Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Michael P]

Democrats and their allies have made yet another ballot referendum useless. At least this one is non-binding: https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/democrats-rigged-the-vote-puerto-rico-commonwealth-statehood-referendum

[Brett Bellmore]

PR statehood referenda are always rigged, it's traditional. As the essay recounts, the status quo is actually the most popular option there, so statehood advocates try to make it a choice between statehood and independence, independence being the least popular option.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Right now they have the best of both worlds -- able to have their own corrupt government making its own laws and exempt from Federal law (e.g. the CDL laws) and taxes while having the right to handouts from Uncle Gringo.

Why would they ever want to change that???

[Martinned2]

Because they might not want to share their country with a bunch of racist authoritarians?

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

Luckily for them, Martinnazi isn't on the docket.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, I'm not saying that the status quo is ideal from our perspective, I think we SHOULD cut them loose, maybe give them a 10 year deadline.

Or, alternatively, set some objective standard for statehood, based on crime rates and economic productivity: Tell them that they can have statehood just as soon as they're as productive and lawful as the worst existing US state. Give them a target to work towards!

But that doesn't change that the statehood advocates routinely run rigged referenda. They do, they hardly even try to pretend the referenda are honest. Then Democrats pretend the results actually measure PR opinion.

I've a friend originally from PR. Nice guy, very entrepreneurial. I think part of the problem with PR might actually be that everyone there with any initiative gets the hell out, and moves to the mainland.

[Lennyk78]

Puerto Rico has too many people of Taino descent, and we all know that American Indians are genetically violent and drunk, so there's zero chance that their crime and economic statistics will ever be as good as the worst U.S. state.

[John F. Carr]

I say set them free. We gave them a bailout with the PROMESA act so they get a fresh start financially. For decades to come they will have a competitive advantage over their neighbors due to having so many U.S. citizens. And, best of all, the Jones Act haters will have one less thing to complain about.

[bernard11]

I think part of the problem with PR might actually be that everyone there with any initiative gets the hell out, and moves to the mainland.

Could be, but the idea conflicts with one of your objections to immigration in general - that immigrants from corrupt, poorly run places are bringing those pathologies with them, rather than trying to get away from them.

[Lennyk78]

Depends on the barriers to entry. That's why immigrants from Nigeria tend to be very successful, but most of those from the islands like Jamaica and Haiti tend to be human garbage.

[Brett Bellmore]

That over-simplifies my argument, to a considerable degree.

First, I don't have any objection to "immigration in general". On the contrary, I'm in favor of immigration, selective "cream skimming" immigration.

We are very fortunate in that living in the US is widely viewed as a valuable commodity, we should take advantage of that to get the highest quality immigrants we can. Educated, English literate, law abiding, with good values.

No sense in selling entrance to the US cheap! You are what you eat, do we want want to eat instant ramen when we have available to us rare steak and healthy vegetables?

But, yes, I do think that immigrants from corrupt, poorly run places tend, unless very carefully vetted, to bring those pathologies with them. Especially if they come here illegally; That's like a filter that only filters out the ones we WOULD want, the ones who are reluctant to violate our laws!

Now, they might be the people with more initiative anyway, even though they have cultural pathologies. But initiative isn't an unalloyed virtue in people willing to violate your laws.

In the case of PR, there's no such thing as illegal immigration, so there's no filter between us rejecting the people who'd had initiative but who were law abiding, so you're definitely going to get a better grade of immigrant from PR than from some country where most of the immigrants are illegal. But, yeah, they probably will bring some of what makes PR PR in a bad way, not just the stuff that makes it PR in a good way.

But the immigration from PR will be harder on PR, because PR is losing people with initiative and who are law abiding, not just the high initiative law breakers.

[Lennyk78]

This. I was in a club in college with many students from Puerto Rico. Guess how many went back after graduation?

0.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can believe that! Like I said, I've got a friend from PR. Very entrepreneurial, I'm sure he'll be quite wealthy by the time he retires early.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : ” …. selective “cream skimming” immigration.”

1. I’ll have you know, I considered replying “as in White”, but rejected that as a cheap shot……

2. More substantive is this question : Have you ever taken the shortest time to look at the history of U.S. immigration?

Which is more to the point. Because we’ve seen this dance over and over throughout United States history. Immigrants are never “cream skimmed”, there are always the same hysterical objections that they are criminal brutes who will destroy the nation’s fabric – and those objections are always wrong.

Always. Wrong.

As in: Never right. Not even once. One-hundred percent failure rate. You could go back almost two-hundred years and find the same huckster politicians, the same dupe mobs who enjoy being conned, the same vicious islurs against that era's “undesirables”. You heard it against the Italians, Catholics, Irish, Jews, Germans, Japanese, and Chinese.

Always the exact same huckster pitch. Always the same mob eager to believe in a new nebulous “threat”. And always wrong. You might think people would spot this after the fourth or fifth time on the historical stage. But, nah. There’s always an audience for hysterical fear. And some people just like to be played for a fool. How else would Trump be a viable candidate?

[bernard11]

This^^

[Sarcastr0]

Nicely put.

[JasonT20]

It has been said that history repeats itself. This is perhaps not quite correct; it merely rhymes. - Theodor Reik (1965)
(It appears to be apocryphal to attribute this to Mark Twain.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"1. I’ll have you know, I considered replying “as in White”, but rejected that as a cheap shot"

A stupidly predictable shot, rather, I'm glad you didn't bother. I think I've mentioned before that I'm married to an immigrant from the Philippines. A college educated, English literate immigrant. I live in a mixed race neighborhood!

The degree to which leftists just reflexively accuse anybody who dares to disagree with them of racism is absurd.

"2. More substantive is this question : Have you ever taken the shortest time to look at the history of U.S. immigration?"

Of course I have. It's not ideal, but that doesn't mean you have to throw up your hands and just give up on having selective immigration.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “The degree to which leftists just reflexively accuse anybody who dares to disagree with them of racism is absurd”

I’ll grant some validity to this. But back at ya, Brett:

1. The degree Rightists deny the amount of racism in their anti-immigration movement goes way beyond absurd. After all, it was seen in the most toxic reeking form imaginable in those lies about Haitians eating pets. And please remember, Brett : That ugly, obvious, crude, racism came from the man you intend to vote president.

2. The degree Rightest deny the amount of racism in their appeals, ideology, and followers is also absurd. But it’s not something you folk worry over even though it’s everywhere throughout the movement. Why is that?

Also : You seem to have missed the point of everything I wrote above. Trump’s crude ugly appeals and the anti-immigrant hysteria he feeds is a dance we’ve seen again&again in U.S. history. And history always proves your side wrong. Every single time. A century from now, people will crack-open their history books (tablets?) and read how a sleazy huckster politician stoked frenzied mobs into irrational anger and fear over the Brown Menace “poisoning our blood”. That's as certain as the fact those brown people will be upright citizens of good standing all around them.

Back in the 1850s there were scum politicians called “Know Nothing” scamming dupe mobs as the cheap tawdry means to power. What do you see when you look back at that? What I see is Trump and you.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am perfectly entitled to have my own preferences as to immigration policy without regard to anything having to do with Donald Trump. Had them, as a matter of fact, before I had even HEARD of the dude.

[not guilty]

No one seems to object to immigration from Canada, where the folks on the other side of the border are (mostly) white.

[Mr. Bumble]

Assumes facts not in evidence.
How many "Canadians" are emigrating to the US?
Most of the border crossers from Canada are from other countries.
By the way, Trudeau is reported to be cracking down on immigration saying the country has enough for the time being.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No one seems to object to immigration from Canada, where the folks on the other side of the border are (mostly) white."

We could perhaps have an interesting discussion about the historically contingent reasons why most of the civilized world is white. But I think it actually has nothing to do with race directly, and if history had taken a different turn, (Say China hadn't burned it's exploration ships.) things would be different.

But we live in the contingent world we are confronted with, and must respond to that world, not the alternate reality we might prefer.

[Voize]

Most of the border crossers from Canada are from other countries.

I'm familiar with one in particular who immigrated from Africa via Canada.
A guy named Musk.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “… and must respond to that world, not the alternate reality we might prefer.”

Do I have to point out the disconnect between this comment/quote and your indignation five comments above it? Apparently my pocketed jibe about “cream skimming” was apropos after all.

As I’ve noted before, your take on how we “must respond to that world” exactly matches those used in the past against the Italians, Catholics, Irish, Jews, Germans, Japanese, and Chinese.

And history has proven those takes on how we “must respond to that world” to be completely wrong. Why do you think your version of this tired-old rancid theme is different?

[SRG2]

IT’s more honest than the illegitimate Hawaii referendum

Of course we know perfectly well why the GOP oppose statehood for DC and PR just as we know perfectly well why the Democrats support it. I doubt there's any great principle at work on either side, but if a majority of inhabitants want statehood, that should be dispositive.

[Lennyk78]

I'm okay with that provided that California and New York are allowed to break into two each, if the red areas of them vote for it.

[SRG2]

I think that a maximum size of a state is a good idea and I agree with you.

[Lennyk78]

I also think Texas is too big, but it'd be harder to split.

[not guilty]

Not really. Just keep Houston, Austin and San Antonio together with points south thereof.

[Nelson]

I support the idea that a representative has a set number of people that they represent, maybe 750k each (-440 representatives). Not only would that force the representatives to worry about more than just what will get them reelected in their small area, it would require redistricting every time the population rose (or fell) enough to create (or eliminate) a district. Both effects would make incumbency less likely to lead to forever reps, which is why it would never pass. But a man can dream, right?

[EscherEnigma]

"[...] it would require redistricting every time the population rose (or fell) enough to create (or eliminate) a district."
In the pipe dream where this happens, you would have this happen outside of the usual 10-year redistricting process?

Why?

[Nelson]

Because it would cause a greater likelihood that an incumbent has to adjust to a new constituency (or place two incumbents in conflict, depending on the new districts). The less security an incumbent feels in their seat and the more turnover we have, the better it is for citizens. I see the 90%+ incumbency victory rate as an indication of a broken system and a loss of responsiveness by representatives to their constituents and, at the same time, an increase in the influence of monied and special interests.

If those interests have to keep building relationships with new representatives, they lose influence and citizens gain it.

[EscherEnigma]

Okay...

Next question, how?

Currently, the census is how we know that populations have changed. Are you proposing that the census goes from a every-ten-years thing to a every-two-years thing? If not, then between censuses how do we know that we need an out-of-cycle redistricting?

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, it's causing a number of problems that we have such a huge range of state populations. OTOH, constitutionally it's really difficult to split up a state.

But it really needs to be done.

[Nelson]

“I’m okay with that provided that California and New York”

With the location of the blue areas of California, there isn’t any way to break it up to make a majority-red “state”, so that would just end up with 3 blue and 1 red “state”.

Don’t get me wrong. The oversized electoral power of the small states (mostly red) is heading towards the point where 40% of the population will control 60% of the Electoral College votes, which is pretty disturbing. This would fix that problem, so I would support it.

I also support our territories ( including Guam and the Virgin Islands) either being states or being let go. These in-between statuses allow for unacceptable situations like receiving federal aid and spending, but not paying income taxes. That’s not a good idea at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

California's political geography

Basically, you'd take most of the Eastern part of the state, starting maybe 50 miles from the ocean and border with Mexico, and make that one "interior" state, and the coast would bet split into several "blue" states. Depending on where you drew the dividing line, you *might get a 2/3 split rather than 4/1, but it would be tough.

OTOH, the situation is opposite that in Texas, so the net result of splitting them both would be politically neutral.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just what we need; more Congress members.

[Voize]

Q: Why do programmers confuse Halloween with Christmas?

A: Because Oct 31 = Dec 25

[Frank Drackman]

I don’t get it

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, after all, there are 10 kinds of people: Programmers and everybody else.

[Brett Bellmore]

“31” in octal, base 8, is “25” in decimal, base 10. The joke is funnier in the original assembler.

[Kazinski]

Except computer programmers never use octal, sometimes binary. There are 8 bits in a byte, but you still wouldn’t use octal, you’d use base 256, which they kind of do for memory calculations.

If you had a 3 bit byte then you would use octal. The closest I’ve come using octal is base 16, when doing conversions in comp-3 in cobol, which stores decimal data using a half byte for each digit, and was developed when every bit was worth bleeding for.

So no, I don’t get it.

Maybe if you retold the joke using a mathematician, rather than a programmer it would work better, they’re weird.

[Michael P]

Octal was used somewhat widely in older days. It's still used to represent Unix file permissions compactly, either in code or the command line, because the three major sets (user, group and other) each have three bits, so octal puts each set in its own digit.

[Bwaaah]

I was off-put by Kazinski's assertion that "computer programmers never use octal." I fall into use of octal frequently, but couldn't quickly think of a single reason why I would (for reasons Kazinski enumerates). Thanks for reminding me about Unix (more typically Linux) file permissions. *That's* where I commonly use it.

[Voize]

COBOL is an anomaly, a programming language from the dawn of time that doesn't support octal integer literals. Almost all languages do, even very recent ones: Go, Julia, Swift, and Rust all do in spite of having been invented in the last 15 years. So, although modern programmers don't use it much it is hard to believe they aren't familiar with it, and familiarity is all it takes to get the joke.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, funnier in the original assembler. You probably need more of a mid 70’s background to really find it funny. Back then programmers typically worked closer to the hardware than today, when you’ve got MIPS to burn.

I got my start in computers with a Honeywell mainframe and Fortran, back in ’75, and while I did learn to program in several languages, (Fortran, Pascal, Occam.) my computer education was more hardware oriented than software.

