Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Since a week ago I've been watching a series of Mark Halperin podcasts he's been doing on the election, and while they are valuable for the information he puts out, and the sources he has (for instance he has in the podcast I link to below, not only the PA GOP senate candidate in a very informative interview, but also the Democratic Mayor of Pittsburgh.

He did a two hour podcast last week on only the state of the race with Pennsylvania, with his own commissioned poll, and a live focus group of undecided Pennsylvania voters.

But I couldn't help.but think when I listened to almost 30 minutes of these uncommitted PA voters: these are the idiots who are going to decide who our next president is?

I think most of us committed Trump or Harris voters would feel frustrated watching these people at this late stage unable to shit or get off the pot.

https://youtu.be/A-5EgAOCAoI

[Ed Grinberg]

Rush Limbaugh regularly complained about "the mushyheaded middle."

[Commenter_XY]

Imagine the frustration of a candidate trying to persuade all those fence-sitters. The candidate has only been talking to them for 2 years or so. And they still fence-sit to the end.

[Frank Drackman]

Cums-a-lot has only been running for 3 months, and has barely talked to them in that time, she keeps telling everyone I'm a Nazi ( and apparently so is the 94 yr old Auschwitz survivor who did an ad for "45")

[Malika]

Guy who can't master space bar has opinions!

[Armchair]

"these are the idiots who are going to decide who our next president is?"

That's not really fair. The truth is, all the voters decide who our next president is. The hardcore Democratic party-elites in Philadelphia just as much as the GOP-based farmers in York county. If either of those groups decided to switch their votes, "they" would be the ones who "decided" the next President.

The group being talked about (the undecideds) is the group of people who simply haven't "chosen a side" yet, despite the long, long campaign. And that takes a certain mindset.

[JasonT20]

That’s not really fair. The truth is, all the voters decide who our next president is.

I can't tell you how many times I tried (in vain) to make this point all of the times that someone (usually Ilya Somin) starts talking about the astronomical odds that a single person's vote will "decide" an election. They then use that as some kind of justification for their ideological preferences or as an excuse not to vote at all. For Prof. Somin, it is "foot voting is superior to actual voting" that he wants to support with this irrational belief that we can only "make a difference" in an election if our vote is the one vote that tips the election.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think the “undecideds” are mostly people who don’t want to admit they don’t pay attention to politics.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I suspect some of them are also people who actually do pay attention to politics, and really hate both candidates.

[Ska]

The weakness of the candidates presents a dilemma for nonpartisans, and the never-ending shit slinging, the hyperbole around the election's importance, the dramatic fatalism that's being broadcast as part of the choices... I can understand the lack of commitment.

Who wants to endorse a candidate they'd normally vote against? Most people would never even consider a third party candidate, and they're left waffling over candidates they'd never elect if there was a different opponent.

[TaylorJ]

The BATFE change in its frames and receivers rule in Vanderstock makes me ask this question. Can someone please explain why when an agency changes a long-standing rule to an opposite interpretation without any change in the underlying law, it doesn’t create an almost slam dunk case that the underlying law is unconstitutionally vague? If the original interpretation for 50 years that this wasn’t a framer receiver was reasonable, and the new interpretation that the same piece of metal is a frame or receiver is also a reasonable interpretation of the law, how is that law not unconstitutionally vague?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think this happens rarely enough that the judiciary haven't had occasion to form such a doctrine. And in a case where the previous interpretation stood for 50 years, they're much more likely to just reject the new interpretation as unreasonable, than to toss out a law that stood for half a century.

[TaylorJ]

Do you think this is something that a plaintiff could brief in their challenge to a rule? For example, saying if you uphold this rule as reasonable, we ask that you strike down this law As unconstitutionally vague because of the contradiction between the two positions. Or would a plaintiff after the rule is upheld then be forced to challenge the law itself as unconstitutionally vague, using the rule change as evidence?

I would think this might be a good way to keep administrative agencies from creatively reinterpreting a law when an administration changes. They might think twice if the results Of creatively reinterpreting a law would be the loss of that law and its entirety.

[Brett Bellmore]

Keep in mind that I'm a mechanical engineer who happens to find law interesting. (As they say, you might not be interested in the law, but the law is interested in you...)

Of course a plaintiff could raise such an argument. I just wouldn't expect it to get very far. Sure, it makes some logical sense, but this is about the last area of the law you'd expect logical sense to prevail; Most of the judiciary are hostile to the 2nd amendment, and the balance mostly just find it discomforting. Logic doesn't get you very far arguing against gun laws.

[Reallynotbob]

Are we talking about guns or abortion? 50 years... new interpretation... frankly, I'm with you.

[TaylorJ]

Really anything, could be firearm regulation, what constitutes unfair labor practices or what comprises the waters of the United States. Anything where an agency does a 180 on how they interpret or implement a law.

Vanderstock just brought this into my focus, as a way to try to carve back some administrative agency power or arrogance.

I believe that law should be clearly written and easy for a non lawyer to understand, if not it is too vague. If you need a law degree to understand it then you shouldn’t be able to be punished if you violate it (unless you have a law degree). I know that will never happen…but I would like to see plaintiffs at least try to strike at the underlying law when agencies pull these creative reimagining attempts.

[not guilty]

USA Today reports that:

A majority of Americans think it would be “wrong” for Donald Trump to have the Justice Department drop federal charges against him if he wins back the White House, according to a new USA Today/Suffolk University Poll.

Legal observers say there's no chance a Trump Justice Department would continue the two federal cases he has asked judges to dismiss as a "witch hunt" led by a prosecutor he calls "deranged." But nearly 58% of likely voters who responded to the poll said it would be "wrong" for Trump to direct the department to drop the charges, compared to 30% saying it would be the "right" thing to do. Nearly one in 10 were undecided.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/24/donald-trump-criminal-charges-poll/75776822007/

That is an anomalous result. If other polling showing that the national popular vote is near to evenly divided between the candidates is correct, presumably the 58% figure includes a significant fraction of those who plan to vote for Trump notwithstanding that they want to see the prosecutions continue. That is bizarre.

As a practical matter, if Trump is elected to another term as president, the federal prosecutions will go away. Trump would no doubt appoint an Attorney General who would direct the Department of Justice to withdraw the government's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and to move the District Court for dismissal of the D.C. prosecution.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, we don't know the sample composition of n=1K people called. In rare cases, the sample can sway a result. Did that happen here? No way to know, we have no sample details.

Interesting dichotomy, though. I have to say.

[Life of Brian]

The crosstabs are here -- the overall population was 35D/34R/30, so not crazy.

The breakdown for this particular question (#49) shows Ds in virtual lockstep (94% wrong thing to do), joined by 19% of Rs and 61% of Is. The overall "wrong thing" contingent was somewhat tilted toward women (+10) and young'uns (+5ish for 18-34).

[Brett Bellmore]

That sort of distribution seems pretty common for anything concerning Trump; Democrats are basically always in lockstep taking the worst possible position on him, so that if anybody at all outside of the Democrats agree, it becomes the 'majority' opinion.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “….the worst possible position on him….”

In this context, that would be :

(1) He tried to fraudently steal an election he lost, a position 100% true to anyone other than the cult bootlicking brigade. Over the weekend, some people noticed a fact in the latest Smith filing: Trump used a burner phone to call the Michigan house speaker and pressure him to delay certification / change the vote. But then, that’s what criminals do, right Brett?

https://jabberwocking.com/trump-used-burner-phone-to-pressure-michigan-speaker-over-vote/

(2) Trump dared the feds to press criminal charges over the documents he stole, ignoring two dozen attempts to defuse the situation by negotiation. Unlike, say, Mike Pence or Joe Biden – who simply handed-over the docs they had, Trump lied about what was in his possession, asked his lawyers to lie, ignored a subpoena, shifted the documents around to avoid searches, and attempted to delete Mar-a-Lago camera footage to conceal what was done.

According to the indictment, some of the documents describe U.S. nuclear weapons; foreign military attacks, plans, capabilities, and effects on U.S. interests; foreign nuclear capabilities; foreign support for terrorist activity; communications with foreign leaders; U.S. military activities; White House daily foreign intelligence briefings; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.

Trump’s criminal conduct is even more obvious in the documents case – to anyone whose life mission isn’t to tongue-polish Trump’s shoe leather gleaming bright, that is. But ya know, Brett, there are people actually that pathetic. Burner phones, charity fraud, systematic buisness fraud, fake universities, attempted election fraud – There are people whose life mission is to excuse anything & everything the lifelong criminal has ever done.

[SimonP]

Classic "our infant mortality rates are great if you exclude all the Black mothers from the data" reasoning.

[bernard11]

Democrats are basically always in lockstep taking the worst possible position on him,

Says the guy who always takes the best possible position on Trump, to the extent of making up shit to use in his defense, and unfailingly ascribes the worst imaginable motive to anyone he disagrees with.

[Kazinski]

Its not really a dichotomy, most people are voting for their self interests, not how it will affect Trumps interests.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not Guilty — The polling results published this election season contain nothing but anomalous results.

The source of a lot of that is MAGA types lying. When someone tells an interviewer they remain undecided, and then says they still do not know enough about Harris, so she needs to be more specific to earn their vote, that is a misogynist who is going to vote for Trump. Two reasons to conclude that:

1. Vague Kamala is a Trump talking point.

2. It's a double standard, favoring Trump. Neither Harris, nor any presidential candidate in history, even approaches Trump for mendacity—mendacity includes being the opposite of specificity among the myriad reasons folks don't like it.

More generally, MAGA types tell pollsters all sorts of nonsense about their election reasoning. Asked to rank issues by importance for determining their vote, there is huge bias toward saying inflation is killing them, and Trump's record on the economy is better. Harris, of course, has had no record of action on the economy, because she has never had a job to manage any aspect of the economy.

As a whole, Trump presided over one of the worst economic records of any president. And the majority of Americans are better off now than they were 4 years ago. Real inflation is down, not up. Employment is up, not down. Real wages are up. Trump campaigns on high energy prices, while they fall to below-average levels nationwide. In the face of facts, Trump encourages lying contradictions because he knows his voters want excuses to cast votes for reasons they do not want to talk about.

Racist objections to border management loom large among those undisclosed motivations. Trump would not have that issue at the top of every rally if he himself did not expect racism to be the most potent political tool in his political arsenal. Nonsensical allegations about Haitians eating people's pets get big play for a reason, and it is not a reason that has anything to do with what Haitian immigrants eat.

On the D side, the polling is probably somewhat less skewed—which is bad news for the Ds. But one poll-disrupting issue may favor the Ds. It is doubtful that women who live in MAGA circumstances tell the truth to pollsters—or anyone—about the influence of the Dobbs decision on how they plan to vote. Previous Dobbs-specific election results show astonishing power for that issue even in red states. Whether that power will carry over into a general presidential election is harder to reckon, and not much estimated in the poll results I have seen.

For those reasons and others I have little confidence the polls tell me much about what to expect on election day. My sense of the national political mood is Trump's polling does not fully disclose the support Trump enjoys among people polled—but, as always, polling does not measure turnout.

I join the overwhelming consensus among jittery Americans who have no idea what to expect. The existence of that consensus at this late date is itself a critique of the polling industry.

And by the way, reports have been coming in here and there about Trump attempts to game the poll averages, by flooding the news with purpose-built skewed polls focused on the swing states. Another imponderable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have a simpler explanation -- there are a lot of stealth Trump supporters who don't want to be hassled about it.

[Magister]

As with many Dr. Ed 2 explanations, this makes no sense: it would require people who are not afraid of being hassled if they say they'll vote for Trump but are afraid of being hassled over ending the cases against him. It's much easier to imagine people who think Trump shouldn't be prosecuted but who won't vote for him than people who will vote for Trump but think he should still be prosecuted.

[EscherEnigma]

As Harvey Milk said, "come out, come out, wherever you are".

C'mon. Trump supporters can be as brave as queers, can't you?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The source of a lot of that is MAGA types lying. When someone tells an interviewer they remain undecided, and then says they still do not know enough about Harris, so she needs to be more specific to earn their vote, that is a misogynist who is going to vote for Trump.

Or someone who doesn't have their head jammed as far up their own asses as you have yours, and due to that are aware that she has consistently been unable/unwilling to give specific...or even substantive...answers to any specific policy questions. That is, unless you're one of those mouth-breathing window-lickers who think ad nauseum repetition of "I was a middle-class kid" platitudes constitute meaningful policy positions.

[Krayt]

It's possible to think the prosecutions are technically correct, are done for political reasons, and none of that makes any difference to the bottom line of the person you choose for policies.

So...if you want to vote for either, vote for Harris, as at least she won't let Putin roll through Europe. Supposedly Moldavia is next. That's a policy reason, severed from political prosecutions of enemies.

[Frank Drackman]

They'll need the lawyers to go after Sleepy Joe and Cums-a-lot for their "Erection Interference" crimes

[Malika the Maiz]

Is Franck Dr Ed?

[MoreCurious]

[David Nieporent]

As a practical matter, if Trump is elected to another term as president, the federal prosecutions will go away. Trump would no doubt appoint an Attorney General who would direct the Department of Justice to withdraw the government’s appeal to the Eleventh Circuit in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and to move the District Court for dismissal of the D.C. prosecution.

Even if he didn't simply order them dismissed (or pardon himself), OLC says that a sitting president can't be prosecuted, so the cases would have to be put on hold for four years. Given both his age and the age of the crimes, that would effectively end the cases anyway;

[Commenter_XY]

David, do you really think the cases would be dropped after a 4-year hiatus?

Would it be past the statute of limitations or something = drop because age of crime?

O/T: I see the Dodgers are putting the wood to Satans team the NY Yankees. It hurts, David. ????

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think a 4 year hiatus legally requires that the cases be dropped. But taking up the cases again after they'd been dropped presumes a Democratic administration, (Presumably a Vance administration wouldn't.) and lawfare having failed as a political tactic, would they want to resume it? Or would they have moved on to something new? One hopes this hysteria on the left will eventually burn out.

Then there are the optics of going after an elderly (83!) ex President constitutionally barred from running again.

And just the mechanics of resuming the prosecution would likely take a couple of years. Would he even be alive by then?

[not guilty]

The statute of limitations applies to the commencement of a criminal prosecution. A defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, though, and Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(b)(3) authorizes dismissal if unnecessary delay occurs in bringing a defendant to trial.

SCOTUS has identified four principal factors for a court to consider in determining whether a criminal defendant has been deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial: length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). If the trial of Donald Trump were delayed while he served another term as president, only the first of these factors would weigh in his favor.

Prejudice to the accused should be assessed in the light of the interests of defendants which the speedy trial right was designed to protect, to-wit: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired. Id., at 532 (footnote omitted). Since Trump is not incarcerated pending trial and the delay here would likely work to his benefit, it is unlikely that a court would find a Sixth Amendment violation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But what are the practical implications? Witnesses may be dead, even FBI agents may be dead (or mentally impaired), facts will have become muddled, etc.

NB: I am not wishing ill on the FBI, merely noting that they, too, are human. And as to mental impairment, W. Mark Felt comes to immediate mind -- "Deepthroat" was not competent, 32 years later, to stand trial -- or be a witness -- or much else.

[not guilty]

And that would disadvantage Donald Trump how? The facts are overwhelmingly against him. For a prospective witness to become unavailable would more likely impair the government's ability to prove the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has to persuade twelve out of twelve according to the highest standard of proof known to the law. The defense need only develop reasonable doubt in one out of twelve.

[Riva]

"Facts overwhelmingly against him"? Based on Smith's one-side, procedurally odd massive election interfer...er motion? Yeah, that's compelling. And the defense hasn't even yet had a chance to respond to the superseding indictment in Chutkan's upside down universe, let alone all those "facts." The coming accountability for this gross perversion of law will just be that much sweeter.

[Riva]

One can only hope that the election of President Trump will see the end of the repulsive abuse of the rule of law known as "lawfare." Of course, accountability is still required to ensure this abuse of power never occurs again.

[Malika the Maiz]

Lock her up!

[Riva]

There's only one political party that has abused prosecutoriial authority to target political opponents. That would be the Democratic party.

[John F. Carr]

Trump is polling around 48%, suggesting that at least 6% of likely voters will vote for Trump despite thinking charges should not be dropped. Harris looks that bad to them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, NG, it appears that Walz did something worse in not telling the National Guard he was going to China.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/vp-candidate-tim-walzs-many-years-teaching-in-visiting-china-raises-new-security-concerns/

Should Walz be prosecuted?

[not guilty]

Should Walz be prosecuted by whom, for violating what statute(s), and based on what facts? Please be specific.

[not guilty]

Some helpful hints to consider before you answer, Dr. Ed 2:

What criminal statutes may potentially apply?

As to each such statute, what are the essential elements?

As to each essential element, are the underlying facts such that it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by admissible evidence?

What defenses potentially apply? (Consider 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) in particular.)

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Dr. Ed 2. Should Walz be prosecuted by whom, for violating what statute(s), and based on what facts?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Being a person with a security clearance who failed to notify command that he was going to China.

This is probably somewhere in the National Security Act but I neither know where nor who prosecutes a Guardsman for violating it. I'm not even sure if this would be a Court Martial or Federal trial.

But if you gotta get permission of command to go to China if you have a security clearance and he didn't, that's at least as bad as whatever Trump is accused of.

[Sarcastr0]

There's no evidence that he failed to notify that he was going overseas.

This is another nonsense fishing expedition.

[EscherEnigma]

Off the top of my head, the main penalty of not pre-clearing foreign travel with your security POC is that you'll be investigated and might lose your clearance.

You'll only get criminal charges if, when they look into it, they find a crime.

So... no. Not "at least as bad" as the many things Trump is accused of.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Dr. Ed 2.

Suppose you were an Assistant United States Attorney drafting an indictment of Tim Walz to be submitted to a federal grand jury. What statute(s) would you cite? As to each such statute, what facts would you allege constitute the offense?

[Sarcastr0]

There's a DNI reg about it, so it's not criminal; it could lose you your clearance though.

Whole thing is speculative nonsense.

[Riva]

Lawfare is a game for Democrats. If you're looking for a party to baselessly prosecute political opponents, go to a Harris rally.

[David Nieporent]

Well, NG, it appears that Walz did something worse in not telling the National Guard he was going to China.

Who says that he didn't tell the National Guard he was going to China? Hint: that's not what the article you linked to says. Reading is really not one of your strengths as a janitor.

[Riva]

We've had some pretty offensive Democrats in power before but the thought of a repulsive buffoon who celebrates Tiananmen square occupying the office of the vice-president is almost as nauseating as the possibility that that incompetent pseudo-communist clown Harris could be president. If 2 more miserable people could have been chosen, I don't want to know about it. But wait...Harris wasn't actually chosen. She was installed. Every commenter here has won exactly the same number of presidential primaries as Harris. That would be zero. I guess the only way to save Democracy is to snuff it out like an unborn baby in Minnesota.

[David Nieporent]

Bot is completely malfunctioning now, just spewing out utterly random (and nonsensical) irrelevant talking points. (Needs more Biden Crime Family or Clinton Foundation, though.)

[Riva]

You’re confused again bat shit crazy guy. Understandable because of being bat shit crazy. Walz’s weird obsession with all things CCP is fair game here, even if the bat shit crazy would prefer otherwise. And part of his love affair was a wedding scheduled on the anniversy of Tiannamen square. One way of celebrating for a communist pig I guess, if there are no babies around to abort.

[David Nieporent]

Are you mentally ill, or just pretending to be?

[Riva]

That’s quite the insult coming from a bat shit crazy guy. Not sure how that excuses Walz’s sick communist attraction. Something only the bat shit crazy can understand I guess. And speaking of bat shit crazy, just saw a clip of that creep Walz labeling, in quite a deranged and angry way, all who attended the MSG rally as nazis. Looks like you may have found a soulmate bat shit crazy guy.

[David Nieporent]

So was that option 1 or option 2?

Note, of course, that there is only one candidate who praised the Tiananmen Square massacre, and his initials are DJT.

[Riva]

Well I do have to concede that you have the bat shit crazy demographic and communist lunatic vote locked down, but that’s essentially the Democratic party so not sure what you think you’re accomplishing when your base probably applauds Walz’s sick obsession with the CCP, not to mention his pro-infanticide views. So this attempt to distract from Walz's communist love affaire is perplexing, but then again you are bat shit crazy, so by definition, not really rational.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only one who is getting sick of the "Trump is Hitler" bullshyte?

He's no more Hitler than Heels Up is Stalin.

[santamonica811]

Take up your whorish complaint with JD Vance. If Trump’s own running mate has PUBLICLY described Trump as America's version of Hitler; who are you (who am I?) to disagree?

Maybe Vance, and a fistful of men who have spent literally hundreds or thousands of hours listening to the drek that came from Trump’s own mouth know better than you what kind of man Trump really is.

But it is good to hear opposing views. You speak for the sleazy Russian troll contingency. Sadly, you probably represent 10s of millions of idiot voters.

You'll be happy enough in about 10 days, when Trump wins. We get the government that we deserve.

[Commenter_XY]

Forgone conclusion now? = You’ll be happy enough in about 10 days, when Trump wins.

[santamonica811]

Not foregone by any means. I think the respected polls indicate a small-but-significant tilt towards Trump. I still think there's essentially a zero chance he wins the popular vote. But who cares, of course...it's those individual swing states that matter (strictly in terms of the presidency, of course).

I don't think anyone would be shocked if the election came down to Penn (or Mich), and that state decided it. A "close" election. On the other hand; I also don't think that most rational people would be shocked if the polls turned out to be 3 points off in one direction or another, and it turn out that Harris/Trump wins all 7 swing states, or wins 6 of the 7, and the election turns out to be a "blowout" in terms of electoral votes.

[hobie]

If Trump beats another nasty woman for president, could he be the next Andy Kaufman of our time and declared the Inter-Gender Wrestling World Champion

[Frank Drackman]

"next Andy Kaufman"??? you're not buying the "Lung Cancer" story?? I swear he was doing his "Tony Clifton" character at a Holiday Inn in Evansville IN a few years back

[Commenter_XY]

The JRE podcast was the knock-out blow. Politicos and historians will look back at that, and say it was the final break point.

sm811...I think presidential campaigning has been changed for all time. The long form interview format will be used in all elections going forward. I much prefer the long format, myself. The canned presidential debates with biased 'fact checking' moderators is about to be tossed onto the dust heap.

This (long format interviewing) is a major structural change to how presidential campaigns will be run, going forward. I would say it is as big a structural change as when parties moved to the primary system to select their candidates. It affects every aspect of campaigning and candidacy.

[hobie]

He was just preaching 3 hours to an audience of MAGA Bros. I fail to see the massive change that would have created

[Life of Brian]

Hope springs eternal, I guess. Here's an article from a couple of years ago that shows a 23D/46R/31I split for Rogan's "avid fans" and advocates for D candidates to get on Rogan's show to reach "the 48 percent of Rogan’s avid fans who did not vote for Trump in 2020."

[Frank Drackman]

So it could be close and come down to one state, or one candidate could win all of the swing states and it’s not close, way to go out on a limb, because Frankie knows Erections, here’s how it’s going down (it’s actually going down right now, they just won’t count until 11-5(which for the “D”‘ Tribe will be like 10-7 is for mine)
“45/47” wins 6 of the 7 Swing States, and the “Popular” Vote (Cums-a-lot is even more grating than Hillary Rodman, which is saying something) “45” would probably win the 7th Swing State in a recount if he contested it, because the only one she might win is MI with all the bullshit they pull in Detroit. but he won't, it's more of a Dis if he just ignores her, who remembers who loses the Superbowl??? (OK, Falcons fans)
Read it and Weep, Suckers!

Frank

[Krychek_2]

"(which for the “D”‘ Tribe will be like 10-7 is for mine)"

So, under your analogy, the Republicans are Hamas?

[Frank Drackman]

It's Anal-ology, and yes, to the D's, Repubiclowns are Ham-Ass, blood enemies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Heels Up is actually going to Lewiston, ME. That's just ONE EC vote....

[Kazinski]

The Hitler comparisons are just cartoonish, and no one other than the fans of the cartoon pay attention. Its completely ineffective as a campaign tactic, because everyone who wasn't convinced 3 years ago tunes it out.

If Trump wanted to be a dictator, then covid was a perfect opportunity, he didn't act like he was power hungry then.

Do you know who did act power hungry then? A lot of Democratic governors and the Biden Administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump had normal people in his administration last term. He doesn't plan to now.

Trump was focused on reelection (to the point of abusing no shortage of powers to try and attain it).

The 'his first term was fine don't worry' is a canard.

Also, you didn't really address how his outreach now is peppered with stuff that one rarely hears outside of Nazi Germany.

[Life of Brian]

Trump had normal people in his administration last term. He doesn’t plan to now.

To a rather sizable slice of the country, passing up people that unapologetic lifetime bureaucrats consider "normal" 1) is absolutely peachy, and 2) has jack-all to do with fascism.

[Kazinski]

Actually I am very optimistic that the quality of people in a new Trump administration would be much higher than the first, for a couple of reasons:

-The embrace of Trump by a wider swath of Wall Street, and Silicon Valley, giving him a bigger talent pool that's worried about poisoning their careers.

-Fewer people who think they can join a Trump administration and hijack his agenda to a corporate one party agenda.

-JD Vance as heir apparent.

- Less of an interest by official Washington to poison everything Trump does because they already know they can't impeach him, and they are going to have.to live with him for 4 years, or Vance for longer.

[bernard11]

It's the embrace that matters.

Trump is going to appoint people whose first loyalty is to Trump, not the country or the Constitution, and are willing to do anything to gain his favor.

Unquestioning loyalty to The Leader, the fuhrerprinzip, is a hallmark of fascism.

[Kazinski]

You can hardly make the case that the apparatchiks of the Biden administration were putting constitution and country first.

They put their idealogical agenda first at the expense of the country.

[bernard11]

The fact that you don't like their policy decisions doesn't remotely mean they put loyalty to Biden above all else.

All it means is that you think those policies were unwise.

[Commenter_XY]

How long did they lie to cover up POTUS Biden's cognitive decline? They put agenda first, before the good of the country.

[bernard11]

Do you feel the same about those who have covered up Trump's obvious mental deterioration, and his general incapacity?

[Reallynotbob]

Not sure I see the point of this argument. If they had hypothetically been more outspoken earlier and invoked 25A, then Harris would be running as the incumbent president right now. You don't want Democrats to govern well, so "fixing" the Biden "cognitive problem" isn't your goal. He clearly didn't have the same dominance over the Democratic party that Trump has over the GOP.

[Sarcastr0]

You're writing your own stories if you think Trump has one metric for who he picks in his cabinet: demonstrated loyalty to him first.

And if you don't think that's a huge risk to our Republic, which is designed on personal and institutional controls, you're in further denial.

hijack his agenda to a corporate one party agenda.
Don't let him indict Hillary Clinton if the factual predicate isn't there. Or don't let him ban Muslims illegally. Or all sorts of other institutional controls you are throwing away for a rule by a disinhibited man whose priorities appear to be based on personal spite and revenge.

These are all risks, nothing manifest. But your utter inability to see anything wrong is fucking insane.

[David Nieporent]

Am I the only one who is getting sick of your vicious misogyny? You don't have to keep proving you're an intel every day.

[David Nieporent]

*incel

[Frank Drackman]

Ironic that you can't even spell a simple word like "Incel" (which nobody knows yet, but saying it causes cancer)

[Malika the Maiz]

Franck complains about spelling! In related news Stormy Daniels complains about sex outside of marriage!

[Krychek_2]

What's especially rich is that he denigrates Harris's alleged sex life while supporting Trump, whose own sexual antics are the stuff of legend.

[Malika]

It's misogyny all the way down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Harris sold it.

