Calm down and try to keep a stiff upper lip. There’s a good chap.

[SRG2]

Such imaginative. So originality.

[Mr. Hook]

"I want my country back."

Wah! I have to share rights and citizenship with people different than me! Wah!

[EscherEnigma]

Ah yes, the 80s, that paragon of rational and moral treatment of gay people, when it was routine for an estranged family to treat the death of their gay relative as a lotto win.

What a time in gay-straight relations to look back on fondly.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Dr. Ed. When you wrote "The district court’s decision was asinine", had you actually read Judge Richardson’s district court memorandum opinion? Yes or no?

[Kazinski]

Long time Volokh commenter Dilan Esper has a long X thread claiming SG Prelogar screwed up her SCOTUS brief by relying on a compromised organization to base her brief on:

"This isn't a comment on the (controversial) merits of this issue, but having finally gotten a chance to look at Alabama's amicus brief to SCOTUS on the youth transition issue, the Solicitor General made a MASSIVE litigation mistake in relying on WPATH guidelines in its petition."

"The problem is that at the very time Prelogar was filing that brief, WPATH was being subjected to discovery in a civil case in Alabama. And the discovery in that case was revealing that WPATH's adoptions of its standards was replete with political interference and non-science."

First tweet in the thread:
https://x.com/dilanesper/status/1848121410192805984?t=m-zGPcW-IuoP-9qHdcQ0kw&s=19

[Mr. Bumble]

For more there' this:
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/rachel-levine-must-resign-2d7?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=61371&post_id=150390017&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=9bg2k&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[Drewski]

Irrelevant to the issue of the case. While the Cass Report is a scathing indictment of generalized gender-affirming treatment programs, it still acknowledges that reassignment is the best treatment in some cases, even for minors. Therefore, it does not provide support for a total ban on reassignment for minors. Quite the opposite.

Alabama's amicus brief is an unprofessional embarrassment that reads like a mean girl gossiping in school.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I understand it, the fundamental problem is that most cases of gender dysphoria in children resolve without treatment, generally by the time puberty is over. Where "most cases" is anywhere from a serious majority to 94% of them.

Reassignment therapy lowers this percentage, a lot. It basically guarantees that you'll never get over the dysphoria.

One might even suspect that it's intended to make sure of that.

Combine that with it already being established that there's no right to freedom of medical treatment, and the result seems a foregone conclusion: "Reassignment" for minors could certainly be banned.

Of course, once politics enters the argument, these facts might not matter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'll bet it would be 100% if we went back to using mental hospitals to affirm gender.

[Malika]

"Of course, once politics enters the argument,"

"The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States, founded in 2002"

[Brett Bellmore]

And WPATH isn't political?

[Joe_dallas]

As Brett correctly notes, "Reassignment therapy lowers this percentage, a lot. It basically guarantees that you’ll never get over the dysphoria."

Thats what happens when you celebrate and embrace mental illness instead of treating it. You perpetuate a lifetime of continued mental illness.

[Sarcastr0]

Is this another area of expertise for Joe, or is he returning to an old standby?

[Joe_dallas]

Its just one of the many areas of general knowledge that everyone not inflicted with woke leftist version of science knows.

[Sarcastr0]

I note that below you talk about tax records like an actual expert would talk.

Note the difference.

[SRG2]

As a philosophical matter when the brain indicates that someone is of one sex and the body indicates that they’re of a different sex, why assume that the brain is wrong?

[Joe_dallas]

SRG2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"As a philosophical matter when the brain indicates that someone is of one sex and the body indicates that they’re of a different sex, why assume that the brain is wrong?"

Perhaps a few thousand body parts, different levels of various hormones, etc should provide your answer. Curious if you are intending to poke fun at the belief in woke science or if you believe in woke science?

[SRG2]

That you use the terms "woke" and "believe" make it unlikely one can have an intelligent conversation with you on scientific matters - one does not "believe" in science, woke or otherwise.

I go where the scientific evidence points. Where do you go?

[Brett Bellmore]

As a philosophical matter, when the brain indicates that somebody is a monoped, but the body has two legs, why assume the brain is wrong?

Because brains have a track record of being wrong, and the number of legs you have isn't a matter of opinion...

[SRG2]

A plausible enough response but still a philosophical error because sexual identification is not the same thing as sexual characteristics. If someone insisted that they had a penis when they had a vagina, then yes, the brain would be wrong.

[David Nieporent]

As a philosophical matter when the brain indicates that someone is of one sex and the body indicates that they’re of a different sex, why assume that the brain is wrong?

Because sex is defined as what one is, not what one thinks?

[David Nieporent]

Its just one of the many areas of general knowledge that everyone not inflicted with woke leftist version of science knows.

This is exactly how expertise does not work.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But it is how woke leftist science works.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The point is, Prelogar didn't need WPATH. There's any number of sources she could have cited to in making an argument that youth gender treatments are based in science."

Yeah, so weird that she cited flawed, politically tainted science instead of pure untainted science that we know must be out there.

[Frank Drackman]

I get it, if there's a constitutional right to kill an unborn child, there's certainly one to chop off a born child's penis/testicles/ovaries/breasts.

[Kazinski]

I was somewhat shocked in Thursday's open thread to find out that there are still 'Hunter's Laptop' denialists lurking in these threads.

While I have to say while I don't think it matters anymore, Joe and Hunter are irrelevant now, I do think its important people acknowledge the lies that were told by our intelligence officials, and the that not only should have known better but did know better.

The FBI and DOJ fully verified the both the provenance of Hunters laptop and its.contents in court:

Attorneys for Hunter Biden had previously attempted to preclude the laptop as evidence in the trial, arguing that they have "numerous reasons to believe the data had been altered and compromised before investigators obtained the electronic material." But special counsel David Weiss argued in court filings that attorneys for Hunter Biden had not "provided any evidence or information that shows that his laptop contains false information," and the judge agreed to admit it as evidence.

With that in context mind, prosecutors said they cross-referenced every email, WhatsApp message, iMessage, and text message they found with Apple Inc. to establish the credibility of the data.

MORE: Timeline: Hunter Biden under legal, political scrutiny
"Ultimately, in examining that laptop, were investigators able to confirm that it was Hunter Biden's laptop?" Hines asked FBI witness Erika Jensen.

"Yes," she replied.

Jensen explained that investigators identified a serial number on the laptop that "matches the Apple subpoena records … of this particular device to the iCloud account at a particular date."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/4-big-takeaways-1st-day-testimony-hunter-bidens/story?id=110830830

Its also worth noting that while Hunter's Lawyers did try to cast doubt on its contents, they presented absolutely no evidence that disputed its authenticity.
"David Weiss argued in court filings that attorneys for Hunter Biden had not "provided any evidence or information that shows that his laptop contains false information," and the judge agreed to admit it as evidence."

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz….But, but, but…Hunter’s not running = what you will hear

[Kazinski]

Sure, but i think its important when people keep repeating lies to keep repeating the truth.

Of course that's also true for both sides (is that a tu quoque?), for instance when Trump or his supporters claim Trump won the 2020 election (he lost).

[Krychek_2]

I never found the Hunter's laptop story interesting enough to follow so I don't have an opinion on the merits. But the Justice Department has shown a willingness to indict him when appropriate, and it's my understanding the laptop was looked at by government investigators, so the fact that he has not been indicted suggests there may be nothing there. I will agree that if he committed a crime, he should be prosecuted.

[Brett Bellmore]

" But the Justice Department has shown a willingness to indict him when appropriate,"

Ha.

First they dragged their heels long enough to put the worst charges past the statute of limitations.

They only acted because of a shitload of publicity.

Then they tried a plea deal that was so absurd the judge refused to approve it, and how often does that happen?

Actually prosecuting him was their last resort after all attempts to let him get off on everything failed.

[Malika]

Conspiracy theories are non-falsifiable, times a thousand.

[Krychek_2]

And Brett doesn't believe Democrats are biologically capable of acting in good faith.

[Bwaaah]

I never heard him say that.

[bernard11]

You don't have to.

Just read his comments. Everything he disagrees with or dislikes is the result of some sort of conspiracy, or else has some deeply nefarious purpose.

Just look above.

[Reassignment therapy] basically guarantees that you’ll never get over the dysphoria.One might even suspect that it’s intended to make sure of that.

This is typical Brett, just like his ravings about the Hunter Biden case.

[Bwaaah]

Read the congressional testimony of IRS agent Gary Shapley. Then consider the fact that it hasn’t been significantly refuted by Democrats, or anybody, really.

Your inattention to what actually happened is evident. But keep with the lazy partisan’s shortcut…call it a “conspiracy theory,” and keep your filter full on. Be careful not to assimilate contradictory information.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who needs falsifiable when you've got verifiable? Do you not follow the news? For instance:

Hunter Biden judge says she can't accept plea deal in surprise turn

[Sarcastr0]

That does not demonstrate a conspiracy, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I see, you're claiming there was only one guy in the DOJ who pulled off that plea deal, not multiple guys cooperating?

[Sarcastr0]

You're claiming it was an illegitimate deal, done at the orders of Democratic Powers and it was like too easy on Hunter and the judge had to say no for that reason.

That's not what happened. As DMN has painstakingly explained to you quite a few times now.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

This was your claim:

"Then they tried a plea deal that was so absurd the judge refused to approve it, and how often does that happen?"

Your 'evidence' does not support your allegation beyond the non-partisan fact that a plea was not agreed upon. It does not demonstrate that it was 'absurd' or some kind of conspiracy.

"..how often does that happen?

Beg the question more, dipshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Come on, now: You know very well that it's practically unheard of for a judge to reject a proposed plea deal.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't tell me that I have to believe your evidence-free conspiratorial bullshit just because you're dumb enough to do so. Now you're shifting the goalposts and pounding the table.

If you even had an inkling of an idea of what you're trying to talk about, you'd know that Judges have a very wide range of reasons why a plea deal can be rejected.

Somehow, shockingly, the conspiratorial nutcase thinks it was because of a conspiracy.

[not guilty]

"Come on, now: You know very well that it’s practically unheard of for a judge to reject a proposed plea deal."

That is simply untrue, Brett.

[Kazinski]

What's unheard of is for a judge to question a plea deal as a possible unconstitutional separation of powers violation, and ask the prosecution if they have any examples of similar deals and the prosecution can't come up with any.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, no one questions that judges "can" reject plea deals. And hens occasionally have teeth.

Doesn't mean it's at all common.

[not guilty]

So you have gone from "practically unheard of" to it's not at all common?

Brett, you are so full of shit that if anyone ever gives you an enema, your remains will fit into a cigar box.

[David Nieporent]

Then they tried a plea deal that was so absurd the judge refused to approve it, and how often does that happen?

Rarely, and it did not happen this time. You don't understand what "happened." The judge did not, despite what MAGA sources may have told you, decide that the deal was too lenient.

[bernard11]

i think its important when people keep repeating lies to keep repeating the truth.

Thus speaks the Trump supporter. What a laugh.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This interview of Condi Rice is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DITrOJ6su2Q

She says some disturbing things about China.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm more interested in her College Foo-bawl Playoff rankings

[DaveM]

Sadly, Hunter's laptop has entered the same territory as Clinton's emails, the Trump Dossier, and the lab-leak theory.

The best that can be said is that everyone at least knows that these things are a pack of lies, even while they pretend otherwise.

"They lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying but they keep lying anyway, and we keep pretending to believe them." - Elena Gorokhova

[Malika]

Clinton's emails? You're a joke, dude.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"While I have to say while I don’t think it matters anymore, Joe and Hunter are irrelevant now, I do think its important people acknowledge the lies that were told by our intelligence officials, and the that not only should have known better but did know better."

If you're referring to the "51 former intelligence officials" who signed a letter regarding the NYP story, you're conveniently omitting the fact that the letter was signed in the days after the publication of the NYP story, without the signatories having had the benefit of the results of the FBI's investigation, as revealed in the Hunter Biden tax case.

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have
evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case."

Nor, of course, did the NYP have those results at the time they published the contents of the laptop's hard drive image. Nor has the FBI ever (to my knowledge) confirmed that the hard drive image possessed by the NYP (and others) accurately reflects the Hunter Biden laptop hard drive in their possession. You may also recall several security experts questioning whether any of the files in the image had been altered or added since the image had been taken. Has that ever been resolved?

Beyond that, of course, is the fact that none of the contents of either the laptop hard drive or the hard drive image was particularly interesting (unless you're into Hunter's dick pics), and certainly did not implicate Joe Biden in any criminal activity.

Which, of course, was the whole point of the 2020 "October Surprise"--and it failed.

[Jerry B.]

But the media took that letter signed by intelligence experts as gospel (or at least they pretended to) and called any different viewpoint disinformation.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, and Politico reported it under a headline that completely ignored the prominent caveat I highlighted above.

But how is that the fault of the former intelligence officials? Blame the media.

[Estragon]

Weiss’ FBI expert testified they didn’t look for signs of tampering in what they introduced at trial. They didn’t even have a warrant to look for gun crimes until December. While judge Norieka’s evidentiary rulings in the gun case are defensible— treating her ruling in the very specific context of the gun case as a wholesale validation of all claimed contents of these various laptops and hard drives that have passed through the hands of people like Rudy is unwarranted and ridiculously credulous. That’s even before getting to the blind computer repairman’s story, which is inconsistent to say the least. And oh yeah— Smirnov.

And there are actual signs of significant compromises to Hunter’s digital life during his active addiction. There were even at least 2 GOP operatives who admitted publicly that they had hacked Hunter! The whole slew of devices are suspect for a lot of reasons— which doesn’t matter to people pushing the political angle here. In fact, I guarantee you there were more bogus “laptop” “revelations” all teed up for the stretch run of the campaign, which is why Trump was whining so stridently and disappointedly when Biden dropped out.

[SRG2]

I think it's well-established now what Hunter had a laptop.

It is noteworthy that a Republican House, loaded for bear, couldn't pin anything more on Biden than innuendo.

[David Nieporent]

The FBI and DOJ fully verified the both the provenance of Hunters laptop and its.contents in court:

They did no such thing. You didn't even read what you yourself quoted. They said that Hunter didn't prove the contents weren't authentic, not that they had verified all of the contents. DOJ — now, of course, you choose to believe them — said that they had verified some of the contents. Communications, essentially.

I do think its important people acknowledge the lies that were told by our intelligence officials,

What lie was told by any intelligence official related to the laptop?

If you're talking about the letter released in response to the NYP story, here's once again some free clues: (1) they were former intelligence officials; (2) they did not say what you think they said; (3) they weren't talking about the laptop. They were talking about the NYP story, which was not about the laptop because the NYP, like the rest of us, had never seen the laptop.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So Donald Trump cooked fries at a closed McDonalds.
https://www.showbiz411.com/2024/10/20/trump-campaign-closed-down-mcdonalds-for-staged-fry-cook-stunt-store-not-open-per-owners-letter

SO WHAT?!?!?!?

You have a highly threatened individual who's already been shot at twice and the USSS doesn't want random unknown persons coming within five feet of him. I have no doubt they have the same policy regarding Heels Up and Coma Joe.

So Heels Up went to church -- I can assure you that the USSS had the social security number of everyone in that church and that they had all gone through metal detectors to get in there. Churches are actually easy, they have known congregations.

So Donald Trump cooked fries for pre-screened customers. Welcome to the 21st Century where we live with threats.

[Commenter_XY]

deleted

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think anyone thinks there’s anything wrong with Donald Trump not wanting to work at McDonald’s, including because of the legitimate concerns for his personal safety.

The question is why he thought it was nevertheless a good idea to pretend to briefly be working at McDonald’s.

[Michael P]

His work at a McDonald's is now vastly better documented than Kamala Harris's supposed work at one.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay?

[Krychek_2]

I'm not sure I would be able to document every part time job I had when I was 18 either. Absent evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to assume that she did.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I certainly can’t !

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Obviously. He "worked" on camera, and she did not have a camera crew following her every move 45 years ago.

My first job was in fast food, and I know exactly where it was, but I have no idea how I would prove that to anyone now. Do employment/Social Security/tax records even go back ~45 years?

Trump couldn't find any good "birther" fodder against Harris, so he went down the "burger" route...

[Absaroka]

“Do employment/Social Security/tax records even go back ~45 years?”

They sure do! SSA knows about the $520 I earned in 1973. They need to know you complete earnings history to figure your benefit at retirement. Taxes were first collected in 1937.

I dunno whether they have the records of who paid it, vs just the total for the year. I’d guess so in case someone disputes the numbers decades later, but I don’t know that for sure.

You can dispute their records. If I show up in 2027 with pay stubs from 1973, I think they’d want to know who paid that $520 to see whether they have already counted those pay stubs.

(That said, I don't have any evidence to prove what employer paid that $520. I know who it was, but I sure couldn't provide any documentation).

[verochkax]

Kamala probably blew Ronald McDonald in the parking lot.

[DrCoke]

I don't understand why Kamala doesn't simply have the IRS retrieve the I-9 and W-2 forms that McDonalds most certain;y had to file in order to pay her.

Is it because she worked so little that she would be embarrassed? (I don't think she claimed to work there a LOT.) Is it because she worked there illegally? (I've been to that McDonalds plenty of times; doesn't seem like the kind of franchise that would try to get away with illegal employees.) Or is it because she did not, in fact, work there, and manufactured the whole thing to enrich her lower/middle-class appeal?

I understand why Trump supporters would carefully not suggest any topic related to publishing tax documents. But this also just seems like a reason why the Harris camp would LOVE to bring up a topic of tax documents.

What the heck is going on there?

My theory: Kamala is totally lying about working at McDonalds, so can't allow the IRS to reveal that truth. Trump meanwhile doesn't want to bring up tax documents, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because Harris is pretending to have worked at McDonalds, and by actually working there for a few minutes he can make it harder for the media to memory hole the lie.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh, don't sell short their ability to memory hoke anything they want.
Like for instance, did a damaging hurricane reek havoc in western NC?

[Sarcastr0]

The evidence it’s a lie is she didn’t put it in her resume. Which is not great evidence.

But here you are, sure as always.

Is this after you did a weighing of the probabilities? Because funny, I see confidence well beyond what one would expect.

[Brett Bellmore]

The evidence that it's a lie is this:

McDonald's warns staff not to disclose whether Kamala Harris has ever worked there

[Dan Schiavetta]

Actually that is evidence that it’s the truth. Corporate bigwigs, pro-Trump, ordered their employees not to talk.

Staff would not be able to say, “No, she’s never worked here”, because they weren’t around then and/or can’t search company records. And can anyone definitively say that they never rubbed shoulders with a particular person 35 years ago? But they would be able to say, “Yes, I remember her!”

[Armchair]

If Harris wanted to "prove" she worked there, it would be easy. She'd just go get her IRS records. There would be records of the tax receipts and the payments.

You can't "prove" a negative though.

[Riva]

She can’t and doesn’t prove anything about her lie. A claim she invented in the midst of her first failed bid for the presidency, that had gone unmentioned throughout her entire career and in her 2019 autobiography, and in contemporaneous job disclosures, and apparently in any records McDonald’s maintains (at least they haven’t corroborated anything). And we all know she’s not afraid to plagiarize. But we don’t know exactly where this restaurant was located. Fortunately though, it appears she is trying to abandon this lie now that President Trump has shamed her into silence.

[DrCoke]

" But we don’t know exactly where this restaurant was located."

I thought she said it was the one over by Howard University. I have eaten there several times.

But it doesn't matter which McDonalds it was. The IRS will look under her social security number in order to get the W2 form.

Problem is: There is no IRS record. Because she didn't work at any McDonalds, ever. She is a liar, and a bad one.

Why doesn't the Trump camp demand the W2 be produced? Well, let's just say they are careful to shy away from topics related to candidates revealing tax documents.

The Democrats would LOVE to bring up the topic of tax documents. "She showed her W2, form. Now you show us your tax returns (or whatever they want to publicize)." The fact that the Democrats have NOT suggested Harris get her W2 from the IRS is all the proof you need that she's totally a liar.

[Magister]

40 year old tax records are the new long form birth certificate.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump tells whoppers about himself all the time. This piece of Harris trivia is not worth anyone’s attention.

[Riva]

It had been worth it to her to use the lie in a whole lotta campaign ads and mailings, and the handful of (scripted) interviews she’s sat through. I guess she thought it was worth a little attention. I bet even 60 Minutes had a line or two they cut out with their other editing. Now she’s been embarrassed into silence.

[SRG2]

Trump is allowed to lie. His fans are ok with it. You're just not supposed to point his lies out.

[Jerry B.]

Or, in this case, Big Macs.

[DrCoke]

"This piece of Harris trivia is not worth anyone’s attention."

Except that she has made it the centerpiece of her campaign, and her primary credential for becoming the President.

There is no IRS record of her having worked at McDonalds. If there was, they would be yelling at the top of their lungs about how Trump won't in kind show his (much more significant) tax documents. The fact that this move hasn't occurred is all you need to know.

She did NOT work at any McDonalds, ever, and yet she chooses to begin every response to every interview question put to her with a lie about how she worked at McDonalds.

Because she wasn't smart enough to think this trivial thing through. Because she is a terrible (although frequent) liar. And (at least politically) is a fucking moron.

But she has a vagina, and she's not Trump. So there's a good chance she'll win.

All hail President McVagina.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Social Security keeps track of it.

[Joe_dallas]

Correct
Social security administration will have the data . The IRS will not have data 30+ years ago, the franchisor or corporate office will likely not have the records, though the social security admin will have the data.
One point is that only Kamala Harris has the right/ability to obtain the info due to privacy laws.

[Armchair]

Apologies, SS, via FICA.

[DrCoke]

The IRS has her W2. It may be on a backup tape in a federal records warehouse, but they still have it. They don't throw anything out.

Might cost a few thousand dollars to find it.

[Mr. Hook]

Indeed. Both are about the illegitimacy of the person's biography, that this person's life is a lie.

[Magister]

And the fact that the earlier birther attack was wrong raises no doubt for you about this attack?

[Mr. Hook]

Could she be lying? Sure. People do it all the time for all kinds of reasons, especially politicians. But the arguments—if they can be called arguments—that she must be lying—she left it off her c.v.!; she won't release tax records proving she worked there!—are so weak that they may as well also accuse her of being born in Kenya. Trying to make something of this with such weak sauce is suggestive that it's just a desperate smear.

[Sarcastr0]

If Harris wanted to “prove” she worked there, it would be easy. She’d just go get her IRS records.