And, of course, I did build a computer up out of logic gates in one class. 4 bit, so I find Hex and octal jokes funny.

[Brett Bellmore]

These days I just play around with microcontrollers. (My favorite is the Teensy.) Which reminds me, I really need to buckle down and design that circuit board for my self balancing robot; The hardware is done, I just need a PCB to mount all the various modules (Microcontroller, gyro, motor controllers...) to, and some glue logic.

[Bwaaah]

My current favorite MCU is the ESP32 which comes in modules that include two 32-bit cores at 240MHz and integrated WiFi. Dirt-cheap development boards are abundantly available on Amazon at around $7/each. I have a working prototype of a battery-powered wireless light switch that stands by at under 800 nanoamps. (I rely on an 8-bit PIC MCU for a power control circuit because the ESP32 can't operate near that low.) I have a target of $15 for the total parts cost per switch. I'm just beginning to learn PCB design now. (I'm not an EE, so most of this hardware stuff is new to me.)

The miniature, low power world is astounding. I too started in the 1970s, and the continuous improvements in computing have been breathtaking to behold. This stuff is FUN!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

HTML (web) colors are in hexadecimal (base 16) format, two digits for each of the three primary colors (Red, Green, & Blue). Hence #FFFF00 would be bright yellow, for other examples, see: https://colorhunt.co/

0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, A, B, C, D, E, F.

[Voize]

Kazinski, you have just demonstrated there are 11 kinds of people.
COBOL programmers, real programmers, and everybody else.

[Kazinski]

Well I do have to say that the big business IBM Mainframe - Microsoft PC ecosystem was quite different than the smaller Burroughs Honeywell Tandem type system in small and medium size enterprises, and also different than the unix dominated communications and process control systems.

Its like we were all speaking a different language, and you would just toss resumes that didn't have the acronyms you were looking for nomatter how much experience they had on other systems.

My acronyms were COBOL, DB2, JCL, CICS.

[DrCoke]

Programmers commonly used octal on many computers in the "old days". Hex became popular when microcomputers came along. I used octal extensively up until the early 2000s, programming legacy machines that were mainstays through the end of the 1980s. In particular, the PDP-10 (a small "mainframe" architecture unrelated to the PDP-11). Word sizes on larger computers were not 32-bit, but rather 36-bit.

[SRG2]

"The joke is funnier in the original assembler."

Best line of the day.

[Frank Drackman]

2 Nephrologists are drinking at a Bar, the first, completely hammered, says “I checked my BUN today, it’s 24”
the other Nephrologist says “So what? that’s in the normal range”
the first cries into his Beer,
“That’s in SI Units!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
See, BUN, (Blood Urea Nitrogen) is almost always reported in mg/dl, with normal being 7-25. In SI (Systeme International) units its Millimoles/Liter, with normal being 3-8. The only place I’ve ever seen SI units used in medicine is the New England Journal of Medicine case presentations, where a bunch of Fleas (Internists) spend an hour diagnosing a case a Surgeon could figure out in 10 seconds.
And did you know in Europe, besides putting Mayonnaise on French Fries (God Damn!), they express Fuel Economy in how many Liters it takes to go 100km, not how many kilometers you can squeeze from a Liter, I think that says something about the Amurican Ethic, the Euros are worried if they have enough gas to get there, we’re trying to see how far we can go without filling up.

Frank

[Bored Lawyer]

An engineer, a chemist and a computer programmer took a road trip together. On the way, their car started sputtering, then stopped working as they pulled to the side of the road. What to do?

Engineer: We should look under the hood. I bet something is wrong with the engine block. Let's take it apart and see what's wrong.

Chemist: Nah, I think the gas we got is tainted with water. Let's pull out a sample from the gas tank and analyze it.

Programmer: No problem. Just turn the car on an off repeatedly until it starts working.

[Frank Drackman]

The Internists spend hours asking "What should we do?????"
The Surgeons say "What have we done!?!?!?!?!?"

Frank

[DrCoke]

When in doubt, dike it out!

[SimonP]

One of my enduring memories from my brief dalliance with computer science, which has informed how I view computer scientists and engineers, occurred during one of the fundamental courses in my comp sci degree program.

The homework assignments primarily used bases that were powers of 2 - binary, octal, hexadecimal. But on our first exam, in order to test our understanding of the concepts (rather than just our ability to repeat our homework assignments), the professor used an example that was in base 7.

I had no problem with the exam, and was one of the top scorers in the class. But in a post-exam session to go over the classroom's abysmal performance overall, the students loudly complained about how they hadn't been taught how to do that. The professor, flabbergasted, ultimately conceded, giving everyone a few bonus points, so that fewer of them would get a failing grade.

It's almost funny to me that the thread responding to this joke features a few of this site's most committed MAGA supporters. It doesn't surprise me at all. They remind me of my classmates, loudly complaining that the exam was unfair because it didn't cater to their narrow way of viewing the world. With me, standing to the side, no problem at all, indeed breaking the curve for the rest of them.

[Brett Bellmore]

They were just trying out "new math" when I went through K-12, so we got a heavy exposure to alternate bases, and being a math nerd I really took to it like a fish to water. (A lot of the other students, not so much.) So when I encountered different bases in a computer application, it wasn't really any big deal. Which I suppose had been the point...

Binary is used in computers because it minimizes component precision to keep the hardware working; In principle you can do digital logic in trinary, and it might even save some space on the die, but you'd have to make the gates to much higher precision, and they'd age out faster.

The Hitchhiker's Guide has a bit of a base joke in it: The answer to life, the universe, and everything, was 42. What was the question? "What is 6 times 9?" It actually is, in base 13.

[Sarcastr0]

That's baby group theory, and is pretty great to be 'I learned this when I was 8' levels of conversant for a lot of physics disciplines.

[Bwaaah]

Surprised you can see anything from way up there, where you imagine smart people lurk, looking down on people with the same petty resentment that you do.

6 time 9 is 42. That's a fun little point. Did it so bother you?

[Brett Bellmore]

He doesn't sound bothered to me.

It actually IS convenient to be exposed to esoteric concepts relevant to your eventual field when you're in elementary school. It sure didn't hurt me being exposed to things like alternate bases at an early age. In fact, there are a lot of things, like perfect pitch, that you really can only learn at an early age. (Absent pharmacological intervention...)

The problem is that the set of such concepts is enormous relative to what almost all elementary school students could be expected to absorb, and most of that set is going to be a total waste for almost all of those students. It's not like you actually know at age 8 who's going to be a physicist, who's going to be an engineer, who's going to be a doctor.

Well, maybe you can't know, but I bet if we tried hard, we could have a pretty good idea, even if not 100% reliable. But current educational ideology is pretty hostile to figuring out early on which students are certainly not going to become engineers, physicists, and doctors, and putting them on a different track from the mental sponges.

[Bwaaah]

I’ve watched people who “want to be programmers” try to become programmers (or similarly, engineers). Long ago, I noted characteristics in people who would go on to be programmers that were notably different from everybody else. The difference was that when their programs didn’t work, the real programmers were motivated by that predicament to work at the problem until they got it solved. They sort of couldn’t walk away from it until they got it working. The problems, the failures, felt compelling rather than repulsive.

That’s a fundamentally emotional response that tends to be innate, not learned.

Non-programmers don’t react that way, even if they want to be programmers. The failures of their programs feel frustrating, annoying, and really, like something they want to walk away from, not something they want to dig into. That’s what much of the vocation of programming is: toiling away at endless details and mistakes that actually matter, but are of little interest to non-programmer types.

Can you discern whether a person is a programmer or non-programmer type? I don’t know a sure method. But signs of a person leaning one way or the other often appear, and SCREAM the answer. Alas, “who are we to judge” is the idiotic mantra that lets stupid do stupid, smart do stupid, stupid do smart, and smart do smart, like those four outcomes are all equally OK. (“STEM for everybody!”)

Engineers tend to focus on real outcomes. Non-engineers are prone to focusing on intentions, and are often unmoved by outcomes. (They say, “That wasn’t how it was supposed to happen; that’s not a good example.”)

I guess what I’m trying to say is that educators mean well, but no amount of failure seems to move any but a few of them. The lack of steady improvement in educational outcomes over time seems to be evidence of an endemic inability of educators to adapt and improve. They definitely tend not to look like engineer types to me.

[ducksalad]

You nailed it on what it takes to be a programmer or engineer.

But just to address your last comment, let me illustrate what we’re up against teaching potential engineers: two third year electrical engineering students I was standing over in the lab needed to find a resistor that would draw 200mA from a 5V source. (The real project was way more complex, but it got to where I asked if they could just do that.) They sort of knew Ohm’s Law, but were utterly stumped by “milli”. Gave them 10 minutes, use the internet. They never did figure it out on their own how to write 200 milliamps in amps.

They aren’t typical, of course, if they were we’d just give up. The best students are as good as they’ve ever been, but the lower end is plummeting.

Another one that I think really illustrates the key problem. On the first day there’s a quiz with a multiple choice safety question: You see that another student is getting shocked. What’s the correct sequence:

(a) turn off the power, call for help, administer aid
(b) call for help, turn off the power, administer aid
(c) administer aid, call for help, turn off the power

10 years ago 30 out of a class of 30 would get it right. Now fully a third of them answer “call for help” as the first thing. They’ve been trained to have no initiative and go to authority as their first move.

Again, it's not all of them, just the lower half.

[Bwaaah]

"The best students are as good as they’ve ever been, but the lower end is plummeting."

Indeed. People are encouraged to be what they want to be, which easily oversteps a notion of being what you are. If you require encouragement in a vocation, that's probably an indication of a mismatch.

Now that good people are in charge, everybody receives not only encouragement, but all kinds of passes on things that matter. Your description of third year EE students is somewhat shocking to me. I tried EE (in the seventies) and dropped it by the second week. That first semester class was designed to overwhelm and eliminate any but the most hearty would-be engineers. Your anecdote suggests that "social promotion" has come to engineering. I suspect Boeing's problems are related to that.

And that last point, about safety, affirms my observations of how so many people take life as if it's essentially a community responsibility; as if each of us doesn't have a uniquely import personal responsibility in real space and time on earth. Life happens, sometimes in a punishing way, and so many people get stumped waiting for somebody [of authority] to indicate what they're supposed to do. "I knew he was being shocked. But I didn't want to do the wrong thing. So I waited for help."

I've seen that personal irresponsibility play out quite unfortunately in real life, and it's getting worse. A culture of propriety is overwhelming a culture of reason.

[Nelson]

“I suspect Boeing’s problems are related to that.

Boeing’s problems were entirely self-caused. It was the upper executives demanding faster delivery, institutionalizing a complete lack of quality control, and ignoring repeated warning from their engineers that the subcontractor they were using was producing low-quality parts (and “parts” includes entire portions of the airframe.

They actively and intentionally ignored the problems to maintain profits and their stock prices.

More competition will be necessary in the future, since Boeing is unlikely to be able to recover the trust of their consumers and Airbus makes a better product for a similar price. No one trusts Boeing ( nor should they).

[Bwaaah]

"It was the upper executives demanding faster delivery, institutionalizing a complete lack of quality control, and ignoring repeated warning from their engineers"

That theory rolls off your keyboard way too easily. There is no "institutionalization of a complete lack of quality control." First, at Boeing, there remains a huge amount of quality control, in systems and in culture. And second, a lack of quality control is not an initiative; it's an observation of the failures that happen to pass through extensive systems of quality control.

Executives have always pushed for productivity gains in Boeing, as in all corporations. Despite that context, engineers have always been able to define and enforce the standards of quality. With only rare exceptions, it would be a myth to say that quality is defined or controlled at the top (although it certainly must be energetically sponsored). In aerospace, quality is defined and built at every level of the production process. A real loss of quality reflects negligent behaviors by people on the ground, and unsatisfactory supervisors that knowingly permit that negligence.

It seems evident to me that Boeing has hired into its organization the irresponsible kinds of non-performers that ducksalad describes above. Boeing executives know well that airplane manufacturing demands a quality culture, and people who embrace that attitude. But not only did they hire no-can-do people, but they established managerial tolerance for those no-can-do people. How? Why? To save money, you say? You think Boeing executives are really *that* stupid? That they think they can make money building airplanes without a quality culture?

I think you're quite wrong.

But let me ask you this...what would happen if you imposed a "diversity" requirement on a quality culture? Can you impose a diversity requirement on a quality culture?

The answer is: not if you insist on a quality culture. You can ask for diversity. But you can't require it.

But I believe that in the past few years, Boeing, like other well-intentioned corporations, has imposed diversity requirements and made it known from the top, to its employees and its shareholders, that they *must* support those initiatives. That requirement, that insidious requirement, is incompatible with a culture of quality.

This is just my theory. But given how Boeing boasted about its improved diversity statistics in its ESG reports, and its commitment to continued improvements in diversity, that would be a plausible reason for them to have hired and tolerated unsatisfactorily performing people.

I don't believe there are enough "diverse" people suited to a quality culture to fill the aspirations of corporations. In aerospace, the compromises needed to hit diversity targets work directly against quality requirements, and can produce catastrophic outcomes. A case of good intentions, but unqualified people.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have an alternate theory: Just in time inventory and manufacturing meets production quotas.

"Just in time" spread like wildfire across industry, world-wide, in the last few decades. It's a large part of why Covid, unlike prior pandemics, caused cascading supply chain failures.