[Krychek_2]

Assuming that to be true (and I'm not inclined to without better evidence than Trump talking points), so what? So she sells it and he just grabs women by the pussy. And cheats on his pregnant wife. And has kids with three different baby mamas.

The sheer ludicrousness of talking about her sexual past while ignoring his just makes you look like an idiot. You could equally as well make the claim that Charles Manson may have been bad but at least he wasn't Ted Bundy; it's the same basic argument.

[David Nieporent]

Harris sold it.

1) She did not.
2) So what if she did?

[Armchair]

Every GOP candidate is a fascists or Hitler. Every time.

Goldberg, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Romney...doesn't matter. Every time, they're called a fascist or Hitler.

At the end of the day, wolf has been called too often.

[Frank Drackman]

"Goldberg"?? Bill Goldberg? didn't realize he had been a candidate, 6'2"/285 former UGA Defensive Tackle, WWE Hall of famer, I want to see somebody call him "Hitler" to his face.

[Malika the Maiz]

Triple H pinned Goldberg

[Frank Drackman]

There's a "Triple H" therapy for Cerebral Vasospasm, remember in the 90's the first time I heard the term, I joked "So we're going to hit the patient with a Sledge Hammer then give him the "Pedigree"???"
You've heard "There's no such thing as a Stupid Question??" there sure are in Medicine, the ICU Attending had no sense of humor, and I was told it was "Hypertension, Hypervolemia, and Hemodilution" (to be honest, the "Pedigree" probably would work better)

Frank

[Armchair]

Sorry, Goldwater. Mental mistake.

[Sarcastr0]

You say outsiders are poisoning our blood, people are gonna bring up Hitler.

Dems aren’t forcing Trump to say Hitler shit, Armchair.

[Frank Drackman]

You mad Bro? your side literally gets it's Antisemitic Tropes (you say "Tropes" I say "Tropes") from "The Eternal Jew", and the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion".
If Cums-a-lot had picked Josh Shapiro instead of that Turd-Burglar-Stolen-Valor Waltz, she'd still lose, but at least her winning PA would make it interesting, but she had to grab the ankles, for Representatives Ill-hand-job Mullah Omar, Hakeem the Bad Dream Jefferson Starship, and Priapism Slap-a-Jap

Frank

[Armchair]

Just keep calling wolf.

[Sarcastr0]

This comment indicates that one day the GOP will actually elect Hitler.

[Armchair]

You know Hitler is dead, right?

[Sarcastr0]

That is the threat your 'Just keep calling wolf' comment is making.

[Armchair]

That the GOP is going to raise Hitler back from the dead and vote him into President?

Wow. And I thought Zombie Reagan was a trope.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know how the story of the Boy who Cried Wolf ends, Armchair?

[Frank Drackman]

You got Alzheimer's Bro? Nixon was Hitler, Reagan was Hitler, GHWB was Hitler, "W" was Really Hitler, and "45" was Really Hitler with a Jewish Son in Law.

[Riva]

Is there an opponent the Democrats haven’t attempted to label as “Hitler”? It would be an odd election if they didn’t call someone Hitler. But not just an empty insult this time though. Now it’s a projection of their own neo-fascism.

[Sarcastr0]

Not responsive to my comment. 'poisoning our blood' is Hilter stuff.

Germany for the Germans was Hitlers stuff, and America for the Americans is as well.

Haitians are eating our pets is a lie right out of some anti-Jewish canard.

The Enemy Within? Also Hitlerish.

You can complain about past accusations, but you need to grapple with current evidence.

[Frank Drackman]

You do realize Robert Kennedy authored a book with the title "The Enemy Within"?
was he a Nazi? (OK, I know he was the son of a Nazi sympathizer)
NBC had a Prime Time Series "The Enemy Within" in 2019, like Cums-a-lot, it was cancelled after 1 term, are NBC Nazis (OK, I know they're anti-semitic, but not really Nazis)

Frank

[Riva]

Being America first is not the equilavent of Nazi Germany. If favoring one’s own nation is tantamount to fascistic nationalism, every fringging country on earth is a Nazi regime.

Incidently, the drugs and violence facilitated by the Biden Harris open borders policies is posining our society. Which was the context and import of President Trump’s cricticisms.

And of course, your response ignores the fact that Democrats insult all their critics as Nazis, and racists, and sexists. Especially when they're losing.

[Sarcastr0]

America First was literally the slogan of the Nazi supporting group in America.

Poisoning our society is fraught, but not literally 'poisoning our blood.' If you need to rewrite it to defend it against charges of being Nazi rhetoric, I have bad news for you.

And 'Dems make these charges all the time' is deflection from the actual evidence that supports making these charges against Trump. Not that he's literally Hitler, but that he's absolutely taking a page from the Nazi playbook.

[David Nieporent]

Not that he’s literally Hitler, but that he’s absolutely taking a page multiple chapters from the Nazi playbook.

FIFY.

[Riva]

The standard Democrat Nazi insult is not just tiresomely stupid. In the context of 2 assassination attempts, it's irresponsibly stupid.

[David Nieporent]

This is the latest retard talking point on social media, so of course it now gets output from the bot.

[Riva]

Not sure a rhetorical strategy of adding stupid to stupid is the way to go but that's your call.

[Riva]

Some might say fentanyl poisons the blood. And that secure borders might tend to prevent its poisoning of american youth. But Harris doesn’t seem to give a rat’s ass about that. Nor does she care about the imported gang violence. Hell, she flies them in. Not a very good border Czar. Maybe someone should have explained the job better to her? Or maybe open borders was the job?

And if, at this stage, the best you can do is vomit out the same Nazi
BS insults Democrats allege every campaign cycle, you’d better steal yourself for the Trump inauguration. But still, I do want that picture of your anguished scream to the sky.

[Bob from Ohio]

"America First was literally the slogan of the Nazi supporting group in America."

You are confusing the German American Bund with the America First Committee.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. And if you run for office as a Republican, people are going to bring up Hitler. Every Republican candidate as long as I can remember has been called a fascist, and compared to Hitler.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: JD Vance called him Hitler. (We just didn't realize at the time that he meant it as a compliment!)

[Mr. Bumble]

...but J.D. Vance is weird.

[Riva]

Vance fully acknowledges that comments made in a 2016 text were misguided. And the most significant thing to draw from this is that President Trump is willing to look beyond the misguided, intemperate remarks one might make in a text to friend. Something I suspect Hillary, Biden, Harris, and Obama would be incapable of doing. They lack the character.

[Bob from Ohio]

"PRESIDENT LIKENS DEWEY TO HITLER AS FASCISTS' TOOL; Says When Bigots, Profiteers Get Control of Country They Select 'Front Man' to Rule DICTATORSHIP STRESSED Truman Tells Chicago Audience a Republican Victory Will Threaten U.S.
Liberty TRUMAN SAYS GOP PERILS U.S. LIBERTY"

By Anthony Leviero special To the New York Times Oct. 26, 1948

[Joe_dallas]

https://hotair.com/generalissimo/2024/10/28/its-springtime-for-donnie-in-msg-n3796371.

[Mr. Bumble]

Moved

[jb]

As far as I can tell, this isn't meaningfully true. The closest thing I can find to anyone "saying" about McCain being Hitler was Madonna putting up a picture of the two (and Robert Mugabe) next to each other. Do you have any citation of anyone calling McCain a fascist or a Nazi other than this?

In fact, if you look at attempts to say "the Democrats have been doing this for 60 years"* most of them do not seem like anyone important making the comment. I'm sure that every President, both Republican and Democrat, has been called a fascist or analogized to Hitler, at some point in the past 80 years by someone in the world, but there's a few hundred million Americans out there. Someone's going to have a loony opinion about literally any topic you can imagine, so it's not that useful to find random comments by random people and ascribe them to some sort of trend in overall political commentary.**

* Note that even this article doesn't attempt to claim that McCain was called a Nazi.
** I do agree that GWB was analogized to Nazis semi regularly, and by important Democratic officials. That's unfortunate in retrospect, as Bill Maher realized back in 2016.

[Magister]

Beyond a very few comparisons between the use of 9/11 to advance neocon policies and the Reichstag fire, and weaponizing accusations of unpatriotic behavior against those who protested the Iraq war. I can't think of what you mean by "GWB was analogized to Nazis semi regularly, and by Democratic officials". Care to provide some examples?

[jb]

Sure, Senator Byrd compared his media operation to Goering's. Al Gore used the term "digital brownshirts" to refer to the Bush/Republican media operation to respond to Iraq war criticism. Not a Democratic official, but Guido Calabresi analogized Bush's rise to power to Hitler's and Mussolini's.

Now, none of these people are saying "Bush is a fascist" or "Bush is like Hitler" but the analogizing is pretty direct. And while I agree there was some of it for Bush Jr., the fact we can dig around and find a few examples just highlights the fact that it's unusual, and not something that has generally done with most Republican candidates or leaders despite TIP's assertion to the contrary.

[Magister]

Those seem to be exactly the things I noted. George W. Bush, for all the bad stuff about his presidency, did not go to the many other lengths of being like Hitler that Trump has. And the comparisons to Hitler were correspondingly few and modest.

[Bob from Ohio]

"few and modest"

Sure. Google is not your friend, results from first two results pages.

"ETHICS PANEL RAPS ‘BUSH=HITLER’ JUDGE
By Carl Campanile
Published April 12, 2005, 4:00 a.m. ET"

Teacher: Bush-Hitler remark to spark debate
A teacher who was put on leave after comparing Bush’s State of the Union address to speeches made by Adolf Hitler defended his lecture on Tuesday, saying he was trying to encourage students to think."

"Homework: Compare George W. Bush, Hitler
A middle school teacher in Washington sent students home with a Venn diagram to contrast Hitler with George W. Bush."

" Student wins award for Bush/Hitler art
Author
By Mark Reynolds
UPDATED: August 14, 2016 at 11:08 PM PDT"

"President Bush, Hitler do share similarities
Staff Writer
The Gainesville Sun"

"Bush-Hitler Remark Sinks Movie Exec
May 13, 2003 / 10:04 PM EDT / AP "

[bernard11]

That's it, Bob? That's what you've got? That's your evidence? LOL.

An unnamed judge, who was hauled before an ethics committee?

A couple of school teachers?

A column in the Gainesville Sun?

A movie exec who seems to have gotten fired over it?

Fucking ridiculous.

[Magister]

Yes, that looks few and modest.

[not guilty]

Jb, there have been at least three Senators named Byrd in the second half of the twentieth century. Which one do you refer to?

Was Hermann Göring known for having a media operation? (Hitler's propaganda minister was Joseph Goebbels.)

[jb]

Oops, sorry. I conflated the initial two stories. Robert Byrd read a quote from Goering into the record to lead off his criticism of Bush's Iraq war push. The Gore quote was about the media operation.

[Josh R]

True. But, just because a wolf has falsely been called in the past doesn't mean this time it isn't a wolf. Note that his chief of staff cried wolf this time. That's a first.

[not guilty]

According to Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, "'I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,' Trump said in a private conversation in the White House, according to two people who heard him say this." The same article states further:

This week, I asked Kelly about their exchange. He told me that when Trump raised the subject of "German generals," Kelly responded by asking, "'Do you mean Bismarck's generals?'" He went on: "I mean, I knew he didn't know who Bismarck was, or about the Franco-Prussian War. I said, 'Do you mean the kaiser's generals? Surely you can't mean Hitler's generals? And he said, 'Yeah, yeah, Hitler's generals.' I explained to him that Rommel had to commit suicide after taking part in a plot against Hitler." Kelly told me Trump was not acquainted with Rommel.

(FWIW, Snopes labels this claim "unproven." https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-hitler-generals/ )

[Riva]

Sean Spicer had an interesting, and probably accurate, take on what may be underlying the motivation of some creeps like John Kelly. As he recounted to Megyn Kelly, President Trump would invite different perspectives and the ego maniacal DC scunge who didn't get his way would scamper off and try to undermine the other position, with leaks etc. And President Trump invited the opinions of enlisted personnel as to the actual conditions on the ground, which offended the obnoxious elites to no end. Shades of Henry V actually. https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1850535335005941869

[David Nieporent]

True. But, just because a wolf has falsely been called in the past doesn’t mean this time it isn’t a wolf.

Indeed, the entire point of the fable is that eventually a wolf comes. The fable is intended as a cautionary tale about falsely crying wolf; the lesson is not — as MAGA seems to think — "there are no wolves."

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the point isn't that there are always no wolves. It's that if you make a habit of crying "Wolf" when there are no wolves, then, rightfully, nobody will believe you when a wolf happens to show up for real.

But, a habit of falsely crying "Wolf!" in no way establishes that eventually you're going to be right. You do understand that, don't you? In fact, the more times you falsely cry "Wolf!", more more sensible it becomes to ignore you. Rationally so!

No sensible person thinks, "Bob has falsely cried "Wolf!" a half dozen times so far, I'd better take him seriously this time!"

[Josh R]

Of course claiming falsely crying "Wolf!" establishes there are wolves is irrational. But, claiming falsely crying "Wolf!" establishes there are not wolves is also irrational.

What's different this time around is Trump's Chief of Staff and others who worked for him are crying "Wolf!"

[Armchair]

There's always a new reason to cry wolf. Always a different take. "I promise, this time it's real!" "Look, I found a vaguish footprint this time, it's real!" "Look there's a broken branch, it's real!"

[Josh R]

It is unprecedented for a Chief of Staff to call how own President a wolf. And multiple members of his cabinet to boot. This is far different.

[Armchair]

People say lots of things. For example...

https://www.history.com/news/historical-presidential-insults

[Josh R]

Sorry, there isn't one example of a Chief of Staff or cabinet member trashing his President, let alone mutliple such admonishments we have had for Trump.

[jb]

Turns out it probably would have been better if the citizenry had listened to Eisenhower about Nixon...

But to Josh R's point, none of those are very good analogies to members of a President's administration saying that people should't vote for them to be elected again, much less saying that they might be fascists.

[Riva]

Well Josh R, there isn't really an example of sitting administration targeting the main opposition presidential party candidate for prosecution either. Yet here we are.

[bernard11]

The trouble with the whole "cry wolf" analogy is simple.

We don't have to rely on a boy's report.

Just look out the damn window, if you're willing, and you can see the damn wolf for yourself. Of course some people won't do that, or maybe they have wolf-cancelling glasses or something. Where did you get those things, Brett?

[Armchair]

"Indeed, the entire point of the fable is that eventually a wolf comes."

Wow... This says a lot about liberals, if this is how they interpret the fable. What's the moral then? "You should falsely claim something over and over, and everyone should always believe you, because you may be right one day?" It really twists the fable on its end. Really puts the Global Warming alarmism in a different light.

What other unique twists should we go with for Aesop's fables? You should always throw your axe in the river, because you'll get a gold axe back? You should dance and sing all summer long and then take the grain from the ant who worked all summer?

[Armchair]

But, no, the entire point of the fable is NOT that eventually a wolf comes.

The real point is, if you continually make false claims, eventually no one believes you. The metaphorical wolf might come, or might not. But no one will believe you if it does, because you've been lying for so long.

[Sarcastr0]

It wouldn't matter that no one believes the boy if the wolf didn't come.

The wolf is a vital part of the story.

Which is why when you said 'just keep calling wolf' you were saying 'One day the GOP will elect a new Hitler, and then you'll be sorry no one believes you anymore.'

It was an incredible own-goal, and you seem to slowly be realizing this.

And, as other have pointed out, it doesn't really speak to the evidentiary case for Trump being a racist authoritarian he himself makes week after week.

[jb]

I find it truly mind-bending how readily Republicans are ignoring all of the people that Trump appointed who worked for him including roles like Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense and Chair of the Join, who now say that Trump either is a fascist or who has fascist tendencies and is dangerous to the country. These aren't partisan Democrats looking for political advantage, they're people who thought they could do good for American by serving in a Trump administration and now realize that the best they can do for the country is to tell them how toxic he is.

[David Nieporent]

I find it truly mind-bending how readily Republicans are ignoring all of the people that Trump appointed who worked for him including roles like Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense and Chair of the Join,

And his own Vice President!

[Life of Brian]

These aren’t partisan Democrats looking for political advantage

Labels seem pretty irrelevant. What do you think they believe is going to happen to them in the event of a second Trump presidency?

[jb]

Labels seem very relevant--you can dismiss a political opponent throwing out hyperbolic analogies to dictators as self-serving attempts to gain power for themselves. For retired generals or (as DMN points out, politicians dooming themselves to de facto retirement by standing up to Trump), they don't have any incentive to make the comments other than that the want the American people to know that the man they worked for is actually a really bad guy who shouldn't be President again.

As for your question, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that they are on the list of people that actually should be worried if Trump becomes President? Maybe you should jump down to the discussion below where Commenter_XY asks if people are really worried Trump will do something bad to them.

[Magister]

Life of Brian has absorbed from Trump the belief that people only do things from their own self-interest; those who act out of patriotism or to defend the Constitution are suckers and losers.

[Life of Brian]

Labels seem very relevant–you can dismiss a political opponent throwing out hyperbolic analogies to dictators as self-serving attempts to gain power for themselves.

Um, you can be a political opponent no matter what label(s) you attach to yourself. See, e.g., Liz Cheney.

retired generals

That's a new goalpost and I don't know who you're specifically talking about, but could easily just be another example of the swamp looking out for its own.

As for your question, I’m confused. Are you suggesting that they are on the list of people that actually should be worried if Trump becomes President?

I'm suggesting they actually are worried because their long-enjoyed power trip/gravy train may unceremoniously come screeching to a halt. No need to get to the scary campfire stories they're throwing out as rather clumsy cover.

[jb]

Turns out, Liz Cheney is another great example of someone who sabotaged her own career in order to stand up against Trump. She wasn't fighting against him because she thought it would make her more likely to get elected (quite the opposite!) but because she thought the country or even the Republican party would be better off without him. This is in contrast to someone like Harris saying that Trump is a fascist since she's trying to make it more likely that she'll win office by making the claim.

As for the retired generals claim, I'm not saying someone has to be a retired general to have credibility against Trump, but I am saying that retired generals like John Kelly, Jim Mattis and Mark Milley don't have anything to gain by arguing against a second Trump Presidency. And your attempt to tie them to the "swamp" is pretty thoroughly undercut by the fact that these are the people that Trump chose to help run his administration. Why shouldn't we trust what they say about the man? They have a long history of service to the country and worked closely with the man. Seems like they should have pretty credible opinions.

[Life of Brian]

Turns out, Liz Cheney is another great example of someone who sabotaged her own career in order to stand up against Trump.

That might be just a TOUCH overstated, eh? She served in Congress for a grand whopping 6 years of her 35-year career, started an 8-figure anti-MAGA PAC right after she lost her last primary, and appears to be settling in nicely to her self-chosen role as La Résistance. Seems to me she's playing the long game.

And your attempt to tie them to the “swamp” is pretty thoroughly undercut by the fact that these are the people that Trump chose to help run his administration.

Ah, yet another person who hasn't listened to the Rogan interview -- he explained in detail exactly how that generally unfortunate cast of characters came about, and that he canned a bunch of them after seeing what they were truly made of. This contextless "but he HIRED them" seems like just another labeling game.

Why shouldn’t we trust what they say about the man?

Because they're some combination of biased and disgruntled, and that's not something that just magically gets washed away because of some shiny badge on their chest.

[Josh R]

Trump did not fire Kelly, Mattis or Miley. Had any of them said nice things about Trump, he would be praising them right now. So, the argument these were bad hires or disgruntled men is nonsense. It's (as always) about who kisses the ring and who does not.

[jb]

So let's say Jim Mattis is one of those "unfortunate" hires. He was Trump's first SecDef so maybe it was a big surprise. Of course, Trump didn't fire him--he resigned loudly. Mattis has actually been pretty quiet in his criticism of Trump, but he did say that Trump was the first President in his lifetime who tried to divide Americans rather than uniting the country.

So Trump must have gone out and gotten someone better now that he learned his lesson, right? At least, he decided not to hire a general this time so now he hires Mark Esper. Esper certainly can't be one of Trump's mistake hires, because he served until Trump lost the 2020 election. And what does he say about Trump? That he "certainly" has fascist inclinations and that it's "certainly something we should be wary about."

Similarly, Mark Milley, who Trump didn't bring on until halfway through his term and who was still serving when he left office, said Trump is "fascist to the core" and "the most dangerous person to this country".

So no, these aren't bad hires responding to Trump firing them. Even if they were, though: what does it say about Trump that his Vice Pres, first Chief of Staff, both SecDefs, his National Security Advisor (amongst MANY others) all say he's a fascist and/or danger to the country? His Transportation Secretary (served all four years) acknowledges he's racist; his Attorney General who was in place until after the 2020 election said that Trump is unfit for office. Maybe they're all just terrible hires, but if so Trump has got to be one of the worst hiring managers and judges of character the world has ever seen. Which really ought to be it's own indictment for someone trying to get the most important management role in the country.

[bernard11]

Cites, please, because I don't recall that, outside of maybe a lunatic or two.

And guess what, if you looked at Trump's rhetoric there's plenty there to justify calling him a fascist (and a moron).

[Noscitur a sociis]

The guy who is currently the president of United States said that Mitt Romney was going to reinstitute slavery.

[bernard11]

One comment, twelve years ago, clearly metaphorical, if a bit overwrought, by one person, does not equal "Every GOP candidate is a fascists or Hitler. Every time. "

Besides, you are blinding yourself to policies Trump has explicitly proposed, and things he has said.

"Vermin"
"Poisoning our blood"
"Destroying our country"
"Round up millions and put them in camps"
"The Haitians in Springfield are stealing and eating household pets," and repeating it after it was totally debunked.
Calling Schiff and Pelosi, among others, "the enemy within," against whom he intends to use the military.

etc.

[Bob from Ohio]

All those comments are clearly metaphorical too!

except the cat one, which is just humorous.

[Magister]

Putting millions in camps is metaphorical? Poisoning the blood is a metaphor for threatening the country's racial purity, but that's hardly better. I don't expect the people of Springfield (Haitian or not) found the bomb threats that resulted very funny, but doubtless Bob from Ohio laughed at a Trump rally speaker calling Puerto Rico a floating island of garbage.

[Magister]

Well, that first guy actually got blamed for the Titanic (iceberg, Goldberg, what's the difference?), but before Trump such accusations were just hyperbole and from the extreme fringes. Nor was this only for Republicans; ask "Hitlery" Clinton or feminazis about that, or the number of times Obama was compared to Hitler, and those were coming from prominent Republicans.

Tips to avoid having your candidate compared to Hitler:
1. avoid Hitlerish rhetoric like "poisoning the blood", "enemy within", "unified reich", "vermin" and condemning people based on their religion or ethnicity
2. avoid praise and admiration for Hitler and his regime
3. don't do the "Big Lie" stuff
4. don't attempt coups to take over government
It is tough when your party depends on the deplorables to be competitive

[Brett Bellmore]

In reality, the only reliable way to avoid having your candidate compared to Hitler, is to not run candidates against Democrats.

[Magister]

So just ignoring the part about Hillary and Obama?

Yes, a fringe element will call any candidate Hitler. How many times has "you know who else liked gun control? Hitler!" been posted by conservatives? But for mainstream comparisons, Trump's the only Republican who's invited such attacks, by doing all the things I listed.

[bernard11]

In reality, Trump has said, or promised to do, all those things. What Joe Biden said in 2012 has nothing to do with it.

What do you think of all that, Brett? Just fine?

By the way, he's also promised to crash the economy and bring on 1970's level inflation or worse. But that has nothing to with Hitler, just Trump's general stupidity.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That does not seem to have been a reliable method for Republicans to avoid being compared to Hitler.

[Magister]

Sure, there's going to be some heated rhetoric and some rants from the fringe; Democrats get that too. Trump is called a fascist by mainstream commentators and academics who study fascism and his own appointees and fellow Republicans; that could have been avoided by following those tips.

[bernard11]

A better one is:

Stop sounding like a totalitarian madman. Maybe Trump could try that.

[Sarcastr0]

I was pretty young, but Bushitler was absolutely a widespread thing.

McCain and Romney, I don't recall the Hitler stuff coming up.

[Magister]

I don't recall that one; off the top of my head, I recall Incurious George, Chimpie, Shrub, pResident, Pretendident, Putsch/Chicanery, King George III. But in any case it wasn't used much by prominent Democrats, by academics, by Republicans or by Bush's own appointees. And that's despite an administration that endorsed torture and lied us into a disastrous war and attacked opponents as hating the troops.

[EscherEnigma]

Incidentally, have you noticed that Nazi-based insults from right-wing sources dropped off over the last decade? They really aren't as common anymore.

You could conclude this is because right-wing folk have decided to stop minimizing the horrors of Nazi Germany by calling every inconvenience a Nazi.

Or you could note that Republicans stopped rejecting their neo-Nazi supporters.

[Drewski]

You hear that, people? Stop accurately comparing Trump to Hitler or Ed here might do something drastic, like predict a Civil War. If that's not enough, he might randomly call for impeachment of federal judges. Act accordingly!

[Sarcastr0]

Ed has literally said we're like Weimar Germany. Which is an odd comparison to make unless...

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "one day the GOP will actually elect Hitler"

You are in idiot, literally.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I don’t do much social media. My son tells me there is a social media trope going around. It goes like this:

Have you ever wondered what you would have done had you been in Germany in the 1930s, and had to respond to the rise of the Nazis? You would have done exactly what you are doing now.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oof. Distinctly oof.

[Sarcastr0]

If you know the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, that's the implication of Armchair saying 'just keep calling wolf.'

[Bwaaah]

HITLER! HITLER! HITLER!

(just being your echo here)

[Kazinski]

Konstantin Kisen reported from Trump's Nazi rally at MSG:

"The diversity of Nazis on display was unbelievable: Black Nazis, Latino Nazis, Asian Nazis, white Nazis, female Nazis and lots and lots of Jewish Nazis were all assembled in an orderly line, chatting politely to each other and cracking jokes. It was terrifying."

https://www.konstantinkisin.com/p/my-shocking-report-from-inside-trumps

I think the diversity of the Trump coalition actually is terrifying in some quarters, and now evidently includes a lot of the muslim community in Michigan.

[Kazinski]

Maybe one explanation for the Michigan Muslim vote is that the Trump campaign is putting up billboards with Kamala and Liz Cheney.

The Cheney name is hardly a golden ticket in the muslim community.

https://x.com/SabbySabs2/status/1850620145699590203?t=TO5jWQ5kstsiLYlaRfJq0A&s=19

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - its a major freakout on the left - and completely disconnected with reality.

Huffpost, little green footballs and a few other leftist bubble websites are examples of the Woke Leftists disconnection from reality.

[Drewski]

Partisan conservative spins report to make partisan conservative points, film at 11. Although I'm not sure where either of you got the idea that Nazis are known for being disorderly. Quite the opposite.

[Commenter_XY]

When Joy becomes Oy, and when Oy becomes....It Is Over.

Pres Trumps wide-ranging, free-wheeling (is the term Freeball now?) 3-hour JRE interview on Friday, October 25th won the election.

There is simply no way VP Word Salad could do a 3 hour free form interview. Notably, she declined to appear. The entire world can understand why (not just American voters).

I told you all in July: Kamala cannot extemporaneously speak, is not fast on her feet, cannot think for herself; she is the proto-typical perfect empty vessel, an empty pants suit.

The polls are moving: one way, away from Kamala. Oy Vey....It Is Over (unless something like a war or assassination happens in the next week - sadly, that is possible). The only question remaining is the status of the House, and it actually matters this time.