Are you sure that's true? I don't know, and don't trust a bare assertion from you.

[Absaroka]

I dunno 🙂

1)There is an income threshold below which you don't have to file. Today it is $13kish for a single taxpayer. Presumably it was less in bygone years.

2)My recollection is that I filed every year, even when I was below the then-threshold, because my employer withheld, and I wanted the refund. But it's possible, perhaps, that an employer didn't withhold[1], or you didn't think the amount was worth the hassle, or didn't know about refunds or whatever.

[1]I don't think I have ever had a hourly/salary employer not withhold, but I have gotten lump sum payments for consulting work with no withholding. Dunno what the IRS requires. And ... not all employers comply with the law. My dad worked for the Labor Dept investigator, and found a fair amount of cash payments without any of the niceties of taxes, min wage, or overtime.

[Brett Bellmore]

IIRC, that was a threshold for filing income taxes, but it didn't get you out of Social Security.

[DrCoke]

You’re thinking either of the amount of net income below which a person does not have to file a 1040 return; or else you’re thinking of the limit (currently $600, I believe) under which a company does not need to file a 1099 on an independent contractor.

However, we’re talking about being an employee at McDonalds. They had to create a W2 and file it with the IRS. And the IRS still has that document.

She can’t ask them to fetch it for her because it doesn’t exist.

She never worked at any McDonalds.

If she did, it would be absolutely be the case that she would publish the document. Then she could talk about how SHE releses her tax documents, but that Trump won’t share his.

This tactic would be irresistible. The fact that it’s not happening tells you everything you need to know.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you sure tax records are available for 35-45 years?

"Form W-2, Form 1099 series, Form 1098 series, or Form 5498 series transcript. The IRS can provide a transcript that includes data from these information returns. State or local information is not included with the Form W-2 information. The IRS may be able to provide this transcript information for up to 10 years."
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506t.pdf

[DrCoke]

You're quoting the IRS on how far back they will customarily retrieve documents for a taxpayer for free.

I assure you that the IRS has ALL the records going back a lot further than that, and can get them whenever THEY want. If the Vice President of the United States asked them to retrieve her W2, they would have no problem producing it.

Someone else has suggested that Social Security also has the information, and they can produce the record for your entire lifetime. (How far back they look to determine your Social Security benefits is not the same as how far back they have the records).

PROBLEM: No McDonalds every filed a W2 on Harris. Because she never worked there.

[EscherEnigma]

You're complaining that Harris only shared 20 years of her tax records, and not 45?

How many has Trump shared again?

[bernard11]

She’d just go get her IRS records.

Funny. I just got on my IRS account. Nothing there before 2014.

My SS record shows earnings, etc., but nothing about who paid them.

So, as usual, you are making shit up.

[DrCoke]

"Funny. I just got on my IRS account. Nothing there before 2014."

Are the the Vice President of the United States? The IRS has the records. They just won't bother fetching them for YOU outside certain criteria. They can get them if THEY want to, and could certainly get them for Harris.

Social Security Administration also has it.

Well, they both would, if it were not a lie.

[Don Nico]

capt,
It is only evidence of common corporate practice to control all comments about HR matters.

[Joe_dallas]

In reply to both Don Nico and Obviously

fwiw - a large portion of McDonalds stores are franchise owned, (around 80% are franchise owned).
So most likely assuming K Harris did work at McDonalds, it most likely a franchise location.

Assuming the IRS kept the records for 40+ years, you would still need the correct legal name of the entity that owned the franchise and the federal employer number to locate the data.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of reasons why they'd do that, of course.

You just believe what you want.

[Magister]

You just believe what you want.

That sums up Brett Bellmore's entire VC oeuvre.

[Joe_dallas]

yet neither you or gaslight0 can dispute the article

The evidence that it’s a lie is this:

McDonald’s warns staff not to disclose whether Kamala Harris has ever worked there

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That isn’t evidence of anything you dumb fuck.

[David Nieporent]

Nor is it an accurate characterization of the article. McDonalds didn't do anything at all, and the particular franchisee did not "warns staff not to disclose whether Kamala Harris has ever worked there," a completely unnecessary injunction since nobody there could have the information to disclose any such thing.

[Sarcastr0]

True but irrelevant is the argument being made.

[David Nieporent]

That headline is a complete lie, and also it is not in fact evidence that Harris lied.

[Michael P]

Aren't you usually big on demanding the person making a positive claim being the one who needs to provide substantiating evidence?

(Not that we expected you to live up to your claimed positions.)

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, but I also assume good faith.

When someone claims a minor job they plausibly held years and years ago, the go-to is not 'you're a liar!!'

[Riva]

It depends on if they had a reason to lie and have a history of lying and plagiarism. And there’s zero evidence corroborating the claim but just a shit load of facts screaming lie. Which happens to be exactly the case here. And it is quite telling that she is now attempting to back away from this lie, after being exposed as a liar of course.

[Michael P]

When a politician makes a convenient claim to support their fanciful origin story, I want receipts. I understand that "I grew up in a middle class family"is a more appealing claim than "I grew up a red diaper baby of two privileged parents", but the actual evidence supports the latter rather than the former.

[Malika]

Mikie's still waiting for the "receipts" on Trump's wild chopper ride, Haitians eating dogs, etc.

[Magister]

I can't recall any Trump supporters wanting receipts on his frequent doubtful claims of being named Man of the Year in Michigan. Unlike a summer job at McDonald's, you would expect press releases and newspaper stories for something like that at the time it happened.

[Riva]

Unlike the McDonald’s lie, whatever President Trump said, it has not been used extensively across national ads, campaign mailings, and interviews. At least I don’t recall ever seeing it in ads. And your dismissal of the, well, shit load of facts, screaming lie about Harris is striking. Although who knows? She did say she did the cashier. Did Willie Brown ever work at McDonald’s?

[DrCoke]

"I can’t recall any Trump supporters wanting receipts on his frequent doubtful claims of ___"

This is why the Trump camp is not demanding Kamala get her W2 from the IRS. (They absolutely do have that record, if it exists. They won't go back that far for ordinary customer purposes, though.) Trumpers do not want to bring up anything about publishing tax documents.

However, attacking Trump on his non-disclosures -- in the face of Kamala showing her McW2 -- would be fucking irresistible.

So why haven't they done that?
Simple answer: They can't, because she never worked at McDonalds.

[Sarcastr0]

When a politician makes a convenient claim to support their fanciful origin story

This isn't really a load-bearing fact.

You would have no idea about it but Trump's decided it's his new long form birth certificate.

Demanding PROOF of a basically immaterial fact is petty and silly, but the GOP's been both since Obama wore a tan suit and liked Dijon mustard.

[David Nieporent]

What exactly is "fanciful" about her "origin story"?

[Don Nico]

The entire issue is stupid. Who cares, really?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump has decreed people care. And thus a lot of people on here have hopped to.

[Don Nico]

I don't believe anything else that Trump says. Why should I believe him in this case?

[Sarcastr0]

We're in accord.

I'm just explaining why the big push around here.

[bernard11]

The entire issue is stupid. Who cares, really?

Of course it’s stupid.

Who cares? The MAGAt fools and liars who populate this comment section, and the fools who think Trump hung the moon.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So, your prediction is that the media follow-up of this stunt is going to be focused on proving the Kamala Harris didn’t ever work at McDonald’s?

In the unlikely event that happens, do you think that would lose her any votes?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think that Trump's stunt will have very little effect on MSM coverage of Harris' lie. But having some effect on the margin was Trump's obvious goal, and that at least isn't impossible.

[Malika]

You can't know it as a lie Brett. This is typical you.

[Magister]

"But having some effect on the margin" not being impossible means that, yes, Brett Bellmore does believe this would lose her any votes.

[David Nieporent]

It will not lose her a single vote, Brett, because literally nobody with an IQ above room temperature thinks it's a lie. And yes, if you think it's a lie, I am insulting you by calling you very very very stupid.

But, then, you're the same person who says you can't be sure that Barack Obama was born in the U.S. because you weren't in the maternity ward at the time.

[Armchair]

Potentially. Harris had been using the episode to support her "middle class" upbringing vibes and help for support with working class workers.

If she just lied about it, I can see that turning off some working class voters.

[Malika]

Do you think she didn't have a middle class upbringing?

Maybe she inherited millions?

[Michael P]

#voteharris #justmiddleclassexpatlife #workingprofessordad

[Malika]

Do you think professor's kids don't work entry level jobs?

They don't inherit millions like Trump.

[Don Nico]

That is just an mindless comment and actually off point.

[Michael P]

Your concession of the original point by trying to pick totally new goalposts is noted.

Is there any objective evidence that Harris ever actually worked any entry level job? There's no good evidence she ever worked at a McDonald's.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, she didn't have a middle class upbringing, unless you define "middle class" to include pretty wealthy people.

[Malika]

How do you know this?

[Brett Bellmore]

Through the wonders of google. Both her parents were well paid professionals. Not just professionals, in the top end of their respective fields, internationally recognized.

Look, my mom was a librarian, my dad a machinist. My relatives were in the building trades. *I* had a middle class upbringing, did farm labor next to braceros, janitorial work and foundry work while going through college. Harris' life was nothing like "middle class".

That's not shameful, but she is lying about it.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice sourcing.

An academic and a scientist.

Did you leave out that part of their professions? You did!

Huh.

[Don Nico]

Well paid does not mean very much in this context. Mom was not getting rich working for Berkeley Lab. Her pay would have been in the range of 100k$ to 130k$ in the 1990’s.
Unless dad was a dean or higher, he was also not making a great amount.

But a family income of 200k to 250k made it quite well off in the 90s.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But a family income of 200k to 250k made it quite well off in the 90s."

Right, it was enough that you wouldn't have been "middle class".

[Life of Brian]

According to historic data from the Tax Policy Center, in the mid-1990s even $130k on its own would have been very comfortably in the top 5% of household incomes.

$200-250k was probably pushing top 1-2%.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus Christ people.

It's going to be a subjective take what's middle class, what's well off, etc. Welcome to political storytelling.

And beyond that, you don't know the facts. You can speculate your way to all sorts of statements, but none will be sure.

This is stupid. As stupid as the 'is Trump truly rich' games.

[Magister]

Kamala Harris was born when her parents were still graduate students. Harris's parents were divorced before her father became tenured at Stanford; his previous work as an associate professor probably did not pay above a middle class level. Her mother does not appear to have achieved above a middle class level of success before Kamala Harris was an adult. Her divorced parents' incomes in the 1990s, when Harris was an adult, is completely irrelevant.

[bernard11]

WTF difference does any of this make?

Lots (not all, but lots) of well off kids work at jobs like this, partly because their parents want them to (nothing wrong with that, IMO) partly to earn spending money.

[David Nieporent]

Through the wonders of google. Both her parents were well paid professionals.

How much do you think professors are paid?

[Don Nico]

Any implication that her "middle class" = "working class" is dishonest no matter who makes it.

As for Ms Harris being "middle class" that would be false give present D descriptions of the meaning of rich or wealthy. The family income was far above the median US family income. Some people call that affluent or comfortable. It is not working class and it is not wealthy.

Children in such two professional families can legitimately be said to be called privileged. That neither qualifies nor disqualifies a person to be POTUS.

In this election there is no way that I'd vote for either of the candidates. That is my choice. What others do is their business.
These arguments about irrelevancies are pointless.

[Sarcastr0]

I listen to a British podcast that talks about politics. They went to the DNC, and talked to a lot of union reps.

They noted that they all talked about jobs. But only the autoworkers guy talked about working class jobs; everyone else talked about middle class jobs.

I don't know what that means, but it's not the only place I've heard of this shift.

Anyhow, privilege isn't a binary.

[Don Nico]

"privilege isn’t a binary."
To be sure there is a very wide range.
But a $250K family income in the 90's was privileged in the eyes of the average American family

[Sarcastr0]

A number you've made up, with no sense of cost of living or other expenses.

You are, even more than Harris, telling the story you want to tell.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
I did not make up a number. yOu are beling dishonest. I know VERY well what salaries were at LBNL in the 90’s. I also KNOW what what levels were in the UC system during that period. I made up nothing. You however,are using your telepathic imagination.
Your cost of living comment is also bullshit.
I lived in the SF Bay Area in the 90’s. I know very well what the cost of living was, and I can tell you from managing the salaries of many people in the how people fared in that salary range.
You are just being deceitful if you are claiming that a $250K family income was not being comfortably affluent in the Bay Area in the 1990’s.
Next time trying to speak from knowledge rather than ignorance in an attempt to make a political point.

[Sarcastr0]

I know there are probably general salary tracks at LBNL. But I don’t know enough to know where someone was on them.

You need to note the cost of living if you’re going to make that argument. Just knowing it isn’t really enough, you need to show your work to everyone else.

You are just being deceitful if you are claiming that a $250K family income was not being comfortably affluent in the Bay Area in the 1990’s.
I'm claiming it takes more than back-of-the-envelope Internet gumshoeing to know what the actual family income was, and some more work to lay out what counted as affluent in the Bay Area in the 1990s.

I’d also point you to Magister’s post: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/21/monday-open-thread-76/?comments=true#comment-10767246
He outlines additional material facts you were not tracking.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I know there are probably general salary tracks at LBNL. But I don’t know enough to know where someone was on them."

Yet you still commented

[Sarcastr0]

I commented that throwing out specific numbers being Internet gumshoe stuff no one could validate.

You really think that admitting I don't know something is a sign of weakness, eh?

[David Nieporent]

I did not make up a number. yOu are beling dishonest. I know VERY well what salaries were at LBNL in the 90’s. I also KNOW what what levels were in the UC system during that period. I made up nothing. You however,are using your telepathic imagination.

1) You did in fact make it up.
2) Why on earth are you talking about the 1990s, when Harris was in her 30s, as opposed to the 1960s and 1970s, when she was growing up?
3) Why are you combining her parents' income for a "two professional family" when in fact they were divorced?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's a distinction between physical labor jobs and jobs that earn something near median income. Some physical labor jobs pay well enough that on an income scale, you'd scarcely be middle class, while a lot of middle class paid jobs don't get dirt under your fingernails, but don't pay remarkably well, either.

[Voize]

Even conclusive proof of such a minor issue could only affect voters who are obsessed with the candidates' honesty, but no such voter will ever choose Donald "30,000 and counting" Trump over Harris.

[Commenter_XY]

Our friends on the Left seem to be McTriggered

[Armchair]

That's because they need to "believe" they are middle class, when they aren't really.

Personally, I remember working a number of jobs as a teen. Gas Station Attendant. Dishwasher. Warehouse Pickup.

But when you're not really "middle class"...you don't work those jobs. You have "internships" at places.

[Commenter_XY]

This entire Mickey D episode is a total nothingburger (pun intended).

[Krayt]

It was a goofy stunt, never heard of politicians doing that before.

"Oh look, a mini van full of beautiful young, praising women pulls through! I wonder if they're on their way to apply at a cable news channel."

[bernard11]

Tell it to Brett, and Dr Ed, and Riva and Michael P. and the other Trumpist truth-seekers.

It's the most ridiculous issue imaginable. You've got a guy who lies, blatantly, every time he opens his mouth, and this is what you come up with to counter it?

You people are absurd.

[Riva]

Too bad you couldn’t have advised her campaign before they spent millions spreading the lie in her campaign ads to bolster her “middle-class” background. They sure tried to get a lot of traction out this lie, until they were at last embarrassed into silence. Hopefully. I’m going to be physically ill if I see this BS in another Harris ad. This and abortion were her go to points.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, you seem to be having a McMeltdown over this. 😉

[bernard11]

XY,

No. I just share your view that it's a nothingburger.

[Frank Drackman]

You know how I know “45” is going to be “47” and it’ll be over by midnight November 5th?
“45” is working the drive-thru at Micky D’s in suburban Philly, Cums-a-lot is trying to shore up her Afro-Amurican vote in the Black Hole of Dekalb County Jaw Jaw (voted 83% for Sleepy Joe in 0’20, some of them were even alive)
You might remember, Dekalb County is where the old Sherriff (Sidney Dorsey) murdered the newly elected Sherriff (Derwin Brown), it’s also the home of Congressman Hank Johnson, the guy who was afraid Guam would capsize from overpopulation. The only real thing Dekalb has going for it is it’s not as big a shithole as the late John Lewis’s district in Fulton County.
Cums-a-lot might have had a chance in PA and GA if she’d picked Shapiro or maybe even one of the GA Senators (we’ve got a Redneck Repubiclown Governor, one Senator’s a Liberal Jew, the other a Black Surpremercist, talk about your Diversity), but she’s got that whole Ham-ass demographic in her party to fellate, so she got stuck with Tampon Tim (What is it with VP’s/VP candidates and Shotguns? Dick Chaney shoots a guy in the heart with one, and Tampon Tim looked like a monkey trying to fuck a football with one)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Well at least he didn’t shoot anyone because in spite of all his experience with weapons of war he couldn’t figure out how to load it.

[Malika]

In addition to the Shift Key this Guy can't work the Space bar.

[OtisAH]

To the very low extent that anything you assclowns say or think is “funny,” the fact you dipshits think that a summer gig at a McDonald’s when Harris, a 60yo, was a teenager — so, not “35” years ago, folks — is a major part of her resume is somewhat amusing. Even if it’s only because watching you idiots puff up your chests and sputter and harrumph about such an inconsequential biographical detail is a relative breather from the usual bullshit you fling around.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's a major part of her resume. I think it's a silly lie to try to build a connection to the average voter.

[Sarcastr0]

You have offered no proof it's a lie.

On Thursday you complained: "if I think something, based on the evidence, is likely the case, you treat it as me swearing it’s absolutely true."

So your bald assertion it's a lie, is it what you think is likely, or what you think is absolutely true? Because your rhetoric is pretty cocksure.

[Estragon]

You know… if I were a Trump campaign person, I might be a little wary of pulling stunts like this where Don is pretending to “work” at a job, because there are some obvious parallels to the end of his father Fred’s life— when he was struggling with dementia and play acting at “working” as well.

Isn’t it funny how cognitive fitness conveniently stopped being a burning front page issue over the summer? Not to worry, we can let the man speak for himself:

“I have no cognitive.”

[Kazinski]

CBS finally issued a statement, after 2 weeks, about its edit of Kamala Harris’s interview. Its stunning that this is the only explanation CBS could come up with after 2 weeks.

One takeaway is that Harris is a terrible interview subject and they could only find 21 minutes of usable material out of a 45 minute interview:

“Former President Donald Trump is accusing 60 Minutes of deceitful editing of our Oct. 7 interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. That is false.

60 Minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to Face the Nation that used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response. When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point. The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment.”

Just to restate what happened with the edit, CBS released two versions with two completely different answers to the exact same question.

Bret Baier’s interview on FOX with Harris was also only 20 minutes, but it was cut short by Kamala’s handlers, Baier said it was scheduled to go 30 minutes. His interview was aired unedited. Fox is a more hostile venue for Harris, so it's interesting Fox wanted to give her more time than CBS would, even though she gave CBS more.material.

[Commenter_XY]

Shorter CBS: We just used whatever did not sound imbecilic because Kamala cannot speak.

[bernard11]

Oh STFU with that, XY. You've become a blind Trump idolater, oblivious to the real Trump.

Harris speaks just fine. Did you watch the Fox interview? Compared with Trump she's a veritable Cicero. She nailed Baier on the "enemies within" business.

(How do you feel about that, BTW?) Trump wants to us the National Guard to arrest people like Pelosi and Schiff - that is what he has said, despite some serious misrepresentations by other GOP'ers. OK? just fine?

[Commenter_XY]

Release the unedited transcript. 🙂

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Oh STFU with that, XY. You’ve become a blind Trump idolater, oblivious to the real Trump.

You really are a sad mental case.

[Brett Bellmore]

They could just release the unedited recording, but that would set a bad standard of transparency. They don't want people expecting transparency, it would make hiding stuff stand out too much.

[Krayt]

This is the usual solution. Release the tapes!

Remember when that Relublican organization got slammed for distortions? Same thing. Actually twice.

[DaveM]

I was reading a “fact check” on this by PolitiFact recently, and they didn’t even quote the actual word salad answer, they quoted an entirely different part of her answer, but claimed that that was the bit that everyone was complaining about.

A really disgraceful attempt to hide the ball, I thought. Not that I ever trusted PolitiFact all that much, but this was even worse than usual. Just remember, the first word in the name, PolitiFact, is “political”, and boy, do they ever mean it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even at the best of times they have a bad habit of picking the version of a claim that that is easiest to defend or attack, depending on how the politics of the source line up with their own. And they're frequently guilty of implication checking, where they declare something false not because the actual claim is false, but just because they don't like what it implies.

They do occasionally do straight up fact checking, though, if the stakes are low enough, and it's just too clear to fudge. Like the time they finally admitted that Obama had been lying about you getting to keep your health care plan. They only admitted that one after a whistleblower surfaced who'd been in the administration, and confirmed it.

[bernard11]

Never in good faith, right, Brett? Never!

[Malika]

She should have just declared no more questions and danced.

[OtisAH]

Kazinski still has nothing to say about Convicted Felon Trump’s catered “women’s town hall,” of which FOX neglected to explain that all attendees were CFT supporters. And to maintain the illusion of a town hall, they even edited out a bit when one of the women said she is voting for CFT.

[Malika]

Or the Dance, Dance Revolution Trump rally.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's hardly worth noting, when "town halls" in general are Potemkin villages.

It would be notable if it wasn't, such stacking the deck is so routine.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In what substantive way were the two answers "completely different"?

Did she say she was going to support Israel in one, and Hamas in the other? Yeah, I see your point!

[Mr. Bumble]

Would you like fries with your ballot?

[Kazinski]

I already mailed mine in.

[Commenter_XY]

I am doing early voting in the People's Republic of NJ (next week)

[Krychek_2]

And I'm doing early voting in Florida today. That way, if I drop dead between now and November 5 Harris will already have my vote, as will abortion rights and pot legalization.

[Frank Drackman]

3 time loser

[Krychek_2]

We'll see. I'm cautiously optimistic, but at this point neither result would surprise me.

[Commenter_XY]

Glad you are casting a vote K_2. That is what matters.

[Mr. Bumble]

Disagree. Casting an informed vote is what matters.

[Commenter_XY]

K_2 is an informed voter.

[Zarniwoop]

if I drop dead between now and November 5 Harris will already have my vote, as will abortion rights and pot legalization.