It's works great when it works, reduces your cost of inventory to the bare minimum, but it does so by taking all the resiliency out of your system. (That's why those of us who labor in the production end of the factory, rather than the front office, call it "just too late".)

So, picture this production environment where everything has to work perfectly in order to work at all, AND you have to meet quotas to get your quarterly bonus. And along comes a bad part, and there's no known good stock on the shelf to substitute for it.

Well, you'd better have a QC department that has the ability to say "NO!" and make it stick, or else somebody's going to rationalize using that part anyway. Or rationalize skipping an inspection, since the last thousand inspections didn't turn up any problems.

Heck, a significant part of my own work is figuring how to keep things going when a tool component from a vendor gets bungled somehow, and there's a 4 week lead time in getting a new one made, and a deadline coming up... And we DO have a QC department that has the authority to say "NO!", and make it stick.

But Boeing apparently doesn't, anymore.

[Bwaaah]

I see the pressures of J.I.T., and in a supply chain breakdown, the escalation of costs. But quality comes down to culture and people, and for it to erode, a cheater's mentality would have to be allowed to creep into the fears and aspirations of employees and managers. That goes directly against the natural instincts of people in an established quality culture.

A quality culture doesn't just give people authority to say "no," but even more powerfully, it instills in them and their supervisors a fear of wrongfully saying "yes." Your name goes next to "yes," and that puts you on the hook for your cheat. People won't do that unless other people are doing that. I can't imagine high level execs putting themselves on the hook by approving any of it. And it's hard for me to see the corporate profit motive, collective and abstract as it is, overcoming the risk to individual employees of signing off on a cheat.

My theory is that there isn't an across-the-board wholesale breakdown of quality processes everywhere in the company. I suspect there are breakdowns in small departments where the culture has eroded, and more likely, in isolated subcontractors where erosion is more difficult to see.

But...I really don't know.

[bernard11]

I agree with this.

[santamonica811]

Shoutout to me, I guess, for calling the World Series. I was correct in that the winner of the Dodgers-Padres series would decisively win the World Series. Mets did take the Dodgers to 6 games, so it certainly wasn't a super-easy path.

I was wrong about either Otani or Judge having a big series. I'll cut myself some slack, since Otani was hurt early on, and a shell of a healthy Shohei for almost all the games. But I was surprised that Judge gagged and stunk up the joint for just about the entire series. His home run Wed night might have been an indication that he was seeing the ball better; and he might have gone on to show his true ability in a Game Six or Seven. But in the disastrous, miserable, horrific, not-so-good, Hindenburg of a 5th Inning, his inexplicable error on an easy fly ball was Step One of the biggest choke in (recent, at least) World Series history.

I'm not sure what made me happier; the Dodgers winning, or the Yankees losing by fumbling and bumbling, and by doing their best impression of the 2024 White Sox. It's a pretty close call, but I guess it's the Dodgers winning. But the Yankees' massive choking was the cherry on top of a delightful victorious sundae.

(Now, let's try to get Juan Soto to sign with the Dodgers as a free agent, for 2025 and beyond.)

((Let's hope my prognostication abilities are not as accurate for the coming Nov elections.))

[Kazinski]

I can't think of two teams I hate worse than the Dodgers and Yankees, mainly because the two teams I've followed the most are the Giants and Mariners.

And because the Yankees and Dodgers represent checkbook baseball better than any other franchises in their leagues.

[Frank Drackman]

Missed in the Celebration, Dodgers moving to Austin TX

[bernard11]

I think this whole "checkbook" business is nonsense.

Owners of MLB teams are plenty wealthy. Signing a big-time free agent doesn't mean they can't pay the electric bill.

Neither Mark Walter (LAD) nor Hal Steinbrenner (NYY) are at the top of the list of owners by wealth.

[Commenter_XY]

Did you know there are 13 states where it is illegal to take a picture of the ballot you cast? No selfies allowed. Here is the list.

North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, Texas, South Carolina, South Dakota, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Louisiana, Maryland

I found this out yesterday during early voting, watching an election worker morph into a Karen, as a young person took a selfie b/c they voted for the first time. This is how the process worked. You recorded vote electronically at a voting booth, got a two sided paper printout, and then fed the paper into a separate reader. Oooops...NO taking pictures of the printed paper ballot, that's illegal! When asked, the election worker could not cite a statute (there is one). Fortunately, democracy was preserved. 🙂

Is this actually constitutional...you cannot take a picture of your own printed paper ballot when you vote? What if you wanted to keep your own photographic record? Just out of curiosity, how does one challenge the law w/o getting arrested?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Injunction?

[Frank Drackman]

At my polling place in Jaw Jaw the sign said “No Cell Phones”(also “No Weapons”)
Looked like most voters were ignoring them, I know I did.

Frank

[Krayt]

I think the argument was they don't want you to be able to prove your vote, so you can go get a cash reward.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Also, the voter could be threatened with punishment unless (s)he proves (s)he voted a certain way.

Employers, etc. could exploit a "right to take a selfie" in order to control those subject to their influence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or be subject to extortion, yeah.

Generally speaking, the people organizing opposition to 'selfie laws' know damned well why they exist. They're just trying to reopen the door to effective vote buying.

[Kazinski]

You could just ask chatgpt to create a picture of you with your states ballot and the appropriate candidate selected.

It also wouldn't keep the state from keeping vote buying illegal and running a sting.

Or even better make offering to buy a vote a tort, and allow people to sue and recover statutory damages, and offer whistleblower protection.

Isn't that how first amendment law.is.supposed to work anyway? The least restrictive way to safeguard legitimate state interests?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The reality is that some voters in bad straits will think it the better part of valor to give in to the threats rather than risk their employment, etc. This could mean increasing the number of tainted votes in the system, and the offenders, at least for a time, getting away with it.

What sounds “least restrictive” to me is to cut off the evil at the source, forbidding these selfies to begin with.

[Krayt]

I would like to know the reason behind the law. I can't imagine too many companies getting away with that, whereas paying for votes is a well-established tradition.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Supposing they'd be caught in the long term, companies would have the ability to do a lot of mischief by the pollution created by their corruption in the interim before they're caught.

And I don't want to single out employers - malevolent pressure groups of all kinds could retaliate against people who haven't proven they voted the correct way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ballot secrecy is a damned important part of voting, enforced in all modern democracies, and this IS a reasonable accommodation, considering that voting isn't an ordinary everyday life activity.

Democrats just don't like ballot secrecy. You've seen the way they've tried to get rid of it for union certification votes, for instance.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ballot secrecy also allows an illegal vote to be counted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ballots don't typically get disassociated from the caster until the point at which they're counted, so that can be dealt with, and SHOULD be dealt with, at the front end, before counting. If there's a category of suspect ballots, say ones arriving after election day, they should typically be segregated and counted separately, so that you have a separate total to add or subtract from the bottom line without identifying any one person's vote.

Smashing ballot secrecy is a classic example of Chesterton's fence. Charitably, the people compromising it don't understand why we instituted obsessive ballot secrecy in the first place. Charitably. When viewed in light of cancel culture, I find it hard to be that charitable.

[Reallynotbob]

What are you talking about re: "Democrats just don't like ballot secrecy?" Harris is talking about it pretty consistently these past several weeks.

I assume you're pointing to the Cemex decision concerning union votes. That's a whole different kettle of fish, and not the same as being against secret ballots.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was not a different kettle of fish. They opposed ballot secrecy there specifically to enable, in a union context, exactly the evil that ballot secrecy prevents in any voting context: Buying/extorting votes.

[Stella Link the dog]

Your claim is that “Democrats just don’t like ballot secrecy” but your support is a reference to union certification votes. That's like saying that Republicans "just don't like ballot secrecy" based on the way convention delegates are chosen in Iowa.

Do you actually have any evidence that any Democrat of any significance advocates the elimination of ballot secrecy in any political election anywhere in the United States? Is there any data extant which indicates that a non-trivial number of rank and file Democrats in this country desire the elimination of ballot secrecy?

My guess would be that among Democrats and Repuplicans the desire to eliminate ballot secrecy is about as prevalent as the desire to subsidize buggy whip manufacturers or outlaw comb-overs. That is, vanishingly small. Do you have an actually plausible reason to believe otherwise or are you just making shit up, as usual.

[grb]

“Forget it, Jake. It's Brett.”

[Noscitur a sociis]

You know, I was just starting to think that Brett Bellmore was more normal lately. Glad to see things are back to the way they should be.

[David Nieporent]

Generally speaking, the people organizing opposition to ‘selfie laws’ know damned well why they exist. They’re just trying to reopen the door to effective vote buying.

Conspiracy Brett™ has detected another conspiracy!

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit said ballot selfie bans were unconstitutional. The state can only take action if it can prove coercion in an individual case.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/ballot-selfies/

In my opinion ballot selfie bans should be allowed even though the ACLU would be upset.

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr....Really? I'm curious...why allow selfie bans?

[Michael P]

So voters cannot prove how they voted.

We had a lot of outright violence on election days in the early days of the US, before ballot secrecy laws were widely adopted. Vote buying and extortion are much harder to catch and prove.

[Commenter_XY]

Is individual voter buying actually illegal, though? It seems the line is very hazy.

[Reallynotbob]

There's also other kinds of coercion, such as intra-marital pressure to vote a particular way. "Hey, wife, show me you voted for my guy."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, my boss is sitting out this election to avoid pissing off his wife. NOT the other way around.

[Lennyk78]

He sounds like a pussy.

[Brett Bellmore]

He doesn't care about politics as much as you do, and does care about having a pleasant marriage. That's not being a "pussy", that's actually being rational. Us politics obsessed are the crazy ones.

[Reallynotbob]

Now now, let's just say "pusillanimous." And thanks for supporting my point.

[Lennyk78]

I've been married for 24 years, and we have a very pleasant marriage. But my wife knows that she doesn't get to make decisions like that

[hobie]

I took a picture of mine. And I'll bet when someone finally has to challenge these silly laws these (the laws) will get struck down on 1st Amendment issues

[Frank Drackman]

It's not so much taking the picture of "yours" its your sending it to underage boys

[OtisAH]

A poll worker enforcing election law is a “Karen”? Did you punch her or just strip down to your tighty whities and call her a cunt?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A "Karen" is an annoying person who self-righteously feels aggrieved. A poll worker following the rules, in part to avoid getting in trouble with a supervisor and poll watchers, is not really a "Karen."

New York bans a photo of a completed ballot. It is a misdemeanor when a voter:

Shows his ballot after it is prepared for voting, to any
person so as to reveal the contents, or solicits a voter to show
the same

So, you can take a picture with a blank ballot.

The purpose of this law, instituted long before cell phones/personal cameras were the norm, was to prevent voter coercion/intimidation or vote buying (i.e., showing a completed ballot to prove an individual voted in a certain way to another individual).

https://www.news10.com/news/are-new-yorkers-allowed-to-take-a-picture-of-their-ballot/

A person can still tell people how they voted. Also, the language doesn't seem to disallow photographing a sample ballot that you filled out since it is not official.

We do have a secret ballot system. The law makes some degree of sense. For those worried about voter fraud, perhaps, it makes more sense. I can understand people being against it but also I don't think the burden is serious enough for it to be a First Amendment violation. Multiple laws in some fashion legitimately regulate speech in polling places.

[Krayt]

A “Karen” is an annoying person who self-righteously feels aggrieved

And who has not had a lawyer figure out a way for her to get paid for it. Yet.

[Reallynotbob]

That’s not what the original post said. The original post was about a selfie with a completed ballot.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What are you responding to?

I provided general info.

[Reallynotbob]

I thought you were suggesting the election worker was wrong because merely photographing a blank ballot is not illegal, and then suggesting that is what the person in the original story did.

On re-reading, perhaps that's not what you were saying.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Okay, thanks.

The two parts of my comment were separate — the poll worker part & the New York law part.

The voting discussion references a procedure I do not follow in New York City. So, I don’t know what state is being referenced there.

[EscherEnigma]

I did not have "attacks on the laws to prevent vote-buying" on today's bingo card. Huh.

[Kazinski]

A week ago when I was looking at the trend in the poll numbers of the averages on both RCP and 538, it looked to me like the undecideds were breaking toward Trump. Harris’ numbers were relatively stable but Trump was trending slowly up.

RCP 9/18/24 10/18 10/30 Diff
Harris 49.3 49.3 48 _____ -1.3
Trump 47.4 48.1 48.4____ 1
Diff _____1.9 1.2 ____-0.4 ____-2.3

538
Harris 48.5 48.4 48.1 ____ -0.4
Trump 45.2 46.3 46.7 ____1.5
Diff______3.3 2.1 _____1.4 _____-1.9

So that last column, if it lines up properly, tells the story: in the last 6 weeks Harris has dropped 1.3, and .4 respectively in the RCP and 538 aggregates. While Trump has gone up 1, and 1.5 respectively.

So Trump gained 2.3 on RCP putting him ahead 0.4 on RCP. And on 538, he gained 1.9, still leaving him behind 1.4 on 538 nationally.

Whether that kind of analysis actually works on an aggregate poll, we will probably find out next week. Individual polls, like say the CNN poll are too noisy to try that on from week to week or month to month, CNN has only done 4 polls since June, Trump ahead in 2, Harris in 1, and one tie.

Speaking of CNN, they also show one weakness of aggregate polls: in Wisconsin there have been 9 polls since 10/15, all except 1 have been 1 point either way or tied, now CNN dropped a poll there a few days ago (there only one in Wisconsin) showing Harris up by 6, while Atlas also had a poll during the same period With 2x the sample showing a tie like everyone else.