I'll leave this for the Team D partisans so they can get ready in advance for January 21, 2025. It Is Over.
https://youtu.be/wDYNVH0U3cs

[Frank Drackman]

Joe’s entertaining, except when he’s talking about MMA or UFO’s, which is 1/2 his shows (Or Rappers, when it turns in to 3 hours of "Nome Sane?"), love how he moved away from SoCal to Austin TX (not much better actually, but as he says, it’s a Blue Stain surrounded by 30 million people with guns)

[Commenter_XY]

Frank, the long format interview is going to change the political landscape. I personally think it is a better quality vehicle for a candidate to speak their mind.

JRE (and others) is here to stay.

[Frank Drackman]

I listen to most of his stuff, except the MMA/UFO/Rappers, the RFK interview was great, I hope "45/47" puts him in charge of "HHS" (Dr. Ronny Jackson will be Surgeon General of course, Tulsi Gabbard as Sec Def, and maybe Steve Banyon (who's getting out of jail this week) at State or CIA

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Long format interviews, and actual debates sans 'moderators', are the way to go. You want to see that this person aspiring to be President is capable of sounding coherent for an extended period, and can actually respond to having their positions challenged.

Ideally, the parties would get serious about cultivating future candidates, rather than just hoping they'll show up spontaneously.

[David Nieporent]

You want to see that this person aspiring to be President is capable of sounding coherent for an extended period, and can actually respond to having their positions challenged.

So, then… you strongly disagree with C_XY’s assessment of how the interview affected the election, then. I mean, Joe Rogan is about as milquetoast as Larry King was, and Trump couldn't handle being challenged by him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I don't think it will affect the outcome of the election much.

That Kamala wouldn't risk it, that might have a bit of affect, but just cumulative, adding to the perception that she's not willing to risk any venue that isn't guaranteed friendly.

[Life of Brian]

I mean, Joe Rogan is about as milquetoast as Larry King was, and Trump couldn’t handle being challenged by him.

I'd say you listened to a different interview than I did, but I have my doubts you actually listened to it.

If you're not just regurgitating hopeful headlines, I'd love to hear an example of something you consider he "couldn't handle." Big bonus points if it's something that actually matters!

[David Nieporent]

Well, the most obvious was when he was asked about the 2020 election, and Rogan kept asking for evidence and Trump couldn't handle it at all.

[Life of Brian]

Well, I note you didn't claim you actually listened to it. Unsurprising.

What could he have said about that subject that you would have considered "handling it"?

[David Nieporent]

Admitting that he had absolutely no evidence that the election wasn't fair and legitimate, obviously, rather than sputtering about shit that even Joe Rogan wasn't buying.

[Life of Brian]

So in the Nieporent to English dictionary, "couldn't handle" means "had a different opinion." I figured it was something lame like that.

[Third time: you didn't actually listen to it, did you?]

[bernard11]

“had a different opinion.” I figured it was something lame like that.

A different opinion?? WTF? If he said the earth was flat would you say "he had a different opinion?"

I didn't think you were in quite that deep, but you're approaching Bellmore level.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, another substance-free entrant. Did YOU actually listen to it?

[EscherEnigma]

"A different opinion?? WTF? If he said the earth was flat would you say “he had a different opinion?”"
You do recall that one of the first "scandals" to come out of the Trump Administration was when his surrogates went out to argue that he had a bigger inauguration crowd then Obama, which introduced the phrase "alternative facts" to the lexicon, yes?

[bernard11]

I don't have to listen to Trump's drivel to know that characterizing his insistence that he won in 2020 as "a different opinion" is idiotic.

[Commenter_XY]

I actually listened to it, LoB. President Trump basically invited himself back on JRE to talk about it, with 'paperwork' (IDK WTF that means). That was typical NY chutzpah (to invite himself back). Pres Trump made some very basic points (note, I am repeating what he said, not vouching for veracity).

His first point was that he lost the election by less than 45K votes, spread across a few states battleground states. The changes to election laws, made by local election officials in these states, should have been done by the state legislatures. The wrongful suppression Hunter Biden laptop story cost him tens of thousands of votes. The Zuckerbucks imbroglio, and the report from WI regarding the 2020 election were further areas to address.

Did he handle it badly? Pres Trump stated his case in chief, and invited himself back at a later date to bring 'paperwork'. I will also say that Pres Trump did some 'weaving' whenever Joe Rogan pressed. Is that 'handle badly'? That is in the eye of the beholder.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY— That's some thin gruel you got there. You could suck that stuff up continuously, and still lose weight from the energy you expended just sucking.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, you seem to have addressed your logorrhea problem, but reading comprehension issues have crept in.

Pres Trump made some very basic points (note, I am repeating what he said, not vouching for veracity)

[Brett Bellmore]

He's right about having lost by less than 45K votes spread across 3 states, and he's right about changes to election laws being made by non-legislative actors who legally weren't entitled to make those changes.

Realistically, if the election had been held under the laws actually on the books, AND the laptop story hadn't been suppressed, AND Zuckerberg hadn't paid local election offices to run GOTV drives in areas where it helped Biden, (Essentially money laundering of an illegally large donation.) yeah, Trump probably would have narrowly won the election.

But there's a difference between the election having been unfair, and the election, legally, having been stolen. And there are no do-overs on Presidential elections, and since when do the courts entertain cases where no remedy is available? So I wasn't shocked his case was a loser outside the court of public opinion.

[David Nieporent]

he’s right about changes to election laws being made by non-legislative actors who legally weren’t entitled to make those changes.

Is that your expert legal opinion, Brett?

[jb]

I do think that Rogan was right to suggest that these long-form discussions are probably better vehicles to contrast the candidates than traditional political debates, which mostly focus on the ability to construct a soundbite.

As both Trump and Harris have leaned more into these longer free-form discussions this cycle, it would be interesting to see if there's any appetite to have a version of a debate that looks more like this. You'd definitely need some sort of moderation, I think, but getting that right would be a pretty hard job.

[Commenter_XY]

I dunno jb, a 4 to 5 hour presidential debate? Whoa. 🙂

[jb]

They could probably keep to 2-3 hours still, but maybe have the topic areas a bit more focused. Or do two topic-specific ones and one free for all.

Or for the first cycle just replace one of the traditional debates with this sort of format and see how it goes!

[Commenter_XY]

I really do like the long interview format. Example during JRE. Pres Trump spoke about the application of soft power. He went on to talk about a large Chinese auto factory (planned) in MX, that was canceled when Pres Trump specifically stated he would place tariffs high enough on the cars so as to render them unprofitable in the US market.

His recounting of the story took something like 8-10 minutes. It was good for viewership to hear the full explanation of how a POTUS Trump would use the soft application of power to benefit America, and how he thinks soft power should be used.

Going forward, I have high hopes for the long interview format.

[David Nieporent]

He went on to talk about a large Chinese auto factory (planned) in MX, that was canceled when Pres Trump specifically stated he would place tariffs high enough on the cars so as to render them unprofitable in the US market.

Was a single word of what he said true?

Answer: no.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-trump-says-he-has-stopped-china-car-factory-plan-mexico-1973843

[bernard11]

actual debates sans ‘moderators’,

I can't imagine a worse approach. You'll just get a screamfest.

[bernard11]

the long format interview is going to change the political landscape. I personally think it is a better quality vehicle for a candidate to speak their mind.

I thoroughly agree. The debates have been useless for a long time.

I would like to see a norm whereby the candidates sit down with hostile, well-informed interviewers, if the long-form interviews aren't to sink into pointless softball questions and answers.

[Commenter_XY]

YES X1,000,000 = I would like to see a norm whereby the candidates sit down with hostile skeptical, well-informed interviewers, if the long-form interviews aren’t to sink into pointless softball questions and answers.

I made one edit I think you'd agree with.

[Malika the Maiz]

Don’t be a goofball, if Harris loses it’s less her and more that incumbents around the globe are losing in the face of inflation. She’s done great to make this close.

[Ed Grinberg]

if Harris loses it’s less her and more that incumbents around the globe are losing in the face of inflation.

You talk as if inflation is some naturally-ocurring phenomenon, not something that her party — actually, her (and Biden's) administration — is directly responsible for.

[Bwaaah]

Yep. And when the dollar gets devalued through inflation in the U.S., currencies all around the globe get inflated too. (Especially consider that the valuation of the Chinese yuan is directly tied to the U.S. dollar.)

[jb]

Yes, exactly. It was caused by Covid, as evidenced by the fact it happened all over the world:

https://www.nber.org/digest/20239/unpacking-causes-pandemic-era-inflation-us

Otherwise, we should blame Trump for the biggest wave of job losses since the great depression, no?

[bernard11]

her (and Biden’s) administration — is directly responsible for.

Well, no. Not entirely. Remember, some of the Covid spending was Trump's, and his tax cuts that juiced the deficit ultimately contributed.

Of course some of it, maybe most, was the Biden Administration's doing. Are you willing, as you should be, to giving them credit for the strength of the economy? I mean, it's hardly fair to pick one negative measure and ignore the rest.

[Kazinski]

Actually in a 50-50 country its almost foreordained to be this close.

Although if either candidate had the ability to credibly come to the middle, it might have made for a more decisive result.

Neither candidate has that capability.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Other than circular reasoning derived from election results, what proof do you have that it is a 50-50 country? A lot of folks don't seem to want to bother to vote. That suggests to me they see things differently than the voters do.

[Bwaaah]

At this time, it’s a de facto two party contest. To win, a party needs to get across the 50% line. But every additional policy promise dilutes your message and erodes some of your base. (Consider Trump’s retreat from a strict anti-abortion position, and Biden’s retreat from an open border position.)

This becomes a distillation process in which the two parties identify a relatively short list of particularly polarized/polarizing issues and seek to adopt a combination that gets them to 51%. Each subsequent election is a strategic refinement of the 50/50 split between the parties.

Public sentiments can be flighty and swing wider than 50/50. But political strategists and campaign strategies are laser focused on approaching and barely crossing that line. There doesn’t appear to be an alternative strategy that can win in this game.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes - the polls are moving toward Trump (albeit slowing, though potentially significant). Of note, the polls in the swing states dont seem to be moving as much and state polls tend to have higher error margins.
A couple of observations
The polls have a history of a slight democrat party tilt/bias over the last 20 years, albeit a very slight democrat party bias. The question is whether the pollsters are trying to correct the democrat bias are overcorrecting / overweighting and thus creating an unintentional republican bias?
Secondly, the polls for the undercard races still tend to favor the democrat party candidate. While it is common for there to be a spread between the top race and the undercard races in many cases, it remains rare for it to happen in nearly all the races.

[Josh R]

You are still stuck on the polls moving. They have remained steady for over a week now. Trump's a slight favorite.

[Commenter_XY]

The move happened, where have you been? I told you the inflection point had arrived, Josh R. You didn't want to believe me.

[Josh R]

Yes, the move happened, but not in the past week.

[Kazinski]

It could be, Trump has scheduled events in New Mexico, and Virginia for later in the week.

That along with his MSG event certainly suggests someone who thinks he has the EC vote and either is attempting to lock down the popular vote too, or get another state and go for the EC blowout.

I hope he's not making the Hillary 2016 mistake, but he actually can't, since he has been to all the battleground states at least 10 times (despite his obvious exhaustion).

[Krychek_2]

In that part of New England I called home for many years, it was customary on election eve for the women of the town, all through the 1800s and into the early 1900s, to bake Election Cake (also called "May Meeting Cake" since annual town meetings took place in May). The rule was you only got a piece if you voted a straight party ticket, which back in those days would have been Republican.

In the interest of bipartisanship and without requiring anyone to vote a straight party ticket, here is my grandmother's recipe for Election Day Cake if anyone wants to make it. It's a loaf cake leavened with yeast:

1/4 cup warm water
2 packages yeast
3 1/2 cups flour
1/2 pound butter
2 eggs
1 cup brown sugar
1 cup buttermilk
1 teaspoon baking soda
2 teaspoons cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon each cloves, mace and nutmeg
1 1/2 cups raisins
2 cups chopped dried figs
1 cup chopped walnuts or pecans
1 tablespoon flour

Toss dried fruit in 1 tablespoon of flour; set aside. Dissolve the yeast in the warm water and let stand for five minutes; add 1 cup flour and mix well.

Add the remaining ingredients and beat until smooth, then add the dried fruit. Grease loaf pans (should make four loaves) and divide the batter between them. Allow to rise for 2 hours, then bake in a 350 degree oven until done, about an hour.

[Frank Drackman]

No wonder New Englanders look so constipated

[Commenter_XY]

This sounds....absolutely delicious. Buttermilk....interesting.

Is there a specific name or is it just: May Meeting Cake aka Election Cake?

Loaf pan...is that 8x4x2? It sounds like yes, based on 4 loaf yield.

[Krychek_2]

Just election day cake and yes, that's the correct loaf size.

There are other versions of the recipe that contain brandy or use a bundt pan. If you google "election day cake" you'll find lots and lots of other recipes for it too.

[Commenter_XY]

K_2....I just might do this one, if anything, as a peace offering to my woke neighbors. They've planned a big election night shindig big screen TV outdoors, plenty of booze, etc.

Brandy...yeah, I'll double that, lol. For the cold, of course. 🙂

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Thanks. Is there a version with rum?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes.

[Armchair]

Book recommendation: Dungeon Crawler Carl. (Audiobook edition, especially).

One of the better pieces of Sci-Fi / Fantasy lately, it is especially entertaining to listen to in the car. A little dark and twisted at times, but with some absolutely classic lines.

Bonus information. The series was originally self-published / e-published in 2020 through 2024. It's one of the rare books that did so well in that format, that a major publisher decided to pick up the series in 2024 and put out the first print run (hardcover books), 4 years after the original "publication".

[Armchair]

The problem with politics in 2024.

The problem with politics in 2024 is...it got personal. It's been going that way for a long time, but it feels more poignant now.

Politics used to be business. Sure, you supported team red, I supported team blue. There would be a healthy competition. We understood each other's position, even if we didn't agree with one another. But at the end of the day, we'd get a beer together and watch a game.

Now, for many people, it feels personal. Sure, you support team red and that means YOU KILLED MY MOTHER, I WILL DESTROY YOU! There's no "friendly beer" afterwards, just enduring hatred. I think that "personal" nature of politics is becoming more detrimental to society.

[Frank Drackman]

You could have said the same thing about politics in 1800, where John Adams was attacked as
“A hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, not the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”
Grover Cleveland was accused of getting his Nanny Pregnant, sort of like the Second Gentleman did, but was too cheap to pay for an Abortion, Andrew Jackson was called the son of a Prostitute,
and in 1855, Kenneth Rayner (a former Congressman from North Carolina) gave a speech in which he referred to President Franklin Pierce:
“The minions of power are watching you, to be turned out by the pimp of the White House if you refuse to sustain him. A man sunk so low we can hardly hate. We have nothing but disgust, pity, and contempt.”
—The Weekly Standard [Raleigh, NC], 4 July 1855
And pretty sure Sergeant Major Waltz and Corporal Vance won't go Hamilton/Burr (I'd just let Waltz shoot himself accidently, or get Dick Chaney to be his "Second")
And I think every Repubiclown Candidate has been called Hitler since people knew who Hitler was (Dewey certainly had the Moustache)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Frank “paragraph indentations are a commie plot” Drackman!

[Armchair]

"Grover Cleveland was accused of getting his Nanny Pregnant, sort of like the Second Gentleman did, but was too cheap to pay for an Abortion, Andrew Jackson was called the son of a Prostitute,"

It's not so much this stuff. It's more the posts I see as follows

"As someone who came of voting age when Election Day was just that, not “election weeks” or even “election months,” I don’t support early voting.

But since we have to play the hand we’re dealt, I went to cast my ballot on Oct. 19 at an early-voting site in Fairfax County, Virginia, wearing a pro-Trump T-shirt.

I was stunned when, out of the blue, with no provocation other than the T-shirt, an older woman — obviously an unhinged liberal Democrat — blurted out “I hate you!” and “Burn in hell!”"

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/oct/26/democrats-accept-election-outcome/

This sort of hatred....it isn't healthy. The woman, who knew absolutely nothing about the guy other than he was wearing a Trump T-shirt...yelled out for him to burn in hell.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No -- all the men in Cleveland's law firm had slept with her and only Cleveland was single so he assumed responsibility and provided for the child.

[David Nieporent]

Not surprising that Dr. Ed adopts the discredited story that involves calling a woman a whore — and manages to mangle even those details.

[Malika the Maiz]

Politics used to be about tax rates.

[Mr. Bumble]

...now it's about being able to whack off.
Democrat ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Dgug7OJwQ

[Malika]

I remember you didn't understand how blow jobs work (Bumble famously said Bill Clinton was on his knees getting blow jobs), so maybe you want to let off the sex talk?

[Sarcastr0]

lol, check out the election of 1800.

Or we had a Civil War. That sure got personal.

My Mom remembers the inky fight she recalls her parents having was over Ike versus Adlai Stevenson.

Finally, you have been a remarkably nasty poster here. Not about comments, about commenters. Lamenting that it got personal is pretty rich coming from you.

[Armchair]

If your argument is politics nowdays look like the Civil War with brother killing brother and it's not a problem....

Rather than us all being Americans and we should be able to get along.

I think you're making my point for me.

[Sarcastr0]

Read more of my comment.
There's a reason there's a longstanding rule to never discuss politics or religion at Thanksgiving.

What you identify as new, is not new.

And you also have no standing to complain, being a notable part of the problem around here.

[Armchair]

All of your comments on this thread so far, have simply been attacks on me.

I think if you're asking about "being the problem" by commenting about other commenters, you're projecting.

[Sarcastr0]

At that time I'd made about 5 comments. Not that many. And history around here is not that I reply exclusively to you, so your accusation is pretty hollow.

You also seem to confuse disagreeing with your assertions as an attack on you.

Finally, as I did twice, Pointing out you’re a particularly nasty commenter is something you have well earned from past comments. You can’t pretend your past doesn’t exist.

[Armchair]

" Hitler shit, Armchair."

"Finally, you have been a remarkably nasty poster here"

"And you also have no standing to complain, being a notable part of the problem around here."

All you do is attack. Blaming other people for being "nasty", while just attacking others...There's a word for that.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Disagreeing with you is not attacking you.
2. You earned it. Don't play innocent now.
3. You earned it. Don't play innocent now.

I blame you for being nasty *because you have personally accused me of blood libel*, among accusing other people of heinous, personal shit.

Don't play innocent, you nasty piece of work.

[Commenter_XY]

You are, in fact, guilty of promoting a blood libel against Israel, and you're pissed Armchair provided the receipts. You got called out by ME last November for a post you made,. where you false accused Israel of indiscriminately bombing palestinian civilians.

That was a purposeful blood libel, Sarcastr0. You own that.

[Sarcastr0]

You are abusing the term blood libel.
I can criticize how Israel is persecuting this war, while still thinking they have the high ground.

It wasn't purposeful blood libel, you're a bad person and a liar devaluing antisemitism to make personal attacks on the Internet.

Was a time, you'd be ashamed. But everyone has noticed the turn you've taken these past few months.

[Commenter_XY]

Bullshit = abuse the term blood libel.

You purposefully made a slanderous accusation against Israel, that you were properly called out about at the time.

[not guilty]

In fairness, accusing Israel of indiscriminately bombing Palestinian civilians is a far cry from blood libel.

The horror of some terms is cheapened by casual use. Holocaust is one. Lynching is another. It seems to me (a Gentile Protestant) that blood libel, which falsely accuses Jews of murdering Christians in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals, should not be used metaphorically.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, in fairness, making a slanderous, false accusation against Israel stating they were deliberately bombing palestinian civilians IS a blood libel.

It is simply untrue, and a vile disgusting lie.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, that is not Blood Libel.

You’ve abused the Jew card around here for the past year and accused everyone who criticized Israel as being anti-Semites and falsely labeling criticism of Israel as Blood Libel.

Meanwhile you claim that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza except possibly the “very young.”

You are a hypocritical piece of shit.

[Armchair]

Commenter,

The truth is this. Pointing out racism, sexism, bigotry, and antisemitism isn't "nasty". It's important to do, in order to prevent its spread. But people make honest mistakes. Sometimes they say things that they didn't realize were racist, or antisemetic, or sexist. And you point it out, and ask they apologize.

And if they're good, honest, people, they realize they said something wrong, and apologize. But sometimes, certain people don't apologize. They double down on what they said, despite its offense. We have a type of word for those sorts of people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro, since you are one of the nastier commenters here, your accusations about who else is a nasty commenter don’t carry much weight.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You support Trump. None of you get to preach about ethics or behavior.

Most of you have been caught red-handed in lies, and every last one of you is scum for willfully supporting a man whose only guiding principles are greed and hate.

[Life of Brian]

Jason is like the Volokh version of Beetlejuice -- say "nasty commenter" one too many times and up he pops!

[Commenter_XY]

Jason is reliable as stink following shit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Where I come from, being reliable is a virtue.

Don't hate me because I actually have that which you do not and never will have.

[Don Nico]

"politics or religion at Thanksgiving"
All,
remember that for a few weeks from now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did Gaslighto ever hear of the Hartford Convention?

[Ed Grinberg]

An acquaintance of mine was flying somewhere recently. He was talking to the woman sitting next to him on the plane. She asked him who he plans to vote for. He told her (Trump). At that point she asked the flight attendant to let her move to a different seat (which they did).

[EscherEnigma]

"Politics used to be business."

Must be a nice perspective.

But my first presidential election was 2004, where we had Bush's campaign pushing anti-gay marriage amendments and calling gay people a threat to the military, all the while calling us depraved degenerates.

So I'm not sure your perspective is universal. It kinda feels like it's always been "personal".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

2004, where we had Bush’s campaign pushing anti-gay marriage amendments

And then 1996 with Biden voting for DOMA and his 2006 reiteration of his reason for doing so (His position that, "Marriage is between a man and a woman.”), and then 2008 when Obama said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." I'll bet you were traumatized over thos, and took to the streets in protest declaring both of them to be homophobic bigots...right?

[EscherEnigma]

You seem to have read "always been 'personal'" and concluded that means trauma and taking to the streets.

It's odd.

Also, if 2004 was my first presidential campaign, just how old do you think I was in 1996?

So you're also bad at math.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So you're focusing on a single word of sarcasm and incorrectly asserting that "my first presidential election was 2004" could only mean that you turned 18 that year (even though it could mean many things, including that being the first year you took any interest in elections, or at least interest enough to vote)...while dishonestly ignoring the 2006 and 2008 examples. Or are you even worse at math than you're accusing me of being?

[EscherEnigma]

No, I responded to more then one word.
No, I assumed you could pull from context that I meant "first I was eligible for", which includes a range of ages: 18-21, giving a range of 1996 ages (10-13).
No, my mockery of your "traumatization" and "take to the streets" extended to those years as well.

That said, I'd like to point out that while you're obviously trying to get a rise from me, you haven't actually contested my point: politics has always been personal for queer people.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That said, I’d like to point out that while you’re obviously trying to get a rise from me

Your reading comprehension sucks. I'm pointing out your obvious hypocrisy, giving you too much credit for perception and general intelligence in the process.

[EscherEnigma]

You think it's hypocritical that I didn't claim to have voted for the first time in four different years?

[Armchair]

"But my first presidential election was 2004, where we had Bush’s campaign pushing anti-gay marriage amendments and calling gay people a threat to the military, all the while calling us depraved degenerates."

And that's a problem. There's a reason I voted Kerry in 2004. And that problem has largely been resolved. But now you have people telling others to "Burn in Hell" because they're wearing a shirt, and calling 1/2 the country "deplorables"...and that's also a problem.

Is it too much to ask, to be more civil now?

[EscherEnigma]

So you missed the point: you claimed it used to be "just business", but for lots of Americans, it never was. You're like those guys whining that the US isn't like the 1950s anymore, and then confused at all the Blacks, women and queers giving you side-eye.

"Is it too much to ask, to be more civil now?"
Yes. Because civil people don't win primaries.

[gVOR08]

When W Bush was elected I said to myself that otherwise would be better, but W would just be another moderately rightist, pro corporate, Republican like his father. It would be basically OK. Two pointless, badly managed wars and a financial collapse later, I had to admit that aggressive mediocrity could be a very bad thing.

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump on Rogan: “Who would want to have — there’s so many — the transgender operations: where they’re allowed to take your child when he goes to school and turn him into a male — to a female — without parental consent.”

Is Trump lying, dumb, or deranged here?

[not guilty]

"Is Trump lying, dumb, or deranged here?"

Yes, yes and yes.

[SRG2]

If this is the kind of comment that tips the election to Trump, there are even more moronic Americans than I had supposed.

[Commenter_XY]

It wasn’t that comment that tips the election to Pres Trump, SRG2.

The JRE interview blew up the entire narrative about Trump being some kind of white supremacist, or an incipient hitler waiting in the wings. That JRE podcast had 30MM YT views in less than 48 hours, and that doesn’t count Spotify or Rumble or other platforms.

The JRE podcast will be the final ‘mental check box’ that gets ticked by a proportion of undecided voters (the few remaining – there aren’t many) in their decision to cast a vote.

The House is truly up in the air: pick ’em. This is where I think Pres Trump is missing something in his campaign, and is a major weakness in his campaign messaging.

[Frank Drackman]

That's why he was at MSG, helping out the Upstate and LI candidates

[Frank Drackman]

It's the one where Cums-a-lot advocates Sex Change Surgery for Prisoners, wait, let's go to the Video Tape!!!!!!!!!
" That's why, as Attorney General, I pushed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide gender transition surgery to state inmates. I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained."
Even Gavin New-Scum (I admit, it's better than my version "Calvin Loathsome") said "OK, I went to a French Restaurant when nobody else could, but What da Fuck?!?!?!"

Frank

[TwelveInchPianist]

Children aren't being removed from school for castration yet.

But many progressives are trying to make laws that allow stuff like this.

And parents do lose custody of their kids for refusing to trans them.

[Estragon]

So not accurate, per se— but “directionally true”?

[EscherEnigma]

Correct, Trump lied.

Incorrect, that's a bat-shit insane claim, and you should be embarrassed for believing or propagating it.

Parents that lose custody of their trans kids have a nasty habit of whining to conservative media and trying to make it all about the trans stuff, but when you actually look at the case it's invariably that they were being a shitty parent and that's why they lost custody. That they were being a shitty parent because they couldn't be normal about their teen being trans is a red herring.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, I get that you guys think that parents who don't trans their kids are shitty parents.

[EscherEnigma]

Nah bitch, that's a whole different sentence.

[Malika the Maiz]

Iceland’s New Geothermal(?) Energy Endeavor!

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/10/climate/solutions/iceland-volcanos/index.html

[Mr. Bumble]

You should forward this to Gavin Loathsome (H/T F. Drackman) since it looks like they'll be needing new sources of energy when gasoline becomes unavailable.
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/california-may-lose-two-more-refineries-would-have-rely-gas-abroad

[Armchair]

The way too early 2028 Presidential predictions.

1. If Trump wins:
You see a divided government. Not much gets accomplished. JD Vance will be the GOP nominee. Democrats will nominate Gavin Newsom. I forecast a close election, but more grounded than the current one. Much will depend on the economy and the status of California, but I would guess a Democrat victory (55:45 odds).

2. If Harris wins.
Harris swings back, pushing the Obama-Biden administrative state expansion. Democrats nominate Harris. The GOP have a battle between DeSantis, Vance, and Youngkin. I think I give the edge to Youngkin here. Youngkin wins the election handily (80:20 odds) as voters are tired of the Biden-Harris bit.

[Malika]

If Trump wins, unless he pulls a W Bush, D's need to nominate someone like Beshar. Democrats need to realize that Obama was a unique thing, Bill Clinton is the model to win.

[Armchair]

They may "need" to do that, but they won't. Beshar doesn't have the following needed in the Democratic party. Newsom does, he knows all the insiders, its an insider's game.