Are you sure about that? Here in Wisconsinland, if the Clerk’s office receives an absentee ballot and becomes aware of the voter’s death, they’re removed from the voter roll and the ballot isn’t counted.

To be clear, I have no knowledge about Florida-specific practices. But the notion that a vote is complete when submitted (as opposed to on voting day) is a common misconception.

[Krychek_2]

Not 100% sure. But someone would have to notify the clerk’s office that I had died, and then the clerk’s office would have to figure out which ballot is mine, so I think the practicalities are that my vote would probably be counted.

And since I am doing live, in person early voting as opposed to mailing in an absentee ballot, I think my ballot goes into a collection box with no identifying information, though I could be wrong about that.

[Zarniwoop]

Well, every jurisdiction is different, that's for sure!

Oh hey! This is an interesting summary of the various state rules. TL,DR: as a Florida voter your ballot will be counted even if you get hit by the proverbial bus!

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/counting-absentee-ballots-after-a-voter-dies

Some states are silent on this issue. Others address it directly in statute, either by prohibiting or permitting the counting of ballots from voters who die before Election Day.

-- Ten states—Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia—have statutes that explicitly permit counting absentee ballots cast by voters who die before Election Day; one state-Connecticut-only counts these ballots if the deceased voter is a member of the armed services.

-- Nine states—Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—have statutes that explicitly prohibit counting absentee ballots cast by voters who die before Election Day. Missouri states that such ballots be rejected only if sufficient evidence is shown to an election authority that the voter has died before the opening of the polls on Election Day, and the deceased voter's ballot is still sealed in the ballot envelope.

-- In Colorado, Kansas and New York, absentee ballots can be challenged on the grounds that a voter died before the day of the election. After investigation, if evidence shows that the voter has died, the challenge is sustained and the ballot will be rejected.

-- At least two states—Kentucky and Mississippi—also prohibit counting deceased voters' ballots, but through attorneys general opinions, rather than statute.

-- In the remaining 26 states, NCSL has not found citations indicating whether absentee/mail ballots from voters who die before Election Day are to be counted.

[Krychek_2]

I shall still do my best to not get hit by a bus.

[Zarniwoop]

I hope you're successful!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Your summary does not mention North Carolina. If you vote early or absentee and die before Election Day in NC, your ballot is pulled and your vote does not count. Because of this, we have to put identifying information on every early voting ballot cast. So stupid.

[Josh R]

I lived in NJ for 30 years and only once voted absentee (in the days when you had to have an excuse, I was on vacation). Our polling place had the old-fashioned levers you pull down. Just the feel of it gave me a rush of power.

I now live in Oregon which is 100% mail in. No more power rush, but I like it all the same.

[Mr. Bumble]

Make Election Day great again.

[Malika]

Participating in the fraud I see.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's funny how few of Trump's supporters "do the math" relating to the 2020 "rigged" election and the 2024 election.

If you were convinced, without credible evidence, that the last election had been "stolen" by the Democrats when they weren't even in power, how in god's name do you convince yourself that this election will nevertheless be "free and fair" now, when the Democrats are in power?

[Jerry B.]

But who was in power in the states or congressional districts where the presumed (by some) funny stuff happened?

Atlanta/Fulton County comes to mind.

[Frank Drackman]

and your mail carrier Jar'various already threw it out the window.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The US has leaked an assessment on Israel's ability to attack Iran.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/19/politics/us-israel-iran-intelligence-documents/index.html

With friends like the US, who needs enemies?

[Kazinski]

In related news:

"Former President Trump told the Daily Mail he will decline to receive intelligence briefings during his campaign to avoid being accused of leaking information."

Right on cue Lawrence Tribe is insinuating Trump was responsible for the leak to discredit the Biden-Harris Administration:

https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1848113964250485147

[Commenter_XY]

Other news: Pres Trump will decline any coordination or assistance from GSA (assuming he wins) for transition. Not a good sign.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I disagree.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Irresponsible, childish petulance. But what else can you expect from him?

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think that is it, captcrisis.

IF he wins (he might), the DC administrative state is about to be shaken, not stirred. That is the genesis, I think.

[Dan Schiavetta]

How is he going to govern if he doesn’t use the administrative state? Is he going to send emissaries to every disaster area to hand out supplies, reroute water, etc., after they shove aside the FEMA people? If he wants to bomb Syria again, is he going to get Elon Musk-trained pilots to do it, in Tesla aircraft, using their handmade bombs? If GSA tries to give him an email contact list for the hundreds of heads of departments, is he going to tear it up and flush it down the toilet (as he often does)?

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe the plan is to come in and fire as many top level bureaucrats as he can manage, and replace them with people who understand their job isn't to thwart the newly elected President.

To that end, he doesn't require their advise on who to fire.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, as outlined in Project 2025.

[Brett Bellmore]

He didn't say he would do the opposite of every last thing in Project 2025. He just said that it wasn't HIS program, which was perfectly true.

[apedad]

Oh FFS Brett....

Did you build your house?
Assemble your car?
Manufacture your frig?

No but you whole-heartedly want, accept, and use these items.

Same with Trump and 2025.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(Why is there a "d" in "fridge", anyway?)

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, actually I did build my own house. My relatives were in the building trades, by the time I set out on my own I already knew how to do plumbing, HVAC, lay shingles, put up drywall. Saved a lot of money doing that stuff myself, and being my own general contractor for the parts I farmed out, like the basement and roughing in.

Look, just because Trump shares some policies with the people behind Project 2025 doesn't make it HIS project, or mean he supports everything in it. In fact, he rather obviously opposes parts of it.

[Drewski]

ONS: Used to be "frig" but it shifted to match the spelling of similar-sounding words like "bridge."

[Absaroka]

"Used to be “frig” but it shifted to match the spelling of similar-sounding words like “bridge.”

I know these things can be regional: can you specify when and where you heard refrigerators referred to as 'frigs'?

I wasn't familiar with that, so I looked at google ngrams - both 'frig' and 'fridge' have negligible use until 1960 or so, with 'fridge' usage zooming and 'frig' staying flat. Looking at a few online dictionaries the only definition I see for 'frig' is the off color one I'm familiar with, which usage dates from the 1600's. That makes it seem like an unusual candidate for re-use to describe an appliance???

[Malika]

Libertarian worried about President being thwarted!

[Brett Bellmore]

The President gets elected, the bureaucrats don't. Democracy isn't great, but it beats an unelected oligarchy.

[Malika]

You think a Jacksonian spoils system is a better libertarian option?

[Sarcastr0]

unelected oligarchy

Civil servants aren't in charge, political are.

Your inability to understand even the idea of professionalism continues to say some horrific things about your character.

[Brett Bellmore]

Civil servants aren't supposed to be in charge, anyway. Convincing THEM of that can take some doing at times.

I understand the concept of professionalism, I'm not willing to pretend the existence of the concept proves it's being adhered to.

[Sarcastr0]

I know internal controls are a confusing thing for you, as you seem to think everything has an agenda.

We are not a monarchy. There are lots of things the President can't just demand, even of executive agencies.

OGC saying something isn't legal or requires a certain process isn't usurping Presidential prerogatives.
Also ethics offices. And Comptrollers.

That you think this is a bad or sinister thing is just another example of you being an authoritarian.

[Jerry B.]

"Sarcastr0 15 mins ago

unelected oligarchy

Civil servants aren’t in charge, political are."

Tell that to the folks whose building permits are denied because the damp gravel in their yard gets declared a wetland.

[Sarcastr0]

Updating or changing the process of permitting or wetlands determination is absolutely something that a political could demand, or would sign off on if it was already in motion.

[CountmontyC]

Sarcastic do you think that we can't remember what happened during the first Trump Administration? That we can't remember the NYT printing an article by a bureaucrat who went by the name Anonymous who claimed that the bureaucracy was working against Trump's orders? Pepperidge Farms aren't the only only ones who remember.

[Sarcastr0]

Re-read the article. It was about Trump's Cabinet and high-level political appointees.

You rewrote it so it'd align with your paranoia.

[OtisAH]

Civil servants aren’t oligarchs, you silly twat.

[SRG2]

His plan is to appoint loyalists regardless of competence. Loyalty to him matters more than loyalty to the Constitution or to the US.

And you approve, showing where your loyalties lie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, remember Andrew Jackson?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not personally, no.

[Bwaaah]

LOL

[CountmontyC]

Sarcastic the article is literally titled "I AM PART OF THE RESISTANCE INSIDE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION " and begins with
"I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.."
That is a clear admission by a bureaucrat that they intended to undermine his policies and did so actively.

[Sarcastr0]

Civil servants aren't the same as political appointees.

The article was not by or about civil servants.

I don't think many on here would disagree that politicals, and cabinet members, and direct staff, should be people who have bought into the administration's mandate absent something that is clearly an illegal order.

[Magister]

The author was Miles Taylor, at the time Deputy Chief of Staff in the Department of Homeland Security; a political appointee as Sarcastr0 said earlier, which the comment probably intended to reply to.

[bernard11]

their job isn’t to thwart the newly elected President.

Instead he wants people whose first loyalty is to him, not the country or the Constitution.

It's plain as day, Brett.

[Commenter_XY]

That is a very good question = How is he going to govern if he doesn’t use the administrative state?

[verochkax]

What I really want him to do is to take over the military and use it against leftists. How funny would it to be if he got some rogue element within the Air Force to drop ordnance on top of Planned Parenthood’s or the DNC's headquarters? LOL!

[not guilty]

You no doubt really want Trump to do that, verochkaz. But check out 18 U.S.C. § 1385: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Do you impugn the professionalism and integrity of our armed forces by surmising that they would comply with unlawful orders?

[verochkax]

We'd be beyond laws. The ideal would be a military coup, where there is no Congress or laws, and all power is vested in Trump and his allies.

[Sarcastr0]

Too late man, our military went woke years ago, didn't ya hear?

Sorry, no coup for you.

[verochkax]

The leadership did, but not the rank and file. If you think the good ol boys from flyover country are going to follow orders from some transgender freak like Rachel Levine, you've got another guess coming.

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, we been letting in blacks and gays for a long time.

And who do you think pilots the planes? Its officers. The wokesters!

Yer coup is right fucked, man.

[not guilty]

"We’d be beyond laws. The ideal would be a military coup, where there is no Congress or laws, and all power is vested in Trump and his allies."

So you do indeed impugn the professionalism and integrity of our armed forces. Thank you for your candor.

[hobie]

Big fucking deal. Israel has been committing espionage against the United States for decades.

[Brett Bellmore]

And we have against them. But we don't usually leak the results of that espionage to mutual enemies.

[Magister]

Of course, Donald Trump did do that while President, and his erratic behavior led to him being the first ex-President not to receive ongoing intelligence briefings.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose there's a bit of difference between leaking to a mutual adversary the results of spying on an ally, and giving to a mutual adversary intelligence an ally voluntarily shared with us. A bit. They're both bad.

But, really, I'm confused about why any ally would trust us, given our country's track record. I guess they've just got no choice, all the alternatives are worse.

[Magister]

Leaking information that an ally wanted us to have with the expectation that we would not share it seems a lot worse than leaking information we obtained through our own efforts.

[Brett Bellmore]

"we obtained through our own efforts" ≠ "obtained by spying on our own ally". This wasn't information concerning some third party, it was information concerning Israel's own military plans.

[Magister]

Do you think that spying on our allies is something we should not do? Otherwise your comment makes no sense. In any case, leaking information given to us by an ally who expected it not to be shared is worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a matter of opinion. In this case it was information about the ally, that we provided to a mutual enemy. Not information the ally had provided concerning some third party.

And provided at a time when said mutual enemy was conducting military operations against our ally.

If it was deliberate it was horribly bad, if it was unintentional it was a serious security failure.

[Magister]

Betraying an agreement with an ally is worse than spying on an ally.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, JUST spying on an ally is expected behavior. Sharing the results of spying on an ally with a mutual foe during time of war is very much not.

I really am having a difficult time believing you don't understand what was so awful about this. In fact, I'm pretty sure you do, which is why you keep eliding the bad part.

[Magister]

Betraying someone's trust is worse. Information obtained through spying would be information that others could obtain by the same means, and sharing that does not seem intrinsically bad. And of course Trump did the worse thing, so of course Brett Bellmore must leap forward to defend him.

[Frank Drackman]

Where you been Hobie-stank? in the Hoose-Gow for chatting with that Ohio BCI agent instead of the 14 year old boy you thought he was? and not just “Espionage” they kidnapped an Argentinian “Businessman”, took his Nazi ass back to Israel and executed him, Attacked an American Navy Spy Ship killing 34 Sailors (they mistook it for an Egyptian ship, and now we let Sailors wear Beards and Turbans?) and if Jonathan Pollard (Personal Hero) isn’t still working for the Moe-Sad, I’m a Cums-a-lot supporter

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd just love to see a case where someone beats the charges on the grounds that he knew it was a 54-year-old because of things a 15-year-old wouldn't know, e.g Buckner dropping the ball ('86 World Series) or even bloody sock ('04 world series).

[Magister]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, but everyone knows when it's Dr. Ed 2 because the comment is stupider than any dog would write.

[Malika]

The US has given Israel tons of stuff, only to be given the back of the hand in return.

[Frank Drackman]

Anti-Semiting bright and early I see

[Malika]

What's dumber? "Anti-Semiting" or implying that not giving Israel aid is "Anti-Semiting?"

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news:
Cuba is leading the way in combating "climate change".
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/20/americas/cuba-blackout-third-day-failed-restore-intl/index.html

[Magister]

That's nothing compared to the Trump administration in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.

[Michael P]

Oh? What was Cuba's excuse the first three times their power grid collapsed?

[Magister]

The longstanding embargo against Cuba by a looming superpower, augmented by exporting cuts by other countries? One would think that libertarians around here, or at least our country's sovereign citizens, would respect Cuba for its history of defying the US government.

What was Texas's excuse (other than Senator Ted Cruz fleeing to Cancun) when it had power failures that killed hundreds in 2021? Texans (according to their former governor) would go without power for much longer to keep the US government out of their business.

[Jerry B.]

The longstanding embargo against Cuba is a joke, since just about every other country can trade with Cuba, and many do. Even the U.S. trades with Cuba.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Cuba/Trade

[Magister]

The embargo against Cuba had a huge effect on Cuba's economy, even if they could trade with others; and trade with others has been cut by significant trading partners of Cuba. Cuba's poverty is a huge factor in their power difficulties; what is Texas's excuse?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Magister, Trump *could have* declared martial law, flown in US contractors (and US truckdrivers) and rebuilt the (already shaky) power grid to US specs.

Instead he left the civil authorities in charge, most of the relief supplies remained in the ports and airports because PR refused to recognize US CDLS (like a state must), instead requiring a PR license.

State DOTs (eg NH DOT) sent engineering teams down to help rebuild bridges and came home 6 weeks later when it was clear that their help wasn't wanted.

They have the corrupt government they want -- and Trump respected that. So much for him being a dictator...

[Magister]

Yes, Trump is famous for respecting and admiring corrupt governments, and even dreams of emulating them. But in this case, he wanted the Puerto Ricans to look to their own president, who was (checking notes) Donald J. Trump.

[verochkax]

Puerto Rico is a crime ridden dump that overwhelmingly supports Democrats in the elections they're allowed to vote in. Anyone of any value has left for the mainland. Let it rot.

[Michael P]

Unsurprisingly, lowing academic standards is demonstrably worse for students than other simple approaches. "Single-tracking" students who struggled with math -- even starting as late as ninth grade -- got fully half of them performing at the normal grade level:

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/what-happened-when-a-district-put-struggling-students-in-regular-algebra/2024/10

[Malika]

"Unsurprisingly, lowing academic standards"

Lol!

[Frank Drackman]

He be dumb! Nome Sane?

[Malika]

Certianly frank Drackman (.
can Relate!

[Michael P]

Muphry's Law strikes again!

[Malika]

You lowing, bro?

[Jerry B.]

Moo.

[John F. Carr]

In this year's election Massachusetts voters will decide whether to abolish the standardized test that has been a graduation requirement for decades. The teachers' union has always hated it and is spending a large amount of money to get it repealed.

[Commenter_XY]

You live in MA....what do you think?

[John F. Carr]

I think the standardized test is a reasonable requirement for graduation. I will vote no on repeal.

[bernard11]

Me too. In fact I did just that today.

I have heard no argument against the MCAS other than "Some don't do well." Unconvincing.

If the test is unfair, fix it.

[Michael P]

The Atlantic found a strange new respect for John Eastman’s Jan 6th theory:

https://archive.is/20211006175839/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/kamala-harris-trump-january-6/620310

[Michael P]

Bill Ackman's 33 theses are only somewhat less significant than Martin Luther's:

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1844802469680873747

[Frank Drackman]

His future, I see, he'll show up in one of Puff Daddy's videos and hang himself in the Manhattan metro jail.

[Estragon]

I hope you were invested in his last fund! Truly a visionary!

[Mr. Bumble]

NEW - 500,000 more people are registered to vote in Michigan, than those old enough to vote. Democrat officials say they'll purge over 600,000 "inactive voters" after this election. pic.twitter.com/xeMpHk2Jsj
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) October 19, 2024
So much for "secure" elections.

[Michael P]

It is telling that they aren't trying to purge all of the dead and moved-out-of-state voters, but only the inactive ones. And also that they're waiting to do it later.

[Sarcastr0]

It's telling how hard you're gearing up to be a 2024 truther.

[hobie]

In Georgia, the same republicans and election workers running the 2016 election also did 2020. One was just fine, the other a crooked sham. Looks like Trump might win Georgia this time. Will he hire fake electors to overturn it if he does win?

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank, you should stick to something you know about, like diddling little boys, the crooked erection workers in Jaw Jaw are all Fulton/Dekalb/Clayton Counties, they're the ones that mysteriously have water pipes burst every erection night, takes weeks to get their votes counted (I know about “CPT” but Jeez-us) and I don’t want to say there’s fraud, but MLK Jr, Coretta, MLK Sr, Yolanda, Dexter King, Biggie Smalls and 2-Pack all voted this weekend.
Frank

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman: America's neediest veteran, and all the fake electors that tried to nullify every vote in Georgia - hayseed and Fulton county alike - , and who tried to break into the election machines were all MAGAs from the Georgia sticks. But you know all this, Frankie

[Sarcastr0]

"Voter fraud is a huge deal"

"Ok, lets arrange it so that EVERYONE gets a voter ID, like a huge national program to make sure everyone has a fraud-proof ID, and that's all you need to vote because it's so secure"

"No then blah people would vote more"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Who are you quoting? Your mirror?

How stupid is this to act as if Democrats or Establishment Republicans, their pets , would ever do anything to ha ve a secure election

[Sarcastr0]

Trump on FEMA:

"They were not supposed to be spending the money on taking out in illegal migrants, maybe so they could vote in the election, because that's what a lot of people are saying."

Man, you support a real lying dirtbag.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They are getting registered and they are voting.

[not guilty]

"They are getting registered and they are voting."

Supporting facts, JHBHBE? Otto Yourazz is not a reliable source.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.cf.org/news/oversight-project-video-non-citizens-in-arizona-admit-being-registered-to-vote/

https://www.wvtm13.com/article/alabama-purging-non-citizens-voting-rolls-election/61881112

Which of course the Democrats sued to stop.

[not guilty]

JHBHBE, you claimed upthread that illegal migrants “are getting registered and they are voting.”

Your first link refers to a handful of non-citizens being registered in Arizona (without asserting that any have actually voted) and indictment of one Guatemalan immigrant who allegedly obtained a false identity in 2011 -- thirteen years ago -- and used it to vote in multiple elections while living in Alabama.

The second linked article asserts that Alabama’s Secretary of State “sought what are called alien registration numbers from the federal government to see if any immigrants were trying to vote in Alabama.” The Secretary claims that after cross-checking data with state agencies, his office found 3,251 noncitizens registered in Alabama. There is no claim that any of them has actually voted.

That seems pretty sketchy to me. What are federal “alien registration numbers”? Immigrants who are undocumented would (presumably) not be assigned registration numbers, so how is the Secretary’s method of “cross-checking data with state agencies” reliable?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh hey, I didn't know that something happening 13 years ago mean it didn't happen!

Great logic and reasoning. Also, I should definitely trust a proudly partisan democrat in their analysis of over the word a State Official with Indica of Reliability, Trust and Authority!

[EscherEnigma]

How strange, to not purge voter rolls so close to an election that someone incorrectly purged has no recourse.

[Malika]

Bumble didn't learn his lesson last time (he went all in on the discredited claim that 110% turnout happened in LA and elsewhere).

[Mr. Bumble]

No lesson to learn. I'm not making a claim, only sharing a story.
https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1847735307384606806/photo/1

[Commenter_XY]

When Joy becomes.....Oy.

A slew of polling data, and Kamala's campaign of Joy is feeling the pain of Oy. The race remains a statistical tie. That is bad news for VP Harris. 🙁

Momentum has shifted. There is clear directional movement, in one direction, across the majority of polling. The poll results are moving away from VP Harris and toward Pres Trump; this is especially true of the 10 or so battleground states. I maintain PA has moved into Pres Trump's EC column (many factors why). If the election is close, IMO, it will come down to AZ, GA and WI.

We are at the inflection point now. The electorate is moving.

Down ballot, Team D support is softening, and in the battleground states, the formerly Team D 'safe' down ballot races for House and Senate are toss-ups. Also bad news for incumbents. Team R has apparently 'locked in' the Senate, and may walk away with 55 seats when all is said and done.

The House is the wild card. Pick 'em.

I'd like to encourage VP Harris to do more interviews, and tell Americans in more detail what her plans are for economic affordability and immigration. What is not to like about price controls, taxes on unrealized capital gains, and an open border as policies?

Of course, the problem for Kamala is she cannot speak. Because of this, Kamala's campaign of Joy is morphing into a miasma of Oy. The Presidential election might not be so close on election day.

[Josh R]

The race has shifted a bit towards Trump, but momentum implies there is a force that will further the shift. Could be. Or not. We disagree on Harris's appeal. I think she is just another generic Democrat, neither inspiring nor discouraging (the latter was Biden's problem). The race has likely reverted to Trump v. generic Democrat now that impact of the debate has worn off.

And again, there is no math that supports AZ, GA and WI being more important than GA, MI and NC.

There are 7 battleground states which imply 128 possible outcomes (2^7). Silver has given estimates on the probability of each outcome. By far, the two most likely outcomes are Trump sweeps all 7 (25%) and Harris sweeps all 7 (16%). That is, a systemic polling error in either direction (which occurs almost half the time) may result in a clear winner and perhaps impact down-ballot races.