[Commenter_XY]

PA is the one to watch. The Team D mail ballot returns from the Philly collar counties (esp Montco) is tremendous, shattering all previous ballot return records. PA will be won or lost there, the collar counties of Philly.

[grb]

And I'm convinced the election is won or lost in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Obviously there are plenty of scenarios where that's not the case, but I'm still sure it is.

Given both states are tossups, it will be a long Election Night - quite possibly extending into the days after.

[Kazinski]

If AZ, NC, GA hold for Trump then its hard to find a scenario where Harris can win without PA, MI, and WI.

The current TheHill/Decision Desk forecast gives Trump a 53% chance of winning, which is very tight, and here are it's battleground state probabilities:

Nevada 51% R
Wisconsin 52% R
Pennsylvania 53% R
Michigan 58% D
Arizona 60% R
North Carolina 65% R
Georgia 65% R

Those all seem reasonable to me except MI, and NC, which the polls show within 1 point, along with NV, PA, and NV.

[Josh R]

Good analysis. If Harris loses PA, she would then have to win at least one of GA and NC, and also win either NV or AZ.

[grb]

Kazinski : "If AZ, NC, GA hold for Trump then its hard to find a scenario where Harris can win without PA, MI, and WI"

I'm not worried that much about Wisconsin and think North Carolina is well within the reach of Harris (even if probably Trump's). I expect Harris also needs Nevada.

I also expect the race will break comfortably (electorial college-wise) one way or the other. Trump at 53% odds sounds right (though my teeth grind as I type), but with presidential elections that edge is almost meaningless.

[Kazinski]

Well as has been pointed out many times, its that close if the polls have been fixed. Here is what the polls showed in PA in the last two elections:

"5 Days to Election: 2020: Biden +4.3 | 2016: Clinton +3.5"

Biden won PA by 1.17% in 2020, and Hillary lost by .72%, so they were off by 3% in PA the last two cycles, if the polls been properly corrected it will be a squeaker, if they didn't fix it, or over corrected, or there is a new trend they completely missed it could be over early.

[grb]

Sure. But pollsters are always fighting the last war. Even if their corrective measures are well-considered, there’s always a good chance they’re dated.

If the polls are still under-reading Trump support, we should know early and the race will be quickly decided. If they over-corrected or there’s some new factor underestimating Harris support, the opposite swing will soon manifest itself. I hestitate to suggest this because each side has its own pet factoids, but there are accounts that women are voting in exceptionally high numbers or late-deciders are breaking to Harris.

I trust neither factoid, just as I don’t trust the pro-Trump ones. Nor do I put much faith in the ground-game advantage, though Harris is said to have an edge there. There was a news story earlier about “internals” that were supposedly troubling the Trump camp, but I’ve seen that kind of story too often to find any solace in it.

Bottom line? Anyone “confident” about the election result is either a liar or fool. It’s way too uncertain. The country will either be rescued from a sleazy addled huckster buffoon by Harris winning, or it won’t.

My traitional practice is to have a bottle of champagne on-hand to either celebrate or drown my misery. Given the stakes here, two or three bottles may be needed.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've said it before: I'm going into this election, like all previous, utterly agnostic about the expected winner. It doesn't actually bother me that I don't know who will win. It's like the weather, as far as I'm concerned; Not really under my control, just prepare for rain and hope for a sunny day.

[grb]

Ah, but what definition of "agnostic" !?!

[Commenter_XY]

NV seems locked down for Kamala, esp in light of the recent NV court decision. It was always a long shot for Pres Trump.

The PA mail ballot return rate is a surprise.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "NV seems locked down for Kamala, esp in light of the recent NV court decision"

Hilarious. That's the kind of statement which suggests people should always reread & triple-consider before hitting submit. Unless, of course, you're comfortable with making a tin-foil-hat fashion statement.

But that's unfair. To be a Rightie today, you're contractually obligated to say a minimum of one bat-shit crazy thing every day. For all I know, XY used this opportunity to get that irksome requirement out the way & will be a normal rational sensible person right up to the strike of midnight.

Meanwhile - back on Planet Earth - we Earthlings are very uncertain what the Nevada results will be. At this point (to drift into metaphor), they're a crap shoot.

[Kazinski]

I think Nevada’s election will be clean.

Nevada’s GOP governor, and Trump supporter, is the former Sheriff of Clark County, which contains Las Vegas, if there is a corrupt machine capable of wholesale voter fraud, then he very likely would be aware of it, and would shut it down.

Its hard to run a corrupt machine without all the levers of power, well unless of course everyone is wetting their beak.

It was actually NV that made it plain to me Biden won in 2020. Nevada or GA or AZ all were the decisive margin, and Nevada was won by 2.5% well outside any possible margin of fraud.

[Kazinski]

Nah, I think NV swings right this election.

Whether or not the cracks in the Black vote are real, Hispanics are definitely moving right, and thats a significant share of the vote in NV.

Here’s something else that may affect the poll adjustments in PA:

HARRISBURG — Despite a bump following Joe Biden’s exit from the presidential race, Democrats in Pennsylvania are entering the home stretch of the 2024 election with their weakest voter registration advantage compared to Republicans in recent decades.

The party’s raw registration numbers began to rise after Biden dropped out in late July and that trend is continuing. But simultaneously, the number of Republicans has increased even more quickly.

In other words, Democrats’ overall share of voters is still declining, and recent increases haven’t made up for losses over the past four years.”
https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2024/09/pennsylvania-voter-registration-2024-election-democrat-republican-independent-harris-trump/

[Commenter_XY]

I have long maintained that a close election comes down to: AZ, GA, WI. Whoever sweeps those states wins the election. All fine and good.

What I have also said in the last 2.5 weeks is that PA moved, and cited several factors on why, one of which was mail ballots. Guess what? The collar counties of Philly (and Montgomery county, specifically) have a tremendous mail ballot return, and a higher return rate for Team D. I think when all is said and done, the mail ballot return delta from the collar counties of Philly decide this election.

The race is a statistical tie. We don't know the impact of the human garbage comment by POTUS Biden. For all we know, that could be the October Surprise.

[bernard11]

a close election comes down to: AZ, GA, WI. Whoever sweeps those states wins the election.

Probably true, but bear in mind that the outcomes in the battleground states are definitely correlated. The candidate who wins those three is going to win some of the others.

It's not that a sweep of your three implies a win regardless of the other outcomes. It's a sweep strongly suggests the sweeper is going to do well elsewhere also.

[Riva]

Tremendous? If you say so. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/30/24:
"There is a 27% decrease in mail ballots that have been returned at this point in Pennsylvania compared with the 2020 presidential election. For Democrats, that decrease is 39%. But Republicans have shown a 10% increase in returned ballots across the state compared with 2020, and 5% in Philadelphia alone."

[Josh R]

Ignore early voting results, except perhaps Nevada where almost everybody votes early. Early votes have a bad record of prediciting the results.

Riva is correct that Dems aren't doing as well in 2024 with mail-in ballots as they did in 2020. But don't draw any conclusions because 1) Trump told people to vote on election day in 2020, but to vote early in 2024 and 2) COVID drew a lot of people to vote by mail.

The NV numbers continue to favor the GOP (by just under 5% right now), and they will probably be ahead by 2 to 4% by election day (with 80% to 90% having voted). Because the GOP has always done well on election day, they should be ready for a good night. However again, Trump's early-voting edicts may mean Dems will do well on election day. Plus, we don't know how Independents are voting (they are 27% of the vote).

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, just remember, you heard it here first Josh R.

You'll hear it again in a week, only it will be the MSM saying it.

[Josh R]

If "what I heard" is Trump will win, sure that could happen (it's a 50-50 chance). So what?

[Josh R]

RCP includes all polls without weighting. There have been more +GOP pollsters this time around. 538 appplies "house effects" to adjust partisan pollsters. For example, Trafalgar is adjusted +3 towards Dems and Ipsos +2 towards the GOP. RCP will look good if (as in 2016 and 2020, but not in 2008, 2012, 2018, 2022) the GOP pollsters are more accurate.

If 538 is correct, it's a 50/50 race with about a 50% chance that either Harris or Trump sweeps the battlegrounds. That's because a small polling error (2%-points) could easily result in such a sweep.

[Commenter_XY]

House effects = Cherry pick

[Josh R]

No, no, a million times no. House effects is a well-calibrated objective algorithm.

[not guilty]

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, has affirmed the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun magazines of more than ten rounds in an as applied challenge brought by four plaintiffs. https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/10/23-7061-2082477.pdf The procedural posture of the case was important to the appellate court’s decision.

A plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief has a “requirement for substantial proof [that] is much higher” than a defendant’s summary judgment motion. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Ibid. (Italics in original.)

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [(1)] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [(2)] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [(3)] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [(4)] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. 555 U.S. 7, 17 (2008). Even where a plaintiff shows a likelihood of success on the merits, an applicant must demonstrate that in the absence of a preliminary injunction, “the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” Ibid., quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1, p. 139 (2d ed.1995).

The majority of the D.C. Circuit panel opined that the plaintiffs' as applied challenge failed to meet the first two criteria. Footnote 2 recites:

Because the appellants conceded at oral argument that they had not made the requisite showing for a facial challenge to the District’s magazine cap, see Oral Arg. Tr. at 9–14, we address their challenge only as-applied and only to the type of weapons equipped with an ELCM that appellants actually own and want to register in the District, namely, handgun magazines holding between 12 and 17 rounds. See id. at 11:20–12:22 (counsel for Hanson explaining that the largest magazine that Hanson “possess[es]” and “want[s] to carry in the District” holds 17 bullets).

[Kazinski]

The Supreme Court really needs to start moving these cases along more rapidly. 10 round magazines are legal in 37 states so they are in common use and thus should be legal, as SC precedents Miller, Heller, and Bruen have stated. And in 41 states modern sporting rifles are legal.

[Brett Bellmore]

The court needs to stop remanding for action not inconsistent with, and start summarily deciding, in gun cases. They've humored the rebellion in the lower courts way too long.

[Kazinski]

I think GVRs wouldn't break tradition, but they can be more explicit about exactly the result they expect, and maybe find a way to put some time pressure on the lower court too.

[not guilty]

"The court needs to stop remanding for action not inconsistent with, and start summarily deciding, in gun cases. They’ve humored the rebellion in the lower courts way too long."

Most gun cases are decided on summary judgment in the district courts, with de novo review in the Courts of Appeals.

The Hanson case that I linked above is an appeal from the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction. As in all cases, the requirement for substantial proof is much higher on a plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief than upon a party's motion for summary judgment. "It frequently is observed that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam), quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, pp. 129-130 (2d ed. 1995) (italics supplied by SCOTUS).

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The District Court in Hanson denied relief upon concluding that the Plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of succeeding on the merits, without discussing the remaining preliminary injunction factors. https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2022cv02256/245852/28/0.pdf?ts=1682081474

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, with the majority holding (slip op., 24) that, at this interlocutory juncture, the District has met its burden to show its magazine cap is “consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" per N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022). The majority further opined that the Plaintiffs had not made the requisite showing that they would suffer irreparable harm pending a final decision if preliminary injunctive relief were denied. The dissenting judge opined only as to the Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits without addressing the remaining preliminary injunction factors.

The majority opined:

Hanson has not come forward with a factual record
showing that he will be irreparably harmed if he is required to wait until the court hears his case before obtaining largercapacity magazines for his firearms. “Irreparable harm,” in this context, refers to harm within a specific timeframe. That is, Hanson must demonstrate injury that is sufficiently certain, persuasively demonstrated, and so clearly irremediable that it warrants a court reaching out to alter the status quo before the merits are resolved. . . .

Hanson rests his entire irreparable harm showing on the argument that the District’s magazine cap burdens his Second Amendment right to use magazines of between 11 and 17 rounds for self-defense. . . . But Hanson does not offer any factual showing of irreparable harm to his self-defense interest.

(Slip op. 32-33.) It is encouraging to see the majority treating this as an ordinary action in equity. Another traditional prerequisite to injunctive relief is the absence of an available remedy at law. The Plaintiffs here have also sued for damages. If they can persuade a jury that they were in fact harmed pending trial from being able to fire only 11 rounds without reloading rather than 18, then more power to them.

It is good to see

[Mr. Bumble]

99 pages (including dissent) for the court to ignore SC in NY State.
No double stack for you!

[Lennyk78]

Democrat states and territories will always be able to find some law from the founding that has at least one similar element, because that seems to be all the courts are requiring.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that appears to have been the case in Rahimi. But I would not expect the Rahimi majority to hold together for remotely all such cases. The 'liberal' three, of course, will vote to uphold basically any abridgement of the RKBA. But the defectors from Bruen will only defect when they don't like the outcome of upholding the 2nd amendment; They're not being principled in any sense at all.

[Lennyk78]

I agree with that. At least with Rahimi, most of the elements of restrictions in place at the founding were present. The lower courts are only requiring 1 element to be similar, no matter how dissimilar the rest.

[Lennyk78]

The judges who wrote the opinion, Millett, an ugly woman with bad bangs appointed by Obama, and Ginsburg, a geriatric little hatter.

[Frank Drackman]

Breaking News!
Fred Sanford endorses “45”!!!!!