[David Nieporent]

Armchair has his finger on the pulse of the thinking of the Democratic Party.

[Armchair]

David,

Everyone has an opinion. This is mine. My view on the current Democratic party is that it is an insider's game, and that a relative outsider on the national scene like Beshear won't have the necessary following.

Feel free to explain why you feel it isn't so.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s “Bashar”, not “Beshar” and pretty sure he’s satisfied with his Syria gig (no Term limits) not that he wouldn’t be a shoo-in for the nomination.

[not guilty]

If you are talking about the governor of Kentucky, it is Beshear.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm not, Malika said "Beshar", then again, she can't tell an Exit from an Entrance (the smell sort of gives it away)

[Josh R]

To me, the most interesting question is whether the education divide (Dems owning college-educated voters and the GOP owning high-school educated) is a relaignment of American politics or a temporary phenomenon because of Trump.

[Armchair]

Honestly, it feels like this is going to be more of a realignment to me, unless Democrats radically realign (ala Fetterman)...and I don't see that happening. And that this realignment has been going on since 2006/2008.

It's interesting to look at the 2008 Democratic primary, because this really helped show where the party was going.

[ducksalad]

The Republicans are almost certain to control the Senate, so it'll be more like:

1. Trump wins
He can appoint anyone he likes with no pushback, and act primarily through executive order with zero chance of an impeachment even getting to a trial in the Senate. As a consequence, he'll overreach badly. Vance will be left to face the backlash in 2028, and get beaten by some youngish Democrat senator. (Newsom will have been unemployed and forgotten for two years by 2028.)

2. Harris wins
She can get no bills at all through the Republican senate, and will blow her whole first year trying to get them to approve a cabinet. She'll have to settle for Manchin/Sinema types which will piss off her own base. After getting slaughtered in the midterms by a now- sane Republican party, she'll have single term written all over her, while Walz is Quayle on steroids. Therefore the D primary will be a twelve way knife fight, and the slashed-up survivor will lose 2028 to some Republican governor we haven't heard of yet.

[Brett Bellmore]

She's already stated that if Congress doesn't enact her program within 100 days, she's doing it by Executive order.

[ducksalad]

Yes, she said it and she’ll try it. But I doubt she’ll get as far with EO’s as Trump would. A few reasons:

1. Unlike immigration and tariffs, gun control is not a subject over which the POTUS has a lot of statutory authority. There are plenty of SC cases overruling even federal gun laws. When a governor or sheriff pushes back, the courts are likely to side with them.

2. I think the likelihood is very low that either Trump or Harris would use force to overrule the courts after an EO got blocked. But I think Harris is even less likely than Trump, she’s more of an institutionalist and would not have DJT’s confidence that military at the ground level would back her up.

3. The 100 day wait actually weakens her case both in public opinion and in the courts. From the layman POV, if it’s about saving children and you had the authority from day one, why did you heartlessly let the children die for 100 days before acting? From a court’s POV, if you admit you didn’t have authority on day one, then you still don’t have it on day 100.

Frankly, the 100 day business was a very stupid thing to say. To paraphrase the old saying: it’s worse than unconstitutional, it’s a mistake.

[ducksalad]

Let me also toss in an addition to point 2:

2a. If both the POTUS and courts know that if it really gets to a crisis of authority, the POTUS will back down, then it’s less likely the POTUS will do the EO in the first place, it's less likely that states and bureaucrats will take it seriously, and it's more likely the courts will strike it down.

Recent example: Biden's third try on student loans. It's barely even news because everyone knows it's a pointless gesture that will never fly.

[Sarcastr0]

Good radiolab on how close we came to amending the Constitution to get rid of the EC.

80% of the American public supported abolishing it in the 1960s.

Once scuttled to prevent a racist from getting to the Supreme Court. Once scuttled by lobbyists for minorities who decided the EC gave them a voice they wouldn’t otherwise have.

https://radiolab.org/podcast/the-unpopular-vote

[Malika]

The EC is an incredibly dumb aspect of our politics. It was clearly a necessity of the time and nothing more defensible.

[Sarcastr0]

80% of the population in the 1960s agreed with you.

The Urban League in the late 1970s disagreed with you.

But yeah, I agree it's a thumb on the scales we don't need.
Other thumbs on scales to make the early Constitution supported: The 3/5 clause, and the Senate.

[Frank Drackman]

and it's not fair the Earth rotates from West to East, why does Miami get a sunrise before San Fran Sissy-Co?!!!! Seriously, save your Electrical College X-cuses for November 6 (and you might not even need them then, as even money "45" wins the popular vote)

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, I figure if 80% of the population had actually agreed it should be gotten rid of back in the 60's, it would have been gotten rid of. The 60's were still deep in the Cronkite era, when the US was subject to a high degree of preference falsification. The odds that 80% of the population really wanted rid of the EC, as opposed to thinking that was how they were expected to answer if somebody asked them, are pretty slim.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, learn the history rather than this lazy hot take of lying to pollsters.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't confuse the map with the territory, the measurement with the thing being measured. Polls are measurements of public opinion, not public opinion itself.

What actually happens politically is also a measurement of public opinion...

In a democracy, if 80% of the public genuinely want something, they tend to get it. If the polls are telling you 80% of the public want something, and representative institutions aren't acting on that, you should seriously doubt the polls.

[Sarcastr0]

We have real, actual, information, and then we have your speculation.

Popular laws fail to get passed by Congress *all the time*.

Your speculation is not evidence of anything but what you want to believe, and your ignorance of baseline political science.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is VERY seldom that laws actually have 80% public support.

[Commenter_XY]

Can you explain voter ID = In a democracy, if 80% of the public genuinely want something, they tend to get it.

[Sarcastr0]

It wasn't a law, it was a Constitutional Amendment, which will raise the threshold required.
And it's rare for anything to have that level of support, so the sample is going to be small.

Again, Brett, *there are facts established about why it was blocked* you are ignoring the history for your own bullshit.

As you do.

[bernard11]

In the case of a Constitutional Amendment, I'm not sure that holds. To take an extreme view, a majority in each of the 13 smallest states totals about 7,250,000, a little more than 2% of the population. The next 13 get you about 6.6%, so there is a lot of leeway.

Twenty percent might easily block ratification.

[hobie]

As usual, when it's something that pleases the hayseeds, it must be about race or slavery...and it is

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins

"The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they’d already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. With about 93 percent of the country’s slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South’s congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College."

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank, again, you might as well wear your Pubic Screwel Diploma on your forehead, it was the South who wanted to count the Slaves same as everyone else, the North who didn’t want to count them at all, and so they met sort of in the middle, the “3/5 Compromise” had nothing to do with the Electrical College, which was envisioned as sort of a College Foo-bawl Playoff Selection Committee, picking the 2 best potential POTUS's instead of teams, most states didn’t even let their Citizens chose the members of the Committee until well into the 1800’s

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

What I found interesting was that it is more nuanced than that. Jews and blacks torpedoed the second attempt to get rid of the EC, seeing it as enhancing their voices.

Though it was short term thinking, if you look at subsequent elections.

[Krayt]

"Be careful what you wish for." Are you sure this is the long term, and that the short term? Or is "now" just another brief historical period of frustration serving easy, apoplectic rhetoric?

I don't know, and you and nobody else does, either. We won't know decades more.

[Sarcastr0]

The analysis in the linked podcast is that they were looking at the state of play in 1976, and that subsequent elections and events show that was a myopic view.

It's pretty *ahem* black and white.

[Josh R]

For those of us who don't have the time to listen this morning, can you summarize the arguments for 1) those who wanted to scuttle a racist justice and 2) lobbyists for minorities.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry. didn't mean to be cryptic.

There were 2 tries to kill the EC by Constitutional Amendment.

Try 1:
-opposed by Southern segregationists and small states. Sailed bas the House, had issues in the Senate.
-Nixon supported it, but Birch Bayh ended up killing 2 of Nixon's Supreme Court picks, and Nixon didn't lift a finger to help him.
-Bayh knew that'd be the price he would pay to deny Nixon the second time, but had to block the seggregationist G. Harrold Carswell.

Try 2:
-Southern states' political power is weaker now. Still high popular support. Carter supports it.
-It was Jewish and Black advocates that killed it in the House.
-In recent elections, they had managed to get some real political momentum by being a gettable population in swing states. They didn't want to give up that power.
-Bayh, a pretty good friend of both groups, argued that their power shouldn't be outsized, but they weren't hearing it.

And that's all she wrote.

[Josh R]

Thanks.

The argument made by Jewish and Black advocates in 1976 had some merit. Because the winner-take-all apsect of the EC gives more power to swing-state voters, if minorities were overrepresented in swing states, they gain more power. The problem was assuming NY and CA would reman swing states. Instead, all those minority votes in NY and CA are now wasted.

I don’t understand the argument that the EC gave more power to the segregationist South. I thought they were not swing states. It seems to me, you had a lot of white segregationist votes wasted.

[Sarcastr0]

It had some merit - that's why it's an interesting story!
It was a riskier strategy than I think they assumed.
And it was them liking the thumb on the scales and so favoring it be there. It's an interesting interplay between equality and recompense.

As to the segregationists South when Nixon was in office, I think the concern was all the minorities in their state having their votes count now, as opposed to being below the threshold (as they remain to this day).

[Josh R]

The math doesn’t work that way. If it’s 65%-35%, then the 35% count as 35% without the EC. If it is winner take all with the EC, the 35% count as zero.

[Sarcastr0]

35% of a particular state could count for a lot less than that were the EC to be abolished.

[Josh R]

Huh? How can 35% count less than 35% in a nationwide popular vote? And more importantly under the current system, that 35% counts for zero!

[Dr. Ed 2]

The thing to remember is that in 1787, the majority of adults in the NORTH couldn't vote. Women couldn't, nor could men who didn't own a certain valuation of property,

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Birch Bayh was a very interesting guy.

I read his book on the making of the 25th Amendment & his first wife's autobiography (she died of cancer before it was released).

Both recommended.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Once scuttled to prevent a racist from getting to the Supreme Court. Once scuttled by lobbyists for minorities who decided the EC gave them a voice they wouldn’t otherwise have."

One of the most racist justice is Sotomayer - See Ricci and Shuette for example.

[Sarcastr0]

Off topic, and wrong.

The Joe_dallas way!

[Joe_dallas]

its directly on point in response to your comment
Though you obviously dont like getting caught.

[Sarcastr0]

I was talking about Birch Bayh. You brought up Sotomayor based on an aside about a segregationist candidate for SCOTUS from the 1970s.

No, you weren't on topic. At all.

Just knee jerk need to bring up your inexpert hating on Sotomayor's jurisprudence.

[Joe_dallas]

You directly and specifically mentioned Racist from getting to the supreme court.

My response was directly on point.

[Sarcastr0]

What you are describing is free association, not being on topic.

[David Nieporent]

inexpert

What? The man took high school biology! That's expertise!

Also, we should give him credit for — after many years of hating on Sotomayor over Schuette v. BAMN, finally getting the name (almost!) right.

[Joe_dallas]

doesnt change the fact that Sotomayor remains one of the most racist justices on the SC as evidenced by her opinions and dissents

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - Twelve's response to your prior comment is very appropriate
TwelveInchPianist 52 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Sarcastro, since you are one of the nastier commenters here, your accusations about who else is a nasty commenter don’t carry much weight.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I have TiP blocked for being awful.

You post bad comments, I point that out. I'm hardly the only one that does this.

[not guilty]

In the D.C. prosecution Donald Trump has sought leave to file a proposed motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment and for injunctive relief based on the allegedly irregular appointment of the Special Counsel. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.270.0_1.pdf The government's response is due on Thursday, with any reply from Trump due by November 7.

The motion is of course necessary to preserve the issue for appellate review, but on the merits it is foreclosed by controlling D.C. Circuit precedents. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047, 1054 (D.C. Cir. 2019); In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50, 55-57 (D.C. Cir. 1987). These decisions are on all fours and barking up a storm.

[Commenter_XY]

These decisions are on all fours and barking up a storm

NG, I have never heard this idiomatic expression before. What does it mean? You have a lot of them....I enjoy them immensely.

[not guilty]

Where a judicial precedent is exactly matched to the question at issue, and therefore indistinguishable, it is said to be “on all fours.” I don’t remember for sure where I ran across the “barking up a storm” phrase -- my best recollection is Dahlia Lithwick of Slate -- but the phrase itself stuck in my mind as colorful and descriptive.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, you truly have a gift = colorful. I aspire to be as colorful – and that is the truth.

On all fours = thx for the explainer. I will have to start using it now.

[not guilty]

Thank you for your kind words.

Another expression for an opinion which is exactly on point is that the prior decision is a “red cow case.”

[Don Nico]

Not Guilty,
You likely do not know that the "red cow" is the optimum variant of parmigiano reggiano cheese. These red cows graze in the mountains (okay, high hills) of the region and the cheese is aged at least 36 months. Expect to pay double the price of "regular" parmigiano reggiano.
https://www.consorziovaccherosse.it/en/red-cows-parmigiano-reggiano/characteristics/

[John F. Carr]

In my more northern dialect barking up a storm would simply mean barking a lot. I don't think of precedent as barking.

[Commenter_XY]

Idiomatic expressions in any language are pretty fun to disentangle.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll confirm his northern dialect point: I grew up in Michigan, and 'barking up a storm' just meant being noisy. Maybe not literally, but nothing more than that.

[Malika]

Let's talk about anal sex. A third of the population has had butt sex (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26781872/). Laws used to prevent this. Does anyone think these laws should still be in place? Isn't their demise a huge libertarian win?

I can say that I'm a huge fan of heterosexual anal sex. If you haven't tried it, you really should!

[Frank Drackman]

Let's not.

[hobie]

"Does anyone think these laws should still be in place?"

I know one uncorruptable justice that dissented in Lawrence probably thinks they should have remained

[David Nieporent]

I know one uncorruptable justice that dissented in Lawrence probably thinks they should have remained

He called the law in question "uncommonly silly" (in a nod to Potter Stewart) and said he'd have voted to repeal the law if he had been in the legislature.

[hobie]

Taking conservative justices at their word has not worked out

[EscherEnigma]

And two years ago he, unprompted, said he wanted to repeal that decision and reinstate sodomy laws in close to a dozen states.

The guy is on the losing side in all sorts of SCOTUS cases. You think he bears a decades long grudge on all of them like he does on Lawrence?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Among people who had HAI in the past year, those who had HAI at last sex were more likely to have a partner who was HIV-positive or of unknown status or to have exchanged money or drugs for sex at last sex."

While poorly worded, it raises several interesting questions, including about issues of consent.

[Frank Drackman]

There's a reason it's called "A-nally I-njected D-eath S-entence"

[Noscitur a sociis]

Like what?

[John F. Carr]

This seems like a good place to drop Rianna Croxford's self-congratulatory piece on uncovering perversions associated with Abercrombie and Fitch. She did it the old fashioned way, by talking to people who would rather not talk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly07l2ppkeo

[Commenter_XY]

I wonder how many of those sick people from A&F that sexually exploited young men are on Epsteins list, or P Diddy's list....or both.

Really hope both of those lists are released.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Something about if Trump wins, a lot of Hollywood is worried about being on an Epstein list. I'm assuming prosecuted but it was something I only caught part of on the radio.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think anal sex is a “perversion?”

[John F. Carr]

It is more formally known as "the abominable and detestable crime against nature" in my state's law.

[apedad]

That's Sect. 34.

Check out Sect. 36.

Section 36: Blasphemy
Section 36. Whoever wilfully (sic) blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

I'll actually be in MA later this year and will purposely tell God to go fuck him-, her-, zirself.

[John F. Carr]

I hope we're still around to receive you. Looks like God just zapped Salem, well known for its un-Christian activities this time of year.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/brush-fires-salem/

On the subject of God smiting sinners, I found this 2021 paper quite interesting:

Bunch, T.E., LeCompte, M.A., Adedeji, A.V. et al. A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea. Sci Rep 11, 18632 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97778-3

Interesting but not fully persuasive. I notice there is now an expression of concern from the editors. I hope the paper stands up. I want to believe.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John — the witches were in Danvers, not Salem — remember “Salem Town” and “Salem Village” being two distinctly different parts of what was then one town. (The trials were in Salem because that’s where the court was.)

Part of the underlying dynamics was that the men of Danvers didn’t want to have to do night fire watch duty in Salem — they wanted to stay in Danvers and watch over their own farms. The people of Salem didn’t want Danvers to become its own town because then the Danvers taxpayers wouldn’t be contributing to the Salem minister’s salary, and the Salem minister didn’t want a smaller parish.

Most of this was in the vicinity of the Liberty Tree Mall and related sprawl.

The hysteria ended when they accused the Royal Governor’s Wife of being a witch — and he responded by abolishing the entire court system and replacing it with the one that Massachusetts has today.

Memory is that MA has at least one other sodomy statute on the books.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Atty Carr, thanks a lot for sending me on a 90+ minute excursion down that rabbit hole of a paper. Glad to have the time on Monday to do so. I’m not a scientist but the paper looks pretty good to me; the conclusion. to a layman, seems quite persuasive. I don’t know what nature objections would be.
I guess it’s the corollary of a non-lawyer saying ” If you read the complaint, for Pete’s sake, you’d see the defendant is obviously guilty.”

"Interesting but not fully persuasive. I notice there is now an expression of concern from the editors. I hope the paper stands up. I want to believe.”

Believe what?

[John F. Carr]

I want to believe that Genesis Chapter 19 is based on a true story and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by an extraterrestrial impactor. But I know something about big explosions (child of the Cold War) and extraterrestrial impactors (later learning). Some of the physics in the paper seemed off to me. I need to read the references before I take the conclusions too seriously.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thanks. I'd look forward to seeing any update from you sometime in the future.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Apedad beat me to it -- I love that statute...

[Bob from Ohio]

"Does anyone think these laws should still be in place? "

Yes. The human body is not designed for anal sex. Men coercing women into it is hardly a libertarian victory.

The "study" is based on a recruited group so its dubious that it reflects the broader population.

[Sarcastr0]

As all freedom lovers know, women have no agency and must be protected from lustful men!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Rise in popularity of anal sex has led to health problems for women
Incontinence, bleeding and STIs among consequences, say two surgeons, who want doctors to raise the topic with patients" The Guardian Thu 11 Aug 2022 18.30 EDT

"Teenage girls pressured into ‘painful and coercive’ anal sex because of porn"
Charles White Published Jul 18, 2017, 6:05pm|Updated Jul 21, 2017, 12:50pm

[Sarcastr0]

Are you arguing heterosexual anal sex is inherently coercive?

[Bob from Ohio]

"inherently"

IDK about inherently. But in practice most of it is.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean apart from your linked study not saying that [and making some fraught assumptions about the enjoyment of anal] (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/4/8/e004996.full.pdf),
I heard from you on this very thread the only moral obligation someone has is to not do anything that breaks the law.

A moral nihilist AND a puritan, eh? Well, that's certainly not consistent!

[Bob from Ohio]

"not do anything that breaks the law"

Yes, that is why anal sex should still be illegal.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems you're making a moral argument. But if there are no moral obligations, I don't know why you make such arguments.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is also an unexplained significant rise in rectal cancer amonst young adults.

[ducksalad]

But the death rate is decreasing.

Hypothesis: Lots of anal sex means rectal cancer is more likely to get noticed while still treatable.

[not guilty]

"The human body is not designed for anal sex. Men coercing women into it is hardly a libertarian victory."

The question of whether that conduct should be criminalized is broader, Bob. Framing the issue as "men coercing women" merely begs the question. Irrespective of the gender of the participants or the orifices involved, prohibiting sexual penetration by force or coercion is a far different matter from prohibiting voluntary, consensual participation by adults. Some things are none of the government's fricking business.

As a somewhat aged male, I don't associate anal insertions with pleasure, but then my only basis of knowledge is a prostate exam. (As Tony Soprano said to Dr, Melphi, "Hey, I don’t even let anybody wag their finger in my face." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee4B0wI9BZU ) But I have been with multiple women who have told me they enjoy it.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Some things are none of the government’s fricking business."

Preventing harm is something you ordinarily think is its business. Why the sex exception?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Bob, burden is on YOU to be consistent.

You don't appear to be.

[Bob from Ohio]

No one is harmed if I don't vote, anal sex harms women and spreads disease.

[Sarcastr0]

So you think we should ban alcohol? Harmful, disease-causing.

Or should we have had harder lockdown laws during covid? That would have kept the spread down!

Nah, you have no solid principles, so in the end you can't have any solid arguments. Reaping what you sew.

[EscherEnigma]

Sex spreads disease. If we all just stopped having sex, and only conceived babies via turkey baster (or in extreme cases, IVF), a whole bunch of diseases would be gone in a generation.

[Roger S]

Maybe it would more practical to ban anal sex from porn videos. I wonder if the courts would say that there is a First Amendment right to such videos.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That does not sound especially practical to me.

[not guilty]

As the courts have said, there is indeed a First Amendment right to produce, display, distribute and view sex videos, with an exception for obscene materials.

[Roger S]

They could decide that anal sex videos are obscene.

[Zarniwoop]

The human body is not designed for anal sex. Men coercing women into it is hardly a libertarian victory.

The first time I tried it, my then-gf was the one who suggested it. It wasn't her first rodeo, and she liked it a lot. The relationship didn't last due to other issues, but it wasn't because of bad sex.

In my experience not all women (and presumably men) are into anal sex, but I can def. report that some women really, really are.

[bernard11]

The human body is not designed for anal sex.

Not sure what you mean here, but the human body is also not designed for throwing 100+ mph fastballs either. No more baseball?

[EscherEnigma]

"Does anyone think these laws should still be in place?"

Off the top of my head? Thomas is still bitter the SCOTUS went against him in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and wants to overturn it, and there have been a variety of different conservatives pols who keep talking about how they want to bring sodomy laws back.

So, yeah. There are sincere people who want to bring sodomy laws back.

[John F. Carr]

AP reports that OpenAI's hallucination-prone Whisper transcription technology is being used for medical care.

Over 30,000 clinicians and 40 health systems, including the Mankato Clinic in Minnesota and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, have started using a Whisper-based tool built by Nabla, which has offices in France and the U.S.
That tool was fine-tuned on medical language to transcribe and summarize patients’ interactions, said Nabla’s chief technology officer Martin Raison.
Company officials said they are aware that Whisper can hallucinate and are addressing the problem.
It’s impossible to compare Nabla’s AI-generated transcript to the original recording because Nabla’s tool erases the original audio for “data safety reasons,” Raison said.

When you delete your original data I assume you have something to hide.

In the modern medical world your hallucinated diagnosis will be traded or sold to a medical data aggregator to be extracted by insurance companies, hackers, and so forth as the undisputed truth.

https://apnews.com/article/ai-artificial-intelligence-health-business-90020cdf5fa16c79ca2e5b6c4c9bbb14

[Commenter_XY]

How do you prove standing, for an injury = Nabla sold false, hallucinated info to an insurer, who turned around and canceled a policy.

How does that work in the absence of the original recording.

[Krayt]

That sounds like shit design by shit engineers.

I'd have a special app where you could click a word or phrase and literally listen to the segment it comes from. Translation apps do this already. Google Translate does this.

"But courts do it old schoo..." Not helping the case any!

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds like shit design mandated by shit management, to me. It wouldn't normally occur to an engineer to destroy data, given how cheap it is to retain, and how useful it is for QC purposes.

[John F. Carr]

Some departments of public works have policies of destroying engineers' reports. The law may say "you can impose traffic regulation X if an engineer signs off on it". The boss has an engineer to sign off on an unecessary regulation under implicit threat of termination. Then they shred old reports every few years. In some jurisdictions this works.

Arthur Andersen got a sudden interest in following record destruction policies after investigators started wondering about Enron.

[Brett Bellmore]

In government, too: After the IRS targeting scandal hit, it turned out that the IRS' 'data preservation' policy was more of an 'evidence destruction' policy, mandating a regular schedule of deleting backups.

They'd actually had a contract with a professional data preservation firm that archived everything, and had terminated it to adopt the regular destruction of backups policy.

[hobie]

It would be nice to have anesthesiologists that were hallucination-free. Probably the most expendable and easiest specialty for AI to take over.

[Frank Drackman]

Show me an AI that can start an IV, put in an Endotracheal Tube, or Epidural Catheter

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman; America's neediest veteran, those are maneuvers the candy stripers perform. The AI will just tell them when to start. Don't worry, Frankie, you can always get your old gig back sexing poultry

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-stank, that's so stupid, you're ruining the concept that you and I are the same guy, nobody uses the term "Candy Striper" anymore, except creepy old fucks like you, it's considered, offensive, like Nigger, Kike, Dago, Jap, Chink, Towel/Dot Head, Cracker and dare I say, "Hayseed". You probably think the Airliners fly by themselves also, why does a Delta Captain make $400K??

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Thought experiment: Consider Clause 2 below.

Clause 2 Electors
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Suppose the 2024 election is very close, with credible allegations of voter fraud in state X (pick one - the state doesn't matter), meaning a state legislature takes up the matter between November 6th and December 1st.

Can a state legislature actually substitute electors they appoint over electors arising from a contested election? Theoretically, is that actually possible?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes

[John F. Carr]

The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 permits choosing electors after election day "as necessitated by force majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic, as provided under laws of the State enacted prior to such day". The law was intended to prevent legislatures from reacting to accusations of voter fraud by convening to pick their own electors.

[Michael Ejercito]

I quote Article II of the United States Constitution.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

So this provision of the Electoral Count Reform Act is unconstitutional.

[John F. Carr]

State law defines how electors are chosen. Federal law defines when they are chosen. I quoted text from a sentence allowing states to postpone election day for good cause. Electors chosen on the wrong day don't count.

[David Nieporent]

So this provision of the Electoral Count Reform Act is unconstitutional.

No, it isn't. There's no question that the legislature can pick Electors if it wishes. But it has to do so beforehand. It cannot select them after Election Day.

[Commenter_XY]

David, how do you do that beforehand, if it is force majeure?

[David Nieporent]

The force majeure provision to which you refer applies if some sort of act of god prevents the election from being held. It does not let the legislature wait until after Election Day to see what the outcome is, and then appoint its own slate of electors.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok....so the event must happen really close to the election, like the day or two beforehand, not a month.

[ducksalad]

I believe the reasoning is this:

1. Legislature has authority to pick the method.
2. Feds have authority to set the day.
3. Feds set the day at 2nd Tuesday after 1st Monday in November, with possible exceptions. They can set conditions on when they are willing to grant exceptions.

Analogous situation: If you show up for class and turn in your homework on time, the teacher has no business asking about your medical status or family affairs. If you ask for an extension, then the teacher gets to pore over your records and decide what's a good excuse and what's not.

[Commenter_XY]

NC Legislature: Hurricane Helene (force majeure event) fucked up everything, we the State Legislators are appointing the electors.

Legal? Legit?

[Michael Ejercito]

The Constitution allows that.

[John F. Carr]

Depends on timing. The procedural rules have to be in place before election day.

[Commenter_XY]

Let's assume the rules were passed in the 1940's, during the Jim Crow era.

Still legal? Legit?

[John F. Carr]

The Electoral Count Reform Act allows a state to have in effect a law like

"If the governor shall have declared a state of emergency, and further proclaims that the emergency has prevented voters from casting their votes or officials from counting their votes, then the legislature shall meet on November 15 and …"

If such a law is in effect before election day then the governor can cancel the election for good cause and let the legislature choose. I expect there would be a Bush v. Gore moment as the Supreme Court is asked to review the decision of state courts on whether a zombie plague or whatever is sufficient grounds. And there might be an objection to counting the electoral votes in the joint session of Congress. Thanks to the 2022 reform law there should be only one set of votes which Congress can take or leave. There is a specific state official, determined in advance, whose signature is required for the votes to count.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There is a specific state official, determined in advance, whose signature is required for the votes to count."