[Frank Drackman]

Why does Nate Silver-stein still have any credibility? he got 0-16 totally wrong (I got it totally right, only missing on one state, New Hampshire) so now he just says one candidate has such and such percentage of winning, well duh, and Cums-a-lot will get 48% of the "Popular" vote, +/- 5%, and the College Foo-bawl playoff will probably have a few SEC teams, and there were probably some "Utes" killed in Chicago this past weekend

Frank

[Josh R]

Silver was the best of the poll aggregators in 2016, giving Trump a 29% chance of winning while others gave him from 1 to 10%. Basically, he estimates how often the polls are wrong. Other models likely now do just as well after incorporating some of his covariance assumptions.

[Frank Drackman]

so the "Best" guy got it totally wrong, and I got it totally right, and people actually pay for access to his site, PT Barnum was right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Frank, if a statistician says that you only have a 25% chance of getting "heads" twice in a row flipping a coin, you haven't proven them wrong by doing it.

As Silver said at the time, things with a 29% chance of happening happen all the time; 29% of the time, as a matter of fact!

[Josh R]

How did you do in 2008, 2012 and 2020? Then, we can compare your peformance to Silver's.

[Commenter_XY]

The inflection point is happening, Josh R.

[Josh R]

We will know, one way or the other in the polls in the next 2 weeks.

[bernard11]

the problem for Kamala is she cannot speak.

Harris speaks just fine

At least she doesn't "dance" for thirty minutes to avoid questions.

It's Trump who rambles incoherently and spews lie after lie after lie. but what do you care? You've sold your soul.

Have you read any of Trump's "speeches" lately, or are you so locked in on your idea that you won't give it up no matter the evidence?

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone ever ask Cums-a-lot what kind of "Gun" she has at home??(Why does she need a gun? she can just have the Second-Gentleman Bitch Slap any Trespassers)
You gotta check out the Video of Tampon Tim trying to load his $3,000 Beretta A400, like Toad in Steve's 58' Impala,
"Man, what a waste of Machinery"
but he's a tough guy because he shoots defenseless Birds (at least Dick Chaney shot one of his hunting partners in the heart) even bragging
"JD can't shoot Pheasants like I can!!!!"
Yeah, he's right, because JD isn't a big Fag, he uses guns for what they're meant for, killing bad guys.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Women scare you that you can't say their name correctly? I believe she identified it as a Glock. I don't know if you need a more specific identification, like model and serial number? I not really surprised as former prosecutor, a member of law enforcement, it doesn't seem out of line to have a weapon. Let me suggest a better question. Did she just go a gun store on a whim and buy the gun or does she have training and permits. Has anyone asked her that question?

[Mr. Bumble]

" Has anyone asked her that question?"
No, and no one will.

[Moderation4ever]

Why? Could it be that because Democrats don't really care that she owns a gun. Many people across the political spectrum do. Do Republicans not want to ask the question because as a responsible gun owner she will say that she secures her gun, has training to use it and has all necessary permits?

[Jerry B.]

Do Republicans not want to ask the question because as a responsible gun owner she will say that she secures her gun, has training to use it and has all necessary permits?

Do you know either way?

[Brett Bellmore]

He's just stuck on imitating Rush Limbaugh's most irritating shtick, that's all. You'd recognize it if you'd listened to him regularly way back when.

She did identify it as a Glock. You know, the sort of gun she tried to ban? Ah, but hypocrisy isn't anything new in politicians.

[Frank Drackman]

and I'll bet she doesn't have the "California Legal" magazine either.

[Roger S]

Yes, a Glock, but she could not say what model, or when she has ever been to a shooting range, or if she keeps it loaded.

[Malika]

person Can't master Basic english
writing Rules

[OtisAH]

I see both piece of shit and Dummy P are having manic Mondays. What a treat for everyone!

[Armchair]

Hypothetical situation.

If Trump wins the election, should/will Harris and the Democrats.

1) Encourage EC electors to change their vote?
2) Have a second "slate" of EC electors, in case a state's votes are challenged successfully?
3) Should/will Harris not certify the election, based on some theory that Trump didn't win/isn't eligible to win?

[Frank Drackman]

1: they tried that in 0-16, unfortunately worked too well, as Five of the Seven Erectors who voted their consciousness were supposed to vote for Hillary Rodman her cam-pain couldn't even get that part of the cheating right.
2: will do that this year
3: a “Lock”
you left out a more likely possibility, they’re able to get “45” on their 3rd attempt, and then come up with some bullshit to disqualify JD.
Frank

[Moderation4ever]

No and I don't expect that if Trump wins. But what if he loses and pulls the same stunt as he did in 2020. The American people are going to have to insist that their vote is respected.

[SRG2]

And people like Armchair and most of the Trump supporters here will insist that the 2024 election was stolen as well/

[not guilty]

"But what if he loses and pulls the same stunt as he did in 2020. The American people are going to have to insist that their vote is respected."

As I have written on another thread, if Donald Trump should lose the election and then engage in a reprise of his November 2020 — January 2021 shenanigans, keep in mind that he is on bond in a federal criminal prosecution in the District of Columbia. The number one condition of release is that “The defendant must not violate federal, state or local law while on release.” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.13.0_7.pdf

A federal criminal defendant who has violated a condition of his release is subject to a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court. 18 U.S.C. § 3148(a). If the government seeks revocation and the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a federal, state, or local crime while on release and that there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community or that the defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release, the court can revoke bond and order the defendant detained pending trial.

If there is probable cause to believe that, while on release, the person committed a Federal, State, or local felony, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community. § 3148(b). And probable cause is not a high threshold.

[Josh R]

No, no and no.

[Krayt]

Something something something rich Hollywood folk offering to pay the fines of unfaithful electors something.

This isn't the same magnitude, and arguably isn't even deceitful, but rotten folk all around.

[Armchair]

You really think the Democrats won't encourage faithless electors in such a scenario? They did in 2016.

[Frank Drackman]

and it cost Hillary Rodman 5 Electrical Votes, not that it mattered.

[Josh R]

I'm sure a few rigue actors will. Harris won't.

[Sarcastr0]

Absent nutpicking no one thinks this, Armchair.

Trump represents a dire threat to our civic institutions, electoral ones included.

That risk is not managed by guaranteeing it comes to pass and wrecking those institutions.

[DaveM]

Didn’t the Supreme Court unanimously rule against “faithless electors” back in 2020? So #1 is off the table.

I can’t imagine a state would have two slates of electors. Anyone else who has a slate is just being stupid about this. Only the state legislatures have the authority. So #2 is off the table, too.

And we already have a Congressional procedure to handle #3, and in fact it is exercised on just about every election I can remember, so it’s a sure thing for this one, too. Only Congress can certify an election, not a candidate. So the idea that either Harris or Trump would "not certify an election" is just wishful thinking.

We still have rules. I get that people don't like following them, but they exist and they have teeth. You want to rule the US? Then get out there and win it fair and square.

[Armchair]

"Didn’t the Supreme Court unanimously rule against “faithless electors” back in 2020? So #1 is off the table."

Yes....and no.

They did rule against them, saying that a state pay penalize an elector for failing to vote as they pledged to do (this time with a monetary fine).

But in terms of "banning" them from being faithless? It didn't quite do that. They might have to pay the penalty, but I don't believe the decision says they "can't" be faithless.

[Magister]

From Chiafalo v. Washington:

Most relevant here, States began about 60 years ago to back up their pledge laws with some kind of sanction. By now, 15 States have such a system. Almost all of them immediately remove a faithless elector from his position, substituting an alternate whose vote the State reports instead. A few States impose a monetary fine on any elector who flouts his pledge.

[Armchair]

States can remove a potential faithless elector, if they find out about it before the faithless elector votes.

But once the vote is cast, it's cast. No take backs

[Magister]

Other electors could report the deviation before the certification of the vote is sealed and sent; the entire set of electors could conspire to violate such a requirement, maybe, but it seems unlikely as faithless electors are not very common.

[Malika]

"I can’t imagine a state would have two slates of electors. Anyone else who has a slate is just being stupid about this. Only the state legislatures have the authority. So #2 is off the table, too."

Trump's team literally worked hard to try this last time, ya goof.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court said states could prevent electors from being faithless. It is up to each state to make its own rules. At least one state compels electors to vote the right way. In some states electors can switch votes at risk of prosecution after the fact. In some states electors can vote their conscience or their Swiss bank account.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump would have the Jan 6 precedent to order the FBi to track down and prosecute every protester.

[Zarniwoop]

You missed some key words in there, Grampa:

“Every protester that assaulted Capitol Police and/or broke in to the US Capitol building in order to intimidate Congress and stop the electoral count process specified in the Constitution”

I agree that anyone who does those things, regardless of political affiliation, should be prosecuted.

[OtisAH]

Stupid.

[Josh R]

On faithless electors, it's high time we make the math automatic and not have human electors. That could be done a state-by-state basis without a cnstitutional amendment. But if an amendment is necessary, we ought to pass it.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, I prefer having a 'human over ride button'. The states can decide how they want to handle it.

[Josh R]

Why should a single human be able to override the will of the voters?

[Magister]

Trump supporters want a dictator, and Republicans for a long time have demanded power without majorities of the voters.

[Armchair]

"Why should a single human be able to override the will of the voters?"

There are a few reasons, but one has to do with edge cases.

For example, imagine a situation where the Presidential candidate wins the election, but then withdraws between election day and when the EC meets. He or she say "yeah, I won but don't want the job".

In such a case, the "voters" have chosen, but the EC may change the vote to someone else (ie the VP candidate).

[Josh R]

The new amendment should handle that case, noting the 20th and 25th Amendments combined imply the VP becomes President and can nominate a new VP.

[Commenter_XY]

Why change the rules?

As I said, The states can decide how they want to handle it.

[Bwaaah]

Why leave important decisions up to local human discretion to be exercised within the context of actual events when you can put in place an arbitrary rule written by Democrats in Washington D.C. in 2024?

"The 2020 election turned out legitimate. The system worked. And we must not leave it to play out that way again."

There are things that statists can't learn.

[Josh R]

We should change the rules before a state permits a faithless elector to ignore the will of the voters and change the outcome of the election. Imagine if it is Trump 270-268, but two faithless Trump electors decide to vote for Harris anyway because the state permitted it. Yikes!

[Bwaaah]

Maybe, as in this year's Democratic Primary, human electors allow the flexibility of the people to shift their faith from the person they voted for, e.g. Joe Biden, to a person they prefer despite how they voted, e.g. Kamala Harris?

Had the Democratic electors (read: "delegates") not shifted their votes to Kamala despite people having voted for Joe, that would have been a clear contradiction of the voters' will. It would be ironic to call delegates "faithless" for having been responsive to the genuine will of the people despite the votes those people previously cast. (You can't define "faithful" in advance, outside the reality within which it is to be discerned.)

The benefit of the electoral college is that it provides a mechanism to flexibly address the will of the people in the context of unanticipated circumstances such as happened with Joe. You are foolish to remove a wise loophole intended to helpfully address unanticipated circumstances because of an imagined circumstance, one that actually occurred in 2020, that was handled smoothly and reasonably under current, wisely flexible voting laws, and their administrators, and their judges.

[Josh R]

FFS. Biden dropped out. Completely different. If Trump wins and then dies, my proposed amendment would make Vance the President.

[Bwaaah]

You strike me as having a very unsophisticated view of systems, how they fail, and our inability to handle unknowns other than through flexible, intelligent, human administered methods.

Believe what you will. You can't make a specific rule to address that which you can't know in advance. When the shit hits the fan, even if you have your amendment, you'll still be a day late and a dollar short. This isn't about what you think will happen; this is about what happens, and in some measure, its unknowability (due to chaotic forces).

Here we have a mechanism specifically intended to enable our election institutions to flexibly deal with the unknowable, and you want to eliminate it. Are you not able to grasp how well these systems have been working despite the unexpected twists and turns?

You can talk about the need to eliminate the problem of "faithless" electors. It is you who is faithless.

[Josh R]

What circumstance will cause the shit to hit the fan that requires human electors? And merely asserting there must be some such unknowable circumstance doesn't cut it given the known risk of faithless electors goiing against the will of the people for no good reason.

[Commenter_XY]

You said that very well = The benefit of the electoral college is that it provides a mechanism to flexibly address the will of the people in the context of unanticipated circumstances (such as happened with Joe).

That is exactly it.

[David Nieporent]

We should change the rules before a state permits a faithless elector to ignore the will of the voters and change the outcome of the election. Imagine if it is Trump 270-268, but two faithless Trump electors decide to vote for Harris anyway because the state permitted it. Yikes!

I used to think faithless electors were a good idea; it seemed really clever, and just like what the framers intended.

But then I thought about it from the opposite perspective — what if my candidate won, but then random electors took the victory away from the candidate and gave it to the other candidate? I would not be saying, "Wow; how clever." I would be saying, "AYFKM?"

[Magister]

Anything significant enough to justify changing the result could be dealt with by Congress (either rejecting the electoral vote count or impeaching the president). But there is some benefit to an inconsequential faithless elector in the same way that 7 Republicans voting to convict Trump in the second impeachment underlined the seriousness.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That could be done a state-by-state basis without a cnstitutional [sic] amendment."

Can they?

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" seems to require actual people be appointed.

[Magister]

They could retain human appointees for the purely ceremonial role of signing the statement that whoever the popular vote winner is gets the electoral votes; pretty sure that in any state you can find supporters of those candidates who would be willing to sign, but those who wouldn't can be replaced by alternates as indicated in the excerpt from Chiafalo v. Washington I quoted above.

[bernard11]

Absolutely agree with this.

Introducing a lot of useless rigmarole is pointless and dangerous.

[Armchair]

Congress expands ActBlue investigation for Smurphing.

Congress widens probe of Democrat fundraising, seeking bank docs on possible foreign funding
Bombshell letters to Biden administration reveal concerns that Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela may be trying to rout monies to help Democrats raise millions. It is possible that credit card fraud involving ActBlue is part of the scheme.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/congress-expands-probe-democrat-fundraising-seeking-bank-reports

[Sarcastr0]

"Congress"

Republicans wrote a performative letter.

That happens all the time.

[Moderation4ever]

A couple of good news items last week that I noticed. The FTC is making it easier to end subscriptions. People have an obligation to meet the terms of contracts like subscriptions, but they should also be able to end those contracts when the time is up. It should not be the case that ending a contract for a service should be harder than entering into the contract.

Second is that methadone patients with good records of compliance can get monthly prescriptions for the drug rather than having to routinely go to clients for their medication. Making compliance for people seeking opioid addiction treatment easier is a good thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I knew someone who lived in a remote part of Maine and who had a monthly prescription.

Had because she overdosed on her Methodone and died.

This is not a good idea.

[Moderation4ever]

This is a sad story. Many prescriptions drugs can be fatal and can be used in a suicide attempts. Note that the change in regulation does allow people with good records of compliance and hopefully that would weed out those likely to commit self-harm. All medications require the prescriber to make the assessment on the ability of the patient to use the drug correctly and address failures to do so. The person you mentioned slipped through the cracks. The other side of your story is that without the prescription a person in a remote area might not get the treatment at all and be left to their addiction.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Good point. After all, no one (whether real or invented for a Dr. Ed anecdote) in rural Maine overdoses from illegal opioids.

[Sarcastr0]

“Undocumented immigrants are the backbone of our country, and by removing barriers, we unlock incredible potential,” the document states. “Kamala Harris believes that every person, no matter their immigration status, deserves access to basic healthcare.”

“Harris will “support policies that protect minors’ access to gender-affirming care and ensure that schools provide comprehensive LGBTQIA education.”

“She’s committed to banning fracking, phasing out internal combustion engines, and rolling out the most progressive Green New Deal yet,”

“Kamala Harris will support a nationwide gun buy-back program that will take dangerous weapons off our streets,” one text message reads, noting, “A mandatory buy-back is the only way to keep our streets safe.”

All lies put out by the Building America’s Future PAC, which set up a site called Progress 2028 to impersonate Harris and push these lies.
Source

Is it illegal? Dunno. Does it show a deep hostility to fair elections? Sure does!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Is it illegal to expose a candidate's past statements? I don't think so.

[Sarcastr0]

Those aren't her past statements. They are lies.

If they're so true, why all the lying?

[Brett Bellmore]

Progress 2028

"Housing subsidies will ensure that every family has a safe, affordable place to call home,"

Harris Campaign Releases Plans to Lower Housing Costs By housing subsidies, of course...

"Driver’s licenses will no longer be a barrier to success, offering freedom and mobility for all."

Politifact: Yes, Tim Walz signed a law letting immigrants illegally in Minnesota get driver’s licenses

To quote the good Captain, "I can do this all day".

[Sarcastr0]

“Housing subsidies will ensure that every family has a safe, affordable place to call home, while accessible tax services empower undocumented immigrant communities to contribute to and benefit from the economy”
Oh you left out the important part of that push? Fucking liar.

And no Harris has not said drivers licenses for illegals.

Good God you fucking suck, you lying sack of shit.

Yeah, you could lie to yourself all day. Because his bullshit being served up? It's for you to lap it up.

You're partisan brain poisoning is bad for our democracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said I could do it all day, I didn't say I wanted to.

"And no Harris has not said drivers licenses for illegals."

Yeah, that was her running mate.

While she argued for the right of illegal aliens to practice law in California.

Seriously, dude, it's a compilation of policy positions she and her running mate took, really did take, and now find embarrassing.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re cool with this. Fake but truthy to you.

You're laundering right-wing propaganda as though Harris is saying it. I don't care if you believe it or not, you're down with open lying.

The bad faith is coming from inside the house.

[Bob from Ohio]

"empower undocumented immigrant communities to contribute to and benefit from the economy”

"undocumented" people are not allowed to work. This is encouragement of illegal work.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob doesn't even realize it's a right-wing lie; he's lapping it right up.

As intended.

[Frank Drackman]

In Jaw Jaw the commercials show Cums-a-lot saying all of those thangs, if it's a "Deep Fake" it's a good one.

[DaveM]

Why do politicos even bother to lie, one wonders? It's not like there isn't plenty of truthful-and-awful things to say about your opponent.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sometimes they think there just aren't enough truthful and awful things to say. Or juicy enough. Or the stuff THEY honesty think is awful is actually popular with the voters.

But most of the time I think it's just because there's no penalty for them lying, so why should they bother being truthful? It's extra work, after all.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, they made up these lies because these things are NOT TRUE.

Else they'd have sourced the quotes.

You often source from the liberals you've conjured in your head. And it looks like you don't much care if other people do the same.

This is corrosive to democracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was an answer to the general question.

To the specific instance here... Why don't you produce a claim at Progress 2028 that you think is a lie, so we can examine it?

[Sarcastr0]

Why don’t you produce a claim at Progress 2028 that you think is a lie, so we can examine it?</i?

They aren't claims, Brett they are purported quotes by the Harris campaign.

They are all lies. Stuff Harris never said put into her mouth.

You tried for some samples above, and ended up going above and beyond to take things out of context so it didn't look like as much of an anti-immigrant scaremongering lie as it was.

You defend awful, awful shit.

The truth, as in actual stuff that people say, should matter. Fake but true should be something anyone with integrity is against.

Partisanship has turned you rancid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh? Where were the quotation marks, then?

I think you'd actually be happier about that site if you could prove they were lying about the Democratic ticket's positions.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh? Where were the quotation marks, then?

Did you really try and pull this shit?

Fuck off for today, your lack of integrity sickens me.

[OtisAH]

In the case of MAGA, it’s because the things they want to do are roundly rejected by solid majorities of this nation. So they can’t talk about any of it except by misrepresentation and lying about their opponents.

Think of it, their arrogance caused them to almost fully release their 900 page “Project 2025,” which was originally slated for sale in September or august. They honestly thought that was a good idea! Well, the public got a load of it and a couple things happened: publication was pushed back to after the election, and Convicted Felon Trump & Co. have been rhetorically running from it ever since the country learned about it.

But don’t be fooled. They’re not off their plans. They’re just not gonna talk about them again until they can smirk and say “Hey, elections have consequences!”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This is a good way to encourage the American people to support government censorship: Abuse the 1st Amendment to lie ruthlessly, swing an election with lies, and get away with it.

Is that the plan?

[ThePublius]

"Harris campaign aide seems to be walking back her support for fracking on campaign trail - a top climate campaign staffer told PoliticoPro notes she's not promoting expanding it and said she didn't promote increased leases for fracking in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

But Harris has repeatedly cited the IRA leases in campaign events to shore up her bonafides on fracking."

Flip, meet flop. She's full of shit. She wants to ban fracking.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't listen to what Harris says, listen to ThePublius' telepathy!

[ThePublius]

Oh? What is she saying today? Because she has been quite vocal on both sides of this issue:

From Time Magazine:

"Early on, she went out of her way to say that she now supports fracking, a technology used to drill oil and gas wells, after asserting in 2019 that she favored a ban of it."

Do you deny that?

[Sarcastr0]

So...she changed her position?

And your upshot from this is a present tense 'She wants to ban fracking?'

[ThePublius]

Because, as Bernie Sanders said, she hasn't changed her positions, she's just saying what she needs to say to get elected.

Bernie Sanders says ‘pragmatic’ Kamala Harris changing positions ‘to win the election’ but still considers her progressive

[Sarcastr0]

Well, if Bernie Sanders as reported by the NY Post says she's progressive, I guess you can find she secretly agrees with whatever you want to make up!

To me, picking your way through every thing a candidate has ever said on an issue, so you can pick the quote that made you the angriest and call that her current position, is a really insane way to spend your time.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Does the President have the authority to "ban fracking"?

Nope. Only about 24% of fracking wells are on federal land leases to begin with, so even if she could "ban fracking" (which she has now promised not to do), that would only affect 24% of the wells currently being fracked.

Congress could "ban fracking", of course.

[Kazinski]

Federal regulatory authority isn't restricted to federal lands.

If the feds want to shut something down, they can, at least until the drillers sue under the APA.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sure, a President could "try some shit". But Congress makes the laws, and will ultimately prevail.

[Kazinski]

Harris does support mandatory gun buybacks, for one example:

“On October 2, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation during an MSNBC “gun safety forum.” During the event, Harris had the following exchange with MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin.
Melvin: As you know, the ‘94 assault weapons ban, it didn’t apply to weapons that were purchased before 1994. What would you do about the millions, specifically assault weapons, that are already in circulation? What do you do about those?”