Frank

[Kazinski]

Yesterday was the 8th anniversary of the Clinton campaign claiming Trump had a covert server link between the Trump Organization and the Russian Alfa Bank. I'd say the claim was without evidence, but they did manufacture some. To the Mueller investigations credit, they took about 5 minutes to realize this claim was bullshit, but it took them 18 months to finally give up on all the other Clinton Campaign bullshit.

https://x.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1851843556144558091?t=foWUUhqTquvujQGonXd4yg&s=19

[Magister]

In our interviews, he rejected the idea of falsified data, saying, “If we were going to lie, then we would have made up a much better story than this!”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-contested-afterlife-of-the-trump-alfa-bank-story

The true story of the Alfa Bank saga is that all the players at these much maligned Elite Institutions acted with extreme discretion in not overplaying speculative information during the heat of the campaign. And yet they are still smeared by conspiracists who showed no such discretion themselves at the time and are still looking for any excuse to justify their complicity in Russia’s successful attack on our political process.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-alfa-bank-hoax-hoax

[Dr. Ed 2]

SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that VA can remove illegal aliens from its voter rolls. How the hell could it NOT rule this way?!?

[Frank Drackman]

Same way they said the unborn had no right to live for almost 50 years

[Michael P]

Virginia is removing (self-identified) non-citizens generally, not only illegal aliens. Meanwhile, in Maine the Democrat state leaders refuse to investigate how many aliens are registered to vote, or have voted, until a watchdog releases detailed PII for some confirmed alien voters that could identify the whistleblower who discovered the illegal voters.

[Sarcastr0]

Admitted my ass.

"Youngkin signed an order in August to expedite the removal of registered voters whose driver’s license applications indicated or suggested that they were not U.S. citizens. The effort was opposed by the Justice Department and civil rights groups, which said many being kicked off the rolls were actually eligible and were targeted because of outdated or erroneous information."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/30/virginia-noncitizen-voter-purge-supreme-court/

It also goes against VRA's prohibition on purges of voters from the rolls 90 days before an election.

Seems bad.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Maybe bad. Likely illegal, state and federal. But endorsed anyway by a corruptly partisan Supreme Court.

[Joe_dallas]

The WP version of the order is not what is actually happening

[Sarcastr0]

Stamping your foot and yelling no is about your speed these days, it seems.

[Michael P]

That's what you get for believing bad propaganda.

https://www.newsleader.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/09/virginia-youngkin-election-security-executive-order/74725541007/ describes it as "largely symbolic" and notes that the bits about purging non-citizens was already state law. The News Leader also provides a link to the executive order itself, which the Washington Post didn't do (for obvious reasons).

[Joe_dallas]

Thats what happens when someone gets their information from unreliable sources. Stuck in the leftist bubble,

[Sarcastr0]

You’re not one to talk about where people get their information from, when you’re at this moment uncritically trusting Michael P. Who presented something that was elementarily wrong on the law.

Michael's link doesn't even mention the VRA.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
"Michael’s link doesn’t even mention the VRA."

Why should MP's link mention VRA Since it doesnt have anything to do with the facts in this case?

[Sarcastr0]

Already state law doesn't mean it's legal to implement, of course.

You seem confused.

But hey, 6-3 vote with no explanation so go off I guess.

[Michael P]

You think it was legal for the last 18 years since Tim Kaine signed it into law, and somehow suddenly became illegal in the last 3 months?

But hey, whatever protects your feels, chief.

[Sarcastr0]

It appears you do not understand the difference between legislation and execution.

[Michael P]

The law has been implemented for more than a decade:
https://www.elections.virginia.gov/resultsreports/maintenance-reports/

Stop with the lies already.

[Sarcastr0]

If it's already implemented, then a court preventing implementation wouldn't be an issue.

It is an issue, because there is new government action.
To purge the voter roles.
Within the timespan when purges are not allowed.

[Commenter_XY]

SCOTUS did not agree. That seems clear enough. I think the six heads of SCOTUS justices are better than one head of a random internet commenter.

[Michael P]

I can't even tell what distinction you think you are making. You can read any of those annual reports about the implementation of the law, including purging non-citizens based on monthly logs of DMV transactions where the person identified themself as a non-citizen. From the 2014 report: "From July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014, 434 voters were cancelled after declaring themselves to be a non-citizen." The next year, it was 693.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not a continuously running program.
This was a new purge, spun up by the executive.
Just under an old law.

It's performative, it's silly.

It's also the Supreme Court appearing to ignore black letter law.

The parties don't even crack your 'it's not a new start' argument.

They argue that the purge is individualized.

Because even the VA governor and the right wing Supremes understand the difference between a program being instantiated and new government action under that program.

[Michael P]

No, this was just an executive order telling the state department of elections to do what they do every month. That's why the article said it was "largely symbolic"!

[Lennyk78]

The Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional anyway. The 90 day rule is not "appropriate," which is what Section 2 requires.

[Joe_dallas]

VRA is not the law in question in this case

[ducksalad]

To me this one is a close call. There are excellent reasons for the 90 day rule generally, it gives people enough time to go fix the issue if they are dropped by mistake. But Virginia has same day registration so they could go fix it right at the polls if they got there and found they weren’t on the list.

What’s not a close call is the hypocrisy and the bullshit.

They think we’ve forgotten that one of the election denialists’ key complaints about 2020 was that Democrats made changes to the rules right before the election. That was actually one of the few complaints that at least wasn’t counterfactual. And here they’re doing it.

I don’t want to speculate on Youngkin and the election administrators’ motivations, I see no evidence of bad intent. But as Randal points out, the online MAGAs are using it as a PR stunt laying the ground for a claim of stolen election if that turns out to be “necessary”.

And mischaracterizing the judge’s order. For example, our own JesseAz/Nardz said the judge ordered VA to let non-citizens vote, even though the order actually EXPLICITLY said non-citizens could not vote. When busted, J/N then tried to claim the judge said the alleged non-citizens were entitled to register and could only be investigated if they tried to vote. Again, false. The order explicitly said non-citizens could be de-registered as long as someone investigated the individual case.

[Sarcastr0]

The intent seems largely performative, but my issue is not that the politicians are grandstanding.

VRA is not an area I'm expert in, but from what I can tell that 90 day period is black letter law.
The Supreme Court shouldn't just ignore that stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think they have. The VRA doesn't prohibit purging somebody from the voting rolls close to an election. But it would have to be done individually. As it should be.

I think this was deliberate liberal lawsuit bait, frankly: The announcement was made exactly 90 days before the election.

[Sarcastr0]

It would have to be done individually? They're removing a list of names, with no individualized determination. And it's not narrowly tailored.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're removing people ON a list of names. Nothing in the order says there's no individualized determination.

In fact, they individually look at the records for voters to determine if they meet the criteria for removal, and then individually contact them. And only remove them if that particular individual does not challenge the decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is NOT a change close to the election. The law in question is long standing, the announcement was largely performative, as Sarcastr0 says.

Your proposed motivation is believable; I may typically vote for Republicans, I hardly think they're saints.

[Sarcastr0]

Taking new actions under an old law is still a change.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not a change in the LAW though.

[Sarcastr0]

New laws are not the prohibition:

"Section 8 requires States to complete any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters not later than 90 days"
https://www.justice.gov/crt/national-voter-registration-act-1993-nvra

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, "systematically".

They can do it on a case by case basis, though.

[Sarcastr0]

But this is not a case-by-case determination.
It’s from a list.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's case by case determinations concerning people who are on a list.

[Commenter_XY]

This is pretty humorous...why? VA isn't in play.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing in the order says there’s no individualized determination.
How in the world would that ever be the way the burden runs?

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts, but I think it's fair to say that take is disputed.
To the point that a lower court found as a matter of fact it did run afoul of the VRA.

Whatever the Supreme Court's reasoning, they are not the finder of fact.
Insisting that everything is actually being applied fine because Youngkin says so doesn't really answer the mail.

[ducksalad]

Comm_XY: Yeah, VA isn't in play, so it's mostly theater. The DoJ and Republicans accusing each other of trying to steal the election, and the audience for the theater isn't Virginians.

[David Nieporent]

To me this one is a close call. There are excellent reasons for the 90 day rule generally, it gives people enough time to go fix the issue if they are dropped by mistake. But Virginia has same day registration so they could go fix it right at the polls if they got there and found they weren’t on the list.

That is correct. The problem is that if someone who was mistakenly purged had mailed in their ballot, and the state discarded it because it had dropped the person from the voter rolls, the voter wouldn't even know, and so couldn't re-register.

[Riva]

I suppose so. If one wants non-citizens on the voter rolls.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not the process one follows if one wants to target non-citizens.

It's not narrowly tailored, it's just fast.

[Riva]

Except that it was. And it would violate federal law to add them to the voter rolls. Spare yourself some embarrassment and just let Marc Elias spout off such idiocies on MSNBC.

[Sarcastr0]

"The effort was opposed by the Justice Department and civil rights groups, which said many being kicked off the rolls were actually eligible and were targeted because of outdated or erroneous information.”

Unless you address those issues or demonstrate they are irrelevant, it's not narrowly tailored.

[Riva]

The DOJ and civil rights groups said something? Others have said some things too. Here's Jonathan Turley:
Changes to the voting rolls in the last 90 days is proscribed by federal law, though there are exceptions. The concern over last-minute changes is understandable, but the state argues that this is not a "systemic" effort but individual determination through the DMV records...Moreover, the state is acting on information supplied by the voters who self-identify as non-citizens. It is a crime for non-citizens to vote in the election. There may have been mistakes by the citizens but the law allows them to cure their records and, if needed, to use a provisional ballot. One would have expected the Biden-Harris Administration to opt for a more moderate approach to guarantee that this relatively small number of voters is given a full opportunity to correct the record and vote.

[ducksalad]

Jonathan Turley is a reasonable person, and what you quoted is a fair take.

What's not a fair take is "a federal judge ordered Virginia to let 2500 non-citizens vote". That is not what happened.

[Riva]

I guess that's one view but another might be that reinstating non-citizen voters to the rolls is letting those parties vote, if they actually proceed to cast a ballot. How is that an unreasonable conclusion?

[ducksalad]

It only "lets" them vote in the same way that giving some a driver's license "lets" them drive while intoxicated.

They can vote and then Virginia - already having their names - can put them in jail for it.

[Riva]

I don't think that's really an apt analogy. It is a crime to affirm you are a citizen to register to vote, whether the illegal votes or not. The actual illegal voting is also a crime. It is not a crime to issue the license to the illegal.

[Joe_dallas]

scotusblog has a good summary of the arguments (posted before the SC ruling)

Erika Maley, the state’s solicitor general, told the court that Giles’ order rests on “a misinterpretation of the NVRA,” because the law’s “quiet period” provision does not prohibit the removal of noncitizens, who were never “eligible” to vote in the first place. “States are free to systematically remove noncitizens, as well as minors and fictitious persons, at any time, including within 90 days of an election, without running afoul of the NVRA.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/virginia-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-voter-rolls-purge-before-election/

[John Rohan]

And that goes against the prohibition on non-citizens registering to vote.

[Randal]

How the hell could it NOT rule this way?!?

Because according to the actual evidence, all the people who got purged were in fact citizens.

They're probably more likely to be Republicans than Democrats, just like in Arizona, so it's a little bit of a self-own, but the whole purpose was PR anyway so who cares.

[Life of Brian]

Because according to the actual evidence, all the people who got purged were in fact citizens.

Having just skimmed the briefing, I'll take a cite on "all," please.

[Joe_dallas]

Randal 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"How the hell could it NOT rule this way?!?
Because according to the actual evidence, all the people who got purged were in fact citizens."

Randal - do you seriously believe that?

[ducksalad]

He’s probably wrong that all those purged were citizens.

However, I’d take even odds that all those who were purged and then complained about it were citizens.

[shawn_dude]

How do you figure likelihood in this case? For example, Florida has a long history of purging felons from voting rolls, which nominally would be reasonable as they cannot legally vote there, but they do the purges in bulk using simplistic queries that scoop up people with similar names. And given that a larger proportion of the names on the felon rolls are common among non-white persons, the resulting purge is more likely to hit liberal voters. Even in majority Republican states it's relatively easy to target populations that are more likely to vote for Democrats.

[Randal]

I was basing it on mental capacity to check a box correctly.

[Longtobefree]

Ask the three who disagreed.

[EscherEnigma]

Because federal law says you can't do systematic voter purges within 90 days of a federal election, and you have to do it either before or after that period.

Also, if you'd actually read the details of the case, a lot of the people purged aren't illegal aliens, they're US Citizens being incorrectly purged.

[David Nieporent]

Not surprisingly, Dr. Ed got every single fact in his statement, including the claim that this was about "illegal aliens."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Listening to Ted Cruz's parade of horrible if the Dems keep the Senate, I am wondering if Texas would have to let illegal aliens vote if the Feds granted them citizenship. Would the 15th Amnd apply as they weren't born here?

And if every elected official (including judge) was replaced as a result, I could see that starting a shooting civil war overnight. Mexico essentially already has one, and it would just cross the river.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I am wondering if Texas would have to let illegal aliens vote if the Feds granted them citizenship."

I am "this" close to muting you just from excessive exasperation. Seriously, I am.

Go back and think about that for a moment, will you?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet you continually engage with Il Douche.
Just saying.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0 embarrasses the other side, not mine.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. That, he does. With enemies like Sarc, you don't need friends.

[Ridgeway]

Do you think the Kamala campaign wished they had a mute button for Biden? Do they just have an email macro for "please stop helping"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, it is a serious question -- and I ask why were the 19th and 26th Amendments necessary?

The 15th precludes denying the right to vote on the basis of race, creed or color -- not birthplace. And it clearly permitted persons of the protected race, colors and creeds from voting if they were female, or then not 21 years old.