Which itself is kind of dubious, given the constitutional language; Whose certification is required should properly be decided by the state legislature, not Congress.

But the general rule is that election day IS the day that the electors are, in theory, chosen, and no changes can be made to the rules by which this is done, if that day has passed. In theory after election day you're just figuring out who got chosen on election day, not DOING the choosing.

[John F. Carr]

The specific state official is the executive, defined thus:

`executive' means, with respect to any State, the Governor of the State (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia), except when the laws or constitution of a State in effect as of election day expressly require a different State executive to perform the duties identified under this chapter.

The executive might be acting under court order, as acknowledged elsewhere in the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so they already have that point covered. Good.

[Commenter_XY]

Interesting, so it really can happen, if care is taken by the state legislature to pass laws in advance of the election to address an extenuating circumstance.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't think so.

OTOH, it was perfectly proper for the NC legislature to force election boards in disaster hit districts to open more polling places. Having one voting site per 28K residents in Democratic Buncombe, and one per 120K in Republican Henderson county, was a bit of an outrage. And suspicious as all get out, given the party affiliation of the people who had made that call.

[John F. Carr]

A California jury awarded six former BART employees over $1 million each after they were fired for refusing to get the COVID vaccine. The employees had asked for religious exemptions. Outside of the Fifth Circuit you have to wait for adverse employment action before you can sue.

The judge had previously ruled that the case would be tried as an employment law case and not a First Amendment case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66693141/cooper-v-san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-district/

[hobie]

Since these kooks miraculously found Jesus right at the point of a novel vaccine's emergence, I would expect - going forward - they will also be refusing other healthcare that was recently created.

[Michael Ejercito]

Since when was being vaccinated against COVID-19 a bona fide requirement to work in the transit industry.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An "experimental" vaccine.

[David Nieporent]

All science is "experimental" in a sense. These vaccines were no more "experimental" than any others, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone doesn't understand an experimental vaccine approved for emergency use rather than regular approval.

[David Nieporent]

The Pfizer vaccine received regular approval.

[hobie]

Probably had to do with a virus going around killing everyone, and with these employees working amongst large groups of people. Just a guess

You miscreants are STILL upset the gubmint asked you to do something

[ThePublius]

Yea, great, except the vaccine didn't work, and the government lied about it. It probably did more harm than good.

[hobie]

You remember when the Moderna and Pfizer trials came out showing near 100% prevention for contracting the disease? It was a miracle. So we took them. And the virus ended up worming its way out by mutation. Still, it got humanity over the hump of the most contagious variant. You're welcome

[Joe_dallas]

hobie 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You remember when the Moderna and Pfizer trials came out showing near 100% prevention for contracting the disease? "

That was proven untrue as early as April of 2021

[Joe_dallas]

hobie 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You remember when the Moderna and Pfizer trials came out showing near 100% prevention for contracting the disease?

There were email exchanges with Pfizer personnel and Birx and Walensky in oct 2020 acknowledging that the vax wasnt going to prevent infection nor would the vax prevent transmission.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/

[Zarniwoop]

I'm fully vaccinated, keep up with boosters, and still haven't gotten covid to this day. At one point I spent three days in a car and in hotels with my partner (driving FL to WI), who did have covid at the time (per multiple post-trip lab tests, since I was very clearly exposed).

My anecdata is pretty bullish on "the vaccine works".

[Mr. Bumble]

Proving a negative?

[Zarniwoop]

I got lab tested every 48 hours or so for ~10 days following the car trip with a covid+ co-pilot. Every single test was negative.

But keep trying to tell me the vax didn't work.

[Mr. Bumble]

Again, you're trying to prove a negative. You have no way of knowing if it was the vax or not.
Still wearing a mask?

[Jmaie]

" Every single test was negative. But keep trying to tell me the vax didn’t work."

I've no idea who these folks are or whether their statements are accurate, they're just the first one that came up on a Google search:

https://www.cochrane.org/CD013705/INFECTN_how-accurate-are-rapid-antigen-tests-diagnosing-covid-19

"Rapid antigen tests are considerably less accurate when they are used in people with no signs or symptoms of infection"

Whether your 48 hour testing regime was useful can't say (and don't actually care). Just pointing out that anecdotal evidence is not dispositive - I've been vaxed and boosted more times than I can remember and have had Covid three times.

[ThePublius]

We were assured that if you got vaccinated you wouldn't contract the virus. Many, many vaccinated people contracted the virus. I have several family members who did, so my anecdata say otherwise.

[Joe_dallas]

In reply to Zarniwoop - One of my employees came to the office every day for a week with covid. At the same time, none of my employees were vaxed and none of my employees caught covid. Like all my employees who eventually caught covid, none were vaxed and all had extremely mild cases (fevers less than 100f lasting less than 36 hours)

My anecdata is pretty unbullish on “the vaccine works”.

Zarniwoop appears to be the exception considering how many vaxed individuals caught covid (90%+ of the vaxed population did catch covid.

Though it should be noted that around 80% of covid transmissions was from less than 20% of the infected – which is reasonably in line with all other respiratory viruses.

[Joe_dallas]

Zarniwoop 48 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I’m fully vaccinated, keep up with boosters, and still haven’t gotten covid to this day.

fwiw - the time you spend getting vaxed and boosted was more time than I was ill with covid and I likely have much stronger long term immunity than someone that has been repetitively vaxed.

[Zarniwoop]

fwiw – the time you spend getting vaxed and boosted was more time than I was ill with covid

I walk to the corner pharmacy (a Walgreen's) and it take less than 1/2hr to get a booster about once a year.

So I've got one eyebrow raised at your math here 🙂

And since I get it along with my flu shot in the other arm at the same time, the marginal added time works out to about ... only about a minute or so for the extra jab, once a year.

Glad to hear you recovered quickly and with no long-term effects. Didn't happen for everyone.

[Joe_dallas]

1/2 hour walk, 1/2 hour in line, once a year for a vax that is only marginally effective for 6 months?

[bernard11]

The economic genius doesn't know what "marginal" means.

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, you have no way of knowing you've never gotten covid, since most cases of it are asymptomatic.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - some individuals have a very low risk factor,
very low risk factor for infection, very low risk factor for any level of sickness. At the same time, lots of individuals with a low risk factor have high levels of fear of illness.

[Michael Ejercito]

Were they required to be vaccinated agains the swine flu as well?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Probably had to do with a virus going around killing everyone,"

"Everyone" seems a bit of an exaggeration.

[ReaderY]

Last week Professor Volokh posted about a recent case in which a court declined to determine whether an Orthodox Jewish rabbinical court order would tend to result in people shunning or harassing the plaintiff, on grounds that the meaning of a religious court order is always a religious question not susceptible to interpretation by a secular court.

As I commented at the time, I don’t think this is the case. I subsequently thought of an example that might clarify this.

Suppose a religious body issues a fatwa ordering a sinner’s death, and the sinner is then duly killed. Under the court’s interpretation, the members of the religious body would be immune from criminal process, because a secular court would be prohibited from interpreting the meaning of the fatwa and hence would be forbidden by the First Amendment from entertaining the question of whether the members of the religious body solicited or ordered a murder.

I don’t think this is the case. Whether person A solicits, orders, or conspires with Person B to commit an illegal action is a purely secular question. The fact that the evidence of solicitation might take the form of a religious document doesn’t change the essentially secular nature of determining whether a person committed a crime. Causality for these purposes is a secular question, not a religious one.

After that determination has been made, there might be a First Amendment defwnse available. As I wrote in my comments, a religous organization has a right to impose discipline on its members including withdrawing them from the community through things like excommunication, expulsion, and shunning. So what the rabbinic court is asking its members to do would not be illegal. A fatwa ordering a death, on the other hand, would not be protected by the first amendment.

There might be gray area cases. What if a religious body orders someone merely excommunicated, but crazies end up killing him? What if this happens constently? Our Constitution was not framed with the idea that gangsters might manipulate constitutional provisions intended for the pious to help protect and cover their crimes, but we today live under circumstances where we can’t so readily assume those claiming to be faithful are really acting in good faith. I suspect in a case like this courts would need to use some analog of Clayburn Hardware to determine whether or not the religious body is responsible for the violence.

[Michael Ejercito]

Unless the religious court order plainly orders a tort or a crime, it can not be proscribed civilly or criminally.

What if a religious body orders someone merely excommunicated, but crazies end up killing him?

There is no causal relationship.

[ReaderY]

Don Gotti, like most savvy senior members of La Cosa Nostra, never plainly ordered anything. He said things like so-and-so could use a very long vacation. But when he said things like this, so-and-so tended to end up dead. Immune from liability?

Why should religious tribunals be treated differently?

[Ed Grinberg]

a recent case in which a court declined to determine whether an Orthodox Jewish rabbinical court order would tend to result in people shunning or harassing the plaintiff, on grounds that the meaning of a religious court order is always a religious question not susceptible to interpretation by a secular court.

Here's the previous post:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/15/no-civil-court-claim-over-publicizing-religious-courts-statement-that-litigant-refuses-to-appear-in-the-religious-court/
I think you misunderstand the decision. It wasn't about whether "an Orthodox Jewish rabbinical court order would tend to result in people shunning or harassing the plaintiff." It was a denial of a request for a preliminary injunction. The court had to decide plaintiff's "likelihood of success on the merits." On the merits of what? Her two claims: defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Here's the court's discussion:

The First Amendment limits courts' ability to adjudicate some defamation claims involving religion. The Establishment Clause bars state actors from deciding disputes of religious doctrine or practice. Federal courts therefore consistently refuse to adjudicate defamation claims that would require them to decide questions of religious law…. [Plaintiff's] declaration, even if fully credited, does not establish that the statements in the seiruv or accompanying document are actionable as substantially false statements.

Plaintiff's motion seeking a preliminary injunction based on IIED does so exclusively based on "[t]he dissemination of the seiruv," which she argues "cannot be classified as anything other than a malicious campaign of harassment and intimidation." But as explained above, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged any inaccuracy in the seiruv or accompanying flier that is within the competence of this Court to adjudicate.
Plaintiff cannot meet her burden of establishing "extreme and outrageous conduct" that "go[es] beyond all possible bounds of decency" and is "utterly intolerable in a civilized community" based merely on dissemination of true statements. And because plaintiff cannot invite the Court to intrude on questions of religious law in the context of an IIED claim any more than in the context of a defamation claim, plaintiff cannot base an IIED claim on the theory that the seiruv erred in treating plaintiff's conduct as improper or that the informational document misstates the implications of the seiruv under Jewish law….

The court said that plaintiff was unlikely to be able to prove defamation (because, in order to find defamation, the court would have to delve into religious doctrine). And it further said that plaintiff was also unlikely to prove IIED. It reasoned that:
- Plaintiff could not base her IIED claim on dissemination of true statements. (For this proposition, it cited a recent decision by the relevant federal court of appeals).
- Since the court is prohibited from delving into religious law, plaintiff would not be able to show "that the seiruv erred in treating plaintiff's conduct as improper or that the informational document misstates the implications of the seiruv under Jewish law."
None of this is analogous to the dire hypotheticals you came up with.

[ReaderY]

The court said that it cannot interpret what a seirev calls on people to do because that would be an establishment of religion.

[not guilty]

No first Amendment defense would be available where a religious tribunal issues a fatwa ordering another person's death. Speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute is not protected by the First Amendment. United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762, ___, 143 S. Ct. 1932, 1937 (2023); Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). “[I]t has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Giboney, at 502. Solicitation of criminal conduct is categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 297 (2008).

[John F. Carr]

One would need to look closely at the text of the fatwa, possibly in the original Arabic. It might justify a sincerely held religious belief without issuing a command. A fatwa is a statement about Islamic law.

"I want to invade the Safavid empire. Is that OK even though they are fellow Muslims?"
"Is it right to kill that heretic Salman Rushdie?"
"Should I accept the COVID-19 vaccine?"

[ReaderY]

Again, if you look closely at the text of transcripts of Cosa Nostra dons and many other successful gangsters, many of them never actually order anything illegal. They use roundabout or coded language that their followers understand as constituting orders to kill people or do other illegal things, but which does not say actually say to do this in its plain meaning.

For things like fatwas that result in people being killed, I don’t think the First Amendment creates a special religious defense that prevents them from being treated as coded messages, or that requires looking at only the plain meaning.

That’s why I disagreed with the part of the court decision that said you can’t look past the seirev’s plain terms. If for example a seirev issued by a particular rabbinical court routinely resulted in people it was directed at being beaten up, I think a plaintiff would be entitled to use extrinsic, sociological-type evidence to establish that, the First Amendment notwithstanding.

[Moderation4ever]

What did seem to get mentioned was Joe Rogan questioning Trump on fraud in the 2020 election. Trump response was, as always, merely allegations without specifics or evidence. Even with pushed by Rogan.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We have begun voting. I voted on the first day of early voting in New York. We have had early voting for five years.

Voting is a civil responsibility. I’m inclined to agree it is also a moral duty.

The Constitution protects the right to vote in various respects, even if the ultimate right to vote is not protected.

(see also: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2024/10/power-for-people-recognizing.html)

I think a good case can be made that it is. We have a republican form of government that assumes a core right to vote. Once the right to vote is supplied, equal protection bars unreasonable limits. The Supreme Court declared voting is a “fundamental right” for equal protection principles.

I agree with Rick Hasen a clearly written right-to-vote amendment would help clarify matters. Check out his book for more.

Anyway, happy voting. New York has various ballot measures, including NYC having local ones. The LaRouche party also has multiple people on the ballot for those interested.

[Ska]

Voting in my neighborhood: I show up, I write-in a federal candidate, vote no on everything, vote write-ins on all the unopposed candidates that are down-ticket, and go home. Wasting 20 minutes is a small commitment.

I could understand a yes on proposals 4 and 5. Proposal 3 sounds like it solidifies kicking the can down the road for even longer periods of time before committing to something.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The judicial races are to me a somewhat inane thing.

The voters regularly get a "choice" (pick six of six with six candidates) among pre-selected nominees. There is very little information provided about the judges. Media coverage is scant. Voting guides sent to voters do not talk about the races like they do others.

Another notable thing is that other than Working Party (Harris) and Conservative (Trump), there are no third-party choices for president. NY does have a list of pre-approved write-ins (Stein & West included) that will be counted. Otherwise, for presidential write-ins, they won't be counted.

https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/new-york-certifies-12-write-in-candidates-19846450.php

[Ska]

The saviors of democracy working overtime to make sure third party candidates have a very hard time getting on the ballot. This is the first time in my recollection that so many were excluded and no Libertarian party candidate listed on the ballot.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’m inclined to agree it is also a moral duty. "

No citizen, absent a national military emergency, owes a duty to do anything but obey just laws. My time is not the states to command.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A moral duty is not only upheld by state command.

I also don’t know why there is only an exception for a “national military emergency.” A local emergency is not important? A national non-military emergency is not enough?

The point would be largely moot since “just laws” would arise in various scenarios anyhow.

[Bob from Ohio]

I meant a military draft in time of war.

My time is none of your business either.

[apedad]

"My time is none of your business either but a woman has no right to decide what to do with her body."

FTFY

[Bob from Ohio]

A woman has no right to destroy another human life.

[Sarcastr0]

Or enjoy some adult time involving her butt, apparently.

You don't seem to have a consistent vision or throughline for what you want.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“I meant a military draft in time of war.”

A subset of the “just law” general rule.

Militia service as part of a civic duty goes back to ancient times & in this country included state and local situations.

If a dangerous mob threatened an area, for instance, the militia might be called up.

“My time is none of your business either.”

I have some concerns about other people’s time when it affects third parties. Again, moral concerns aren’t only upheld by state coercion.

[Magister]

I feel a moral duty to discourage Bob from Ohio from voting.

Don't vote, Bob from Ohio. Stand true to your beliefs.

[Bob from Ohio]

I vote sometimes but I'm under no illusion my single vote matters. Other than an occasional meaningless local office, single votes never matter.

[Don Nico]

Joe,
My "moral duty" is to refrain from voting from either candidate as both are (each in their own way) a moral hazard to the fate of the United States.
One is evil and the other is stupid.
I'm spending election day in Switzerland.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lucky you.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

New York has mail-in voting without the need for an excuse. The Court of Appeals upheld the process.

There are multiple people on the ballot other than president as well as ballot measures. Write-ins are also possible if the third-party options when available are not suitable.

[Commenter_XY]

Stay warm, Don Nico. Do you speak Romansh?

[Don Nico]

I'm afraid that I'll be in French Switzerland

[David Nieporent]

Voting is a civil responsibility. I’m inclined to agree it is also a moral duty.

I've noted this before, I think on the VC: I have a liberal friend who thinks it should be a legal duty, as it is in Australia. (You don't have to vote for a candidate; you can return a blank ballot. It's a trivial fine, but it is a fine if one doesn't.) I oppose on libertarian grounds, and on the further grounds that I think encouraging very low-info detached citizens to make a choice will not make our politics better, but I do find that one salutary aspect of such a law is that it would end any partisan fighting over GOTV or the like. There would be no more "vote suppression" because every eligible person would be required to vote.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don’t know how much making it a legal duty is necessary.

We require jury duty and have required militia service. I don’t think there is much of a libertarian concern here.

Especially if you can provide a blank vote or write-in, as libertarian problems go, it is rather far down there. A blank vote is a little different from not voting.

The level of knowledge shown around here makes me question how much to worry about about “very low-info detached citizens” being required to vote with such minimal requirements. Voters now come in all kinds. Non-voters come in all kinds. Net hard to determine if there is a risk.

I also think some additional mild pressure to vote could promote voter education in a way that basically would cancel out the concern about very low-info citizens.

[ducksalad]

Not in favor of mandatory voting, like DN on libertarian grounds.

But just hypothetically, if we were going to get coercive, and we wanted to pressure low-info voters to get educated, one approach would be to eliminate names from the ballot. The rules would be:

a. Every office is a write-in, AND
b. To avoid the fine, you have to write in the names of a candidate who actually filed for the office, AND
c. No printed materials or phones, but handwritten crib notes are allowed.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To remind people, my original comment was a “moral duty,” not a “legal duty.”

There is no need for this burdensome even for the average voter approach.

Send voters basic voter guides with the names of the candidates with basic statements provided for candidates who provide them. Do the same for the ballot measures, including for and against statements. The guides would also have basic info such as voting location and how the ballot machines work.

[ducksalad]

In the case of candidates, it's easy to decide who gets to provide the statement.

In the case of ballot measures, who gets to write the official "against" statement?

[David Nieporent]

The level of knowledge shown around here makes me question how much to worry about about “very low-info detached citizens” being required to vote with such minimal requirements. Voters now come in all kinds. Non-voters come in all kinds. Net hard to determine if there is a risk.

I mean, yeah, there are a lot of dumbass posters here who are engaged rather than detached — but I don't see how adding a whole bunch of essentially random votes will improve the outcome of an election.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One thing that came to mind is that primaries now are skewered to heavily motivated partisan voters.

If there was more pressure for the general population to vote, it would likely affect the results. This can have positive results overall in who wins the general election.

Many times, the winner of local races arises from a small subset of the population. This is especially the case in one-party districts where the race for office is basically the primary. As a matter of majoritarian democracy, that concerns me.

But, what of the problem of requiring “very low-info detached citizens” to vote? The people who don’t vote are not just “very low info” voters. They often are no less or more informed as the general population. Some of the people here are more motivated to vote for a mixture of reasons. The net value of this is unclear.

Maybe some study was made that non-voters (for House races, that can be about 2/3 of the voting population) are more low-info than voters. I doubt it matters enough, especially if a mild voter education improvement occurs.

[Mr. Hook]

My sister lives in Australia and has suggested that compulsory voting also alters advertising. There is little profit in ads that fundamentally discourage turnout, so political advertising is more geared to persuading voters to pick their candidate in the booth. That, in turn, has led to more discussion in the populace come election time. People who aren't political junkies are more likely to have constructive conversations about substantive issues because the advertising encourages thinking about elections that way. I'm still a bit wary on compulsory voting, and she was clearly putting the best spin on things for my sake, but I've come around more on the question, especially as the quality of campaigns keeps finding new lows.

[Magister]

The fight might not be over voter suppression or GOTV, but it would be over who is eligible. As a lot of it has been for my entire life.

[Lennyk78]

That's the same reason that many conservatives oppose the ballot harvesting type actions conducted by the Democrats in 2020. It brought in votes from low-info detached citizens.

The fat Stacy Abrams going to LeQuanda and Shitavius with blank ballots asking them to vote for Warnock so they can get free shit is not appropriate.

[Zarniwoop]

I just voted here in Wisconsinland. Lines are still long for early ("in-person absentee") voting, and poll workers are anecdotally reporting big crowds every day so far.

Brought my 18y.o. newly-minted voter, a/k/a Spawn #1, to the voting location with me. She got registered and voted, and I'm a proud dad today.

[Commenter_XY]

Very nice, Z. The tradition continues...

[Don Nico]

PM Netanhahu's speech at the Oct. 7 memorial last weekend demonstrates is why Israel must win and will win.
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jICI4coOs2Q"

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.aninews.in/news/world/middle-east/three-hezbollah-commanders-eliminated-in-southern-lebanon-israel20241027192118/

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico....Israel will win; their enemies will fall before them.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I wish that were true, but no. They will remain as they always have been, surrounded by a sea of implacable enemies. Brings to mind the maxim about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

[Brett Bellmore]

They will, for now, remain surrounded by enemies, but many of those enemies are far less implacable than they used to be. For a number of reasons.

1. They've had it proven to them, over and over, that going to war with Israel is painful. (This is the biggest factor.)
2. They've finished their own Jewish genocides, and are finishing up their Christian genocides, and this may be taking the edge off their blood lust.
3. Their association with the Nazis in WWII is growing increasingly remote and attenuated. Muslims were anti-Semitic prior to WWII, but they only really got genocidal thanks to playing footsy with Hitler.
4. Everybody in the area knows the Palestinians are bloodthirsty nutcases, and pretty indiscriminate about who they're bloodthirsty towards, at that. The prospect of the Palestinians actually getting control of Israeli territory and enough independence to turn their gaze outward away from Israel is not a happy one.
5. While they know that Israel is NOT a bad neighbor if you just refrain from attacking them. Quite the contrary.
6. Israel is currently taking on Iran, and everybody else in the area feels threatened by Iran.

[Joe_dallas]

Don N _
I just finished reading Victor Hansen’s book ” the second World Wars” which is a very good book with a heavy discussion of the geopolitical aspects of all wars and the Second world wars (WW2 was actually a lot of large wars going on at the same time).

One enlighting comment was the amount of coddling of Germany during the mid 1930’s until Sept 1939 by France, Britain, Russia and the US that contributed to Hitler starting WW2, With Russia, it coddling Germany until May 1941. While obviously not the sole or primary factor, but one of the many important factors. Very eerie parallels with the coddling of Iran that started with the Obama administration. Thus the reason I cant vote for the party that puts the world at greater risk.

[David Nieporent]

Thus the reason I cant vote for the party that puts the world at greater risk.

Presumably that's the party that wants to coddle China and Russia.

[Joe_dallas]

Nope - you are dead wrong on that assumption.

Whose party was the President's son actively involved with various payoffs?
Which party was a former president and foundation the recipient of the pay for play scheme?
which party was the president of who told putin to chill until after his reelection?
Which VP candidate visited China 30+ times

[Magister]

So Joe_dallas is voting for the party that does want to coddle China and Russia?

Payoffs from Russia and China to presidential children? It looks like Donald Jr., Eric, Ivanka and Jared Kushner got far more than Hunter BIden.
Former president with a corrupt organization named after him? Trump.
Telling Putin to wait for his reelection when he can do whatever he wants? Trump.
Visiting China has been respectable since Richard Nixon started it; millions of people do it each year.

[Joe_dallas]

Telling Putin to wait for his reelection when he can do whatever he wants? Trump.
Nope That was obama - A fact you are much aware of.

[Sarcastr0]

Note: The right wing spin on a quote is rarely the actual meaning of the quote.

[Joe_dallas]

Typical Sacastro
Typical left woke fool living in the woke bubble

Completely misinformed. completely unashamed of being wrong and woke
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/obama-tells-russias-medvedev-more-flexibility-after-election-idUSBRE82P0JI/

[Magister]

Obama told Medvedev that he would have more flexibility after the 2012 election; no indication that this was letting Putin do whatever he wants, or even that negotiations on missile defense would be more favorable to Russia after the election. Trump made permission to Putin explicit (and Trump has long been Putin's lap dog).

[Bob from Ohio]

"no indication that this was letting Putin do whatever he wants"

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. flexibility!

[Mr. Bumble]

...and Obama sent blankets.

[ThePublius]

Does anyone have links to the stories of Kamala's town hall consisting of scripted Q&A and paid audience members?

[Bwaaah]

On election night in 2016, I was walking through Washington Square Park in New York City when I came upon two young women who were approximately 17 years old. They were crying, and looked visibly shaken.

I stopped to check. "Are you OK?"

They weren't. I asked what happened. They told me that Trump was going to be President, and that he would destroy the country. They were distraught. (I hadn't paid any attention to election results that night, and was quite surprised that Trump was in the lead. I considered him to be a buffoon.)

I thought their crying was absurdly over-the-top. But I didn't laugh at them. I think they really believed their fears.

I offered some brief consolation. "Don't worry. Our government institutions are very stable. Our culture is vibrant and caring, and doesn't change with elections. The status quo is deeper and more intransigent than you know. You will see that little will change over the next four years. You may even come to find comfort and solace, as I do, in the inability of our society to change quickly merely as a result of elections. You'll be OK, and the U.S. will be OK."

It's eight years later, and this is looking like a do-over.

[grb]

Bwaaah : “Don’t worry. Our government institutions are very stable."

And four years later Trump tried to overturn the voter's choice in an election he lost. So not so "absurdly over-the-top" as you thought, huh? If you were to see those two women again, I'm thinking they're due an apology.

[Bwaaah]

“And four years later Trump tried to overturn the voter’s choice in an election he lost.”

He contested the election. The governmental institutions, executive, legislative and judicial, rejected his arguments. And you think that’s evidence of an unstable system?

Pay attention to what actually happened, and not your unrequited fears. Get over yourself.

[EscherEnigma]

At this point, the real fear is that 2020 was a learning experience for Trump, and next time he'll do better. Current forecasts say we have a 50-50 shot of finding out soon.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump in office caused significant harm.

(Or changes, if you like.)

Elections matter. They do cause significant changes. A civil war like the one in 1860 or something not happening only goes so far.

[Roger S]

Yes, a do-over. We need to stop the schools and others from brainwashing teenaged girls like that.

[ducksalad]

Congratulations to you if you can really talk like that off the cuff. Congratulations to NYC if their 17-year olds are willing to listen to it.

But I agree with the content.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, our government institutions are too stable at times, to the point where elections can hardly change some policies even if the voters want them changed.

[grb]

Bad times! While at school back in the late-70s, I didn’t have the money for newspaper subscriptions. But each day I would do a loop thru the student center and had a plus-90% success rate collecting a whole WaPo and NY Times from discarded remnants, usually on the way to my gig working in the school cafeteria. In the 45yrs since, I have read those papers daily whenever I could – always getting print subscriptions if available where I lived. Until Friday.

Now, the sniveling cowardice of Bezos and lying from his hack limey publisher Lewis didn’t necessarily have to end this tradition of decades. But what other choice was there? Bezos barely bothered to cover-up the deal involved, with his Blue Origin execs arriving on Trump’s doorstep, hat-in-hand, immediately after the act of appeasement was publicly consummated. And Lewis didn’t bother devising a credible “explanation” for the change.