Harris: Well, there are approximately 5 million, to your point Craig. We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory buyback program. It’s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way, but there are 5 million at least some estimate as many as 10 million and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/gun-safety-forum-live-updates-las-vegas-n1060911#ncrd1061751

Watch the video for full quote.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, like most Democrats, Harris suffers from Democratitis. It goes without saying, really.

However, the risk that Harris would be successful in effecting such a program of gun confiscation is as low as it was for the Biden Administration. Yes, Joe Biden also wants to "ban assault weapons", but you may have noticed that the Democrats have been reduced to claiming that the largely ineffectual Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was some sort of historic gun control achievement--when we all know it was effectively useless and accomplished little.

Considering the obviously disgusting alternative President, that risk is worth taking.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 8 hours ago
"All lies put out by the Building America’s Future PAC, which set up a site called Progress 2028 to impersonate Harris and push these lies."
Source

Sacastro - Thats a great rebuttal - However -
videos exist
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240916/kamala-for-gun-confiscation-in-her-own-words

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 8 hours ago
"All lies put out by the Building America’s Future PAC, which set up a site called Progress 2028 to impersonate Harris and push these lies."

https://apnews.com/article/fracking-pennsylvania-president-campaign-donald-trump-kamala-harris-104f3f051df4d28e4645f05051eb6cff

These changes of policy positions dont appear sincere.

[Kazinski]

You are probably shocked about these ads too:

“It’s hard to believe, but it’s true,” the narrator says. “Even the liberal media was shocked. Kamala supports taxpayer funded sex changes for prisoners and illegal aliens.”

“Kamala is for they/them,” the advertisement concludes. “President Trump is for you.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-10-13/2024-election-trump-anti-transgender-ad

And I can attest they are running that ad heavily in Arizona during football games.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you see the difference between a third party making a claim about a politician's position, and putting that claim falsely into the mouth of the campaign itself?

Because the rest is bullshit politics; it sucks but it's been bad like that since the James Thomson Callender.

But pretending to be the other side and then saying your crazy shit is a pretty new level of dishonesty.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kazinski the lying liar lying again? Shocker. He's been caught too many times to be taken seriously.

You still linking to AP stories about New York Post articles and pretending they are mainstream media articles? And, even then, pretending the NYP story said something it didn't say? Fucking liar. Your type ruins everything, Kaz.

[Kazinski]

Then mute me.

The NYPost was right about Hunter's laptop, and everyone else was wrong, including the 51 intelligence officials.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"The NYPost was right about Hunter’s laptop, and everyone else was wrong, including the 51 intelligence officials."

I know you enjoy believing that, but it doesn't make it true.

As pointed out, nothing on the laptop implicated Joe Biden in anything remotely nefarious.

You cannot quote anything the intelligence officials have been proven to have been wrong about.

The NY Post story pushed the false claim that Shokin was fired because he was investigating Burisma. So, no, the NYP did not get it "right."

And so on. At the end of the day, there was nothing there.

[Sarcastr0]

For fuck’s sake you fucking tools.

I’m not at all interested in what right wing-conjured positions you think you have proof she has.

Even if you’re completely correct, it is a lie to put those words in her mouth when she’s saying the opposite.

If you’re so sure, just fucking say it and back your shit up.

Winning has become all you care about, and if that takes lying to everyone, you all seem cool with that. Even if it's fundamentally corrosive to our democracy.

Disgusting.

[Kazinski]

No its not a lie when she has said those things in the past while in office or running for office.

Just as its not a lie to repeat the things JD Vance said about Trump in the past. At least JD plausibly no longer believes what he said, but his previous comments are fair game.

Here’s what Bernie Sanders thinks:

“SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No, I don’t think she’s abandoning her ideals. I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.”

Doesn’t sound like he thinks everything she said before this election is a lie.

Why do we even want politicians with a track record, if its all the sudden a lie to quote what they have said in the past?

[Sarcastr0]

It is a lie to pretend she saying stuff she isn’t saying.

I don’t care about your spin; that’s politics. Cite Bernie as the NY Post excerpted him all you want.

But you don’t get to launder your spin as though the other side is endorsing it.

Especially when they say the opposite.

You can think she secretly thinks whatever. Argue that then.

Don’t lie and claimed she’s said that. That’s not someone who has much faith in their argument, that’s someone who wants to win by whatever means necessary.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, I was thoroughly amused with this exchange, I thought it was revealing. The squeals of protest tell me you hit the target. 😉

[Michael P]

And Gaslight0 engaged in his usual attempt to lie about what Harris said because even he realizes how much she disqualified herself. As Joe Biden said, she was a true DEI hire: qualified only by her birth identities.

[Sarcastr0]

'This guy is lying and actually agrees with me' is the height of arguing.

[bernard11]

So when Vance changes his position he "plausibly" has changed his mind.

When Harris does it she's just lying.

Real objective there, Kazinski

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In any case, omitting the contradictory evidence when making a claim is lying by omission. I hope they never try that in court...

[Malika]

"Even if you support Trump, and agree with his policies, answer honestly: Would you have, twenty years ago, wanted someone like him as your candidate? Set aside whether you think he's the lesser evil: Do you trust him to be calm and collected in a foreign policy crisis? Do you think he's an inspirational leader? Do you think he's a worthy heir to the presidents you admire (whether Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Coolidge, or whoever else)

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/30/sad-thoughts-about-american-politics/

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't want Trump as our candidate this year, let alone 20 years ago. Back in 2016 I was supporting Rand Paul. This year DeSantis.

My support in the primaries is the kiss of death, candidates should bribe me to support their opponents.

I'm going to vote for Trump only because I think Harris is substantially WORSE on issues I care about, not because I like Trump.

[Michael P]

Yeah, it's weird how Democrats want to pretend this year's presidential campaign is some different one. On the other hand, "think back 20 years, would you have voted for John Kerry over Donald Trump?" is not as strong an argument as they think.

[Sarcastr0]

it’s weird how Democrats want to pretend this year’s presidential campaign is some different one

This is the first time I've seen this '20 years ago' argument. Are you seeing it a lot of other places?

[OtisAH]

Yes, Brett would prefer either the conspiratorial lunkhead *OR* a megalomaniac. It’s not his fault that all he’s left with is a conspiratorial, lunkheaded megalomaniac. Brett’s just playing the cards he’s dealt.

[Brett Bellmore]

If it takes a conspiratorial lunkhead to respect my rights, I'll vote for a conspiratorial lunkhead. Though I doubt eye surgeons are commonly lunkheads.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yes, the federal government and the Washington DC ruling class are a corrupt, irredeemable cesspool that has become downright evil.

It needs to be burned to the ground amd started all over with patriots with IQs above the average IQ of an African country like Detroit.

[Zarniwoop]

At least 20 years ago Donald wasn’t dementia-swaying to his playlist while Kristi Noem had to act like the smiling activities director in the mental care wing of a senior center.

[MoreCurious]

That's pretty good, Zarni! He did look exactly like a preschool child participating in a sing-along, and she looked like she was ready to murder her mother for encouraging her to get into the child-care business instead of going to law school or medical school.

[Kazinski]

Now do Joe Biden.

But its our collective fault, we let the pols and the mass media and social media get us here.

We had two fairly decent (in political and human terms) candidates in 2012, but the media smeared Romney as a bully that didn't pay his taxes. And the base was disgusted he wouldn't fight back.

So the base picked someone that would fight in 2016, and the media jumped on board because he was both great ratings, and a sure loser (they thought).

Nobody should be happy with where we are, but we all participated, including you.

[Josh R]

I agree Democrats are in part to blame for Trump because they cried wolf against Bush, McCain and Romney. And when the real wolf came, no one listened.

But, that is the past. In the present, GOP elected officials know Trump is poison. But they don't want to suffer the same fate as Liz Cheney. So, they are cowards who either don't speak up or actively support him.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not just that they don't want to share her fate. It's that the GOP establishment has been bait and switching the Republican base for so long their reputation is shot. The very fact that the party establishment doesn't like somebody is enough, by itself, to give them credibility.

And they earned that reputation, every bit of it.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe Biden is a very normal politician guy. Has been for longer than I've been alive - well over 20 years.

"Now do Joe Biden" really underscores how utterly barking mad your candidate is.

The rest is a level of sour grapes that really illustrates that you don't think it's legitimate when Democrats win elections.

[Kazinski]

I agree Joe Biden is a normal politician, he is a soaring mediocrity.

I can't think of a more damning indictment of politicians in general than saying Joe Biden is a "normal politician".

I totally agree, and now I hope you understand how we got Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the OP. ‘Now do Biden’ does not work with the OP’s argument. You’re now trying to I guess ignore the thread.

Anyhow, empty radicalism is stupid. No, the guy who managed to get elected President isn't a 'soaring mediocrity.'

But you’re not an empty radical – you’re an obligate partisan. Radicalism is a brand to you.
As can be seen by your complaints above on how the GOP candidate not getting elected just wasn’t fair – it’s the media’s fault!!
That’s not radical, that’s the same GOP whining I’ve heard my entire life.

You can pretend the problem is ‘the politicians man’ but it doesn’t wear right on you.
There are radicals on here, you’re not one of them – for you it’s just what you gotta support because your candidate is Trump.

[hobie]

I see that Fox News polls have about 15% of contacts using land lines https://help.foxnews.com/hc/en-us/articles/233193068-How-do-you-conduct-your-polls

Living in the stone age is a badge of legitimacy for the putative redneck.

So Fox's - or any other's - claims of random voter selection are likely 15% off in favor of straight-up, blue grass, chicken-fried, jug-swiggin' hillbilly voters.

Harris in a landslide

[ThePublius]

You're a jerk.

"Who still owns a landline phone? You might be surprised at what the data shows."

"The notion that many older Americans like landlines may surprise no one. But here are some other, less obvious findings: Landline holdouts are more likely than wireless converts to own a home. They are more likely to live in the Northeast. They are less likely to smoke and less fond of binge drinking. They are more likely to wear seat belts, exercise and carry health insurance. "

"White Americans were more likely to keep their landlines than their Black or Hispanic peers. Men were slightly more inclined than women to go landline-free. Low-income Americans ditched landlines at a much higher rate than the wealthy. And landlines were – and still are – more prevalent in the Northeast."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/10/10/who-still-has-landline-phone/75569063007/

From this one might infer that landline users are more likely to be affluent and liberal.

[Bored Lawyer]

There are many people who have both landlines and mobile phones. A land line allows one to have a central phone for the household, and which is not dependent upon cell towers and reception. I have had several occasions where my cell phone did not work but my landline did.

So, yes, you're an idiot.

[hobie]

So you got a landline, eh. I rest my case

[Frank Drackman]

That you’re a Cocksucker? I see a directed Verdict

Frank

[Bored Lawyer]

Dig deeper. Maybe the hole will fall in and cover you.

[Josh R]

I still have a landline (in addition to a mobile line) and am a Harris voter. I've kept it because 1) the voice quality is better and 2) I'm on a promotion. I may cancel it when the promotione ends. Not sure yet.

[Kazinski]

Almost all the polls are weighted anyway and god knows if they are weighing them right.

As an example I was looking at the cross tabs of the Harvard-Harris poll and their sample population had was overweighted with women by about 15%, and of course men were underweighted. So they adjusted the weights based on what they think the electorate would be.

But when your samples are that unbalanced it adds additional risks that you are getting a biased sample that adjusting sample weights won't fix.

[Kazinski]

Actually Fox News polls lean Democratic, sure the latest has Trump up 2, but the one before that had Harris up 2.

It doesn't look out of line with all the other pollsters in the last 10 days, 4 pollsters are showing Trump ahead, before that Harris was leading in most polls:

TIPP Trump +1
Rasmussen Trump +3
Emerson Harris +1
Atlas Intel Trump+3
FOX News Trump+2
Ipsos Harris +3
Harris Harris +2
M. Consult Harris +4
HarrisX Harris +2
CBS News Harris +3
Marist Harris +5
NBC News Tie

[Josh R]

Save yourself some time. You can look at RCP for unweighted poll averages. Or Silver, VoteHub or Split Ticket for weighted averages. The latter are about 0.5%-1% kinder to Harris because there are more GOP leaning polls out there. But note, Fox is not a GOP leaning poll. It actually has a history of being fair and balanced!

[Kazinski]

Those are actually the polls that are in the current RCP average.

I do think showing the sequence helps expose the trend better than the average.

[Josh R]

The trend is the same. The 0.5%-1%-point difference has been constant throughout. RCP has gone from Harris +2.3 to +0.9. Silver has gone from Harris +3.3 to +1.6.

[Kazinski]

you don't find that trend meaningful?

[Josh R]

Of course I do. What I objected to is a conclusion that RCP is the best source for poll aggregation. The race is likely not as much in favor of Trump as RCP would have you believe.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't know a single 'best' aggregator, Josh R, there really isn't one. The aggregators with halfway decent methodology all get similar results, not too far from each other. I include Silver in the 'halfway decent methodology' category.

There is nothing wrong with RCP, per se. It won't be far off from the other aggregators.

The internal campaign polling is what matters. We don't see those. 😉

[Josh R]

Don't assume the internals are right (Romney's weren't).

RCP is close to the others, but nonetheless paints a significantly different story.

[John F. Carr]

Some lawyers decided to do what I will call the "Kitty Genovese experiment". As legend has it, a neighborhood in Queens ignored the sounds of Genovese being killed. The plaintiff in the present lawsuit claimed to have heard a woman screaming from blocks away. His lawyers set up loudspeakers to blast the sound of a woman screaming early in the morning. The neighbors in Philadelphia did hear it. The judge heard about it too and ordered the lawyers to apologize.

It is unclear whether the experiment generated any admissible evidence.

https://apnews.com/article/philadelphia-scream-recording-apology-lawyers-8b2b50158a54ee58688fd5ac47cfe74a

[ThePublius]

How could such an experiment gather admissible evidence? I don't follow.

[John F. Carr]

The plaintiff claimed he heard a woman screaming from two blocks away and went to help. Police arrived, assumed he was the rapist, and shot him. If the woman's screams were audible from two blocks away his story is more plausible.

I don't know if the guy really did it or if police jumped to conclusions. I remember a Dirty Harry quote. "When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross." Presumably the circumstances in the present case were not so clear cut.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"the hour-long predawn test"

How is this not criminal? Disturbing the peace or false public alarm or the classic "disorderly conduct." Even in a low income neighborhood, the cops would show up in a half hour or so -- calls usually quiet down after 3 AM so response time should have been quicker.

Of course this whole case seems sketchy. The city's defense is that a cry for help couldn't have been heard a few blocks away? Sound does funky things -- legend is that people throughout the Boston suburbs heard the British cannons when they burnt Charlestown before the Battle of Bunker Hill -- we know that people from these distant towns DIED in the battle so they somehow knew about the battle.

[Commenter_XY]

In the event of a 269-269 Electoral College result, what is the composition of the state delegations....How many Team R and how many Team D? This is a possible result, and plausible.

How is the act (voting by state delegation) actually executed?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Heavily Republican, as it was in 2020.

It was outlined in the Eastman memos at the heart of the alleged criminal conspiracy to steal the 2020 election.

[hobie]

Agreed. Heavily in favor of the Republicans. First, you have the regular electoral slates. Second, an alternate slate of fake Republican electors. Third, hundreds of MAGA congressmen willing to vote down the votes of any state who's outcome was undesirable. And if all else fails: Harlan Thomas

[Commenter_XY]

How many....?
And who comprises the state delegation that casts the vote on behalf of the state in the House? Is that just House members? House and Senate?

[Josh R]

The House chooses the President (one vote per state) and the Senate the VP (majority of senators, not by state). All of this after the new Senate is sworn in, so the GOP is a favorite to control the Senate. But if the Senate is 50-50, does Harris get the tie-breaking vote to launch the Trump/Walz administration?

[Commenter_XY]

The newly elected House, not the old House, correct? = state delegation vote

[Josh R]

Yes. The newly elected are sworn in on Jan 5.

[Josh R]

It would be an easy Trump win. It's another case of Democrats running up the score in deep blue states, which is why the GOP currently has an electoral college advantage.

[Commenter_XY]

So 28 state delegations. Thx for that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I wonder what proportion of the total US voting population those 28 state delegations represent?

Perhaps Trump is aiming for the "least-popular vote" record (assuming he doesn't already hold that record)?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why do people think that the morons who created a system where they confiscate your healthcare savings if you don't spend it are capable of managing your entire healthcare?

These same idiots also will withhold care from you based upon your skincolor or lifestyle choices in the name of "equity".

[OtisAH]

We’ve heard MAGA marvel at LBJ’s reputedly large penis. We’ve seen MAGA go ga-ga over Hunter Biden’s large penis. And MAGA’s closing argument to the nation is that Arnold Palmer had a reported large penis. So where does this leave us?

Well, when you add MAGA’s fascination with large penises to their desire for submissive women and slaves (similar purposes but different jobs), and their desire to bully anyone they want, then our conclusion is that the only things MAGA wants is all the things they cannot have. So, they’re an entire movement made up of adult-aged toddlers. A perfect reflection of their leader.

[ThePublius]

Who or what is this MAGA to which you refer? Do you mean Trump? Or do you mean Trump and all who support him?

It's weird how you write about this topic, not to mention that it's so extremely partisan as to be easily ignored.

[OtisAH]

You, shithead. You and dummy and Brett and piece of shit and Johnny hundrednames and dred and grim and all the other little dicks here. So very very obviously.

[ThePublius]

That's utter nonsense. You are truly deranged.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He's a Democrat. So yea

[hobie]

Another MAGA tactic but usually applied to women. Harris, Cheney, Fanni, E. Jean, even the lady custodian at Arlington: all nasty women suffering from mental illness. You've joined the pantheon, Otis. Congrats

[OtisAH]

Btw, this isn’t the first time you’ve tried this ploy. It wasn’t clever then and it’s not getting more clever with age.

[Joe_dallas]

Otisah - Campaigning against Jason to see who can consistently make the most immature comments?

[MoreCurious]

Watching the moron go on and on about Arnold Palmer's manhood almost made me feel sorry for him. It was a clear example of the former president's penis-envy. I thought for a second that he was going to break down and cry over his own small "hands."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If he does somehow manage to win, at least there will be no shortage of Trump-deranged "entertainment" for the next four years.

[Noscitur a sociis]

We’ve heard MAGA marvel at LBJ’s reputedly large penis. We’ve seen MAGA go ga-ga over Hunter Biden’s large penis.

Uh, when exactly did we hear or see this?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Mets turn into Pete Alonso's playoff pumpkin after an impressive win. It's nice they didn't let the Dodgers celebrate in Citifield. It's also nice that Jets/Mets fans saved time and could watch both teams lose at the same time.

Congrats to the NY Liberty for their first WNBA championship.

[M L]

Good Morning!

https://x.com/shortmagsmle/status/1848076146417553778/photo/1

[hobie]

Giving his penchant for theft, he may be trying for the role of Hamburgler

[M L]

Media said this event was a nothingburger.

[M L]

With election day two weeks away, there are already many reports of potential vote fraud, cheating, irregularities, vulnerabilities, and/or technical difficulties.

Is this all malicious lies and propaganda? Or is it misunderstanding and paranoia? Or are there some legit issues?

Whatever the case, it seems to me that sticking with paper ballots and perhaps even older methods of hand counting (back when they generally used to report results same day) might be better than all the new tech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLiiRsqXQbw&ab_channel=rebecafm

"Reports are coming in from Shelby County, Tennessee, where numerous voters are claiming that the voting machines are switching their selections. Election officials are investigating the issue as concerns continue to grow. https://x.com/DaveBondyTV/status/1847626534787379468

"Admin. of elections disputes Democrats’ claims of voting irregularities https://www.actionnews5.com/2024/10/18/admin-elections-disputes-democrats-claims-voting-irregularities/

"A voter chose Trump on the BMD (ballot marking device) & then when the printed ballot came out of the table top printer (before it was scanned to actually cast the ballot), the text showed they selected Kamala

"After several attempts to fix it, they finally had to void out the ballot, use another machine and start fresh. They were able to successfully select Trump and it correctly showed on the printed ballot text. The ballot was then cast by scanning the printed ballot in the Polling Place Scanner (tabulator)
https://x.com/KylieJaneKremer/status/1847414103905608056

"Hennepin County courier fired after boxes of ballots left unattended for nearly 10 minutes in Edina https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/hennepin-county-courier-fired-after-boxes-of-ballots-left-unattended-for-nearly-10-minutes-in-edina/

[M L]

Came across this Politico article from last year. GA officials are criticized for not making changes to address supposed vulnerabilities, GA officials dispute assessment. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/23/brad-raffensperger-georgia-dominion-voting-00103298

[Jason Cavanaugh]

This place was better when your stupidity's reach was limited to just one hyperlink per post.

"Whatever the case, it seems to me that sticking with paper ballots and perhaps even older methods of hand counting (back when they generally used to report results same day) might be better than all the new tech."

That's because you're an idiot ignoring the fact that machine-counting has been, is, and always will be far more accurate than hand-counting.

[ThePublius]

You are completely ignoring the point, and the evidence that electronic candidate selection and ballot printing can be easily compromised; did you read the part where people said they selected Trump but the machine tallied Kamala? Geez. And, if you have been paying attention, you will note that this kind of thing has been occurring for years and years.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I did not miss the point whatsoever.

ML's purpose here is to lie and spread discontent, as evidenced by his bald-faced lie immediately below the bullshit he posted here.

"the evidence that electronic candidate selection and ballot printing can be easily compromised"

There is no evidence of that claim.

"did you read the part where people said they selected Trump but the machine tallied Kamala?"

Did you read about the people who say the Earth is flat? That's something you can read on the internet and pretend it's true also.

[ThePublius]

Were you born yesterday? I'm an engineer who has worked in software for decades, including a stint in cyber security. I don't trust those making, managing and administering electronic vote selection and tabulation machines. Period.

Did you read this?

"Congresswoman MTG confirmed there is an issue in her district (14th) with the machines flipping votes from Trump to Kamala

A voter chose Trump on the BMD (ballot marking device) & then when the printed ballot came out of the table top printer (before it was scanned to actually cast the ballot), the text showed they selected Kamala

After several attempts to fix it, they finally had to void out the ballot, use another machine and start fresh. They were able to successfully select Trump and it correctly showed on the printed ballot text. The ballot was then cast by scanning the printed ballot in the Polling Place Scanner (tabulator)"

If you do to the link ML provided you'll see that regardless of even what the marked ballot says, in text, that the QR code, the only thing that is tabulated, is not human-readable or even readable by any of our commonly available QR code readers, but only by Dominion software. Does that seem fair and secure to you?