So EXACTLY what constitutional provision precludes Texas from denying the right to vote of not having been born here?

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, serious answer: The first part of the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If you're born or naturalized in the US, you're a US citizen, and if you're such and residing in a state, you ARE a citizen of that state. Period, end of story. Even if you were an illegal alien prior to being naturalized.

So, at the time, the right to vote was determined by states, not the federal government, but the 14th amendment right out of the starting gate precludes denying that somebody isn't a citizen of a state just because of where they originated. They could, however, deny the right to vote on any basis they felt like, per the 14th amendment.

HOWEVER, section 2 sets out the only allowable criteria for denying the franchise without loss of apportionment: Not being a man, not being at least 21, not being a citizen, and having participated in rebellion or or other crime. At that point, the states could still arbitrarily deny the franchise, but they'd suffer a penalty if they did it to anybody who was a male adult citizen who wasn't convicted of a crime.

Then comes the 15th amendment. Disenfranchisement on the basis of race, color, or previous servitude is flatly prohibited. Not penalized, prohibited.

Then comes the 19th amendment, and disenfranchisement on the basis of sex was also flatly prohibited.

Then comes the 24th amendment. No disenfranchisement for failure to pay a poll tax.

Then the 26th amendment lowers the age to 18.

So, a literal reading might allow Texas to disenfranchise former illegal aliens if they didn't mind the apportionment penalty.

BUT. At this point I'm pretty sure the EPC is now, atextually, going to be applied to any such attempt. It's certainly applied atextually in other less obvious ways. So your proposal is at a minimum penalized, and almost certainly going to be ruled unconstitutional.

[hobie]

IT wouldn't be a normal day without Ed autoasphyxiating to his beloved civil war

[Reallynotbob]

I shouldn't admit this made me laugh.

[Zarniwoop]

I think humor helps defuse a lot of anger, and should be enjoyed no matter what the political valence. Laugh away, it's good for the country.

[Mr. Hook]

The old gypsy woman touched "Dr." Ed's cheek and whispered, "No civil war will occur in your lifetime." Ed wept, for he knew her record of prediction was vastly superior to his own. He returned to his shack and stared in the mirror; futility and unfulfilled fantasies of death stared back.

[not guilty]

"Listening to Ted Cruz’s parade of horrible if the Dems keep the Senate, I am wondering if Texas would have to let illegal aliens vote if the Feds granted them citizenship."

Yes, if the new citizens (who would no longer be aliens) met the other criteria for voting eligibility -- age, residency, absence of disqualifying criminal history, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

They would, trivially, no longer be illegal aliens if granted citizenship. They'd be "citizens". Which is what I'd hoped Ed would realize if he just thought about it a bit.

[ducksalad]

Dr. Ed might be one of those who believes once an illegal immigrant, always an illegal immigrant. That's actually the moderate position now, there many here who believe all the descendants of an illegal immigrant are illegal immigrants. That's the essence of the anti-birthright movement.

[shawn_dude]

Elon Musk--illegal immigrant forever.

There *are* upsides to his warped sense of reality.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But where does it say you cant deny "citizens" the right to vote?

[Brett Bellmore]

You can. Once you’ve convicted them of a felony. Or if they’re younger than 18. Any other basis is asking for your state’s apportionment to be reduced, at a minimum, and would probably be construed as an EPC violation.

Which I think is textually wrong, but not nearly as wrong as a lot of things that you can absolutely count on the courts doing.

It would be fun to go to court and argue that states need to have their apportionment reduced on account of disenfranchising the mentally incompetent, by the way. I think that's actually a pretty strong case.

[ducksalad]

Actually it doesn't say that anywhere as a standalone proposition, and there are people proposing a right to vote amendment to address that.

[EscherEnigma]

... did you just conflate a naturalized citizen with an illegal immigrant, and then wonder if Texas had to let naturalized citizens vote?

[David Nieporent]

I am wondering if Texas would have to let illegal aliens vote if the Feds granted them citizenship.

I am wondering if it is actually possible to be as fucking stupid as you portray yourself as being. If someone has been granted citizenship, then s/he is a citizen. If s/he is a citizen, then s/he is not an illegal alien. So your question is whether Texas has to allow citizens to vote, and there are five year olds who could figure out the answer to that question.

Would the 15th Amnd apply as they weren’t born here?

Which part of the 15th amendment do you think has anything whatsoever to do with whether someone was born here?

And if every elected official (including judge) was replaced as a result, I could see that starting a shooting civil war overnight.

Look, Dr. Ed masturbates to the thought of Americans killing each other. I'll save you the trouble, Dr. Ed: the answer to every single one of your deranged rantings about civil war in the U.S. is "No, this will not start one."

[Mr. Bumble]

...and so it begins, non-existent voter fraud.
"A Chinese college student who is not a U.S. citizen cast an illegal vote on Sunday — and Michigan election officials will still count the vote......The 19-year-old — who is legally present in the country studying at the University of Michigan but not a citizen — registered to vote on Sunday, having “signed a document identifying himself as a U.S. citizen,...
"While noncitizen voting is illegal, the student’s vote will ultimately still count. That’s because ballots are secret, meaning names aren’t attached to the ballot itself. Once a vote is cast and run through a tabulator, it is impossible to identify who cast the ballot."
https://thefederalist.com/2024/10/30/a-noncitizen-cast-an-illegal-vote-in-michigan-and-officials-are-counting-it/

[Dr. Ed 2]

I want to hear "was arrested" or better "was deported."

[Michael P]

From that link:

The student has been charged with “Unauthorized Elector Attempting To Vote” and “Perjury — Making a False Affidavit for Purpose of Securing Voter Registration,” according to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

We'll see whether that leads to a conviction. I suspect the charges will be dropped right after the election, citing a reason like "in the interests of justice" that translates to "rule of man, not law".

The Federalist also reported about an alien charged with illegally voting in a special election in Iowa. In both cases, the alien took advantage of same-day voter registration. It seems to me that proof of eligibility to vote should be required in such cases, as the state does not have the opportunity to use the usual asynchronous validation.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a woman down South registered illegally and became a cause célèbre. Crystal Mason. She even has a Wikipedia page which she won by getting the right kind of people to call her a victim.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Crystal Mason cast a provisional ballot allegedly illegally, but the Second District Court of Appeals of Texas held there was no evidence she knew she was ineligible, including because the provisional ballot contained no language which would indicate that she was ineligible to vote after completing her prison term (but still on supervised release) following a felony conviction (tax fraud). (According to Wikipedia.)

Michael P’s prediction will be proven false. The student will either run to his home country or will plead out (i.e., be convicted). The charges won’t be dropped. That’s kind of a loony prediction, or do you have examples that suggest that’s what’ll happen? Because there are plenty of examples of very rare, but still real, examples of ineligible people voting and being convicted.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Crystal Mason case was pretty egregious. The original court ruling that she'd known she was ineligible was pretty sound based on the evidence. It's worth remembering that the crime she'd been convicted of to render her ineligible, tax fraud, had involved her having her clients fraudulently sign things, and she counseled them to just say that they'd misunderstood and signed them by mistake if they were caught.

The judge, knowing this, basically said, "You think we're going to let you pull that off here? Nope. We have plenty of evidence that you'd carefully read the application and then signed it deliberately."

Then the appeals court sent it back with an order to be more gullible, so the court went over in exhaustive detail all the reasons why it wasn't remotely plausible that it had been an innocent mistake, and only in the very last paragraph complied by 'finding' it was an innocent mistake anyway on account of having been directly ordered to.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Nope. Bad summary. Shocker, Brett gets it wrong.

You seem to think it went back down to the trial court who tried to reiterate its findings but bending to the appellate court. That is not what happened.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Second District Court of Appeals and returned it to that appellate court to apply the correct standard in determining the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas (the proper name), applying the correct standard, determined the evidence was insufficient.

The Court's own words:

In the end, the State’s primary evidence was that Mason read the words on the affidavit. But even if she had read them, they are not sufficient––even in the context of the rest of the evidence in this case––to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she actually knew that being on supervised release after having served her entire federal sentence of incarceration made her ineligible to vote by casting a provisional ballot when she did so. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 64.012(c).

This was, in part, because she had used the provisional ballot years before to, in effect, register to vote though she knew the vote wouldn't count and she was told by poll workers that, basically, if she wasn't registered the provisional ballot wouldn't be counted (and it was never counted). There's plenty more, but these are appellate courts in Texas, not California, so hardly bastions of liberalism. There are plenty of ambiguities that, according to Texas courts, makes it impossible for the State to prove the necessary mens rea with the evidence presented.

You are entitled to your opinion, but kinda crazy to call it egregious when Texas courts disagree with you and, in fact, held that no reasonable juror could find she had the requisite mens rea to the requisite standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. At best, the evidence is equivocal. You pretend it's a slam dunk. That's typical of you, though, to elevate your inexpert, lay analysis from news reports to Word of God level objective truth.

The case has been appealed by the State to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest appeals court for criminal matters in Texas, I believe).

Ms. Mason's brief here: https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/cm_cca_resp_10.29.24.comms_.pdf

[David Nieporent]

the crime she’d been convicted of to render her ineligible, tax fraud, had involved her having her clients fraudulently sign things, and she counseled them to just say that they’d misunderstood and signed them by mistake if they were caught.

This is just a made up MAGA talking point. There is no basis for it anywhere in any actual legitimate source.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The charges won’t be dropped."

How do you know this?

Its Ann Arbor. The bio of the county prosecutor suggests it likely will happen.

[John Rohan]

Here’s a case of a non-citizen who admitted they voted illegally and faced no consequences:

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/illegal-voting-case-puts-familys-future-in-limbo/

[ducksalad]

No consequences? Sounds like she's facing deportation, and that came soon after she got caught.

[Sarcastr0]

It has begun, this vanishingly rare thing that was caught and will be punished.

[Life of Brian]

The world’s first crime the amount we happen to catch is exactly and precisely all of it that happens! So conveniently miraculous.

[ducksalad]

Good point.

They caught that Indiana Republican stealing ballots, so that he could claim the count was off.

As you suggest, we should assume this is the tip of a nationwide iceberg. Anytime Republicans claim a discrepancy next week, we’ll know it’s that they stole ballots to engineer that discrepancy.

[Life of Brian]

Super cool idea! Correspondingly, when we catch a handful of people of a given race committing certain crimes, we can take to the bank that all nationwide instances of those same crimes were committed by people of that same race.

Would you like one of Sarc's "clearly misspoke" mulligans?

[ducksalad]

Whoosh.
"As you suggest".

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I rejected your premise since my post was simply and clearly lampooning Sarc's old tired argument that the fact that some voter fraud is caught from time to time proves that all of it (hell, even most of it) is caught.

Assuming the bad actors are all on the same team was your puppy.

[bernard11]

Yes. The fact that so little is caught just shows how clever the fraudsters are, and how much help they had from corrupt officials and the like.

Crystal Mason was sentenced, absurdly, to five years in prison.

Meanwhile,

Supporters of Mason and voter rights activists have pointed out the discrepancy between Mason's sentencing and the sentencing of Terri Lynn Rote, who tried to vote for Donald Trump twice; Bruce Bartman, who voted under his own name and, using an expired identification, on his deceased mother's ballot; and Justice of the Peace Russ Casey, who admitted to forging signatures to get on the primary ballot. Rote, Bartman, and Casey received two and five years' probation instead of Mason's five-year sentence to jail.[6][16] Critics of Mason point out that Rote, Bartman, and Casey pleaded guilty in order to receive probation,[16] while Mason rejected a similar plea deal and chose to go to trial.

Quite a penalty for going to trial. Wonder why?

[ducksalad]

The real truth is somewhere in between. She was a convicted felon out on release. At least in Texas it's really hard to ask for probation when you committed the crime while already out on probation. That's kind of the whole meaning of being on probation or parole.

I agree that five years was a bit over the top.

[bernard11]

I agree that five years was a bit over the top.

Assuming the conviction was in fact justified, I agree that probation would be too lenient. OTOH, I think five years is more than "a bit" over the top.

How much time did Mark Meadows get?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Was it in Michigan that the MAGA poll worker got caught with two stolen ballots in his vehicle? He wanted to make sure the count was off, to enable challenges.

[Frank Drackman]

Did he cram them up your ass for you to pull out later? Talk about your "Spoiled" Ballots!

[ducksalad]

I believe that was actually Indiana. And yeah, the most obvious motivation would be to enable challenges.

[Riva]

If true, he's going to have to work a lot harder than 2 ballots to match the Democrats. He should get some advice from Sandy Berger about stuffing papers down his pants.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you shouldn't bother voting, what with it not mattering due to all this Dem cheating you assert.

[Riva]

Not good logic. Republicans are turning out to overcome any margin of steal. It would be preferably, of course, to conduct same day paper ballot elections, with voter ID, like pretty much the rest of the world, even France, but we have to throw Democrats out of office first to get there.

[Sarcastr0]

Why would the Dems steal only enough for there to be a potential margin? I'd think those evildoers would go wild.

Seems silly.

[Riva]

Of course it seems silly to you because you want to discourage and demoralize republican voters. I would advise every voter to ignore all the Sarcastr0s of the world, but I don’t think I need to because the data suggests they already are.

Don’t forget to post that photo of your agonized scream to the heavens when Trump is sworn in. Try to time your scream to the exact moment he takes the oath.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not demoralizing anyone, Riva. What kind of audience do you think there is here?

I'm pointing out the silliness in your position that Dems will steal the election and have been stealing elections for ages, but only just a little so still vote.