I canceled my subscription less than twenty minutes after the announcement. There’s been a real feeling of loss, but I didn’t think any other action was appropriate.

[Moderation4ever]

Newspaper endorsements are an American tradition, and I think the failure on the part of the large newspapers is cowardice. If you want to support Trump, just say so and be done. Not endorsing looks worse. It tells me who you want but also that you cannot even justify that decision. The craziest MAGA person can justify their vote for Trump, these newspapers should be able to do the same. They don't want to endorse because then they will sound like the craziest MAGA person.

[Mr. Bumble]

The LA Times and WAPO would endorse Trump?

By the way, when is staunch conservative Jen Rubin resigning?

[Roger S]

This shows she is not a conservative. She just pretended to be, so WaPo could pretend to have a conservative on staff.

[Brett Bellmore]

Newspaper endorsements ARE an American tradition; In fact, since American newspapers originated as party broadsheets, and only later became independent publications, you might say they preceded newspapers in this country.

But they were a better fit to the industry when they were honest about being partisan, and communities typically had competing papers with different party affiliations. Endorsements are kind of odd coming out of papers that pretend to be objective, aren't they? Make the joke a bit too obvious.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Endorsements are kind of odd coming out of papers that pretend to be objective, aren’t they?”

Endorsement are a form of editorial content. Would you say editorials are odd coming out of papers “that pretend to be objective”?

1. Lets assume you would say that. Are you aware how comically absurd that statement is?

2. Let’s assume you wouldn’t say that. Are you aware how comically absurd that leaves your reasoning above?

And that covers it all. Alas, you seem comically absurd either way.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Would you say editorials are odd coming out of papers “that pretend to be objective”?"

Yes, actually.

[grb]

Alrighty. You've picked your choice of absurdity and are running with it full bore, personal dignity slouched-off.

So when I read the WaPo's editorial page and flit from Marc Thiessen to Dana Milbank to George Will to Colbert King, I know I'm reading opinions on the opinion page. But poor Brett Bellmore is paralyzed with indecision because there's some kind of secret code exposing the paper's conspiratorial core in those op-eds and he can't work it out. Poor Brett Bellmore!

Likewise, when I read the Wall Street Journal news sections, I'm impressed with the depth and quality of their reporting. When I turn to the opinion pages, I'm likewise in awe of the lying, distortions and fever-dream lunacy. Those disparate reactions are easy for me since I had Fourth-Grade Civics and understand the difference between the news and opinion sections of papers.

But poor Brett Bellmore never had Fourth-Grade Civics (I'm guessing) and the difference has him befuddled - just like a dog endlessly chasing his own tail in confusion. At this point I wonder if I shouldn't explain the difference to Brett as an act of kindness.

(I'm a nice guy. Slowly, carefully, calmly explaining the difference in even measured tones would be such a nice thing to do)

[Bob from Ohio]

"I canceled my subscription less than twenty minutes after the announcement. "

The freak out over this has been beautiful. Just beautiful.

WaPo lost 77 million last year, I encourage denying it revenue. Even the second richest man in the world may get tired of his money losing hobby and shut it down!

[Roger S]

Yes, it says a lot about DC groupthink. These people have to be told how to vote. They would not have supported Harris, until they were told to.

[grb]

Bezos has offered us a dramatic glimpse into what Trump's America will look like, with abuse of governmental power so expected and common that businesses and the press censor themselves from fear of a thug ruler's revenge.

Thiat's the norm in foreign banana republics, but the U.S. hasn't faced it before - at least not at the highest levels. But Trump's rot spreads everywhere are destroy's whatever it touches.

[Commenter_XY]

What WaPo (Bezos?) did was show us what Biden and VP Word Salad's America looks like right now.

[Sarcastr0]

The motive seems to be fear of retribution from the federal government.

You know, Nazi shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

Mind reading. I thought you didn't like that?

[Commenter_XY]

It is only Ok when s/he does it, BfO.

[Sarcastr0]

No, the motive is pretty obvious to everyone not working hard to be willfully blind.

[Bob from Ohio]

"motive is pretty obvious to everyone not working hard to be willfully blind"

Pure speculation. Bunch of hysterical WaPo employees assert it so it must be true.

Bezos owned the WaPo in 2016 and 2020. Not afraid of Trump then, afraid now.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You mean exactly like what's happening to Elon?

Or is it only Nazi shit when your actions are turned against you?

[Brett Bellmore]

The motive seems to be fear of alienating half their potential market, given that their market is shrinking fast enough as it is.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, the many Trump supporting subscribers to the Washington Post.

You've really become a clown.

[ducksalad]

Well, he did write potential market. A publisher could rationally decide to expand his range of customers. I think there's still a market for not-openly-partisan news sources.

[Roger S]

Yes, Bezos bought WaPo so he could put it on the Amazon Kindle, and those readers do not want Democrat propaganda. Maybe next Bezos will fire the whole editorial opinion staff.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would take a lot more than just not formally endorsing the Democrat every election for anybody to mistake the Washington Post for a non-partisan news source. But I guess it's a step in the right direction.

[Sarcastr0]

Now you are arguing against yourself.

[Bwaaah]

I cancelled my WaPo subscription four years ago when they went back and cleaned up their old Kamala Harris articles. They did so by making stealth edits, i.e. they changed the old articles without leaving any indications they had done so. They got rid of her blemishes.

You canceled because they actively avoided expressing a particular opinion. I cancelled because they actively hid facts.

[grb]

Dropping LSD again, Bwaah? You know those hallucinations can get ya in serious trouble!

But seriously, I’ve love to see which of your handlers sold you this particular fairy tale – they being convinced (as always) you are brain-dead enough to believe whatever you’re told.

[Brett Bellmore]

LSD? The WaPo has been doing stealth edits for at least a decade now. Stealth edits have become endemic in the online publishing industry.

Stealth Editing & Transparency: Why Archiving Fact Checks Is Vital

[grb]

You’ll have to do much better than that, Brett. From Bwaaah’s loony-toons gibberish about the WaPo “cleaning up” old Harris stories to get “rid of her blemishes”, you provide one example of them rewriting a story in real-time to correct its facts.

Granted, what was described is definitely not good practice and deserves a smackdown, but it was still a universe away from Bwaaah’s tin-foil-hat nonsense.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s Reason. They said it may have been unintentional. And it was later corrected.

https://reason.com/2021/01/22/the-washington-post-memory-holed-kamala-harris-bad-joke-about-inmates-begging-for-food-and-water/

[grb]

Really? That’s the whole story behind Bwaaah’s crap?!?

Harris’ “blemish” which the WaPo “concealed” was only one unfunny joke about the rigors of campaigning?!? Which (lack of humor notwithstanding) only the most prudish snowflake would find objectionable anyway….

But what am I saying? The entire Right is all Snowflake all the time these days, in permanent victim-mode and high-indignation 24/7. So it’s entirely possible Bwaaah convinced himself this was a “great coverup” to hide “flaws” nobody else on the planet would see.

[Commenter_XY]

You asked for an example, and you were provided with one.

[grb]

Sorry; no. I asked for an example of the WaPo trying to hide Harris’ “blemishes”. The example doesn’t come close to that. Exactly what blemish are we talking about here? You couldn’t find one person in a hundred who would read Harris’ kvetching about life on the campaign trail and fall back on the fainting couch morally affronted.

Hell, I doubt you’d find one in a thousand! Who would this mythic person be? Someone upset about her lack of humor chops? Or maybe disappointed she didn’t face the election trail with more dignified stoicism? Or someone offended that she disparaged the plight of thirsty convicts?!?

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go defending this gibberish, XY? As I said above, professional practice should require a note after any edits. So the WaPo’s conduct is objectionable to be sure. But the idea this was done to cover-up some embarassing conduct is freaking pathetic. Very obviously so.

Bwaaah has an example of something the paper did wrong. Unsatisfied with that alone, he reverse-engineered a conspiracy from it. Too bad he looks clownish doing so.

[Bwaaah]

Conspiracy? What conspiracy do you imagine?

I described a particular actual thing that happened, and posted WaPo's own description of it (below). And you allege I made something up? You act as if I'm on drugs?

You're off the rails, buddy.

Media bias is a problem for me. Absence of media bias is a problem for you. Our differences are evident. No need to make shit up.

[Bwaaah]

From the Washington Post: Why did The Washington Post alter its profile of Maya Harris?

Here is the original story. Here is the story after modifications, and after they ultimately included a note saying it was modified (as a result of the public crying “foul!”).

They violated their own editorial rules. For you, grb. For you.

[Estragon]

It’s a great example of what Timothy Snyder calls “obeying in advance”

[Commenter_XY]

What explains the LA Times 'non endorsement'?

Bottom Line: Bezos is the owner of WaPo. The reporters are free to leave.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The reporters are free to leave."

A few have quit. Maybe that was the plan?

[hobie]

I see what you're saying. Bezos wants to keep his NASA contracts so he's censoring himself. I guess everyone sheds their principles for Trump

[Brett Bellmore]

Back in the late 70's, I read multiple newspapers at the library, particularly the (Republican) Detroit News, and the (Democratic) Detroit Free Press. I found that neither gave me the whole story, but they typically each told me about the parts of the story the other didn't care for me to know. So it was worth reading the Free Press, even if I agreed more with the News' editorial positions.

Then the Free Press started to go under, a JOA was arranged, and somehow, the newspaper that was going under wound up in charge of news gathering, while the successful, Pulitzer winning Detroit News ended up reduced to an editorial page and Sunday comic section. I guess running a Pulitzer winning news gathering operation was more expensive than turning out fishwrap?

And suddenly there was no point in reading two newspapers, because they both gave you the same take on everything.

That is, in miniature, the story of the decline of the newspaper industry. Market consolidation enabled the pretense of objectivity, (It's easier to pretend you're objective when nobody is contradicting you.) and with half the market unserved, the market shrank.

I think American newspapers need to return to their frankly and openly partisan origins, in order to survive. Nobody is stupid enough to believe they're objective, and they're just pissing off most of the market, because without ideological competition, they drift further and further from the political center.

[ducksalad]

I think American newspapers need to return to their frankly and openly partisan origins

Yes. but. They were openly partisan in their wording and choice of adjectives, in what they thought was interesting enough to print, in what they thought was interesting but needed to be kept quiet, and in who they considered to be an expert worthy of being quoted as an authority.

On the other hand, if they said a federal judge had just ordered a state to let noncitizens vote for president, you could be reasonably confident that if you looked at the actual order it would say something like that. Or if they said a state had banned saying the word "gay", you could look up the bill and it would actually do that. Or if they said a woman almost died because the law prohibited her from having an abortion, you'd find the law really did have no exception for life threatening situations. Or if they said illegal aliens were eligible for SNAP, you could go down to the welfare office and they'd verify that was true.

The problem now is that the openly-partisan news sources are willing to misrepresent stuff like that. I'm worried that in another 10 years even stuff like where a hurricane hit or whether a train derailed will be unreliable.

[Commenter_XY]

See, that is the thing. I bet most people are perfectly fine with partisan news organizations....provided they tell Readership of their bias upfront. Just don't represent yourself as objectively reporting the news, then.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, and the reason they're willing to misrepresent stuff like that is not having a competitor of the opposite persuasion ready to call them out on it.

[ducksalad]

Well, this started as a discussion about print newspapers serving a city, and maybe side by side at the newstand they do serve as a check on each other.

But I see no evidence that the presence of MSNBC inhibits Daily Caller from making stuff up, or vice versa.

[Lennyk78]

Yet when conservatives malign the NYTimes and WashPo, you people throw tantrums and say that we're intolerant of the truth. Which is it?

[Zarniwoop]

Is everyone familiar with the term “Schrodinger’s Douchebag”?

“I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico,” said Hinchcliffe, host of the “Kill Tony” podcast, speaking in New York, the city with the largest number of Puerto Ricans outside of the U.S. territory.

Hinchcliffe also made offensive comments about Latinos more broadly, going on a vulgar riff about how they “love making babies.”

The Trump campaign on Sunday night sought to distance itself from Hinchcliffe’s comments.

“This joke does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign,” Danielle Alvarez, a senior adviser to the campaign, said in a statement.

That’s not a “joke”, that’s parading racism for all to see, getting called on it, and trying to play it off as humor.

[hobie]

The question is, did Team Trump know the content before hand. I would presume that apart from Trump himself, everything at major campaign rallies are heavily scripted.

Well, Trump has manage to insult just about everyone now...only ones left are his beautiful Christians

[ducksalad]

Trump's view of Christians is like his view of the military. Uses weird words like "beautiful" to describe them in rallies, but really thinks they're suckers (the members of the congregation) and top-notch scam artists (the pastors).

[hobie]

Come to think of it, American pastors are a lot like autocrats. So I can see the attraction

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Not only was the stuff fed into the teleprompter, they didn't just invite people to these things off the street. The guy has a reputation for racist remarks.

[Frank Drackman]

So does Al Sharpton, and he's on PMS-NBC almost every morning.

[not guilty]

It appears that the Trump campaign vetted Hinchcliffe's shtick in advance, excising one of his jokes calling Vice President Harris a "cunt." The Bulwark reports:

Campaign staffers had asked all speakers to submit drafts of their speeches ahead of time—before they were loaded into the teleprompter—according to the aforementioned sources. Once the objectionable “cunt” joke was spotted, the sources said, a staffer asked Hinchcliffe to strike it. He complied.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trumps-shock-comic-was-set-to-call

[Mr. Bumble]

This is all you've got?
You're becoming Il Douche II.

[Estragon]

NBC reporting that he workshopped it at a comedy club the night before. Brilliant electoral strategy!

[not guilty]

The Archbishop of San Juan, Roberto González Nieves, has called upon Donald Trump to personally apologize for Hinchcliffe's remarks. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1091034849696330&set=pcb.1091014499698365

Will Trump, who never apologizes for anything, now shit or go blind?

[Mr. Bumble]

Really?
Np Trump Law to comment on?

[Lennyk78]

If Puerto Rico was so great, why did they all flee to the mainland? Outside of stupid guidos in NYC, you don't see most European-Americans bragging about how great their ancestral homeland is.

[Estragon]

Apparently the Trump people had this guy take out another “joke” … which means they saw this one and liked it. They had this denial from Ms Alvarez teed up in advance which was obvious given they actually issued it while the rally was still going on.

It’s a curious electoral strategy to say the least, but judging by the enthusiasm from the hucklers here it’s the kind of comedy the Trump base wants to hear.

[EscherEnigma]

Eh, Trump has always done better at appealing to the base then appealing to the mid. There's a reason he's lost the popular vote 2-for-2, and even if he wins the electoral vote next week, it's likely he'll lose the popular vote for a third time.

[Estragon]

To me, what this says loud and clear is that they are not trying to win in any conventional democratic sense. They are counting on fuckery and the courts. Depressingly likely to work, I’m afraid. The drop box torching is part and parcel.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The Big Cheat is already going on in PA. It's so bad even the RNC is complaining, and they're usually in on the gig.

[Commenter_XY]

Really? What might that be? = The Big Cheat

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1850922327317311542/photo/1

Democrat election officials are turning away Republican voters, giving them illegal election disinformation, and suppressing their votes by telling them their votes won’t count because they’re Republicans.

Typical Democrat 2020 Nazi Big Steal shit.

[David Nieporent]

There is no evidence that this happened at all, of course. This is Trump claiming that the RNC claimed that unnamed voters claimed something, and even the initial claim didn't say one word about "Democrat[sic] election officials."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There is never enough evidence for you to get you to believe Democrats cheat in elections.

Just like there is never enough money to fund a Democrat policy to success.

[David Nieporent]

You're right; there is never enough evidence. The rational person would conclude that this is because it didn't happen.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Unless it's being claimed by a Democrat.

Then it's the gospel truth!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://prod-static.gop.com/media/documents/let_10-28-2024_to_SOS_re_MB_office_issues_1730084097.pdf

Letter from RNC lawyers.

Of course, since they're not Democrats they must be lying!! And lying about an elections HARMS OUR SACRED DEMOCRACY!

[SimonP]

Reading about ballot box vandalism in various states. Seems to vindicate MAGA complaints about election security. I hadn't realized you all were talking about safeguarding ballots from you.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Haha yeah, the MAGA terrorists were firebombing those ballot boxes in rural Red Washington State!

Thats so true!

[Estragon]

“Rural red Washington state.”

Uh, no, that does not describe Vancouver, WA. The incumbent in that district is a democrat. And it also happened across the river in Multnomah County.

[Estragon]

You don’t happen to drive an early 2000s Volvo sedan, do you? Does Joe Kent?

[Commenter_XY]

Something I wonder about. I recently read an article where self-described people on the Left are absolutely terrified at the prospect of what might happen to them personally when Pres Trump is re-elected.

What do you think will actually happen to you, an American citizen, who has left-leaning political views when Pres Trump is sworn into office?

This is a serious question.

[Commenter_XY]

Here are some examples of what self-described left-leaning American citizens have stated they are actually personally afraid of, when Pres Trump is re-elected.

Will be rounded up and sent to internment camps
Will be retaliated against at job, and lose employment
Will have children taken away from them
Will have personal property vandalized
Will be audited by the IRS
Will be subject of investigation by law enforcement
Will be imprisoned on sham charges

Is this for real?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Since you provided no source for your claims, it is safe to assume that a lying shit such as yourself is just lying more and trying to stir up drama. Of course that can't be true, because you've pinky-swore to everyone here that you aren't actually a Trump supporter! It is just a complete coincidence that your comments consistently support him and attack Harris, I'm sure.

Perhaps you should quote what Trump has actually said he's going to do, like using the military to go after the 'radical left,' and the Pelosi's, and Adam Schiff, etc.

[jb]

People are scared because he is saying scary things:

I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.

One rough hour — and I mean real rough. The word will get out, and it will end immediately.

Is this all bluster? I have no idea. Will various American institutions stop him from his worst instincts, as they mostly did during his first administration? Hopefully! But we see a lot of people in forums like this saying he won't be so naive as to appoint people who believe in America's institutions this time, and it's likely that if he wins the Presidency that Republicans will also control the Senate so there won't be much of a check on his ability to appoint whoever he wants.

But I'm less worried about what he'll do to me than the risks to America's institutions. I want for there to continue to be peaceful transitions of power, elections that people generally believe in, etc. Trump has done so much to undermine that even without having the levers of power, it's very concerning to me to imagine what he might be able to do with an administration intent on mischief.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

jb, you have the cause and effect reversed.

People don't have faith in our institutions and our elections because our institutions and elections are corrupt and insecure. The behavior of the people who make up and operate the institutions are the cause of the loss of faith.

Not anything Trump says. Trump is observing and reacting to the behavior of our institutions and tapping into what people already believe. He's not the cause of the loss of faith. He's the result of it.

[jb]

Nope. I found this story of a Republican election administrator in Nevada being recalled basically because she wouldn't admit to random election conspiracy theories a really sad statement of what Trump has done to taint trust in institutions in the country:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/us/politics/nevada-election-clerk-trump.html

This woman was a Republican, oversaw the election in a county where the vote tally went overwhelmingly for Republicans, was personally known by many of the people calling for her recall, but still wasn't trusted to do the job simply because she actually tried to explain how elections worked instead of reinforcing misinformation. That's where the deranged mind of the Republican party has gotten today.

[Armchair]

Do you believe the NY Times? The article is paywalled, but this sounds "too good to be true".

[jb]

I read a lot of the articles you post and try to understand if they are true or not, and if they are true how they help me understand the world. You should give it a try instead of just dismissing content based on where it was published. Seems like a well-reported article with lots of direct quotes, and as far as I know none of the people involved have come out and said it was misleading. Here's a paywall-free version:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/us/politics/nevada-election-clerk-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Vk4.2-jh.GmlsUKehFWWr&smid=url-share

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wow that one story proves all of our institutions are trustworthy and our elections are secure and the only reason people distrust them is because of what Trump said post 2020!

That's so true!

[Commenter_XY]

jb...POTUS Trump had a Team R senate 2017-18 = when he wins the Presidency that Republicans will also control the Senate so there won’t be much of a check on his ability to appoint whoever he wants -- I don't see any difference as a check.

Let me ask you about your institutional point. Suppose, just theoretically as a thought experiment, that many some a few of those institutions in DC have become corrupt, for whatever reason. It happens. If the DC institution is corrupt, shouldn't a POTUS Trump change it summarily and immediately, where he has the power to do so?

[jb]

"POTUS Trump had a Team R senate 2017-18"

The Republican party was considerably less in the thrall of Trump in 2018 than in 2024. Heck, back then you had people like JD Vance saying he was like Hitler and Mitch McConnell was trying to fight the fight for institutional integrity. Now Vance is Trump's running mate and McConnell has acknowledged that he can't do the job any more because he's not Trumpy enough.

As for your institutional question, I have two responses:

1) It's hard to think of many people with less credibility than Trump at making an institution less corrupt, so no I don't want POTUS Trump to try to do that.
2) But let's assume for your hypothetical that we're talking about an extremely virtuous and credible President. I think if a President wanted to make significant changes to institutions, that they'd want/need to do a lot of work to bring the public along with those changes. Figure out how to make a strong showing of the corruption of that organization, show your plan to improve it and the people who you've chosen to implement the changes, and make sure that they are virtuous and credible as well. Ideally you'd want to do this through a nonpartisan or bipartisan lens. Garfield's reform of the spoils system and postal corruption (which ultimately resulted in his assassination), for example, built on investigations from Congress and involved referrals to the criminal justice system. Similarly, post-Watergate reforms involved significant buy-in from both the executive and Congressional branches. So no, I don't think a President should just unilaterally "reform" a supposedly corrupt organization on their own; that seems to involve too much risk of its own corruption.

[Commenter_XY]

Well to be fair, Pres Garfield was politically hobbled by the nature of his victory in 1876. Hence, the need for more extensive Congressional involvement than would have otherwise been required.

I have the distinct impression that the limits of a 'Unitary Executive' are about to be explored, albeit from a different political perspective.

[Bob from Ohio]

Whoopi Goldberg [not a Jew!] claimed today Trump is going to break up interracial marriages and redistribute the white spouses:

"He's going to deport and you put the white guy with someone else"
"The man is out there!"

Poor Mrs. Vance. Who gets JD?

[Commenter_XY]

Wait....that can't be right. She really said that, with conviction, BfO? Like she actually believed it?

It wasn't something like a joke done in poor taste, was it?

This was on national TV?

[hobie]

Folks...this is how easily the MAGA brain migrates. Ready to believe anything but objective reality. And the fact of feeding off other MAGAs for information is icing on the cake.

[Commenter_XY]

I looked. Sure as hell, she said that on The View to a national television audience. 5:37 in the embedded X video. What is there to say?

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2024/10/28/whoopi-goldberg-claims-trump-will-dismantle-interracial-marriages-redistribute-white-spouses/

[Bwaaah]

It's hard for me to watch Whoopi's non-stop, dripping, contemptuous looks. I tuned out when she started to go on about how people don't want to be spoken down to. What a pill. And evidently proudly so.

[hobie]

I voted early, Bob. If either you or your kit or ken care to vote, I've already cancelled it. But one thing's for certain...gerrymandering is going down in Ohio. Now try to win a race in this state without Soviet-style, democracy-killing influence. I tell ya, Bob. I'm gonna enjoy myself in this new state

[SimonP]

Here's what I'm expecting:

If Trump pursues his promised trade policy with gusto, my savings are likely to suffer dramatically.

If Trump privatizes or defunds Medicare, my mother (who lives in an assisted living facility partly in reliance on Medicare subsidies - as is the case for many people's older relatives) will become more financially dependent upon her children, only a few of whom will have the resources to support her.

If Trump appoints more conservative judges and justices, we may see the continued erosion of our constitutional "privacy rights," meaning that I travel with my partner in red states only at the risk of criminal prosecution. Which would suck, given that my parents live in one.

Trump is sure to yank funding for infrastructure projects that are intended to bolster the NEC economy and NYC-area transportation projects, meaning more subway delays, possibly catastrophic infrastructure collapses, higher local taxes and fees, etc. Never mind that Trump is unlikely to be able to handle another Hurricane Sandy-type event.

If Trump comes for undocumented immigrants as he has promised, housing prices are sure to skyrocket in NYC, as many of our construction workers are spirited away to labor camps while their asylum claims are processed.

If Trump wins, he's sure to use the DOJ investigation to extract concessions from Adams, likely resulting in deferred prosecution while Adams attempts to salvage his mayoral career. That means more corruption and incompetent management for us, as well as the imposition of Trump-dictated policies, notwithstanding the will of the City Council.

The increasingly blatant targeting of minorities is likely to shrink the cultural space in which I feel free to be affectionate with my partner in public, even within the city. You never know when a tourist or itinerant MAGA chode will take it upon himself to exact instant "justice" on a pair of gay men.

Do I expect Trump's DOJ to target me, specifically, for my online pseudonymous criticism of him and the rest of you? No, I am sure that I will not be sticking my head out enough to get whacked. But we can see the sorts of self-censorship that outlets like the WaPo are engaging in at the mere prospect of his being president again.

But I also can't predict what the rest of you would do, if you had Trump in the WH, a concerted DOJ campaign targeting critics, and, let's say, a "hotline" for you cranks to call. I am less concerned about what Trump will do, than what you will feel emboldened and entitled to do. Trump may not shut down the gay bars, but you might bomb them. Trump is not going to send the FBI to beat me in the street, but you might take that upon yourself.

You're all brownshirts in waiting. That's why you like Trump. That's why his fascist promises don't faze you.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If Trump appoints more conservative judges and justices, we may see the continued erosion of our constitutional “privacy rights,” meaning that I travel with my partner in red states only at the risk of criminal prosecution. Which would suck, given that my parents live in one.

…

The increasingly blatant targeting of minorities is likely to shrink the cultural space in which I feel free to be affectionate with my partner in public, even within the city. You never know when a tourist or itinerant MAGA chode will take it upon himself to exact instant “justice” on a pair of gay men.

You cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously here.

[SimonP]

Say my partner and I decide to visit Texas after their sodomy law is permitted to go back into effect. We go to Austin and check into a hotel. The person at the front desk gives us a look.

Maybe we have something to worry about, maybe we don't. What reason do we have to believe that the front desk person doesn't have an agenda that could ruin our trip, and our lives?

Same with walking around in public. I'm sure you take Jewish students at Columbia 100% seriously when they say that they're afraid to walk around campus with visible indicators of their faith. Are you lecturing them about not assuming the worst about passers-by, or do you recognize that even the slightest increment of risk of attack can result in a significant impact on the feeling of safety?

[Mr. Bumble]

In Austin the "look" will probably be looking for an invitation to join you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

SimonP is one of the more intelligent, serious, and honest posters around this entire blog.

Why would you presume he isn't being serious about the consequences of "conservatives" being allowed to enforce sodomy laws again and targeting the people they don't like, as they are literally doing already?

[hobie]

Noscitur, are you unaware of the laws currently in place in Texas criminalizing travel and medicine?

[Brett Bellmore]

"If Trump comes for undocumented immigrants as he has promised, housing prices are sure to skyrocket in NYC, as many of our construction workers are spirited away to labor camps while their asylum claims are processed."

I find myself wondering what you think the ratio of illegal immigrant construction workers to illegal immigrants occupying housing is. Must think it's awfully high, for the vacancies created by the non-construction worker illegals being sent home to not lower housing costs.

[Sarcastr0]

It is pretty silly to think that a sudden and extreme change to our labor pool would not have a precipitous effect on the economy.

You can argue it's worth it, but pretending it'd be no big thang is just about economically illiterate.