[Sarcastr0]

Congresswoman MTG is a nutbag, relating an anonymous anecdote. Whatever facts you think she's nailed down, look again.

[ThePublius]

There's plenty of evidence of electronic voting machines switching votes, plenty of videos of this, you just have to look for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1RBe7xswE

[Sarcastr0]

There's plenty of nutbags or irrelevant information for you to misinterpret, you just need to find them.

You're very much a beliefs first, facts second kinda guy, eh?

[Brett Bellmore]

And every time it comes up, "We'll get around to fixing it after the election."

[Zarniwoop]

Whatever the case, it seems to me that sticking with paper ballots and perhaps even older methods of hand counting (back when they generally used to report results same day) might be better than all the new tech.

When did this "hand count all ballots" fetish start, and why?

Hand counting works just fine in Dixville Notch NH (5 voters in the midnight ballot for 2020). It does not work in NYC or Miami or Dallas or LA. Because duh, some processes don't always scale nicely, and trying to hand count in major cities would guarantee slow election results.

You know what does scale nicely? Fill in the bubble paper ballots (everyone knows how they work), scantron-type tabulator, keep the ballots in case of recount or allegations of tabulator programming shenanigans. It's faster and more accurate than hand counting, it's simple to explain to people, and it preserves the paper trail.

This isn't a lib-y-rul conspiracy. And this certainly isn't rocket surgery.

[ThePublius]

We need a law or regulation that requires that any vote that is tabulated is done so in human-readable and voter-verifiable means. That means no proprietary QR codes, and so on.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A federal law?

[Zarniwoop]

I'm not saying you're wrong by any stretch.

But I'm curious about your rationale - now that you've stated the "what", can you expand on the "why"?

Would a ballot that has both a human-readable indication ("Trump for Pres, Hovde for Senate", etc. etc.) and a machine readable representation of that same info in QR code format be acceptable?

Or does the presence of anything "machine readable" bother you? If so, what's the rationale?

Genuinely curious here; not trying to make some sort of "gotcha!" point. What's the suggestion(s) to improve the process both in terms of accuracy and community trust?

[ThePublius]

"Would a ballot that has both a human-readable indication (“Trump for Pres, Hovde for Senate”, etc. etc.) and a machine readable representation of that same info in QR code format be acceptable?"

That's what we have now in many places. The problem is that there could be a difference between what's human readable and what's machine but not human readable, i.e., the proprietary QR code, and there's no way for a voter to tell.

I just want a voter-verifiable ballot. And voter verifiable tallying systems.

Trust but verify, a smart man once said.

[Zarniwoop]

How long do you think a system that prints a ballot with “Trump for Pres, Hovde for Senatuh” and has a QR code with different data would remain undetected? The “trust but verify” includes the very first recount where the visual names and QR codes don’t match. And felonies result. Which hasn’t happened.

Regardless, I like system that lets voters fill out the bubbles themselves. Because even low-info GOP voters understand that.

Assistive machine-generated (with QR codes) ballots are fine if people request them, but shouldn’t be mandatory. Because there are always conspiracy theory foons.

[Life of Brian]

If the voting machines have a mode that reads the QR code and displays the corresponding votes, which can then be verified by eye against the bubbles ALSO printed on the page next to the candidates' names, then yes, irregularities would eventually surface.

But if the machine(s) have been compromised to print QR codes out of line with the human-readable vote bubbles, there's no assurance at all they wouldn't also have been compromised to falsely report the human-readable content rather than the QR code during that special verification cycle.

Which is reason enough -- if we're going to keep on using these solution-in-search-of-a-problem boondoggles -- to jettison the QR codes altogether and simply have the scanners parse exactly the same information human eyes do. Particularly when we're talking about information that was printed by the voting machine ecosystem itself, which should eliminate any formatting/registration/etc. issues that tend to make scanning of manual ballots challenging.

[Commenter_XY]

Z, this was the correct answer, to me.

You know what does scale nicely? Fill in the bubble paper ballots (everyone knows how they work), scantron-type tabulator, keep the ballots in case of recount or allegations of tabulator programming shenanigans. It’s faster and more accurate than hand counting, it’s simple to explain to people, and it preserves the paper trail.

How long would you store the paper ballots?
Would you then scan them and keep the images for posterity?

[Zarniwoop]

I don’t have much of an opinion on length of ballot storage. It probably varies by jurisdiction and state laws.

Same for scan&keep. Why spend time and money on that? I guess I could be convinced, but what’s the purpose?

[Commenter_XY]

What I appreciated about your response was the certainty of it. It is implementable. And I agree, 'Scantron' (what I grew up calling it) is easy, and reliable as hell. Very efficient use of manual labor.

There is a significant sized segment of American society that wants some degree of certainty in elections. For them, an unassailable audit trail is a component of having certainty (and confidence) in our elections.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sure, it's their tax dollars... If people really want to pay more to make the system less efficient and more expensive (in return for an enhanced "feeling" of security), who am I to stop them?

[Zarniwoop]

For the fringe that keeps whining about audit trails and sowing excessive doubt in our institutions, I doubt that scanned images would satisfy. Images can be digitally altered once the original paper is gone, after all.

We bag the paper ballots directly out of the tabulator in purpose-built clear plastic bags (they have a super-annoying tamper-showing seal arrangement). I dunno how long the physical ballots are kept - probably more than a few months, probably less than 5 years. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

[Zarniwoop]

What I appreciated about your response was the certainty of it. It is implementable. And I agree, ‘Scantron’ (what I grew up calling it) is easy, and reliable as hell. Very efficient use of manual labor.

It's not just "implementable", it "is actually implemented" here in Dane County, WI.

Which is why the ongoing whining from Trump about rigged elections is a source of constant eyeball-rolling.

He's playing the rubes; it's a con. If you believe the votes were fake, you're the mark:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin finished a recount of its presidential results on Sunday, confirming Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over President Donald Trump in the key battleground state. Trump vowed to challenge the outcome in court even before the recount concluded.

Dane County was the second and last county to finish its recount, reporting a 45-vote gain for Trump. Milwaukee County, the state’s other big and overwhelmingly liberal county targeted in a recount that Trump paid $3 million for, reported its results Friday, a 132-vote gain for Biden.

[M L]

Bureaucrats Think Lawfare Against Political Opponents Is Their Job
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/10/20/david_sacks_bureaucrats_think_lawfare_against_political_opponents_is_their_job.html

[M L]

McDonald’s released a statement Sunday admitting it has no record of Kamala Harris ever working there, as she has repeatedly claimed.

This deepening scandal, which social media has dubbed Stolen McValor, finally got the spotlight it deserved Sunday when former President Trump spent some time making French fries and working the drive-thru at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s.

It was a win-win for the man now widely seen as the 2024 frontrunner. He had the opportunity to show off his charming side and ability to connect with everyday people while pointing to what looks more and more like a shameless lie in Kamala’s biography.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/10/21/nolte-mcdonalds-has-no-record-of-kamala-harris-working-there/

[M L]

Which of these are worst for Harris?

1. Stolen McValor scandal
2. Plagarism scandal
3. Emhoff abuse/assault allegations scandal

[ThePublius]

Probably number 1, since it's the only one Trump and his campaign can effectively amplify. The media are giving 2 and 3 a good leaving alone.

[Josh R]

None of the above. The case against Harris is:

1) Inflation on her watch
2) The border on her watch
3) Far-left positions taken in 2019 that she has attempted to disavow
4) No charisma

[M L]

Quite possible, I agree all of those things are the real case against Harris. You don't think any of the "scandals" make a dent? 1 and 2 make her look dishonest. 3, the first gentleman being a drunken woman beater is just disturbing.

[Josh R]

None of them. 1 and 2 are presumed to be BS, lacking evidence (only MAGA assumes they are real as the default). And most people don't care even if they are true. I don't know about 3, but it is not a good strategy for Trump to highlight abusing women.

They are up there with the Walz affairs, which had no impact on the race.

[ThePublius]

2 is BS? Th NY Times' own expert has recanted his original assessment and has now said "Kamala Harris plagiarism allegations ‘more serious’ than I thought."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/10/17/kamala-harris-plagiarism-allegations-more-serious/

1 is BS? She has provided exactly zero evidence, and has zero collaborating witnesses that she ever worked there; and the manager who has been there "forever" has no recollection of Kamala working there; and the McDonalds corporation has stated, in writing, it has no record of her working there. What more do you require?

Your comment on 3 is simply deflection.

[Roger S]

No.

1) Incompetent. Even worse than Biden.
2) Unable or unwilling to answer questions or say what she stands for.
3) Appeals only to women wanting easier abortions and Trump-haters.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree with your NOTA list.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I encourage everyone to click on the link provided by lying fuckhead ML.

Not only is there not a link to any McDonald's statement, but the alleged statement offered does not, in fact, state what Breitbart and lying fuckhead ML wants you to think it says.

[ThePublius]

Are you kidding? The article at the link provided has the full text of McDonald's statement, including the text "While we and our franchises don’t have record for all positions dating back to the 80s, what makes “1 in 8” so powerful is the shared experience so many Americans have had."

That means "no record."

Also, the manager at the Alameda location she cited, which has "been there forever" has no recollection of Kamala ever working there.

[not guilty]

"Also, the manager at the Alameda location she cited, which has “been there forever” has no recollection of Kamala ever working there."

Even if the Alameda McDonald's location has “been there forever,” how long has that manager been there?

[ThePublius]

No, the manager has been there "forever."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Of course! The McDonalds location being there "forever" doesn't make much sense...

[Zarniwoop]

Pretty sure there's also no records of my first summer job, pricing cans and stocking shelves at a local supermarket in the mid-1980s. I bought a bike with the proceeds. The bicycle is also long, long gone.

This is pretty pathetic scandal-mongering.

[ThePublius]

Were taxes and social security contributions withheld from your earnings, or did you work off the books? If the former there certainly is a record of your work experience. Just because you haven't looked doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It won't tell you who paid you (that I know of), but it will tell you what your SS taxable income was. Mine goes back to 1974.

https://secure.ssa.gov/ec2/eligibility-earnings-ui/earnings-record

[Zarniwoop]

Yep, it's on my SS earnings report - like I said, it was grocery store that deducted payroll taxes, not mowing lawns for cash.

But that's still "no record" of me working for that particular grocery store, per your and ML's logic.

Whereas I think it's not much of a scandal that 40+ year old records don't exist anymore.

[ThePublius]

"Whereas I think it’s not much of a scandal that 40+ year old records don’t exist anymore."

Hey, you can go to Italy and look up Leonardo Da Vinci's birth and baptismal records. Why can't we do that kind of thing, in the 20th/21st centuries?

The point I was alluding to was that one could see if she worked at all in that summer. If there are SSA breadcrumbs that lends some small measure of credibility to her story. If there's no record of SS taxable income for her in that year - well, there you have it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Somehow I doubt Harris releasing a SS record showing an un-attributed employment contribution during the period in question would be accepted by MAGA as proof that she indeed worked at McDonalds...

I know I once kept a copy of the first paycheck from my first job, but I haven't seen it for 40-50 years and assume it has been lost or destroyed. Damn, I'm not qualified to be President!

Meanwhile, Trump is just laughing about how easy it is to distract you...

[ThePublius]

No, it goes to integrity and honesty, a matter of character. If you're a public figure and you make an assertion on the campaign trial, or in a biography, or worse, one in conflict with previous statements, then you are subject to scrutiny. And, it goes both ways.

She's obviously full of shit on this one, claiming to be a middle class kid, saying she worked in McD's to help pay her tuition, then changing her story to say it was for extra spending money, when BOTH of her parents where university professors. She told this lie to bolster her middle class creds, and it fell apart. Note she wrote (probably not her, personally) TWO biographies and never mentioned the McD's thing. That's telling, no? Oh, by the way, look up, someone wrote "gullible" on the ceiling.

[Zarniwoop]

I’m a middle class kid. My parents – both well-educated – bought the cheapest house in Belmont MA so I could go to the very good public HS there. I got in to MIT. Yay, it worked!

And because I wasn’t a millionaire heir like dementia-dancing Don, I worked at a grocery store in 1986 when I was 16/17 for min wage. And guess what, it’s not on my 2024 resume where I apply for legal jobs. Because duh.

And if I were running for Pres right now, I would also not expect that records from that grocery store job would be easily-available on the internet. Those were paper timesheets in the mid-1980s. That’s your evidence Harris is lying? Dude, apply some semi-reasonable expectations.

This isn’t the gotcha you’re making it out to be.

[Life of Brian]

I worked at a grocery store in 1986 when I was 16/17 for min wage. And guess what, it’s not on my 2024 resume where I apply for legal jobs. Because duh.

Sure. But would you be quite so blase had you been filling out a job application in ~1988 for a position at a district attorney’s office that specifically instructs you to: “List your work record for the last 10 years” and “Explain any gaps between employment periods”?

[Magister]

Yes. I didn't list temp jobs I had worked at, some of which I held for longer than a summer employment, or the temp agency, when I applied for jobs that asked for work history covering that time when I was a student. Not working while a student is not a discrepancy anyone would ask one to explain; I mostly lived on student loans which I could document, and received a small amount of money from family members.

[Life of Brian]

You didn't list jobs when you were in law school applying for a job at a DA's office? Doubt that.

Starting with the law school application itself and proceeding through job applications and bar applications, the legal community operates under an extremely strict duty of candor. The watchword drilled into everyone's head throughout the process is "when in doubt, disclose." And here there's no doubt -- the instructions in Kamala's application form are explicit.

Any licensed attorney understands this very well, including Zarniwoop -- that may well be why he appears to have tiptoed away from the thread.

[Magister]

I didn't list summer jobs from my undergraduate days when applying for a job at a defense contractor in 1981; I don't know if they would be more or less stringent than a DA's office. But they did ask among other things if I had belonged to any communist organizations or had relatives in communist countries.

The job application linked to is from before Harris graduated from law school, so she wasn't a lawyer at the time. The directions are not as stringent as you suggest; yes, 10 years but they didn't reject her for listing nothing from 1977 to 1981 (when she would have been younger than 18), so apparently it was not disqualifying or it was discussed at an interview or in person. Unlike my defense contractor experience, they did not ask her about memberships in organizations or personal connections that might have had a greater impact than a brief fast food job.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did you actually use the words, "integrity and honesty", in support of Donald Trump's McDonalds stunt?

She is not "obviously" full of shit until you somehow manage to provide some evidence that she's full of shit.

It is certainly possible that she did lie about it, but...where's the beef?

[bernard11]

I doubt Harris releasing a SS record showing an un-attributed employment contribution during the period in question would be accepted by MAGA as proof that she indeed worked at McDonalds.

Of course not. Publius is full of shit.

[EscherEnigma]

So you admit, even if you saw her SSA record showing she had that income, that you wouldn't be persuaded.

So seeing as you wouldn't be satisfied, why bother trying to appease you? You're un-appeaseable!

[Zarniwoop]

Hey, you can go to Italy and look up Leonardo Da Vinci’s birth and baptismal records. Why can’t we do that kind of thing, in the 20th/21st centuries?

The Roman Catholic Church was kinda obsessive about birth/baptism/death records, from what I hear. Basic “they’re alive, they’re in our flock” info. Typical for the time.

The analogy here: we can look up the birth cert for Harris. Duh.

But the RCC didn’t track Leo’s hourly painting contracts for the Pope. The same way that the existence of current birth certificates doesn’t show how many hours a definitely-alive person worked when they were 17.

FFS, that’s a dumb-ass argument. Is that the best you got?

[ThePublius]

"But the RCC didn’t track Leo’s hourly painting contracts for the Pope. "

Oh, but they did!

"There are several records of Leonardo da Vinci's church commissions, including the contract for his altarpiece in the Church of San Francesco Grande in Milan, and the commission for his painting The Last Supper in the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan...."

I was only lamenting that our record keeping has declined over the centuries. One would think that employment records from the '80's would still exist, no? For how long does the IRS keep tax data?

[Zarniwoop]

I’ll man up and admit that choosing Leo DV as an example of data the RCC kept was unwise.

Yeah, yeah, we know details about one of the singular geniuses of humanity. (Trump might claim he’s smarter, but I digress). For major works where the Pope was personally involved.

Where are the digital records of the legions of assistants who built Leo DVs famous scaffolding, or brought him lunch? That’s the better analogy to a McD fry slinger. Not the president of the corp.

Seriously, how many businesses do you know that digitized their peon-level time sheets from the 1980s? And have them in a database?

Id fire the consultant that told me to spend money on that.

Labeling that as a “scandal” is the part that’s ridonkulous.

[ThePublius]

You make good points. It is a rather silly topic.

I was thinking one could start at the binary - did she work anywhere in the summer of '83? Her SSA records would indicate that. She could then say "see, I made $1,500 that summer. That was x hours a week for y weeks...."

I don't know how far back businesses keep payroll records, but it's likely not 40 years.

[Sarcastr0]

ThePublius yesterday: "it goes to integrity and honesty, a matter of character. "

ThePublius by the light of this morning: "It is a rather silly topic."

This is why you seem like a tool.

[Josh R]

We also have a record of Michaelangelo's commission (prior to da Vinci's) for the Last Supper.

[Frank Drackman]

Mine goes back to 1978 when I was 16 (Fuck you Los Angeles Times!)

[Bored Lawyer]

In my old firm, there was a partner who used to say, "No matter how low someone goes, I can go lower. If someone gets down in the gutter, I get down in the sewer."

We have now reached the point where we are discussing the leading candidates for president of the United States serving fast food at McDonalds. Franz Kafka is jealous of the 21st century.

[Commenter_XY]

BL, we have further to fall.

[bernard11]

With Trump, always.

I think you and B.L. should note that the reason "we" are talking about this is because Trump chose to make an evidence-free assertion about nothing to try to make it something, and your guys, or some of them, are backing him, as they routinely do for even the most blatant, utterly debunked BS statements he makes.

[ThePublius]

"...because Trump chose to make an evidence-free assertion about nothing..."

Excuse me? This started because Kamala Harris made the evidence-free statement that she worked at McDonalds!

[Bored Lawyer]

No, it started when Kamala Harris told a lie about her work history. Which, as political lies go, was pretty uninspired. Joe Biden could do better in his sleep. In any event, Trump merely called her on it. Which she could just have ignored.

Trump then pulled a political stunt -- he served fries at McDonald's. Another yawner, right up there with eating hot dogs at the state fair or kissing babies. Big deal.

But then the media had a freakout about it. How dare he? That's where the media looks absolutely ridiculous and out of touch. Their reaction merely reinforced Trump's theme that the elites have contempt for the rest of the country. And, at best, they lie about their true intentions for the country. (Cf. Kamala Harris on fracking.) So score one for the Orange-Haired Man.

To me the whole contretemps is silly. That's me. But in some quarters, it helped Trump.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To date there is no evidence that Harris' statements concerning those facts within her personal knowledge were "lies".

All you've done is contradict her.

[Sarcastr0]

ML really leaning into the spambot role.

This'll get worse before it gets better.
Pro move is to mute him till the election's done.
[And to take election week off of social media]

[ThePublius]

That's so pathetic, to encourage people to mute a commenter you disagree with.

If I was forced to choose whom to mute, ML or you, it would be....

...wait for it...

you!

At least he provides content, not just snarky replies.

[Sarcastr0]

Breitbart links and Nazi twitter posts are not content.

[ThePublius]

Q.E.D.

[Sarcastr0]

You aren’t a troll, you are just very extreme.

So extreme you will forgive a troll that shits up the place if they do so from your side.

That’s no way to be.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: ThePublius is "very extreme."

lol

Change your diaper, you small temperamental man.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Breitbart links and Nazi twitter posts are not content."

Sure they are. They might be "bad" content but so is PBS and MSNBC.

[not guilty]

In the Mifepristone litigation in Texas, the States of Missouri, Kansas and Idaho as Intervenor Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint seeking to invalidate certain FDA taken with regard to Mifepristone in 2016, 2019, 2021 and 2023. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2024/10/17/671142b3e4b0b6831a121611.pdf

I don't see anything in the amended complaint 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 previous plaintiff Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine was incorporated in August 2022 -- no doubt for the purpose of judge shopping the instant lawsuit under § 1391(e)(1) -- and is headquartered in Amarillo. The original plaintiffs, however, were determined by SCOTUS to have no standing to sue. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367, 372, 396–97 (2024).

The absence of any nexus to the Northern District of Texas would require moving the lawsuit away from the result-oriented goofball Matthew Kacsmaryk. If Judge Kacsmaryk had a shred of intellectual integrity, he would dismiss the lawsuit or order transfer to a different judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

But then, as Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY

[not guilty]

The States' standing to sue is very questionable. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court, "Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue." 602 U.S. at ___. (Italics in original.) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/23-235/

To establish standing a plaintiff must demonstrate (i) that she has suffered or likely will suffer an injury in fact, (ii) that the injury likely was caused or will be caused by the defendant, and (iii) that the injury likely would be redressed by the requested judicial relief. 602 U.S. at ___; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–561 (1992). Assuming arguendo that the Intervenor States have adequately pleaded injury in fact to their sovereign interests, The amended complaint fails to show causation and redressability.

Mifepristone is part of a two drug regimen that is prescribed for a pregnant woman to take, followed by ingestion of misoprostol. If the States were granted relief and mifepristone were to become less readily available, a pregnant woman who is unable to obtain mifepristone would have three options: a medication abortion involving misoprostol alone, a surgical abortion, or carrying to term and delivering the fetus.

Each of these three options presents the same or greater risk of injury to the states' interests compared to a mifepristone/misoprostol medication abortion.

[M L]

Off-topic, I replied to you here and reposted my comment below.

[JasonT20]

On Elon Musk and his $1 million dollar bribe for voters:

It brings to mind a certain comic book movie adaptation from 1988. That means that Elon Musk really has turned himself into a comic book villain.

[Commenter_XY]

That whole deal makes me feel uncomfortable. Self funding a PAC for political speech is one thing; outright voter buying is something else (might be legal, tho).