[Riva]

Just so you know Sarcastr0, everyone reading site this doesn’t support Democrat insanities. And I never said a “little” or that they “have been stealing for ages.” Those are your words. I don’t know what any margin would be, although I believe the Kennedys didn’t want to pay for a landslide. But it would be better for Republicans to vote like they’re 25 points down in the polls, just in case. And to ignore the advice of any Sarcastr0s.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "he’s going to have to work a lot harder than 2 ballots to match the Democrats."

Also you: "I never said a “little” or that they “have been stealing for ages.”

You need to get with yourself and get your story straight.

[Riva]

You need to work on getting a sense of humor. That was a joke, not a comprehensive overview of all possible attempts by Democrats to manipulate the electoral processes. And not seeing how even the joke defined Democrat efforts as a “little” or “stealing for ages,” that’s your language, not mine. Just spit balling but are you drunk or high?

[Commenter_XY]

Lancaster, PA is looking into their version of potential (emphasis on not proven yet) voter fraud also. Different circumstance, but same kind of result.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Lancaster, PA is looking into . . .potential . . . voter fraud "

Not voter fraud but the submission of false/fraudulent voter registrations. If it turns out that there are fraudulent registration submissions, and from what appears to be known that is highly likely, it's not obvious from what has been released by the county authorities what the goal of the fraud is. It's not impossible that the goal is to create false identities for people to use to vote, but I'm not sure how that would work as the fake voters would have to get through the actual voting process with some sort of fake identities. Not easy, and very risky, it would seem. Another possibility is that whoever was collecting the registration applications was creating the applications in order to gain some benefit by increasing numbers. That is plausible if the canvassers are paid contractors and are paid on the basis of numerical results. Whatever the issue, it needs to be fully investigated and any illegality needs to be severely punished.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree on very risky....why do it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, we saw this with ACORN, in Michigan. But they did it all across the country. The MO was always the same: They'd wait until just before the deadline, and then dump a massive number of forms on the election office, rather than feeding them to the office as they were generated. It was suspected this was an effort to make sure officials wouldn't have time to check them all.

ACORN went under back in 2010, but it looks like somebody is up to their old games.

[David Nieporent]

it’s not obvious from what has been released by the county authorities what the goal of the fraud is.

I have no specific knowledge about this specific situation beyond what I read in the papers, but most of the voter registration fraud historically has been what you said after that: not partisans trying to steal an election, but voter registration drive workers trying to cheat the people paying them to gather voter registration applications.

[jb]

Must get exhausting wrestling all of those strawmen.

Seems like this is exactly the system working: someone does something illegal, gets caught, gets arrested.

[not guilty]

The Detroit News reports:

The person, who has not been identified, is being charged with perjury — making a false statement on an affidavit for the purpose of securing voter registration — and being an unauthorized elector who attempted to vote. The latter allegation is a felony punishable by up to four years behind bars and a fine of up to $2,000, according to Michigan law. The standard penalty for perjury in Michigan is 15 years in prison, but it's unclear what it would be in this case involving lying on an application to vote.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/30/chinese-university-of-michigan-college-student-voted-presidential-election-michigan-china-benson/75936701007/

[Reallynotbob]

Interestingly, it appears the perpetrator self-identified by asking for the ballot back. That's definitely the hallmark of a coordinated plan to steal the election /s.

[ducksalad]

What do you mean by standard? Do any significant fraction of perjurers actually get sentenced to 15 years?

[not guilty]

I don't know what the Detroit News reporter meant. The applicable statute says that perjury is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years. https://legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-750-423#:~:text=%281%29%20Any%20person%20authorized%20by%20a%20statute%20of,perjury%2C%20a%20felony%20punishable%20by%20imprisonment%20for%20n I suspect that that is what the reporter was referring to.

[Kazinski]

Trump finally directly addressed claims about his physical and cognitive decline:

“The former president continued the story, recalling his amazement at the height of the truck and saying he could’ve done with a smaller model. He praised the appearance of the truck driver – “He looked like Cary Grant in his prime” – and confessed his anxiety over climbing into the truck with so many cameras watching. At one point, Trump had appeared to grab at – and miss – a door handle.

“I said, ‘Man, if I don’t get up there, this is going to be very embarrassing.’ These stupid people, they’ll say he’s cognitively and physically impaired,” Trump told the Wisconsin crowd. “So the stair, the first stair’s like up here. I’m saying, sh*t – so I had the adrenaline going, and I made it.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/31/politics/garbage-truck-donald-trump-wisconsin/index.html

While Kamala is much younger, I think she should try to pass the climb up on a garbage truck test in order for us to compare the two efforts side by side.

Joe should sit this one out.

[Frank Drackman]

I hope I can climb into a Garbage truck like that when I’m 78

[Brett Bellmore]

At that age my grandfather was vaulting over fences. But a lifetime installing cast iron bathtubs in multi-story buildings will have that effect.

Personally, I hope I'm not riding in the 'back seat' in a garbage truck like that, when I'm 78. I've read the research, and going through chemo may save your life, but it doesn't do good things for your expected longevity. You burn through a lot of stem cells while it's going on...

[Reallynotbob]

[passes around the petition]

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, did POTUS Biden's comment about Trump supporters being garbage affect the election? Si, or No?

[Michael P]

I just hope that other PA counties are as vigilant as Lancaster County about catching fraudulent registrations: https://www.pennlive.com/elections/2024/10/investigation-confirms-hundreds-of-fake-voter-applications-in-lancaster-county.html

[Joe_dallas]

Mail in ballots do facilitate fraud.

One point worth noting - the theory behind mail in ballots is that the provide greater access to voting and make it easier to vote.

however, the time to obtain the ballot, provide proof of eligibility to vote, mail it, etc exceeds the time to go to the poll the old fashion way and vote.

[KenveeB]

Yes, but you can do it on your own time, when it's convenient for you, including nights and weekends. Of course it's easier.

[bernard11]

the time to obtain the ballot, provide proof of eligibility to vote, mail it, etc exceeds the time to go to the poll the old fashion way and vote.

Load of crap. It probably took me all of ten minutes to go through the mail-in process. OTOH there are places where the wait is much longer than that, assuming you have the time and transportation to vote in person.

I'm guessing you live in a nice suburb where the lines are short, and the polling place is easy to get to and well-staffed. You should get out more.

[Bob from Ohio]

"easy to get to and well-staffed"

Democrats control most cities, even in conservative states.

Why are these Demcrats not staffing and properly locating their polling places?

[Magister]

In at least some cases, it's because the state legislature is controlled by Republicans who go out of their way to deprive such cities of the resources needed to do so.

[Riva]

Maybe. Did Hillary's "deplorables" comment do her any favors in 2016?

[Kazinski]

Too early to tell.

It could turn out to be one of those things that's only useful in turning out the base. But I can't help but think some undecided voters, or leaners might take it personally too.

It certainly did provide Trump a good photo op and a lot more attention in a critical swing state.

[Kazinski]

Frank Luntz thinks it may be very significant, although his track record isn't unblemished:

"Luntz didn’t hold back. “It's going to be huge because this is not some comedian saying something stupid and offensive at a rally where he should have been basically disinvited,” he told Keilar. "This is the President of the United States, endorsing his Vice President, saying something.”

In Luntz’s view, Biden’s statement could mark a pivotal turning point, mobilizing Trump supporters much like Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” remark did in 2016."

He thinks there will be ads, soon.

[Commenter_XY]

There are ads already, in the Philly market.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Speaking as someone who drives large trucks, it is a LOT easier to stumble getting into one than you might think, particularly if you are talking to someone or otherwise distracted. I've fallen off the side of one more than once. And they are all different, too...

Anyone who has driven commercially for any length of time has done it. Often dumping your cup of coffee all over yourself in the process...

As they are almost all automatic transmission now, I'd have let him drive across the parking lot -- sitting next to him with my hand on the spring (emergency/parking) brake that would instantly stop the truck (lock up all 8 rear tires) if he got into trouble. And let him play with the air horn...

In most states, you do not need a license if you are on private property, which he was. Although if the USSS won't let a protectee drive a car, I suspect they'd really frown on a 40 ton truck...

[bernard11]

WTF does being able to climb into a garbage truck have to do with cognitive ability?

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, physical agility and cognitive ability are better correlated than you might think; The decline in both with age is being driven by some of the same mechanisms, after all.

[Sarcastr0]

What same mechanism?

Seems a lot like you're just making stuff up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, Sarcastr0, I know you're just a young whippersnapper, but I'm in my mid 60's, and I follow this stuff, because it hits me where I live.

As people age, their nervous systems work slower, they lose nerve cells, transmission speeds drop. Obviously this effects your thinking, but it also effects your agility, because your reflexes slow down. You also start losing muscle fiber recruitment, so you get weaker.

It goes in the other direction, too: There's extensive medical evidence that physical activity slows mental decline.

You might try to remember that one of my college majors was human biology. I may be a mechanical engineer, but I didn't stop following the biological research just because I left college to nurse my mother back to health after a bad auto accident.

[Sarcastr0]

You reversed the cause, saying that being physically able to ride a truck implies mental ability,

I don't much care about your major. That's stupid, Brett.

[Kazinski]

He said they are correlated, and both caused by old age.

Are you claiming there is no correlation?

[Commenter_XY]

Golf is very useful for the mind body connection, and Pres Trump is a player (but I hear he stopped for a while).

[bernard11]

Are you seriously suggesting that Trump is a model of physical activity?

Yeah. He plays golf. A lot. But his version, get in the cart, drive to the ball, get out of the cart, swing, and get back in the cart is unimpressive as exercise. (I suppose he also fills in his scorecard, since that makes cheating much easier.)

As for Brett's correlation, of course both physical and mental abilities decline somewhat as we age, but the notion that Trump's exercise regimen is keeping him sharp - when the evidence is that he has serious mental impairment - is ridiculous.

Maybe Big Macs are a brain food.

[Commenter_XY]

No = Are you seriously suggesting that Trump is a model of physical activity?

Brett's point about same systems being involved in agility and cognition prompted my comment. It is true. You don't need to walk the course to get a lot of the benefit.

Do you play?

[shawn_dude]

The video is online to watch. I saw it. Trump looks like he's going to fall over *before* he even gets to the step. He reaches for the door handle from too far away and misses it while wobbling like he has vertigo when his hand doesn't connect as expected. He looks confused, off balance, and tired. Whatever was going through his head at the time, a viewer should be forgiven for thinking his challenge was more than just the normal weakness of a 78yo body.

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean, sure, if they have little exposure to 78 year olds.

[Frank Drackman]

At least he's smart enough not to try and ride a bike like Sleepy Joe did.

[Reallynotbob]

Trump: "I don't know anything about a comedian" who called Puerto Rico a garbage island while sitting in a freaking *garbage* truck just two days later.

[Frank Drackman]

Because I enjoy watching train wrecks, had to watch a replay of Cums-a-lots rally from the District of Colored People, not a minute into it you hear the police sirens, 5 minutes you hear the gunshots, bet the “Over” on how many times she would say “Trump”, little did she know while she was speaking, Parkinsonian Joe was (mercifully) ending her Cam-pain with a misplaced Apostrophe

Frank

[Randal]

So, I've been trying to work out what kind of a person could possibly vote for Donald Trump. I've concluded that it comes down to a combination of being stupid, hateful, and bored. Anyone who's sufficiently stupid + hateful + bored is a potential Trump voter.

I think you also have to be at least two out of the three, at least a little bit. A very stupid person but who wasn't hateful or bored would vote for Kamala. A very hateful person but who wasn't stupid or bored would vote for Kamala. And a very bored person but who wasn't stupid or hateful would vote for Kamala.

But if you're stupid and even a bit hateful or bored, Trump. Hateful and a tinge stupid or bored, Trump. Bored and a little stupid or hateful, Trump. Somewhat stupid, hateful, and bored, Trump. Very stupid, very hateful, and very bored, and you're in the dense nucleus of Trump's base.

The stupidity is important for falling for Trump's con. The hatefulness is important for connecting with Trump's rhetoric. And the boredom is important for not caring about the consequences.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I hate you. Therefore you must be hateful. QED!"

[Randal]

I don’t hate Trump voters. I do pity them a bit.

Mostly I think about what needs to change to make America less susceptible to fascist demagogues. The stupidity is unavoidable. And the hatefulness seems to be chronic, I don’t think there’s a cure for that.

The boredom is the new development that’s allowed the problem to fester. We have no (external, imminent) enemies, the culture is stagnant (still stuck in the ’90s), and society is fractured with no obvious paths forward for many people (and lots of false idols like wealth and fame).

In short, we’ve been descending deeper and deeper into the world of Fight Club since 1999.

It’s hard to predict what will shake America from its ennui. A religious revival might not be bad, as long as it’s not a fascist one. Maybe AI will dramatically change the economy, or Elon’s fantasy of Mars colonization will turn out to be less ridiculous than it obviously is and give us something to root for other than partisan tribalism. Or maybe a catastrophe of any number of potential varieties might bring some perspective. Whatever it is, we can’t afford to dive any further into mass boredom.

[Michael P]

Person who plans to vote for the policy-free, identity-driven candidate endorsed by Darth Cheney, Darth Cheney Jr and the "fuck your freedoms" guy complains about the other candidate being a "fascist demagogue". News at 11.

[Kazinski]

It would be sweet if the Cheney endorsement costs Kamala Michigan.

It hasn't moved the polls anywhere else though.

[Commenter_XY]

So…you’re going to relocate to gaza to be closer to your friends, Randal?