[EscherEnigma]

I believe the fantasy is that all the people currently sitting outside the labor pool would suddenly re-enter and take all those bottom-rung jobs (which are suddenly offering wages Americans will take, but not drive up prices for goods and services).

Never-mind that a lot of those people are various shades of "student", "stay-at-home parent", "primary caregiver for elderly", and "disabled".

[Life of Brian]

(which are suddenly offering wages Americans will take, but not drive up prices for goods and services)

I'm puzzled why the endless patient explanations by Very Smart People that significantly hiking the minimum wage won't materially raise the price of a Big Mac would suddenly not apply here.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Cite someone who took both positions.

Or are you just attributing every theory you don’t like to “the left” and then charging hypocrisy not recognizing that what you call “the left” is actually made up of many individuals with disparate views and economic understanding/beliefs?

Yes, of course, increasing the minimum wage will necessarily cause upward pressure on prices as the marginal cost of product X (e.g., a hamburger and fries) went up.

It is also true that removing millions of undocumented workers from relatively low paying or otherwise undesirable jobs will necessarily result in some combination of fewer products/services (which puts upward pressure on prices) and higher labor costs for employers (which puts upward pressure on prices).

Trump’s mass deportation plan is massively inflationary (not just because of the effect of the removals discussed above, but also the costs (direct and indirect) of actually achieving the removals and the disruptions that causes to individuals, families, and businesses, many of whom will have proven to be perfectly legal or even U.S. citizens, but who got deported anyway).

[Commenter_XY]

Did inflation go up massively in the aftermath of Operation Wetback?

What is the actual historical record? Because I don't think the historical record even remotely supports your contention about mass deportations being massively inflationary.

You want to try making that case?

[Brett Bellmore]

Operation Wetback was in 1954. We began getting off the gold standard in '33, and finished getting off the gold standard in 1971.

Historical inflation rates.

Inflation doesn't seem to have any correlation with Operation Wetback, but does seem very correlated with ending the gold standard. I don't think that, so long as we were on it, you COULD get inflation from something like Operation Wetback.

If it had been economically damaging, the damage would have shown up in some other form. But I can't find any evidence in employment statistics, prices, anything, that it had any significant economic impact.

[Commenter_XY]

The point is, it was a completely erroneous assertion. Total bullshit. There is zero evidence in the US record to suggest that mass deportation is inflationary.

But hey, if he'd like to try and make that case, I'm listening.

[Brett Bellmore]

I knew it was erroneous, I was born in the late 50's, if Operation Wetback had caused any significant inflation, the inflation of the 70's wouldn't have shocked people so.

But I do like to check the numbers just to make sure I'm not harboring a mistaken impression; Not everything you 'know' to be erroneous is guaranteed to be so, after all.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You guys can circle jerk to googling inflation numbers, but, aside from the rather obvious points I made, you do realize economists have actually run the numbers and, guess what, find it will be inflationary.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mass-deportation-immigraiton-plan-federal-reserve-inflation-2024-9

[Magister]

Operation Wetback didn't do much to decrease the number of Mexican workers in this country; from Wikipedia:

During the entirety of the Operation, border recruitment of illegal workers by American growers continued, due largely to the low cost of illegal labor, and the desire of growers to avoid the bureaucratic obstacles of the Bracero program. The continuation of illegal immigration, despite the efforts of Operation Wetback, along with public outcry over many US citizens removed, was largely responsible for the failure of the program.

One should further note that 1954 also saw a post-Korean War recession, which would tend to reduce inflation. Operation Wetback and earlier deportations of Latinos caused a lot of suffering and even deported American citizens. Trump proposes to deport 10 times as many people as Operation Wetback, while the US population is only slightly over double what it was in 1954; given Trump's long history of incompetence and cruelty to immigrants, it seems likely his plan will cause more suffering and deport more citizens.

Increasing labor costs would surely be passed onto consumers, in the same way that Trump's tariffs would increase prices. (The latter is undoubtedly more a concern for inflation.) But it's not "completely erroneous" or "total bullshit" either; it's telling that Trump cultists like Commenter_XY and Brett Bellmore are all over the inflation argument with no concern for the human suffering argument.

[Commenter_XY]

NOVA lawyer, I take it that as no, you won’t try to make that case. You don’t have one. Case dismissed, with prejudice. 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

Nova, I was addressing Commenter XY's question. Historically, Operation Wetback wasn't inflationary, but as we were still on the gold standard to some extent, it would have been hard put to be inflationary, any economic harm would have to have been expressed in some other manner.

We are, of course, not on the gold standard today, and you can cause inflation today by glancing at the dollar wrong.

[Magister]

I offered several reasons Operation Wetback did not cause inflation in 1954. The continued desire of you Trump cultists to ignore the human cost of Trump's ugly plan in favor of arguing an irrelevant point is appalling.

[Commenter_XY]

Murdered Americans isn't enough of a cost for you, is it Magister?

[Magister]

Deporting American citizens who suffer or die as a result is another cost, and looks to be bigger. There aren't 10 to 20 million people who have committed murders in this country, and whether citizens or not they are entitled to due process before penalties are imposed. And citizens commit crimes and murders at higher rates than noncitizens.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, it's cool. Musk says sure the economy will crash, but it'll be a neccessary temporary hardship as the new world struggles to be born.
Or something like that.

https://x.com/brianbeutler/status/1851271462268567665

Not sure the Trump voters are in on the 'crash the economy' plan.

[NOVA Lawyer]

NOVA lawyer, I take it that as no, you won’t try to make that case. You don’t have one.

I briefly explained the forces that would cause it. Then I cited to economists with more in depth analysis. I'm not sure you know what making the case means. You want an in-depth 75,000 word economics article in these comments?

Case dismissed, with prejudice.

Running away and attempting to declare the conversation over rather than engaging on substance? It looks as weak as it is.

[EscherEnigma]

"I’m puzzled why the endless patient explanations by Very Smart People that significantly hiking the minimum wage won’t materially raise the price of a Big Mac would suddenly not apply here."
Why would you be puzzled that you haven't heard an argument that routinely is a loser 'round here applied to a new domain?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm puzzled by people who think that's an argument, when I've been quite explicit that one of the purposes of suppressing illegal immigration is exactly to drive up unskilled wages. By changing the supply curve, rather than simply mandating that supply and demand not balance.

Of course that's going to drive up the cost of things made with unskilled labor. The taxes necessary to maintain a welfare system don't drive up costs, too? We think people having paying jobs is better than their being unemployed and getting public assistance.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You think undocumented immigrants on construction jobs are typically building the types of houses and apartment buildings that they will live in? Odd.

Housing isn't fungible.

I would assume it's both true and common knowledge that undocumented immigrants are less likely to own a home, more likely to live in high density housing, and more likely to live in older, undesirable buildings than are documented workers and/or citizens.

A person who can't buy the $800,000 townhome or condo in or near NYC because it is now a $1M townhome/condo is unlikely to go "oh joy, I found a $2000/mo studio apartment!" Instead, they will then bid up the prices of the next best housing, which would push middle to lower middle income owners renters into less desirable housing, which will then also be bid up, and, eventually, some people will end up with relatively cheaper, but inferior, housing than they had before. There are studies that show this is the kind of thing that happens.

Thus, the upward pressure on housing costs due to slowed or halted new construction of housing in NYC (and elsewhere) may be slightly ameliorated by the opening up of housing where the undocumented workers lived, but the overall effect will be to drive up housing prices and lower the quality of housing available for most people. (Including because the cost of new construction will also go up.....as will the costs of a host of agricultural products and other products that, at various stages, rely fairly heavily on undocumented labor).

[bernard11]

What is dispiriting here is that Brett seems to have no problem with the roundup and internment of millions of people who, Trump's lies notwithstanding, are for the most part honest working individuals doing necessary but unattractive jobs.

And does it ever occur to Brett that maybe the housing occupied by these workers isn't where there are shortages, or is too low quality to appeal to lots of buyers? No.

Does it occur to him what will happen to food prices when millions of agricultural workers disappear? No.

Does it occur to him that when you round up millions of people on the grounds they are undocumented (just used that word to piss Brett off) you're going to make mistakes, lots of mistakes, and put some legal immigrants in the camps, maybe separate some families, and it's going to take years to straighten all that out, assuming Trump cares, which he doesn't. No.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's dispiriting here is that you seem to have no problem with democratically popular laws being openly defied on a mass scale, it's their actually being enforced that offends you. Your basic principle here seems to be,

"Screw the rule of law! Laws I like will be enforced even if they violate the Constitution. Laws I dislike will not be enforced, even if perfectly constitutional. And screw the voters, too, if they don't like it!"

If you actually managed to get mass immigration without vetting, Somin's dream, enacted by Congress, I'd be unhappy, sure. But I'd be unhappy for ordinary "lost a political argument" values of unhappy. Because that would be the rule of law and democracy functioning for once.

But that's not what's been happening. Public opinion has been consistently hostile to illegal immigration for decades, Congress keeps the immigration laws on the books, and They Just Don't Get Enforced. Year after year after year. Deliberately, Presidents have violated their oaths of office, and their constitutional duty to 'take care that the law be faithfully executed'. Congress has deliberately underfunded enforcement, while making noises about wanting the law upheld. And you think nobody was aware of what was going on?

Then along comes an administration that wants to uphold a popular law, and you treat it like the second coming of Pol Pot.

Well, screw YOU, and your outrage. You think this could go on forever? That the mounting public outrage would never, ever find an outlet?

You'd better pray that Trump gets elected, and starts an orderly process of ejecting our illegal immigrant population, because he's actually something of a moderate on the subject, if you can look clearly through your hysteria. He actually doesn't want to eject every last one of them.

If you can keep the pressure cooker welded shut for another 4 years, the next guy to come along and exploit that anger won't be half as nice. And you've demonstrated no capacity at all to change public opinion in your favor, as opposed to just openly ignoring it.

[Sarcastr0]

Once again, you don’t know the ANA and presume it insists on maximum enforcement.

It doesn’t.

Or course you think illegals have a tendency towards criminality based on thinking hard via your own vibes, so you are coming in with some pretty strong and bigoted priors.

[bernard11]

You’d better pray that Trump gets elected, and starts an orderly process of ejecting our illegal immigrant population, because he’s actually something of a moderate on the subject, if you can look clearly through your hysteria.

Orderly process? WTF are you smoking? It's not going to be orderly, and it's not going to be accurate. People will be killed. Citizens will be caught in the roundup. And maybe you can point me to where he said he doesn't want to deport them all. Remember, he thinks, or has said, that they are overwhelmingly criminals, drug smugglers, spies, etc.

And what is this nonsense about a popular law? You're aware that a large majority of the public favors DACA, for example? You don't, I'm sure, but that's you, and some of your buddies.

Besides, yeah, I'm willing to look beyond the fact that someone came in illegally 15 years ago and look at what they did during the intervening years. Call it my personal statute of limitations.

It's not the law per se I object to. Go ahead and tighten the border. It's the stupidity, waste, destructiveness, and inhumanity of Trump's "moderate" proposal.

[EscherEnigma]

The funny thing about all this is that if you really wanted to crack down on illegal immigration, you would stop worrying about the supply. There are always going to be desperate people that are hoping they'll be the lucky one, after all. No, you'd go after the demand: the people employing them.

Start aggressively going after and locking up people for hiring people unauthorized to work in the US, and the people that came here for jobs will go elsewhere, leaving the asylum claims (who, you know, aren't illegal to begin with) and those who are here for family but not in the workforce (or the social safety net).

[NOVA Lawyer]

This. But, of course, it's always preferable to a certain type of person to go after the weak and vulnerable rather than after the people exploiting the weak and vulnerable. Brett's gonna do Brett.

[SimonP]

I have seen zero evidence, and have zero reason to believe, that illegal immigrants are the sole or even a primary reason that housing prices are stubbornly high. Do you blame them for higher grocery prices, as well? Higher gas and energy prices? If your insinuation had any merit, immigrant demand for goods and services would also have to be driving inflation all around, right?

No, immigrants are not the cause of all of our problems, and tariffs are not the solution too all of our problems. Housing prices are stubbornly high because we are not building enough housing where people want to live. It's really just that simple. You can pick and choose any housing market in the country and see what's happening.

[Commenter_XY]

SimonP, that is quite The Parade of Horribles. Let's hope we get what we got the last time with President Trump; economic growth, low inflation, cheap and abundant energy, relative peace through strength, enduring peace treaties in the Abraham Accords.

I am thinking back to 2017-2019, and was life so bad? No.

The pandemic changed everything, I readily grant you that.

[Josh R]

Just forget about the part where he tried to steal an election to block the peaceful transfer of power.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you know what I remember? A damned riot at the Capitol Building on January 6th that was a national disgrace. And then two weeks later, on January 20th, Joseph R Biden was sworn in as POTUS.

[Bwaaah]

Yep. Trump didn't even come close to overturning the election. Republicans and Democrats alike in government rejected his challenges. And that, to these people, is evidence of how close to the edge we are.

These people live in their heads, and in their fears. Life on the ground is apparently ambiguous and uncompelling to them. What actually happened doesn't seem to really matter. What could happen is everything.

A whole lot about not much, really.

[bernard11]

Trump didn’t even come close to overturning the election.

Because he, and his helpers, are morons. He certainly tried hard enough.

It's easy to laugh at failed coup attempts, until one succeeds.

[Josh R]

It appears you forgot all of the following:

Fake electors being submitted to Congress. Pressuring state officials to not certify or deceritfy results. Pressuring the Justice Department to declare there was fraud. Pressuring the VP to unilaterality reject electors. Calling the mob to DC and doing nothing to stop the riot for 2 hours while rooting for the rioters.

Yes, Biden was sworn in. I hope you aren't invoking the Sideshow Bob defense?

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you know what *I* remember? Massive riots for several years, causing billions in property damage, and dozens of deaths. Attempts to burn government buildings to the ground with people inside. "Autonomous zones" being set up in cities, with the lawful authorities violently excluded, and the people inside living in terror.

That's what I recall, and it wasn't taken half as seriously as a simple riot that was over in a few hours with the only casualty being one of the rioters.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes we know you have selective memory that exaggerates or ignores as needed so you can love in a political thriller chock full of evil conservative killing liberals.

You are on a tear of dire bullshit this morning.

Trump is special. And bad.

Arguing Biden or Obama or Harris were or are special and bad requires a pretty distorted view.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're the one with the selective memory here. Well, demanding selective memory, anyway.

January 6th would have been utterly shocking if it had happened in isolation. It it had occurred in the 80's, say, or the 90's. Everything calm and peaceful, and then out of nowhere, a mob breaks into the Capitol! Outrageous! Unprecedented!

But it didn't happen in isolation, it didn't happen in a calm and peaceful country. Let me remind you that Democrats mounted an effort to suborn Trump's electors in 2016, to keep him from winning the EC vote. It failed, sure, but they tried it.

Then they rioted at his inauguration. A lot of the people who'd come for the inauguration weren't able to attend thanks to that.

And it didn't stop there. There were riots all through the Trump administration, left wing riots. As I said, billions in property damage, dozens dead, organized attempts to burn down public buildings with people inside.

Compared to what preceded it, the January 6th riot was a dish falling over after an earth quake. It wasn't even "fiery"! And would it even have happened if the FBI hadn't had people in the Proud Boys egging them on? Half that organization's leadership were working for the FBI!

You want to ignore all that, pretend that January 6th was some out of the blue violence, rather than actually pretty tame by the standards of what preceded it. They didn't even try to set the Capitol on fire, the amateurs!

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, trying to drag in other events to excuse January 06 is just excuse making.

And trying to put the summer of 2020 on the Biden Admin is just bullshit.

As for the ‘riots at Trump's inauguration’ you’re editing reality again. There was like a car and a trashcan. And a lot of coverage.

You're excusing an attack on democracy. You seem to come down on the side that Dems cannot legitimately get elected. Always cheating and plotting and planning to kill kill kill the other side.

Thus do you rationalize being one of the more open authoritarians on here, hilariously claiming to be a libertarian.

[Brett Bellmore]

I observe, not for the first time, that you react to context the way a vampire does to sunlight.

"As for the ‘riots at Trump’s inauguration’ you’re editing reality again. There was like a car and a trashcan. And a lot of coverage."

Hm, which put the cops in the hospital, the car, or the trashcan?

Your SOP is pathetically obvious: No amount of violence at a left wing event elevates it to a "riot", it's just over-excitable people, perfectly normal.

OTOH, if any violence at ALL happens at a right-wing event, it's the end of the world, a threat to democracy. Even though it's much less violence than you routinely dismiss as meaningless coming from the left.

If it weren't for the double standard, you'd have no standard at all.

[Sarcastr0]

That you don't understand the institutional threat that made January 06 something people are getting especially excited about is your particular issue.

[Magister]

The obvious problem with January 6th compared to any other protests turned riot is that the sitting president incited it and celebrated it, and was fine with his followers hanging his vice president (something not seen in this country since president and vice president have been elected as a ticket, and maybe not even then), and that it was aimed at replacing the legitimate executive branch. It's much more credible to claim that the violence at BLM protests was caused by right wing provocateurs than to claim that January 6th rioters were antifa, FBI or tourists.

[not guilty]

Shorter Brett:

Tu quoque now!
Tu quoque tomorrow!!
Tu quoque fo'evah!!!

[Brett Bellmore]

"he obvious problem with January 6th compared to any other protests turned riot is that the sitting president incited it and celebrated it,"

The obvious problem is that, no, the sitting President DIDN'T incite it. Or else he'd have been charged with inciting it by now. The January 6th attack on the Capitol was pulled off, premeditatedly, by the Proud Boys, who were under such intensive surveillance by the feds that if Trump had ANYTHING legally relevant to do with the attack, they'd have been able to prove it.

There's actually a stronger case for the FBI inciting January 6th, than for Trump having done it! They WERE in continual communications with the Proud Boys, about half the Proud Boys' leadership were working for the FBI in one capacity or another.

[Sarcastr0]

Not doing a Brandenburg incitement is not the same as not inciting based on common parlance.

As can be seen in indictment, which goes into Trump's twitter posts leading up to January 06.

[Magister]

Trump incited the riot just like he raped E. Jean Carroll; New York law defines rape more narrowly than ordinary people do, as the judge noted in that case. And Trump was indicted for the incitement of the January 6th insurrection (among many other acts), and the superseding indictment did not remove those allegations.

Al Capone was prosecuted not for murder or racketeering but for income tax violations. Prosecutors often pursue lesser charges that are more certain to lead to conviction.

[David Nieporent]

And it didn’t stop there. There were riots all through the Trump administration, left wing riots. As I said, billions in property damage, dozens dead, organized attempts to burn down public buildings with people inside.

What riots were there during the Trump administration before the murder of George Floyd?

And of course the only public building burned down was by a Trump supporter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo-boi-minneapolis-police-building-george-floyd

[Josh R]

A simple riot? It was an integral part of an attempt to steal an election. But, I guess that's no big deal?

[bernard11]

And what I hear every day is his refusal to admit he lost the election, and some weaselly support for that from his cultists.

[SimonP]

Unlike you, CXY, I do not believe in magical thinking. Simply putting Trump into the WH will not bring about anything. What matters is the policy promises.

The economic growth we had under Trump – and which has continued under Biden after the pandemic slump – was not due to anything he did that you can point to. Opening up some national parks to oil and gas exploration and reducing red tape are not sufficient to drive expansion in any material way. He didn’t preside over any significant spending plan (until the great, corrupt PPP giveaway he managed, and which helped drive the years of inflation that followed). He basically just stayed out of the economy’s way.

Is that what he promises to do in a second term? No, it is not. He wants to repeal the CHIPS Act, he wants to roll back investment in green energy, he wants to impose tariffs on all imports, he wants to upend monetary policy, and he’s talking about eliminating the income tax while cutting trillions from the federal budget.

The same story goes for “low inflation.” What has Trump promised, that will bring that about? Everything he has promised will increase inflation and undermine the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

“Cheap and abundant energy” – again, Trump is talking about divesting from programs that diversify and subsidize our energy sources, to double-down on fossil fuels. But more oil and gas exploration within the US will not bring energy prices down. That is not how for-profit companies work. Oil companies do not drill for oil because they want to make less per barrel of oil sold. They want prices to be high. That’s what boosts their profits and pays for exploration. That’s why OPEC exists. You can approve all the permits you like, but companies like Chevron will not use them if they look at markets and conclude that putting more oil on the market will reduce their profit margins. The only way that Trump’s “drill baby drill” policy would bring down energy prices is if he somehow compels private actors to cooperate.

“Peace through strength” is again, geopolitical nonsense. As he did on trade, Trump wants to concede American hegemony supported by alliances among regional partners for a solipsism where America goes it alone. Withdrawing from NATO will not make us stronger. Distancing ourselves from our allies and making concessions to dictators will not make us stronger. We can have the largest and most powerful military in the world, but we cannot achieve “peace” by wielding the biggest stick in every arena. The only “peace” that Trump offers is that of total surrender to the interests of China, Russia, Israel, India, etc.

I did okay through 2017-2019, personally, notwithstanding waking up every single morning to some new chaos caused by Trump, and dreading what he might next do. My best-case scenario for his re-election is that he (and his office) will prove just as lazy, incompetent, and self-sabotaging as his first term did. I hope that the mass detention of immigrants will just be his new “build the wall” policy – promised but ultimately set aside when it proved too hard. I hope that his promises to impose tariffs on everything will so upset commercial actors and Congress that there will be attempts to push back on it and impose restrictions on his authority. His incompetence in geopolitics will put the nail in the coffin of American hegemony, though. I don’t see any way around that.

[Mr. Bumble]

“… notwithstanding waking up every single morning to some new chaos caused by Trump,…”
Such as?
You're such a Drama Queen.

[Sarcastr0]

Saying Trump causes chaos is being a drama queen now?

That's some deep denial.

[bernard11]

Well said, Simon.

[Commenter_XY]

With respect SimonP, policy promises don't mean jack shit. Policy actions and results do.

We did have economic growth under Pres Trump. This is undeniable.
We did have low inflation under Pres Trump. This is undeniable.
We did have cheap and abundant energy under Pres Trump. Using gasoline prices as a surrogate, this is undeniable.
We did have peace treaties concluded (Abraham Accords) under Pres Trump. There was no UKR war. This is undeniable.
You personally did Ok 2017-19 under Pres Trump. This is undeniable.

I read your original list. I don't want SimonP (or his partner) worried about things that just aren't very likely to happen, especially wrt employment retaliation or being accosted on the street because of showing affection to your SO.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Economic growth (cumulative real GDP):
Q1 2014 to Q4 2016: 7.5%
Q1 2017 to Q4 2019: 8.2%
Q1 2021 to Q4 2023: 9.0%

(I chose Q1 to Q4 for 2014-2016 and 2021-2023 to be consistent with the pre-pandemic Q1 2017 to Q4 2019.)

Who had the best economic growth? Do you even see a significant difference in any of the periods? (I repeat, this is real, i.e. inflation adjusted, GDP growth.)

Inflation: Lower from 2014-2016 than 2017-2019. Then the pandemic, followed by lower inflation then higher inflation. Who do you think is responsible for the low inflation from 2014-2019?

Gas prices:

Jan. 2015 – $2.497
2015-2016 peak July 2015 $3.252
Jan. 2017 – $2.815
2017-Jan. 2020 pre-pandemic peak; May 2019 $3.471

Who are you trying to give credit for low gas prices to? (Setting aside that crediting any U.S. president or Congress is economically illiterate.)

Ukraine:

There was no UKR war. This is undeniable.

You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. The Russo-Ukrainian War began in February 2014.

More than 110 Ukrainian soldiers were killed in the conflict in 2019. In May 2019, newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy took office promising to end the war in Donbas. – Wikipedia (just for citation to well known, indisputable, well-sourced facts, so their general unreliabiity as a source isn’t really an issue here).

Weird that there were combat deaths in and Zelenskyy campaigned on ending a non-existent war in 2019. It’s like if you didn’t make up facts, you’d have nothing.

Threats to leave NATO, invitations to come back into the G8, siding with Russia over U.S. intelligence agencies, as well as parroting many other Putin talking points is not, in fact, strength. That you think it is is telling.

Nothing you said supports the point you are trying to make.

[bernard11]

If you think Trump's policies are going to lead to low inflation, you're just nuts. What do you think, he can wave his magic Trumpian wand and we won't have inflation problems, never mind those tariffs?

"Peace through strength?" What makes you think he's strong, as he likes to claim? He might achieve peace in Ukraine, by handing the country over to his hero, Putin, but that's "peace bought with Ukraine's credit card," not through strength.

"Cheap and abundant energy?" Tell me how energy prices are set.

[hobie]

Nothing is going to happen to me...nor you. Same as any other administration.

I suppose the same could be said for the other side. You were whipped up into believing Obama was a marxist leninist bent on destroying the country. Same with Biden...and now Harris. Did any of that shit happen? No. But you fall for it every election...don't you?

[Sarcastr0]

As a straight white guy, I’m not going to be targeted.

As a fed, things could get sticky, but as a straight white guy, I suspect I’ll skate by there as well.

But if those tariffs go through, that would be bad for everyone with any stake in the economy.

And then there is the full on war planned on our civic institutions. That’s ‘cool zone’ stuff.
[Cool zone is a term I saw on lefty forums I frequent (and where I'm a billionaire-hugging lanyard lib). It's a period of history that's cool to read about but no fun to live through.]

[Brett Bellmore]

A full on war on reliable energy, and meritocracy in education, is going to be pretty uncomfortable to live through, too, you know. And we're already getting the start of that.

[Sarcastr0]

Over here we have explicit repeated Trump campaign promises.

Over here we have Brett with his amazing telepathy ignoring actual quotes from the candidate about fracking.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've said it before: If what a candidate says well in advance of the election differs from what they say just before the election, any sensible person discounts the "just before the election" talk as opportunistic.

We're not going to forget all the efforts of this administration to suppress energy production. You want us to forget this, for instance? Nope, not happening. Biden came into office fighting to obstruct energy extraction. And Harris's own record is no better.

[Commenter_XY]

Harris' lying about her anti-fracking orientation mattered in PA. That has been the key to unlocking the Keystone state (Commonwealth) for Pres Trump. He started there, and added to that message.

[John F. Carr]

Too bad the national media is more into the emotions of the race than policy issues.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not some investigative principle. You're just selective about what you believe, so it all aligns with your priors.

Contrast what you don't believe that Trump says.

[SimonP]

I’ve said it before: If what a candidate says well in advance of the election differs from what they say just before the election, any sensible person discounts the “just before the election” talk as opportunistic.

So, I take it, you believe virtually nothing that Trump has been saying during this campaign, dismissing it all as merely "opportunistic"?

[Brett Bellmore]

To the extent that it disagrees with what he'd previously been saying? Yes, I discount it.

[Sarcastr0]

Past > future statements?

Bullshit.

A conveniently chosen and arbitrary standard to make a partisan attack.

[David Nieporent]

I’ve said it before: If what a candidate says well in advance of the election differs from what they say just before the election, any sensible person discounts the “just before the election” talk as opportunistic.

If one is metaphysically asking about what the politician "really" thinks, perhaps. But if the question is what the politician intends to do, the just before the election talk is more meaningful.

[Brett Bellmore]

Riiight. Because politicians never say one thing, then do another. [/sarc]

You're reasoning like somebody who desperately wants to believe that the politician telling you what he finally figures out you wanted to hear has had a change of heart. Which is to say, you're not really reasoning at all, you're just hoping really hard.

[Sarcastr0]

He was talking odds, not certainties.

And you accusing someone of choosing their reasoning based on what they want to believe, and basing their worldview on what they hope is true?
Fucking wild, coming from fan fiction Brett, who sees every election as the Republican versus certain oppression.