[JasonT20]

I'm pretty sure that explicit vote buying is illegal, but this might escape because it is Elon paying for a sweepstakes to get people to sign a petition and hoping that it also motivates them to vote for Trump. It is beyond unsavory whatever it is.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, Sleepy Joe's Student Loan "Forgiveness" and Cums-a-lot's $20,000 bribe for Afro-Amurican Men (surprised she didn't propose paying them in Marriage-a-Juan-a or Popeye's Chicken) should make you feel uncomfortable, good thing she won't be POTUS.

[M L]

This is an interesting issue that always comes up, so I'll repost my comment from another thread.

People keep thinking that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" from the 14A citizenship clause simply means "subject to US laws." It doesn't. That's not what the people who created and enacted the clause thought, anyway.

Sen. Trumbull re the citizenship clause (emphasis added, brackets mine):

I think it better to avoid these words ["Indians not taxed"] and that the language proposed in this constitutional amendment is better than the language in the civil rights bill. The object to be arrived at is the same. [Here Trumbull is explaining that the citizenship clause was intended to mean the same thing as a similar clause in the 1866 CRA, which read "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"] I have already replied to the suggestion as to the Indians being subject to our jurisdiction. They are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States . . .For these reasons I think this language is better than the language employed by the civil rights bill.

I think there are decisions that treat them as subjects in some respects. In some sense they are regarded as within the territorial boundaries of the United States, but I do not think they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in any legitimate sense; certainly not in the sense that the language is used here.

Notice he refers to people as being "subjects." Quite different notions of subjectship and citizenship were at work then.

Remarks from Sen. Howard follow in the Congressional record, agreeing with Trumbull and explaining a distinction between the sort of "full and complete jurisdiction" (his words) intended here, and a lesser sort of jurisdiction that just means, subject to US law. The primary touchstone of the former type of jurisdiction is being "not subject to any foreign power."

There are many other quotes from the Congressional record that can be similarly cited. All of them support this simple point: The people who created and enacted the citizenship clause did NOT think that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" merely meant "subject to US law while you are in the US."

[M L]

Another quote from Trumbull:

What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Could it be any clearer than that?

[apedad]

How do we deal with dual citizens?

[M L]

I noticed that some people argue there shouldn’t be such a thing as dual citizenship. And more specifically, that the very idea is really an oxymoron in terms of prevailing American notions of citizenship prior to the 1960s.

I really haven’t thought about that much or looked into it. But in terms of the original meaning of the citizenship clause, I don’t understand your question. “Not owing allegiance to anybody else” seems pretty clear. We can allow dual citizenship or not, but if someone has another citizenship at birth, then it would seem there's no constitutional requirement that such a person is automatically a US citizen at birth by reason of being born on US soil.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, the US oath of citizenship assumes that there's no such thing as dual citizens;

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

The government has simply, without so far as I know any statutory basis, decided not to enforce it.

[Josh R]

Dual citizenship derives from SCOTUS precedent: Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Dual citizenship was suggested as possible as far back as 1795.

"In Talbot v. Jansen, the Court signaled a recognition of dual citizenship"

https://supreme.justia.com/supreme-court-history/rutledge-court/

[Brett Bellmore]

And yet it is explicitly repudiated by the oath all immigrants are required to swear to become citizens.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Where does it say they will give up their other citizenships or passports?

It mentions "allegiance" and "fidelity" to a foreign power, but omits anything about giving up the benefits of citizenship, such as voting, residence and getting through customs quickly...

[Josh R]

Scalia would not give any weight to what Trumbull said. After all, we are texualists now. And the debate shows why because Trumbull also said:

Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

[Zarniwoop]

+1

ML's outcome-oriented selective quotation of one Senatuh does not make for a convincing constitutional argument.

[M L]

It would be a strange textualism that would not give any weight to the best evidence of what the text means.

[Zarniwoop]

The "best evidence"? Do you even have the balls to respond to

Scalia would not give any weight to what Trumbull said. After all, we are texualists now. And the debate shows why because Trumbull also said:

Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

Sen Trumball is your source. Why is he wrong?

[M L]

Trumbull isn't wrong, Trumbull agrees with me. That quote is actually not from the debate on the 14a, as Josh R suggests, it is from discussion of the CRA. But since they were to mean the same thing, that discussion would be instructive.

Maybe you can explain why you think Trumbull contradicts himself here? I don't think he does. In that quote he is simply saying that present law at that time already provides that children born to German parents who live in Pennsylvania (or Asian parents in CA, etc) are citizens.

As far as I can tell, it seems the American concept was that by domiciling in the US, immigrants from all the various groups were presumptively renouncing their ties to the foreign nations whence they came. This concept (rooted in the revolution) was foreign to the British concept of subjectship (rooted in feudalism) which could never be removed, renounced, or revoked. Accordingly the US concept of citizenship was based on (mutual) consent and was a break from British subjectship.

[Josh R]

Small point: let’s assume you interpretation is correct. In that case, parents who have established residency no longer have allegiance to their country of birth, and the 14th grants birthright citizenship to their kids.

Big point: channel your inner Scalia and stop looking at intent, especially when the debates are contradictory. The text says the children of transitory visitors get birthright citizenship as well. I don't like that for tourists, but the text is the text.

[M L]

I don’t find the debates to be contradictory on this point. The meaning of the text is pretty clear, it means subject to full and complete jurisdiction in the sense of not owing allegiance to another state. That sort of jurisdiction includes things like being subject to the draft. Foreigners present in the US are subject to US law generally but not subject to the draft.

Clearly, the jurisdiction clause did not include Indians that maintained tribal relations. That’s because the tribes were quasi-foreign entities. This was true even though an Indian was subject to US laws when present in a state. As relations with a quasi-foreign entity meant that Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US in the full and complete sense, even more so those with relations to an actual foreign nation. That point was considered so obvious, it was scarcely discussed, and the discussion focused on the closer case of Indians.

“parents who have established residency no longer have allegiance to their country of birth, and the 14th grants birthright citizenship to their kids.”

Legal, permanent residency, yes. I came across this link which give some more background on the requirements of early immigration law:

https://americanreformer.org/2024/07/early-american-immigration-law-policy-1790-1802/

a residency requirement, or how long an immigrant must live in the United States until they were allowed to apply for citizenship; proof of outstanding moral character that immigrants had to provide in courts of law; the severing of all previous political loyalties and an oath of fealty to the U.S. Constitution . . .

The first immigration law of the First Congress, the Naturalization Act of 1790, was a more generous and liberal law that reflected the optimism of the time. It set the residency requirement for new immigrants at only two years. However, five years later, the residency requirement was expanded to five years in the Naturalization Act of 1795. This was expanded once more to fourteen years in the Naturalization Act of 1798 (one of four laws in 1798 known as the “Alien and Sedition Acts”). Such a long residency period was considered too severe, and thus the Naturalization Law of 1802 returned the residency time period back to five years, where it has remained to this day….

[Josh R]

The meaning of the text is pretty clear, it means subject to full and complete jurisdiction in the sense of not owing allegiance to another state.

There is no way the meaning clearly adds "full and complete" to jurisdiction. The only possible clear meaning is simply subject to the laws (and draft laws explcitly exclude non-citizens, so that doesn't contradict the only possible clear meaning).

Your best case is the meaning is not clear and we have to turn to historical practice. Indians were not given birthright citizenship because the parents were not taxed. That prnciple might apply to tourists, but woud not apply to lawful and unauthorized aliens who resided in the US.

[M L]

“The only possible clear meaning is simply subject to the laws”

I think you are just falling prey to a sort of modernity bias/fallacy here. Assuming that’s what these words would most likely mean in common usage today, that’s not really relevant to the meaning in this particular context and usage from some time ago. And in that context, it’s super clear that it did not just mean subject to the laws.

The text says nothing about being taxed. That argument seems a bit strained. Trumbull explained that there was a “difficulty about the words” Indians not taxed, and in his view the language adopted for the citizenship clause was better and clearer even though the the object to be arrived at was the same.

I don’t know what a “lawful and unauthorized alien” is, that seems contradictory. As I mentioned, I am open to ideas about how the citizenship clause might apply in edge cases. The laws surrounding immigration have changed, so the legal principle in the citizenship clause has to be interpreted to apply to these changed facts.

[Josh R]

It’s super clear! That settles it.

Of course the text doesn’t address taxing. It’s historical practice that does. You look at historical practice when the text isn’t clear.

“[L]awful and unauthorized aliens who resided in the US” are two distinct groups. They include temporary visa holders such as students and workers, and unauthorized people who either overstayed a visa or entered illegally (but managed to establish a residence).

[Voize]

That sort of jurisdiction includes things like being subject to the draft.

Women aren't subject to the draft. In fact, neither are newborns.
In your rush to limit birthright citizenship you would eliminate it entirely.

[M L]

Come on. A full and complete jurisdiction includes things like being in the category of persons potentially subject to the draft (just as an example) - which only applies after you've reached a certain age and are male (at least until some current members of Congress have their way, apparently).

[Zarniwoop]

I'd eliminate the draft at this point. It's been fifty frackin' years since we've had a draft. We didn't need one for 9/11.

So ... why are all the people in the Selective Service System on the government payroll in 2024?

My answer: it's straight-up gov't waste, but it's patriotic waste, so no one wants to touch it first.

But it should go, as of a decade or two ago.

[Voize]

I agree, ML. Women and children can be citizens at birth under the 14th even though they are not draft eligible, because their ineligibility results from the action of the Selective Service Act and not from them being immune to it.

The children of diplomats, treaty Indians and invading soldiers though are immune to most if not all domestic law, and the 14th does not confer citizenship at birth on them.

Jurisdiction really does mean jurisdiction, after all.

[M L]

Being potentially subject to a draft is just one illustrative example of the sort of thing that historically distinguishes full subjectship jurisdiction from merely being subject to laws. That doesn't mean the two things are equivalent or coextensive, that's a strawman. This is like saying being able to give birth isn't a "human thing" because ackshully, it's only women. And that can't be changed by some morons in Congress unlike the draft.

"treaty Indians . . . though are immune to most if not all domestic law"

Yes - when they are in their territories. Just like a Mexican in Mexico is not subject to US law while they are in Mexico, or a German is not subject to US law while in Germany.

But when any of the above otherwise enter into in a US state, they are subject to US laws.

Have you actually read the Congressional record? In it, Indians in their territories are explicitly likened to Mexicans in Mexico. This is a really key and basic point to understand from that debate.

[Voize]

Have you actually read the Congressional record?

Yes, and expertly parsed it here six years ago in a comment thread you participated in.

You may be aware that after those debates there was still a lot of uncertainty and disagreement about the status of Indians after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and so in 1870 the Senate Committee on the Judiciary released a report for dissemination that purported to settle it once and for all. They may not have fully succeeded, but I would tend to credit a document written by a group of Senators over 8 months of study and contemplation a more reliable indicator of how they understood the 14th than the off-the-cuff response of a single Senator to a question in debate. It concludes

In the opinion of your committee, the Constitution and the treaties, acts of Congress, and judicial decisions above referred to, all speak the same language upon this subject, and all point to the conclusion that the Indians, in tribal condition, have never been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the sense in which the term jurisdiction is employed in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. The Government has asserted a political supremacy over the Indians, and the treaties and laws quoted from present these tribes as "domestic, dependent nations," separated from the States of the Union within whose limits they are located, and exempt from the operation of State laws and not otherwise subject to the control of the United States than is consistent with their character as separate political communities or states.

For good measure, the word "allegiance" does not appear in the report.

[Voize]

If the intended meaning was allegiance, then why does the text use the word jurisdiction? Trumbull demonstrates that at least he was familiar with both words. Why not use the one that means what you want to say?

Actually I am surprised nobody in the discussion asked that question.

[bernard11]

What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Why are you relying on Trumbull for an interpretation, particularly a silly one?

[ducksalad]

Two things that make your entire argument mostly irrelevant, even if were a true representation of two senators’ opinions:

(a) newborn infants don’t have allegiance to anyone, and
(b) allegiance isn’t determined by race, genetics, or parentage.

The only reason I say mostly is that it might apply to cases of people born here who then grow up in a manner indicating allegiance to some other entity, e.g. go to a foreign country, become a citizen, join their army, etc. It could apply to someone intentionally living here but outside the US system of laws. In the late 1860s it could also include children who grew up in tribes not living under our laws.

Also note that one undeniable original public meaning of the 14th Amendment was to give citizenship to African-Americans who were born of parents who were also not legally considered citizens. Trumbull, who was a strident abolitionist, would have sneered at an argument that their allegiance was to someplace in Africa, and therefore the 14th Amendment didn’t protect them. Changing Africa to Venezuela or Haiti doesn't make your argument more valid.

Most of these attempts to render the 14th Amendment meaningless depend on strategies like conflating children with their parents, claiming that fetuses or even not yet fertilized eggs can commit crimes, or arguing for corruption of blood.

[M L]

Nothing I have said would "render the 14th amendment meaningless" or anything remotely close to that. As you said, the main purpose of the citizenship was to grant citizenship to freed persons, which it did. Would you call that "meaningless"?

Are you under the impression that citizenship or subjectship (which are different things really) do not involve allegiance?

[ducksalad]

I was under the impression that you were arguing for denial of automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, since that is normally where the tendentious definitions of jurisdiction are deployed. If that’s not what you’re getting at, sorry for my mistake.

The authors of the actual 14th Amendment text could have very easily used the word “allegiance”, but they used “jurisdiction”, a word that is already in the Constitution with a well-understood meaning.

Are you under the impression that citizenship or subjectship (which are different things really) do not involve allegiance?

I’m of the opinion that the concept of allegiance doesn’t really apply to young children, and that if you were going to devise some reasonable test of allegiance at (say) the age of five, children of citizens are not a whole lot more likely to pass than children of non-citizens.

But if you've got some measure of allegiance you'd like to propose, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[M L]

I believe one of the primary aspects of either citizenship or subjectship is that a legal duty of allegiance is considered to apply, or is "owed."

You seem to be talking about subjective feelings of allegiance, or an individual's intellectual assent to or embrace of such a duty. That is certainly a valid use of the word, but a different meaning entirely. Incidentally, the American notion of citizenship was based on consent (consent of the governed) and could be renounced, if an individual didn't like it.

I do indeed think that the citizenship clause does not require automatic birthright citizenship for children illegal aliens. There may be a hard case for some that have lived here a long time if the government has sort of acquiesced to their domicile. Tourists or "sojourners" present an easier case.

Harry Reid's bill addresses the issue quite well. In title X: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1351/text

[Magister]

I think your argument is following the wrong arc.

[verochkax]

Whatever lawyer filed the defamation case against Trump on behalf of the Central Park Five thugs should be disbarred.

[MoreCurious]

Whatever lawyer advised that moron, Trump, to continue to make provably false statements against the Central Park Five should be disbarred.

[ThePublius]

The Central Park Five really did do it, though. Do some research.

[verochkax]

Not to mention they were garden variety black thugs. All raised by single mothers in the projects.

[MoreCurious]

Do you alternate between your MAGA cap and your KKK hat?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Why would you assert the two are separate?

[OtisAH]

You’re garbage.

[ThePublius]

You're ignorant and a dyed in the wool partisan who is blinded to the truth.

[Sarcastr0]

Zarniwoop kinda proved you are garbage.

Between this and your Haitians eat pets push, you seem pretty racist.

[Zarniwoop]

The Central Park Five really did do it, though. Do some research.

Wikipedia

More than a decade after the attack, while incarcerated for attacking five other women in 1989, serial rapist Matias Reyes confessed to the Meili assault and claimed he was the only actor; DNA evidence confirmed his involvement.[6] The convictions against McCray, Richardson, Salaam, Santana, and Wise were vacated in 2002; Lopez's convictions were vacated in July 2022.

But feel free to provide info to support your claim.

Put up or STFU.

[Roger S]

The Central Park 5 did confess to the crime, and there was other evidence against them at the time.

[Zarniwoop]

Your contribution is that young teens were pressured into false confessions, that they quickly revoked, and were subsequently contradicted by actual DNA evidence is ... evidence that they're guilty?

Come the frack on, man. Why are you simping for Dementia Don like that?

He can't event remember that it was a [false] rape conviction, not a murder conviction.

So even if you think the rape conviction is legit, he demonstrably falsely accused the CP5 of murder. Reminder: no one was killed.

Is that defamation, or is Dementia Don just not capable of remembering basic facts?

[Zarniwoop]

From the complaint:

33. Following his confession to prison staff, Reyes met with prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and provided details that only the true perpetrator could know. The police also performed a DNA test that conclusively showed that Reyes was the true perpetrator. Prior DNA tests on the five who were convicted of these crimes were negative in all respects.
34. Following these revelations, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office reopened its investigation into the Central Park assaults.
35. At the conclusion of a thorough re-investigation, Nancy Ryan, the Chief of the Trial Division of the District Attorney’s Office, filed an affirmation on behalf of the District Attorney’s Office recommending that Plaintiffs’ convictions be vacated and that the indictments be dismissed.

Dementia-dancing Don is free to contest any of those facts, if he can remember them.

But I'll put my money on this getting settled for a pretty large sum in favor of the Plaintiffs.

[bernard11]

Where? Some fucking racist web site that you are fond of?

[not guilty]

Verochkax, here is the complaint in the Central Park Five lawsuit against Donald Trump. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25244729/central-park-five-v-trump.pdf

The suit is filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Lead counsel for all plaintiffs are from Philadelphia. Pennsylvania's Rules of Professional Conduct are here: https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/rules/rule/3/the-rules-of-professional-conduct

What facts support your claim that these lawyers should be disbarred? Please show your work, including specific references to each RPC that you claim has been violated.

[not guilty]

Some co-counsel for the Central Park Five plaintiffs are from New York. New York's Rules of Professional Conduct are here: https://nycourts.gov/ad3/agc/rules/22NYCRR-Part-1200.pdf

What facts support your claim that these lawyers should be disbarred? Please show your work, including specific references to each RPC that you claim has been violated.

[not guilty]

Some co-counsel for the Central Park Five plaintiffs are from Denver. Colorado’s Rules of Professional Conduct are here: https://www.cobar.org/rulesofprofessionalconduct

What facts support your claim that these lawyers should be disbarred? Please show your work, including specific references to each RPC that you claim has been violated.

[verochkax]

Let's start with:

Legal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal. A lawyer is not required to make a disinterested exposition of the law, but must recognize the existence of pertinent legal authorities. Furthermore, as stated in paragraph (a)(2), an advocate has a duty to disclose directly adverse authority in the controlling jurisdiction that has not been disclosed by the opposing party. The underlying concept is that legal argument is a discussion seeking to determine the legal premises properly applicable to the case.

[Zarniwoop]

Yes, let us do that very thing.

What specific paragraphs of the complaint are you whining about?

Put up or STFU.

And be clear: are you whining about facts, or applicable law? Because the quote you provide is about misrepresentation of legal precedent, not facts.

Do you agree that the plaintiffs' facts are correct?

You're clearly not a lawyer. Worthless and weak. Sad!

[not guilty]

Let's break this down, verochkax.

"Legal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal."

What "knowingly false representation of law" do you attribute to the plaintiffs' counsel? Be specific, including applicable legal authority that contradicts such "false representation."

"A lawyer is not required to make a disinterested exposition of the law, but must recognize the existence of pertinent legal authorities."

I surmise that Pennsylvania law governs, in that the offending statements were made there. What specific "pertinent legal authorities" do you claim that the plaintiffs' counsel failed to recognize?

"Furthermore, as stated in paragraph (a)(2), an advocate has a duty to disclose directly adverse authority in the controlling jurisdiction that has not been disclosed by the opposing party."

What specific "directly adverse authority in the controlling jurisdiction" do you claim that the plaintiffs' counsel have failed to disclose? If there is any such authority, can you support a claim that it need be pleaded in the complaint? Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) requires only that a complaint state:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

"The underlying concept is that legal argument is a discussion seeking to determine the legal premises properly applicable to the case."

In what particular regard do you claim that the plaintiffs' complaint fails to comport with this proposition?

Show your work, verochkax. Or in the alternative, admit that you are blowing smoke.

[not guilty]

Verochkax, you have accused seven members of the bar of professional misconduct which you claim is worthy of disbarment. When challenged, you were unable or unwilling to provide even a scintilla of support for your scurrilous accusations.

The least you can do now to show a soupçon of integrity is to admit that you are wrong.

[verochkax]

"As a proximate result of Defendant’s negligent, malicious, intentional and reckless conduct as set forth above and herein, Plaintiffs are entitled to such damages as will compensate them for their reputational damage, emotional pain and suffering, resultant out-of-pocket costs and expenses, and punitive damages to punish Defendant Trump for his conduct and deter him and others similarly situated from like acts in the future."

Nobody's reputation was damaged, and no reasonable person could conclude otherwise. There's no legal action, STFU.

[not guilty]

Are you seriously contenting that false accusations of a plaintiff's having killed another person and of having pleaded guilty to such killing, where no one in fact was killed and no one in fact pleaded guilty to any crime, made on network television to a nationwide audience, are not actionable in damages for defamation? Don't forget Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!

[Frank Drackman]

Molly Ivin's should have followed her own advice, seeing as how she's been in a hole since 2007.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In case you haven't figured it out yet, verochax is a racist piece of shit who hides behind a fake screen name because he knows he would end up in a ditch otherwise.

Since they are black, he does not care.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, verochkax. What facts support your claim that these lawyers should be disbarred?

[not guilty]

This lawsuit for damages will not go away even if Trump is elected to another term as president, thanks to Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).

[Zarniwoop]

I wouldn't be surprised if the current S.Ct. comes up with a rationale to modify Clinton v. Jones. Perhaps a "considered recognition" that allowing civil lawsuits really is too much of an imposition and distraction on the President, so delaying all case activity until the end of the President's term is the actually-correct result.

Meh, you know dementia-dancing Don's lawyers will make that argument. It's not even unreasonable.

[MoreCurious]

I predict this lawsuit will cost Trump millions. Kline and Specter is famous for its multi-million dollar verdicts and will dance circles around whatever lawyers Trump decides to hire. (Shanin Specter is a son of former Senator Arlen Specter, a long-time Republican. The assigned judge, Senior Judge Michael Baylson, was appointed U.S. Attorney by Ronald Reagan and was appointed judge by George W. Bush.) This is going to be interesting.

[EscherEnigma]

Eh...

If Trump loses, then it will lose it's public interest and will become a foot note when it finally goes to trial in a few years.

If Trump wins, then it'll be put on hold until he's out of office.

I'm not sure I'd call either outcome "interesting".

[Zarniwoop]

I think it's fascinating that Dementia Don can't even remember that this was a false conviction for rape, not a false conviction for murder.

Even if you come up with implausible rationalizations for believing the CP5 were involved in the sexual assault (despite solid DNA evidence), it's undisputed that no one was killed.

From the complaint:

5. At the September 10, 2024 presidential debate, Defendant Trump falsely stated that Plaintiffs killed an individual and pled guilty to the crime. These statements are demonstrably false. Plaintiffs never pled guilty to any crime and were subsequently cleared of all wrongdoing. Further, the victims of the Central Park assaults were not killed.

[Ridgeway]

Since the CP5 are public figures (at least in this context), they have to show that trump acted with reckless disregard for the truth -- basically that he checked into hi allegations, realized they were false, and made them anyway. That is a tough row to hoe with a defendant with a long history of shooting his mouth off on half-remembered facts.

Similarly, regarding "pleading guilty", it seems pretty clear from the context that Trump does not know the difference between confessing and pleading guilty, so again, that actual malice will be difficult to show.

[EscherEnigma]

He also has a long history of being corrected on this specific point.

So I don't think it'd be unfair for a jury to say he's "shooting his mouth off" with "reckless disregard for truth".

That said (as I said above) I don't think this'll matter. Hell, even if they win and get millions, it'll just be a blow to Trump's ego, not his wallet.

[not guilty]

"Since the CP5 are public figures (at least in this context), they have to show that trump acted with reckless disregard for the truth — basically that he checked into hi [sic] allegations, realized they were false, and made them anyway. That is a tough row to hoe with a defendant with a long history of shooting his mouth off on half-remembered facts."

One of the plaintiffs is a New York City Council Member, so he is likely a public figure. The other plaintiffs may be involuntary public figures, although there is an argument that the public controversy around them had abated before Donald Trump made his remarks in the September debate, such that they are no longer public figures.

Showing reckless disregard for truth or falsity does not require that Trump he checked into his allegations, realized they were false, and made them anyway. As SCOTUS has opined:

Actual malice . . . requires at a minimum that the statements were made with a reckless disregard for the truth. And although the concept of "reckless disregard" "cannot be fully encompassed in one infallible definition," St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 730 (1968), we have made clear that the defendant must have made the false publication with a "high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity," Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964), or must have "entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication," St. Amant, supra, at 731.

Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 667 (1989). A plaintiff is entitled to prove the defendant's state of mind through circumstantial evidence. Id., at 668. A defendant's self-serving testimony that he believed that the statements were true is not dispositive. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. St. Amant, at 732.

In this regard Trump's "long history of shooting his mouth off on half-remembered facts" is probative of reckless disregard for truth or falsity, not the absence thereof. Being a serial liar is no defense in a damages action for defamation.

[not guilty]

I don't see how Donald Trump can avoid summary judgment as to liability in this lawsuit. That would leave computation of compensatory and punitive damages to the jury.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't worry!

Donald Trump's loyal wannabe subjects will give him all the money he asks for to pay off this claim. I doubt he even gives it a second thought these days.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Third-party Presidential candidate Jill Stein gets ballot access in Ohio, but the state has announced that it won't count the votes she receives.

Whatever else you can say about the shenanigans in Ohio, those responsible are not trying to avoid ballot clutter. They cluttered up the ballot with Stein's name, they just won't count her votes.

https://ballot-access.org/2024/10/16/jill-stein-ohio-vote-counting-hearing-set-for-tuesday-october-22/

[ReaderY]

One of the difficulties in adjudicating land claims in the West Bank is that many of the Palestinian inhabitants don’t have record title to the land they live on. Israel, like a number of former Ottoman countries follows Ottoman land law, which emphasizes record title and doesn’t have equitable title concepts like adverse possession that Anglo-American law does. One could argue that might be for the best, as an adverse possession law might only encourage more strife by rewarding people’s deliberate attempts to squat on each other’s land. But not having such laws tends to work to the disadvantage of the Palestinian community.

Some Palestinians are descended from peasants whose families lived, or from a legal point of view squatted, for generations with no record title. Others are comparatively recent arrivals. The 1948 war brought hundreds of thousands of refugees who fled over the Green Line and settlwd and started farms and such in land they don’t legally own.

What to do about it? Enforcing Ottoman land law provides great fodder for people who claim that Israel is “stealing” Palestinian land when its courts enforce record title against inhabitants who don’t have it. But what exactly to be done under these circumstances? The current Israeli legal approach, which finds in favor of Arab inhabitants when they have record title, is far from the theft factory and instrument of genocide that propagandists on this blog and elsewhere have portrayed it as. But it’s certainly understandable that people living on land without record title to it, some of whom may have been born on that land, could hardly be expected to regard enforcing record title as representing a paragon of justice either.

What is to be done?

[ThePublius]

An interesting footnote is that the penalty for a Palestinian selling land to an Israeli is life in prison at hard labor.

"A Ramallah court has sentenced a Palestinian man to life in prison with hard labour after he was found guilty of selling land in the Old City of Jerusalem to Israeli Jews."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/31/palestinian-sentenced-to-life-for-selling-land-to-israelis

[Commenter_XY]

What is to be done?
MOAB: The Mother of All Buyouts

One approach is a voluntary, incentivized emigration program. Pay palestinians who cannot or will not live peacefully under Israeli sovereignty to leave and start rewarding lives elsewhere.

[Michael P]

What other country would take them? It's not like they have integrated in other countries where they currently have refugee camps. Those other countries keep them under systems of "apartheid" too, except that Palestinians in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria don't usually conduct terror attacks against those countries.

[Commenter_XY]

Other countries in the region will take emigrants who have money to jump-start their economies. When I say MOAB, that is what it entails. You are paying them to restart their lives elsewhere. That is not small money.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd not only have to pay enough to jump start the economy, you'd have to pay a lot more besides to compensate for the damage they'd be expected to do. The problem is that the Palestinians have a track record as immigrants, and it's ugly.

[Commenter_XY]

I envision a program of roughly 300B over 10 years to relocate ~3MM palestinians.

[ducksalad]

You're leaving out the following step: after declaring the inhabitants have no title, the land somehow becomes Israeli state land, despite the West Bank never having been annexed, and then eventually someone - usually not non-Israeli Arab - ends up inhabiting it. I'm not an Ottoman so I could be wrong, maybe that part is Ottoman law also. From the outside it appears that the application of Ottoman law is a bit selective.

What is to be done? If it was a western style democracy populated by reasonable people the method would be: annex the West Bank, give all residents birthright citizenship, give current inhabitants a path to establish title, fix non-inhabitant land claims that are more than a few years old with money rather than evictions, and going forward grant building permits at rates that don't look like an attempt at demographic engineering.

But it's not so that won't happen.

[ThePublius]

Well, if the Palestinians weren't so bent on eradicating the Israelis maybe something could be worked out. What is Israel to do, give land to Palestinians who then enforce a life sentence on anyone selling the land to an Israeli? Kidding?

[John F. Carr]

This podcast episode looks back a century before the occupation of the West Bank to discuss how the Ottomans themselves used their land law for political purposes. It was convenient to replace nomads with refugees who might owe more to the Ottoman state.

https://www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/2024/08/hamed-troyansky.html

It's not an answer to the question "what to do?" I was thinking about the modern West Bank as I listened to the episode.

[Longtobefree]

If only there was a UN resolution creating the state of Israel - - - - - - - - -

[SRG2]

Americans' views on the election and the right to engage in violence:
https://www.prri.org/research/challenges-to-democracy-the-2024-election-in-focus-findings-from-the-2024-american-values-survey/

* Nearly one in five Republicans (19%), including 23% of Republicans who hold a favorable view of Trump, say that if Trump loses the election, he should declare the results invalid and do whatever it takes to assume office.

* About one in ten Democrats (12%), including 12% of Democrats who hold a favorable view of Harris, say that if Harris loses the election, she should declare the results invalid and do whatever it takes to assume office.

Not surprising but quantification is a good thing.

* Nearly half of Americans (49%) agree that there is a real danger that Trump will use the presidency to become a dictator, compared to only 28% who hold similar concerns about Harris.

It is not implausible that some Trump voters are voting for him because they think he'll become a dictator.

[Zarniwoop]

I interpret that as the different concerns/beliefs of two separate populations:

49% of Americans believe Dementia-dancing Don will try to declare the results invalid: mostly Democrat voters, based on prior experience ... but also foons like Grampa Ed who are rooting for civil war.

28% of of Americans believe Harris will try to declare the results invalid: mostly a smaller fraction of GOP voters, who buy into Dementia-dancing Don's every-accusation-is-a-projection.

[EscherEnigma]

question was "should", not "will". Very different questions.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Practically all Democrats, and very few Republicans, think bad thing about Trump."; And this averages to half of Americans thinking it.

An evergreen poll finding.

[EscherEnigma]

Not in the summary is how many people think that, if he loses, Donald Trump will declare the election invalid and do whatever he can to take power anyway.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(Again.)

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2...I have a problem with the unweighted sample; hispanics and blacks are far under-represented in the sample universe (~5,350). That unweighted sample does not match census data. Whites are over-represented, and the West region is hugely under-represented.

Have not looked at data collection mode(s).

[Kazinski]

Its actually even worse than that Trump is putting out fake photos of him in a Steelers uniform:

However, the image posted on Truth Social depicts Trump on a football field wearing a jersey for the Pittsburgh Steelers — there is no evidence this ever occurred.

Trump's torso and arms also appear to have been altered to appear more muscular than they do in other photos and videos of Trump in sportswear, such as those posted by Trump Golf's Instagram account in July."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fake-image-nfl-star-pittsburgh-steelers-1972064?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1729527721

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The DOJ should arrest him for election interference!

[ThePublius]

It's a joke!

Are you really doing the prog thing and intentionally taking everything literally to criticize the opposition? How small of you.

[OtisAH]

“See? I talk about Trump too!”

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Kamala has reduced herself to siccing her fascist police thugs after the Christians after she illegally commandeered their church to illegally politic and conduct illegal politicking in a church. Churchs get tax breaks and can't be political. She's breaking the law by campaigning there.

Although Parable Jesus Kamala accent is f'n hilarious.

[Zarniwoop]

Snort-laugh of the day: Dementia-dancing Don saying in an interview:

"I always wanted to work at a McDonalds, but I never did."

(just heard him say it in an audio clip on the radio, I think it's accurate but apologies if it's not)

Seriously? When in his privileged life, his life of draft dodging to have unprotected sex at Studio 54 that he calls his "personal Vietnam", did he ever evidence any desire whatsoever to abandon wealth and privilege to sling fries for minimum wage?

I'm not sure which is worse: Dementia-dancing Don saying this, or people getting out their kneepads to fellate him for it.

[hobie]

I read recently that no matter how many facts or logic you throw at conspirisists, it will not persuade them. They're already gone. The best you can do is commiserate. But even that don't do much

[Frank Drackman]

Well "Duh", it's why you turd burglars are still cock-locked on the "Russian Corrusion" bullshit.

[bernard11]

None of it is as bad as the utterly debunked Springfield cats business, which he continues to defend.

But, hey, Harris can't prove she worked at McDonald's. So what's the big deal?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Snort-laugh of the day: Dementia-dancing Don saying in an interview:"
“I always wanted to work at a McDonalds, but I never did.”

As opposed to Kamala who said she worked at McDonalds, but never did.

[hobie]

Is that distinction what keeps you up all night, Bumble?

[Mr. Bumble]

Vying with Il Douche for membership in the Douche club?
Be sure to share your Haitian tenants recipes for sous vide Siamese
and Cajun Calico.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Weren't you recently reprimanded by the proprietor for excessive content-free seventh grade vulgar insults? I see that didn't last long.
You have never added value to this forum, not just because you're not a lawyer, but because you seem to be a half-witted cretin.

[Mr. Bumble]

Simple answer: NO. You must have me confused with Queenie.
Feel free to use the mute feature or STFU.
Your one comment has added sooooo much to the thread.

[Frank Drackman]

Ooohhh what a Burn, you accused the wrong person, and speaking of vulgar insults, I'll refrain from mentioning your parents weren't married, but "because you're not a doctor" (and apparently flunked 10th grade Biology) "Cretinism" is an actual condition, it's sufferers are referred to as "Cretins", the more accurate medical term is "Congenital Hypothyroidism", and with proper treatment, they can go on to lead relatively "normal" lives (See Christ Christie), it's the reason most Salt has Iodine added.

Frank

[Zarniwoop]

And … Exhibit A for “people getting out their kneepads to fellate him for it.“

[EscherEnigma]

Hell, I did work at McDonalds, and I didn't want to. Jumped ship three months later to work at the university library. Slight pay-cut, but way more comfortable.

[hobie]

Just had a lovely guest at one of my AirBnB properties. A Haitian immigrant who just graduated medical school at UConn and is now applying for residency at the Cleveland Clinic 5 blocks away.

This filthy, cat-eating, rapist black man - no doubt bent on diluting the blood of Americans - was a perfect polite guest. He didn't have a tie for his interview so he borrowed one of mine. Thank god I'm not filled with racism and hatred like you mediocre shysters, or the poor guy would never have gotten that tie

[bernard11]

I hope he gets the residency, and ends up saving Vance's life.

[Frank Drackman]

Pretty bad that a filthy, cat eating, rape-ist gets in UConn, oh wait, that’s most of their basketball team, like he really existed (the Haitian Immigrant) because you apply for residency during your Senior year, before you graduate, and start your Residency in July after you grad-jew-ate, (hence the "Don't get sick in July advice") So I've heard of "Colored People's Time" but he's taking it to the X-treme

Frank

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman; America's neediest veteran, I have no idea what real doctors do between school and residency...the man said he was applying. I do know he sleeps a lot, so he may be gunning for your position out the broom closet guessing people's weight

[Frank Drackman]

Keep stepping and fetching, Hobie-Stank, caught in a lie like your Man-Crush Tampon Tim Waltz and his combat experience, only Haitian in your properties are the guys breaking in.

[verochkax]

Are you suggesting that the average Haitian migrant is a doctor?

[Frank Drackman]

They certainly have more experience with Tuberculosis, Malaria, and Syphilis than most doctors, unfortunately for them, it's having the conditions rather than treating them.

[ThePublius]

Most likely witch doctor.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A Writer Sees Leniency in the Supreme Court’s Approach to Public Corruption

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/21/us/politics/supreme-court-public-corruption.html

Read a draft of his article here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4971946

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>The Harris Bureau of Prisons is illegally holding me past my legal release date–trying to eliminate one of President Trump’s strongest advocates–these criminals reek of desperation,” said Bannon in a statement last week to The National Pulse.

Fascists.

https://tennesseestar.com/kamalafare/warden-admits-biden-harris-doj-has-illegally-imprisoned-steve-bannon-since-october-19/tpappert/2024/10/21/

[Michael P]

Nobody seems willing to discuss the immigration status of this "native of El Salvador". I wonder why.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/10/21/ms-13-leader-convicted/

I used to walk through the woods in question, 20-odd years ago. I lived in apartments on one side of them and would go to the shipping center for groceries or Indian food or Dairy Queen. It's a bit unnerving to know that little patch became a site of serial murders.

[Sarcastr0]

Man seeks out stories of immigrant crimes.
Complains that it unnerves him.

There's an easy solution to your concern - spend less effort being a bigot!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

haha yeah, only bigots are concerned with crimes by illegals!

Be a good person and ignore all the voting, two-tier justice system, the privilege, and children and women being raped by illegals! YOU STUPID BIGOT!

So Sayeth the State!

[Michael P]

You've cleverly discovered that people who subscribe to the "Wash Post Metro" RSS feed are really in it for the stories about immigrant crime, not because they have a personal connection to the DC area. You are very smert.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not going after your source, I'm going after you.

A moment's reading of your deal reveals you are not the type to regularly read Wash Post Metro. Someone (or you yourself) pointed you to the story because someone committing a crime who wasn't born here.

Wallowing in that kind of confirmation bias is how you keep your bigotry polished to a shine.

[Michael P]

Your mind reading is as awful as ever, you lying sack of shit. I follow Wash Post Metro via Feedly because of my time living in the area. Which other recent stories from it do you think speak to national policy? 40-some people suffering from relatively mild food poisoning? A dog dying days after a house explosion? The weather forecast?

You claim to assume good faith, but you assume bad faith for people who disagree with you. Stop projecting your garbage personhood on the rest of us.

[Bwaaah]

At least the Reverend didn't treat the craft of shallow insult like a creative writing exercise. You're a small man who impresses himself.

[Frank Drackman]

Looks like he just killed other ill-legals, he'll do well in prison (no Sarcasm, he'll probably live better there than he would on the outside, and certainly better than in his native El Salvador, where'd he'd have been turned into dog food first time he was caught)

Frank

[Michael P]

That "just" does you no credit.

[Bwaaah]

Look…he’s a doctor, and he’s only referring to one of many possible outcomes. As a professional, he probably treats them all the same. But here, he’s not speaking as a professional…he’s speaking casually as a human being. (I think I have a disintegrating point here.)

On a slightly more interesting tack, Sarcastr0, like Frank, also thought the illegal alien angle was the key point. And *he* seriously considers himself to be a humanitarian despite his total miss here. (I guess he can’t relate to having taken casual strolls where people just disappeared, forever, one after another.)

I think when God was handing out self awareness, Sarc was standing in line behind Frank, smelling Frank’s farts and endlessly announcing to the world about how wrong each one smelled. When it came Sarc’s turn, before God could speak, Sarc yelled at God, “Get a whiff of how horrible that guy’s farts smell!” To which God replied, “NEXT!!!”

[Michael P]

Talk about treating the craft of shallow insult like a creative writing exercise!

I don't know whether the convict in this case is an illegal immigrant, (what Sarcastr0 mocked me for dubbing) an irregular one let into the country by Harris-Biden policies to open the borders, or someone who could have entered the country under Bill Clinton's policies. It is a significant question, but Sarcastr0 treats it as nothing more than bigotry.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, it is bigotry.

You are taking a single point and blowing it up to make a negative generalization about a group.

That’s what bigotry is.

That you use the bigotry for cynical partisan purposes makes it worse.

[Michael P]

You're projecting again, chief.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you take issue with my description of what you're doing?
Or with my characterization of bigotry?

Because this just looks like you've got no response.

[Michael P]

You're just posting stuff from your imagination, instead of pointing to anything I actually said or did. Where your imagination contradicts fact, you insist the facts are irrelevant in the face of how you wish other people thought.

[Sarcastr0]

You are taking a single point [the story you linked]

And are blowing it up to make a negative generalization about a group [“…let into the country by Harris-Biden policies to open the borders”]

Leaving aside that border patrol releases monthly numbers showing the border isn’t open, you’re condemning a population based on this story you found.

It’s not my imagination, it’s what you yourself have said and are doing.

You seek reasons to hate migrants, and any anecdote will do. Just like plenty in the South in the 1950s did with every single black on white crime.
Or Breitbart did with their 'black crime' tag they had going a few years ago.

Same game.

[Michael P]

That absolutely is your imagination. You are pulling a single phrase from a comment thread, throwing away the context, and using it to draw a picture from your mind. I said (paraphrasing) "I don't know whether the convict in this case is from group A, group B or group C" and you take that to conclude I must be polishing "bigotry" against group B.

Unlike you, most of us can read.

[Michael P]

Or, from another perspective, how many murders does it take before you are willing to ask whether a systemic problem might be at fault? It's obviously more than six.

[Bwaaah]

He can't see himself. But he can teach you about bigotry. It's like he's a professor or something.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Today, the New York Times game Spelling Bee didn't accept the words autarch or autarchic. They may want to update their acceptable word list, since we may be about to have one.

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

I don't think Kamala will win, fortunately.

[John F. Carr]

A federal judge in Massachusetts is considering whether to order a high school to give a student a "B" in Social Studies. The student failed an assignment because he used AI. This is a violation of his civil rights, § 1983, and so forth.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69190839/harris-v-adams/

From the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction:

This case is believed to be one of first impression regarding arbitrary and capricious discipline imposed and the fallout from that discipline following the Plaintiff Student’s use of artificial intelligence on a school project, including arbitrary grading and culminating in the non-selection of the Plaintiff Student from National Honor Society because of this alleged academic integrity violation that was not previously proscribed or even addressed by the Student Handbook.

Plaintiffs are represented by the self-described "botique" law firm Farrell Lavin PLLC. Government defendants are represented by Morrison Mahoney LLP.

[Magister]

The motion to dismiss sounded convincing to me, if in fact rules against the unauthorized use of technology and rules about use of AI were provided to the students.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The AI was Grammarly? I've never heard of spell checkers/grammar checkers counting as cheating, or as AI, and I wouldn't interpret a rule against AI as a rule against such tools.

And I assume court rules against AI don't apply to blue squiggles in word documents (which I believe uses AI.) or OCRing scanned PDF files.

[EscherEnigma]

It's important to remember that "AI" is a very broad and misleading term.

For example, the spell-checker and grammar-checker functions of Microsoft Word are now decades old. While the newest iteration might use "AI", it has traditionally used rules-based analysis that can not be fairly called "AI".

ChatGPT, which does use "AI", specifically uses generative AI. This is the sort of thing where you can say "Computer, write me a five paragraph essay on the mating habits of internet incels" and have it spit it out, and the main target of recent attempts to exclude "AI" from academic efforts.

In contrast, there's also analytical AI, which is more about crunching massive data sets and looking for patterns that humans didn't spot. This is where the stories about AI spotting sheep, but actually identifying green fields, come from, and both (A) won't write your term paper for you and (B) when a student uses it, will call out that they used it in their analysis of the data, which brings us to (C) this isn't really a high school thing, more a college math/comp sci thing.

Grammarly? I don't know the details of that one. If it's using a generative AI, then the student probably doesn't have a leg to stand on as they very much did not write whatever it is. If it's closer to the traditional Microsoft Spellchecker on steroids, then they kid is probably on better grounds.

And that's if the judge understands the difference (historically, judges have been shit at understanding technical nuance).

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, part of the problem is that it's such an imprecise term. I would interpret a ban on AI use as a ban on some of the more sophisticated generative AIs, and not a ban on a grammar checker that might use an LSTM or something.

[Magister]

Grammarly says on its website that it's generative AI.

With Grammarly's generative AI support and advanced writing suggestions, you can accelerate your writing process, champion your voice, build connections, and spur your academic or professional growth.

Use Grammarly's generative AI to unblock your ideas and enable accelerated productivity for teams and individuals.