[Magister]

I think it is fair to judge Trump on his past actions and statements, and not his current "No Nazi. No Nazi. You're the Nazi." Definitely a fascist.

[David Nieporent]

Riiight. Because politicians never say one thing, then do another. [/sarc]

In fact, as political scientists can tell you, politicians generally try to keep their campaign promises. You want to believe otherwise because of your nihilistic, conspiracy-fueled view of the world.

[loki13]

A woman who sued her former employer over not being given a leaving card lost her case when it was revealed it had been hidden from her after only three people signed it.

Karen Conaghan claimed that the “failure to acknowledge her existence” at IAG, the parent company of British Airways, was a breach of equality law.

However, a former colleague told an employment tribunal that managers had indeed bought a card but did not present it to Conaghan because of the low number of signatures, the Times reported.

The judge, Kevin Palmer, said: “He believed it would have been more insulting to give her the card than not to give her a card at all.”

Two notes-
1. Apparently, only three people would agree to sign the card.
2. Karen? For real?

[Commenter_XY]

That is hilarious! = Karen

This is the Streisand effect, right?

[loki13]

I'd just call this, "Can't cure stupid."

I mean ... suing because you didn't get a goodbye card is bad enough, but finding out that you didn't get one because your co-workers wouldn't sign it?

Chef's kiss. Rarely does karma work so swiftly.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm shocked...SHOCKED, I tell you...to hear that someone that petty was not well liked by her co-workers.

[Brett Bellmore]

That sort of thing is weird, on two counts.

1. Who thinks not getting a card is actionable?
2. How unpleasant do you have to be, anyway, that your co-workers won't even sign a card?

I guess the questions answer each other, in the end.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was she represented by an attorney or pro se?
If not pro se, what type of attorney would bring such an action?

[Bwaaah]

I just want to take this opportunity to express my sincere concern, and condolences, to people everywhere named "Karen."

Life can be very unfair.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Democrat Judges in NV just ruled that mail-in ballots received up to three days after the election WITHOUT a post-mark must be counted.

We all know what that means. Post election, Kamala is going to get massive vote dumps, so NV is lost. Same with any Senate seats.

NV is now permanently Blue since election cheating has been legalized and institutionalized. That's really the only way Democrats win elections over a formerly free people. See Venezuela.

[David Nieporent]

We all know what that means. Post election, Kamala is going to get massive vote dumps, so NV is lost. Same with any Senate seats.

How are Harris or Rosen going to arrange for the post office not to postmark ballots mailed post election?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol, those "mailed" ballots aren't coming from the post office. Are you for real?

We all saw 2020. They'll come in trucks from out of state.

Not requiring post mark completely removes any need for the post office to be in on the steal, even though they do get in on it too since it's filled with Democrats.

[jb]

Wild. Those crazy Nevada judges upholding the law exactly as written:

https://casetext.com/statute/nevada-revised-statutes/title-24-elections/chapter-293-elections/mail-ballot-voting/section-293269921-procedure-for-timely-returning-mail-ballot-treatment-of-mail-ballot-when-postmark-cannot-be-determined-requirements-for-ballot-drop-boxes

[Mr. Bumble]

So now in addition to early voting, late voting is a thing.

WTF happened to the requirement that ther be an "Election DAY"?

[EscherEnigma]

"WTF happened to the requirement that ther be an “Election DAY”?"
It was never an actual requirement, and the laboratories of democracy have tried to find better ways to make sure all eligible citizens have the opportunity to vote.

[EscherEnigma]

Alternate answer:
Some people noticed that articles like this regularly pop up every presidential election, and thought to themselves "surely there's a better way?"

[jb]

More like the state legislature has set up a procedure to deal with the tiny fraction of ballots where it's not clear when they were sent but manage to make it through the postal system fast enough it's pretty likely they were cast before election day.

But I do like how this go round you guys are arguing that judges should just ignore plain legislative language on elections if it aligns with your policy preferences. Makes it pretty clear that most of the procedural objections to 2020 voting rules were just pretextual bullshit.

[Lennyk78]

That's bullshit and you know it. Most mail only takes 1 to 2 days when going short distances. You put ballots in the mail on Wednesday, November 6th and they'll be delivered in Nevada by Friday. They'll be within 3 days, and will be counted.

[David Nieporent]

and will be counted.

Again: only if they’re not postmarked. That would be — like every other notion idiot MAGA people have about election fraud — an incredibly ineffective and inefficient way to steal an election. Put hundreds of thousands of illegitimate ballots in the mail after Election Day (hoping nobody will notice!) in the hopes that tens of thousands of them won't be postmarked and so will be counted?

If you have the mechanism to generate hundreds of thousands of illegitimate ballots, why wait until after Election Day to mail them?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Securest elections in all of human history!

No chain of custody. No verification. No postmarks. Arrested if you complain.

I trust our elections!

[Lennyk78]

The ruling is right. The law is what's wrong. What's to stop a group of Democrats from throwing ballots into the mail the day after the election? Some black USPS union mail employee will intentionally not postmark them so that they are delivered with no postmark, and are thus then counted.

[David Nieporent]

Do you think that mail collected from mailboxes is personally hand stamped by individual postal workers?

[Lennyk78]

I think these people would intentionally remove them from the sorting and stamping machines, yes.

[David Nieporent]

How many hundreds of people do you think are in on this imaginary scheme? Don’t you think someone might notice if bunches of people are going around removing tens of thousands of ballots from the machines?

And I repeat what I wrote above: what would even be the point? If one has fraudulent ballots, why not just mail them on time?

[Lennyk78]

Yes, I think enough leftists have no moral compass and would cheat. And the reason to not mail them on time is so that they know exactly how many fradulent ballots to manufacture. No reason to go overboard and make it look more suspicious.

[David Nieporent]

lol, those “mailed” ballots aren’t coming from the post office. Are you for real?

How do you think mail arrives from a source other than the post office?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

In the back of trucks @3am like we saw in PA videos in 2020?

[David Nieporent]

like we saw in PA videos in 2020?

Are those like the child porn videos you were watching for fun, pretending they were from Hunter Biden's laptop?

[grb]

.

[Commenter_XY]

JHBHBE, I think if there is a problem, it will be spotted right away. Just look at mail ballots received without a postmark after Election Day for the last 5 elections. What is that average?

If NV receives 3X or 4X or 10X above that average for 2024, that is a pretty good indicator to take a much closer look b/c something is off. My point is that it would be obvious to everyone. Of course, NV could decline to review it. It is their call to make.

If you want to be pragmatic about it, Pres Trump doesn't need NV to win, and it has always been something of a long shot for him to do so.

[jb]

Yes. This is true for basically every fever dream election conspiracy theory. There would be obvious anomalies for anyone looking at them, especially when (as here) this type of ballot has been accepted for years and are a miniscule portion of the total.

[Lennyk78]

So Democrat party appointed officials should be able to make a call to cheat on a federal election?

[Michael P]

C_XY, the problem isn't that the steal will be obvious. It's that nobody will be allowed to challenge the steal because Teh Process requires the state to blindly and thoughtlessly accept crates full of ballots without postmarks. That's "the law exactly as written"!

[Commenter_XY]

My point is that it would be obvious to everyone. Of course, NV could decline to review it. It is their call to make.

[Lennyk78]

Why should it be their call to make?

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, Lathrop: Warren Burger Got it Wrong

[Mr. Bumble]

An excellent piece. Doubt Mr. Long Comments will bother to read it.

[Commenter_XY]

Please don't encourage his logorrhea problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

He just needs a good editor. 😉

[Kazinski]

The Burger court was at looked at the results oriented Warren court and just kept it rolling, they gave no more than lip service to the constitution. As long as the policy fit their preference, the constitution was no barrier.

It was the Burger court (1969--86), not the Warren court, that the federalist society was founded in reaction to. Their decisions that were completely unmoored from the constitution.

Warren Burger might have been more conservative than Earl Warren, but he was even more of a statist.

[Kazinski]

Breaking story, reportedly a illegal immigrant from North Africa shot an Orthodox Jew in a predominantly jewish community area, then got in a shootout with Chicago police.

https://x.com/karol/status/1850967392031293928?t=Q0Dhs6xSg7davodkJjZF2Q&s=19

Chicago Jewish man on way to synagogue shot by attacker shouting 'Allahu Akhbar'

"The gunman, who has yet to be identified, was heard on a security camera recording screaming “Allahu akbar” before engaging in a two-and-a-half-minute shootout with the police."

https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/article-826386

Funny, I saw this is on Instapundit, i'm not seeing much on the news about it. I guess Trump's nazi rally is getting all the attention.

[Armchair]

Gotta wonder who the Nazis really are....

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Anyone who supports Trump.

Any other remarks you'd like the obvious answer to?

[Mr. Bumble]

2024, the year Jews became "Nazis".

[Sarcastr0]

Stephen Miller.

[Frank Drackman]

not my favorite band from the 70's but they had a few tunes with a good beat, what's your point?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Did you consider that perhaps your laziness and dishonesty could have something to do with your bullshit?

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/chicago-police-shooting-hate-crime-concern/

Is CBS "news" enough for you? Sorry, that question does nothing but provide a convenient excuse for your deficiencies.

[Bwaaah]

What did Kazinski say that you dispute? What is in your cited article that adds clarity?

[jb]

I guess it's obvious why you're asking someone to help with your reading comprehension:

"Funny, I saw this is on Instapundit, i’m not seeing much on the news about it"

[Kazinski]

Well I spent a few hours watching Bloomberg, Sky News, and the BBC.

And if you want to claim they focus on Business and UK news, I actually was mostly was seeing US elections news, Israel and Gaza, but not a word about this.

Then when I did a search, I had to refine it to get the Jerusalem Post article, it wasn't a US source that came up first.

[Bwaaah]

I don't see a significant material difference between Kazinski's description and Cavanaugh's cited article. That's why I'm asking. And you're no help.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz: “Funny, I saw this is on Instapundit, i’m not seeing much on the news about it”

Cav: ::here is an article in the news about it::

[Mr. Bumble]

LAST SATURDAY AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, SIDI MOHAMED ABDALLAHI, SHOT A JEWISH MAN WALKING TO SYNAGOGUE IN AN APPARENT LONE WOLF ISLAMIST TERRORIST ATTACK: Big news, especially just before the election, right? Right?
https://instapundit.com/?wwparam=1261138954
See post on Instapundit by David Bernstein.

[M L]

.

[Bwaaah]

So that's the assertion that you think Cavanaugh is disputing? That's the important takeaway from Kazinski's comment? Whether or not the story was on mainstream media outlets when he researched it?

You guys hunt in the weeds. I don't know why I waste my time trying to figure out why you're there. And yet, there you are, zeroing in on the trivial. It's like a kind of telepathy of stuff that's beside the point.

Q: "Did you hear the about the guy who got shot because he's Jewish?"
A: "I don't like where you got your information."

[EscherEnigma]

"So that’s the assertion that you think Cavanaugh is disputing?"
Yes.

"That’s the important takeaway from Kazinski’s comment? "
No, that's the part of K's comment being disputed.

"Whether or not the story was on mainstream media outlets when he researched it?"
Yes. This is very obvious from context. Jason was not being subtle.

"Q: “Did you hear the about the guy who got shot because he’s Jewish?”
A: “I don’t like where you got your information.”"
This is not an accurate summary. Jason was not saying anything about the quality of K's sources, just disputing K's claim that it wasn't being covered in the MSM.

[Commenter_XY]

It is very sad that on Shabbat, in IL, Jews are murdered for merely walking to synagogue. In our blue state paradise of NJ, Jews are gunned down in the streets, in grocery stores, and run over by cars in attempts to kill them.

There are armed guards in my synagogue daily, to protect us so we can pray. The synagogue is wealthy and can afford it, most cannot.

It isn't just Mexicans and South Americans pouring over the border.

[Lennyk78]

I'm tired of the persecution complex from American Jews.

You're more likely to get hit by a drunk driver from Mexico or Guatemala than you are to get shot or run over by cars because of your Judaism.

[Commenter_XY]

lenny, I have no plans to go to MX or GU, so no, I am actually more likely to be shot or run over by a car in my blue state paradise of NJ, because of my Judaism, when I go to synagogue.

[Lennyk78]

I'm referring to migrants from Mexico or Guatemala, not people in those places.

I used to live in that shithole before moving to one of the reddest states in America. In fact, I was living about 8 blocks from the kosher grocery store that was shot up in Jersey City. These things are extremely rare.

Leave your segregated Jewish area of Teaneck or wherever you're living and go to all black areas along McCarter Highway in Newark, or Paterson, or any place with a lot of illegals Mexicans and Central Americans. You'll find that your Judaism is the least of your issues.

[Commenter_XY]

lenny, the high cost of living will probably chase me away from my tony town in this blue state paradise. NJ is very, very expensive.

[Lennyk78]

Please don't leave and bring your blue voting habits with you to ruin another state.

[Frank Drackman]

Kosher Grocery Stores are extremely rare in Jersey City? well, what do you expect with a Madrassa on every street corner?

[Voize]

If you are referring to the Chicago incident the victim was not killed, he received a shoulder wound and has been released from hospital.

In a country with more guns than people and a public inured to news reports averaging more than one mass shooting a day it is a sad fact that the wounding of a single man doesn’t get much attention.

[hobie]

Yet another religious nut whipped into action by the jewish slurs from the Trump campaign

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about? What Jewish slurs?

[Frank Drackman]

You know, the Comedian's joke about how Jew's don't win at "Rock/Paper/Scissors" with Palestinians, because even though we know the Palestinian's will throw "Rock(s)" we Jews are reluctant to "Throw Paper". I'm so Offended!!! I'm going to vote for a candidate that literally will have Ham-Ass members in her Administration!

Frank

[Lennyk78]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/politics/rudy-giuliani-florida-condo-defamation-lawsuit/index.html

What was the basis for the $150 million verdict for those two beasts, other than the fact that Giuliani is an evil conservative?

[Lennyk78]

https://www.jfklibrary.org/events-and-awards/profile-in-courage-award/award-recipients/defending-democracy-2022/wandrea-arshaye-moss

This is one of the fat beasts, "Wandrea."

[Lennyk78]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-election-worker-terrorized-by-threats-after-2020-election-2023-12-13/

And here is the other one, with fake trashy nails.

These two beasts should be in the Democratic Republic of the Congo grunting at each other.

[Kazinski]

Boy Lenny was an easy mute.

[Lennyk78]

Guess you don't have any substantive responses? Typical liberal.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Hehe!
I don't mute, but if I ever did, it would be Lenny the K.
(Jonathan Goldsmith voice)

[Commenter_XY]

Since the Simchat Torah pogrom, the US has recorded over 10K (yes, ten thousand) anti-semitic hate crimes (just 1 year); the rate has sky-rocketed and is not abating. I don't typically mute the Jew haters Kaz, I need to see/hear them and pay attention. Because they could literally try to kill me one day when I go to synagogue, or if I wear a kippah in public.

That I have to even think this way as a Jew in 2024 America is something unbelievable to me.

[OtisAH]

Like you, the guys with the “Jews will not replace us” signs are voting for Convicted Felon Trump. Also, the guys with the confederate and Nazi flags. They’re also voting for CFT. But you stay focused on the people who think Israel shouldn’t be bombing Palestinian civilians. They’re the real monsters.

[apedad]

That I have to even think this way as a Jew, Muslim, Asian, gay person, or pregnant women in 2024 America is something unbelievable to me.

FTFY

[Commenter_XY]

You're not wrong, apedad, though I think the pregnant woman schtick is a bit much.

[Mr. Bumble]

LAST SATURDAY AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, SIDI MOHAMED ABDALLAHI, SHOT A JEWISH MAN WALKING TO SYNAGOGUE IN AN APPARENT LONE WOLF ISLAMIST TERRORIST ATTACK: Big news, especially just before the election, right? Right?
https://instapundit.com/?wwparam=1261138954
See post on Instapundit by David Bernstein.

[M L]

This happened in the US?

I mean, if it was a white American or whatever, it would be a massive story right now, wouldn’t it? But since it’s this way they bury it? Can someone tell me I’m wrong?

Either way, sad event.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it happened.

Chicago Jewish leaders ‘disappointed’ law enforcement downplaying antisemitism as motive in shooting

"The 22-year-old suspect reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar” as he exchanged fire with police officers responding to the initial shooting."

The police accounts are all somewhat vague about what he was shouting, "'ayu tariq 'iilaa alhamam?", maybe?

[Frank Drackman]

Chicago, you'd literally be safer in Terror-Anne or Riyadh

[David Nieporent]

There is no actual source for any of the facts asserted there other than the fact that the guy shot a Jewish guy. That it was an "Islamist terrorist attack" is speculation; that he's an "illegal immigrant" appears to come from nothing other than a Twitter feed.

[Mr. Bumble]

When have you cared about "facts"?
Is the lack of reporting about the incident a fact?

[David Nieporent]

Is the lack of reporting about the incident a fact?

No, it is not. It is a lie.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22SIDI+MOHAMED+ABDALLAHI%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Includes links to CBS, ABC, the Sun-Times, NBC, the NYP, and Newsweek, and that's just among the first 10 results.

[Lennyk78]

What in my comment about these "victims" of defamation looked like Jew hating to you?

I used to be one of you.

[Michael P]

In more Nazi projection news, California has been ordered to stop illegally discriminating against Jewish children.

https://www.becketlaw.org/media/breaking-ninth-circuit-court-unanimously-says-california-cannot-exclude-jewish-children-with-disabilities-from-federal-funding/

[David Nieporent]

No; California was ordered to stop discriminating against religious schools. Please try for once in your life to be honest.

[Brett Bellmore]

This seems like claiming the Blaine amendments had nothing to do with anti-Catholic sentiment. The plaintiffs were Jewish. Why only Jewish?

But, sure, maybe the California government is just generally hostile to religion, period. I guess that's supposed to be better, somehow?

[David Nieporent]

It does not seems like claiming the Blaine amendments had nothing to do with anti-Catholic sentiment, because the Blaine amendments were motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment. We know that if we're familiar with history. We also know as a matter of common sense that California was not singling out Jews when it enacted its law requiring that the funds go only to "nonsectarian" schools. (In addition to knowing it as a matter of common sense, there is the complete lack in the record of this case of any evidence — or even allegation! — that Jews were being singled out.)

I don't understand your question, "Why only Jewish?" The plaintiffs were specific people — Chaya and Jonathan Hoffman, Fedora Nick and Morris Taxon, and Sarah and Ariel Perets. (As well as the Jewish schools they wanted to attend.) Those people were Jewish. Did you want some of them to convert to Buddhism so that they wouldn't be "only Jewish"?

[Michael P]

When I take advice on virtue, it isn't from a dude who just posted that Ashli Babbitt was like a Japanese bomber pilot in the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He didn't give you any advice on virtue, he just called you a liar.

[EscherEnigma]

Hey, if a religious school wants to accept state money, I have no problem with that.

As long as they abide by the same non-discrimination laws and policies of every other school that takes state money.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I disagree. They should be ineligible to receive any state money. But I could live with your proposal, if that actually ever happened. Not the travesty of religious favoritism we have now.

[Brett Bellmore]

The basic problem with that stance is that, as government diverts more and more of the private sector's money through itself, it can de facto ban expenditures on constitutionally protected activities by simply impoverishing you to the point where you can't afford them on your own, and then only subsidizing the things it DOES approve of.

The continued survival of liberty to do things the government isn't allowed to do, requires that the government leave a large part of the economy outside itself.

[not guilty]

The Washington Post has reported that Donald Trump wants to have Jack Smith deported:

“We should throw Jack Smith out with them, the mentally deranged people. Jack Smith should be considered mentally deranged, and he should be thrown out of the country,” Trump said Thursday night on “Cats & Cosby,” a conservative radio talk show.

The irony of Trump describing someone else as mentally deranged is rich.

[Mr. Bumble]

Says the man with raging TDS.

hyperbole /hī-pûr′bə-lē/
noun

A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton. A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect. Extreme exaggeration or overstatement; especially as a literary or rhetorical device.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

[Sarcastr0]

How is that hyperbole?
What's being exaggerated?

Sounds more like a hypernationalist threat.

[Bwaaah]

Trump speaks, and you want to know what he's exaggerating?

When Sarcastr0 comments, which parts are unintelligent?

[Magister]

Typical MAGAmite cultist; everything Trump says that garners any criticism is a joke, sarcasm, an exaggeration, a faulty earpiece, something he didn't actually say, or some campaign coffee boy's fault.

Trump denies praising Hitler. Trump knew nothing about Project 2025 but at the same time disagreed with parts of it. Trump claimed the Access Hollywood tape he apologized for was fake. He blamed a faulty earpiece for his refusal to disavow white supremacist endorsements. He dismissed his foreign policy advisor Papadopolous as nothing more than a coffee boy.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Alanis Morrisette, you don't know what Irony is (it's still a great tune, although the part about "Meeting the man of my dreams...." is so 1995)

[Frank Drackman]

Free Steve Banyon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh wait, he got freed earlier today,
get the Pliers and Blow Torches ready, Steve-O's about
to get Mid-Evil on some peoples

Frank

[Estragon]

He’ll be back in soon enough— his fraud trial starts in December. Can’t get pardoned out of that one, I’m afraid. Oopsie! Did you send him a few bucks to “build the wall”?

[Estragon]

Frank I meant to ask: did you buy the “black insurrectionist” account off of that guy from upstate NY? You have really been mainlining some of his content into these threads the last few months

[M L]

Is the Left Preparing for War If Trump Wins?

https://tomklingenstein.com/is-the-left-preparing-for-war-if-trump-wins/

"The propaganda campaign labeling Donald Trump as an aspiring dictator determined to use the military and national security apparatus against his political opponents is designed not to affect the upcoming election but rather to shape the post-election environment. It is the central piece of a narrative that, by characterizing Trump as a tyrant (indeed likening him to Hitler), establishes the conditions for violence — not just another attempt on Trump’s life, but political violence on a massive scale intended to destabilize the country.

As I write in my forthcoming book Disappearing the President, Democratic Party research and media reports show that many senior party officials and operatives are preparing for the possibility of a Trump victory. Accordingly, planning is focused on undermining the incoming president with enough violence to rock his administration. Prominent post-election scenarios forecast such widespread rioting that the newly elected president would be compelled to invoke the Insurrection Act. With some senior military officials refusing to follow Trump’s orders, according to the scenarios, the U.S. Armed Forces would split, leaving America on the edge of the abyss. . . ."

[EscherEnigma]

So, your theory....

"So far, my theory that a lot of people become far stupider than usual around election time is holding up quite well."

Is this post you offering yourself as supporting evidence?

[Estragon]

“Preparing for war”

Maybe we should ask those dudes who checked into the Comfort Inn in Ballston, MD a few years back…

[M L]

Jon Stewart on the latest manufactured media "outrage"

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1851138132596408499

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside why anyone would look to Jon Stewart here, he did not in fact say what the MAGA twitter account claims he said. "What did you expect from this guy?" is not a defense of the Trump campaign; it's an indictment of it.

[M L]

Incorrect, the tweet says, "Even he thinks the outrage over MSG is BS." That's accurate. Stewart also does question the political wisdom of having a roast comedian at your rally, but that's a separate issue from the totally fake, overblown, desperate reaction of the usual media suspects.

[David Nieporent]

Incorrect, the tweet says, “Even he thinks the outrage over MSG is BS.”

Yes, that's what the tweet says. It's not what Stewart says.

[M L]

Yes, it is. Stewart even says the guy is “very funny.”

Stewart plays clips of the fake news saying:
-“unfunny, racist, cringe-worthy jokes”
-“the most repulsive racial jokes”
-“disgusting and hateful”
-“extremely vile so-called jokes”

Obviously, Stewart is disagreeing with that. He is mocking those reactions. He even jokes that the last quote was the title of his own comedy album from the 90s.

So far, my theory that a lot of people become far stupider than usual around election time is holding up quite well.

[Magister]

Stewart, who apparently aspires to be a Bill Maher contrarian, offered some roast jokes by the same comedian. But roast jokes are very different from calling Puerto Rico garbage out of the blue; the people who are being roasted agreed to be there, are generally laughing at the jokes themselves and are typically more celebrated than the people roasting them. A roast joke about how the Puerto Rican waiting on tables is garbage would fall flat. It's a bit of "punching up" versus "punching down", if you like, although that's not an absolute requirement for humor. And Stewart ignored the many other offensive things said at that rally which have probably gotten the "he was just joking" defense that Trump's own statements often get; it was not just one joke.

[David Nieporent]

No, it's not obvious Stewart is disagreeing with it. I mean, Stewart handpicked Trevor Noah to replace himself at the Daily Show, so I'm not sure he's a great arbiter of who's funny, but Stewart's point was pretty clearly, "This is what this guy does; why would you expect something different?"

[Josh R]

I think in the portion shown in the clip, Stewart is indicting the Trump campaign for bringing an insult comedian to the rally even though Stewart likes insult comedians. And if you look at the entire video, Stewart is clearly dumping on the MSG rally.

[M L]

I haven't watched the entire segment, but - agreed. And Stewart is also mocking these media personalities for their fake reactions.

[Josh R]

He is mocking the media for overeacting to the joke (*) while underreacting to the other vile crap at the rally.

(*) Nonetheless, Stewart thinks it is OK to criticize the Trump campaign for inviting the comedian.

[Sarcastr0]

M L offered:
-A twitter post
-From an angry right wing propaganda account,
-Putting forth a video clip
-Of a larger segment with context
-In order to appeal to the authority of Jon Stewart.

He didn't even offer an opinion of his own.
ML is not here for discussion or truth or reason, he's here to post things shaped vaguely like arguments to get reactions.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Happy Halloween to all! The second best holiday, after Thanksgiving.

[Mr. Bumble]

A little early.

[M L]

“Orthodox Jews in line for Trump’s rally in New York have a message for Democrats who keep calling the former president a Nazi”

https://x.com/OzraeliAvi/status/1850600355593355749

More:
Jews Flock to Trump Event at Madison Square Garden; Dems: ‘Nazi Rally’
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/10/27/jews-flock-to-trump-event-at-madison-square-garden-dems-nazi-rally/
Also:
MSNBC Faces Backlash from Jewish Trump Supporters After Nazi Rally Comparison
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/10/28/msnbc-faces-backlash-jewish-trump-supporters-nazi-rally-comparison/

[Sarcastr0]

Is the logic here that if Jews support you, you can't be in the Nazi neighborhood?

Because by that logic, the Nazis were not Nazis.

[M L]

Well, there’s a bit more to it than that. For example, I assume Hitler didn't have millions and millions of Jewish supporters agreeing with his revealed policy preferences and agenda.

[EscherEnigma]

I should let this go, but the demographics just don’t support “millions and millions”.

The US Jewish populaiton is about 7.5 million. Knock off a third as too-young, then knock a third of the remainder off as non-voters, and you’re left with about 3 and a third million Jewish Americans likely to vote in the 2024 election. Of those, Trump will get about a third, or 1 and a ninth million Jewish votes.

That is not, by any fair meaning of the word or phrase, “millions and millions”.

And for that matter, there weren’t millions of millions of Jews in Germany during the rise of the Nazi party, there was about half a million. But there were actually Jewish organizations that supported the Nazis and Hitler, and were eventually declared illegal and murdered in the Holocaust. If you look back at their rhetoric, you see variations of “he doesn’t mean it, he’s just stirring up the masses”, “voting my pocketbook” and things like that.

Which, and I want to be clear on this, is not me saying Trump is Hitler. It’s me pointing out that your defense of Trump is a-historic and ridiculous. The ability of humans to willfully deceive themselves for perceived short-term gains is well-documented.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing to see here;
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/3207535/hundreds-ballots-discovered-after-fell-off-truck-florida/