[OtisAH]

It was about 1993 that started*. The Rise of Newt. But a bit of bad news wrt fascist demagoguery, Randal: JD and Hawley and Cruz and Johnson and Jordan and Comer and the rest of their ilk are not going anywhere any time soon.

*Technically, 1981.

[Kazinski]

Just go with deplorable or garbage, I thought it was apparent a long time ago we quit caring what we are called.

Not that we won’t use it for leverage. I think I got a longshot to get my mother to vote for Trump because Biden called me garbage. I got a few more days to work on her.

All the focus groups and a lot of the pundits have come to the conclusion that the Nazi name calling is strictly to turn out the base, everyone else just tunes it out, and probably a lot of more effective messaging is tuned out with it.

Where are you moving after the election?

[Randal]

I'm certainly willing to trade your mom for all Puerto Ricans. They have not quit caring.

[Sarcastr0]

No one called you garbage.

The right wing hunger to be oppressed is insatiable.

[Brett Bellmore]

You must be suffering from auditory hallucinations. Biden absolutely called Trump’s supporters garbage.

I think it's fair to say that this is just a symptom of his dementia. Maybe once the election is past, they can invoke the 25th amendment on his ass without any excuses about not wanting to distract Harris from her campaigning.

[Sarcastr0]

No, he didn't. Check out the video. He mispoke. It's not ambiguous.

I think it’s fair to say that this is just a symptom of his dementia.
How Brett of you.

[Swede425]

Gaslight0 to the bitter end.

[Brett Bellmore]

I did check out the video, the words he actually uttered were, “the only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters”

You're free to claim he actually MEANT to utter some other words, that he 'misspoke'; That's a convenient way of dismissing anything offensive somebody says. But the words that he actually spoke are an objective fact, not an opinion.

[Sarcastr0]

the words he actually uttered

So you don't know how misspeaking works.

[Guten]

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I understand that "misspeaking" doesn't change what somebody actually said, it simply represents a claim that they'd intended to say something else.

[Commenter_XY]

It wasn't auditory hallucinations, it was willful blindness, or motivated reasoning; pick your label.

[ducksalad]

At least four reasonable interpretations, you’d agree it’s important not to truncate quotes.

1. The supporters (collective noun) are garbage.
2. The supporters’ (collective possessive) demonization of Latinos is garbage.
3. The supporter’s (singular contraction) garbage.
4. The supporter’s (singular possessive) demonization of Latinos is garbage.

My personal opinion: he started on 1, realized what he was doing in real time and tacked on the second part to try to correct to 2. Handlers later tried to spin it as 3 or 4.

[Randal]

#3 isn't even a possibility given the audio. Neither is #2, really.

He pretty clearly didn’t mean or even say that Trump supports are garbage. But I can see why thin-skinned, snowflakey, insecure, paranoid Trump supporters heard it that way.

[Kazinski]

When the BBC covered it they unambiguously reported that Biden called Trump's "supporters" garbage.

If they didn't buy the spin, then why should we?

[not guilty]

"You must be suffering from auditory hallucinations. Biden absolutely called Trump’s supporters garbage."

Actually, President Biden called the incendiary remarks of one particular Trump supporter garbage. A video does not include punctuation, which here makes a difference in meaning:

“The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporter’s — his — his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American. It’s totally contrary to everything we’ve done, everything we’ve been,” read the White House transcript, which included an apostrophe in “supporter’s” as Republicans accused Biden of saying “supporters.”

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/30/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/harris-response-biden-garbage-comments-00186236

President Biden was referring to Tony Hinchcliffe’s — a Trump supporter’s — individual demonization of Latinos as garbage.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I can see you were a defense atty, lol. 🙂 (just teasing)

[David Nieporent]

A video does not include punctuation, which here makes a difference in meaning:

Um, you're kind of begging the question here. Punctuation would indeed make a difference in meaning, but since the video doesn't include it, you can't assume it into existence.

He could have meant any of several different things. (Of course, the same people who claim he was suffering from dementia now think he must have said exactly what he meant, and that this can be only one thing.)

[not guilty]

That is why I linked to the Politico article which included the transcript prepared by the White House -- which does include punctuation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

According to the AP, the White House stenographers omitted the punctuation, but the press office added it, contrary to protocol.

[Magister]

The stenographers got it wrong. The president, as we know from the Trump administration, is obviously acting with his core powers to change anything produced by any executive branch office with a Sharpie, and the Supreme Court says it's A-OK, but in this case the correction was actually correct.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. There's video, but the transcript is correct per the Biden Administration's final, most essential command.

[Magister]

Video in which only the other punctuation magically appears like an apparition of the Virgin Mary? And homonyms are magically distinguished? Pretty likely that any such link would be rickrolling, and would snare all you credulous right wingers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Then how do you know that the unofficial version of the transcript released by the political operatives, and not the official version released by the stenographers and included in the national archives, is correct?

[Magister]

The person who made the statement said the stenographers were not correct.

Good to see you backed off from your claim of a magical punctuation revealing video.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol I backed off a claim I never made?

It's unfortunate that you're claiming we can't understand the spoken word because there's no punctuation.

[Magister]

You claimed there was video which somehow demonstrated what the punctuation should be.

[Randal]

He said "is" instead of "are." That's actual evidence for the apostrophe. Maybe not conclusive -- some people put an "is" there with a plural -- but older people least of all.

[Magister]

Since TwelveInchPianist is pretty clearly arguing for the apostrophe not being there, I doubt that's the takeaway that was intended from the video. But I agree that even the video evidence argues for including the apostrophe.

[Randal]

Oh I agree, it's pretty funny that tiny pianist is now claiming to have brought the video back into the conversation in order to make no point whatsoever. Just random scribblings, no meaning behind them at all. Which, to be fair, we already knew.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol, no, I claimed there was video clearly showing what Biden said.

[Magister]

But not clearly showing the apostrophe or its absence, which is what the whole argument is about; as Randal observed, the grammar is more consistent with its presence.

[Joe_dallas]

Auditory hallucinations ?
Intentionally ignoring deplorables

[Sarcastr0]

Deplorables was 8 years ago, Joe. And wasn't about all Trump supporters either.

You're pretty bad these days.

[ThePublius]

So, Sarcastr0, you're on board with KJP, apostrophe-gate, etc.? He really didn't say it, didn't mean it, etc.?

Wow.

[Armchair]

You're not really surprised by this stance of Sarcastr0's....

I come to expect it.

[Sarcastr0]

I watched the video.

Appeal to incredulity is a fallacy, but coming from you, a Haitian migrant pet-eating truther, it's especially bad.

[Riva]

You're right. Apparently we're fascist Nazi garbage. The Harris campaign is about as funny as Siberian labor camp under Stalin. I'm not a masochist so I wouldn't give her any power to punish us Nazi garbage, but to each his own I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva: "You hate me. You hate me so much!! You think I'm a Nazi! Also I would like to mention Stalin for some reason."

Everyone else: "Actually, we don't think of you at all."

[Riva]

Harris: You’re all Nazis
Biden: You’re all garbage

I wonder how a Harris presidency would treat all those pieces of Nazi filth garbage who voted for President Trump? I’m sure it’ll be all joy, smiles, and cackling laughter.

[Sarcastr0]

You strain to be hated. You seem to really want it.

But in reality, you're just another angry bot on the Internet.

[Riva]

So now it’s filthy garbage Nazi bots? We’re straying a little from the campaign of joy I think.

[Sarcastr0]

Keep at it, I'm sure you can come up with some other adjectives to insist others are applying to you!

[Riva]

I’m not insisting on insults. S&M seems more your line. I'm simply recounting some recent political lowlights from the Democrats. Harris is labeling voters as fascists. Ol’Joe is insulting them as garbage. And Sarcastr0 is adding his own obnoxious touches.

[grb]

Riva : “I wonder how a Harris presidency … (randomly generated bot garbage)”

I just watched an amalgamated clip of Trump calling Harris supporters trash & garbage a good two dozen times. Isn’t it amazing how people on my side of the political divide are assumed to be adults wearing their big-boy pants & not prone to sobbing hysterically over an ill word?

The same assumption is not made with Trump supporters. They’re assumed to be whiny children in permanent snowflake-mode, always falling back on the fainting couch as they clutch their pearls and snivel in anguished torment.

Poor dears! It’s an assumption almost universal across the media, this tendency to infantize Trump’s base. Granted, there’s a bunch of evidence to support that view, but the double-standard remains galling.

Of course the Bot Riva is only a machine, but apparently it is programed to act like a whiny child & perpetual snowflake.

[Riva]

Nice to see you trying but simply too long, repetitive and lacking in any originality to be an effective insult or put down. Maybe I'm being too critical. Based on the above, I'm not sure English is even your native language.

[grb]

Counterpunching doesn't seem a skill the Machine Riva is programmed with. The Bot is always incoherent & lost whenever that need arises. Perhaps it could do better with a software patch, but there's clear indication of hardware limitations too. It's starting to look like we're dealing with 8-bit architecture here.

[Riva]

I’m sorry but you seem to have misunderstood. Maybe it’s the language barrier? Don’t know, but just to be clear, I didn’t suggest doubling down on stupid by just parroting more of the same. You should stop now for your own good. You'll thank me later.

[Randal]

grb totally eviscerated you, and this is all you've got? He's right, your programming doesn't seem to know how to cope with losing an argument and just reverts to this sort of weak "oh you just don't understand" loop.

[David Nieporent]

Apparently we’re fascist Nazi garbage.

I mean, not all of you. Some are just stupid and gullible.

[SimonP]

You people need to stop being so easily offended, as Vance has instructed.

[Frank Drackman]

What do you expect from Garbage?

[Don Nico]

Such calculus never works out. It is a mere hallucination.

Perfectly normal, rational, and good people vote for both candidates.

[Randal]

I didn’t say they weren’t normal, rational, or good. But they’re also stupid, hateful, or bored.

[Don Nico]

Surely some are, but many aren't

[Randal]

Like who?

[Magister]

Rich people who want tax cuts and gutting regulation; they're greedy rather than stupid, hateful or bored. (Depending on the backlash, they might turn out to be stupid.)

[Randal]

They're stupid for thinking that Trump's plan to provoke a debt crisis could possibly be made up for with tax cuts and deregulation. And it's just a little bit hateful to be that selfish, given what Trump represents. Notably, rich people in general are for Kamala, because they're not stupid and hateful on the whole.

[SimonP]

I think there are several Trump-supporting camps.

The "best" Trump voters are people who are frustrated by inflation, housing costs, continuing economic changes that are impacting their communities (i.e., hollowing out of good jobs and the middle class, kids moving away for economic opportunity, etc.). They recall that "things were better" during Trump's first term, abstracting away the daily chaos. They don't really have a good explanation for why electing Trump will fix all of that - they're not, on the whole, highly informed voters - but for them the election is an up-or-down referendum. Are they better off than four years ago? They don't think so. So Trump it is.

Another group are the spiteful, the actual "MAGA" voters. They may share the frustrations of the first group, but they harbor a lot more animosity and hate towards "the libz" who they blame for everything. That is primarily what motivates them. They're aware of Trump's incompetence, they will even acknowledge on some level that Trump's plans are trash and won't help any of the actual problems facing the country. But for them it's far more important to re-impose their will on a country that wants to shake them off and move on. They don't care about anything besides winning.

I'd say that there's another group of religious conservatives who have their own motivations, but nowadays most of them just seem to be MAGA.

And then there's the kleptocrats, who are plotting a full capture of the American government, after having done trial runs in places like Hungary, Argentina, Brazil, Poland, Turkey, etc. I thought we would have more time before they'd take a full run at the American government, but I guess they saw their window of opportunity with Trump - it's hard to see Vance winning an open primary - and so they're going for it. That's the Thiel, Musk, billionaire hedge fund class. They're just using and manipulating the above groups. Unfortunately, the people in those groups are not smart enough to understand how they're being so easily played.

[Riva]

Vance winning an open primary? Actually, hard to see Harris winning an open primary. I guess because she never did. She was installed. After a coup. Go Democracy!

[SimonP]

Pinning for when Trump steps down and Vance takes over, February 2025.

[Riva]

Save your crazy for later. If (hopefully), President Trump is reelected, you're going to need it. Pace the insanity.

[SimonP]

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that exact scenario doesn't underlie your support for Trump, whose late-campaign decline is clear to all of us. Tell me that you haven't told yourself, "I am, in fact, just as fine with Vance as I am with Trump."

What I anticipate happening is this: if Trump is re-elected, the slate of Cabinet picks is assembled by his transition team, informed largely by Vance, Musk, and others within that circle. The litmus test is, as usual, "loyalty" to Trump, but Trump is too stupid and easily convinced by flattery to recognize that Vance's picks have a secondary agenda. The slate assembled, it is quickly confirmed by a Republican Senate ("The president is entitled to his picks.") while Trump busies himself with self-pardons and firing DOJ prosecutors. After the dust of the inauguration has settled, the Cabinet in place, Vance offers Trump a choice: either they invoke the 25th Amendment to embroil Trump in a likely battle for survival, or he resigns for "health reasons," leaving the office in Vance's hands. Vance agrees not to push further criminal investigations of Trump, even offer his own blanket pardon (in case Trump's is deemed ineffective). Trump, never all that interested in the business of governing in the first place and tempted by the prospect of a peaceful retirement in his golf resort, agrees to the deal.

We'll see, ultimately. But I don't put anything past the Vance/Thiel circle of kleptocrats, and neither should you. These people do not have our best interests at heart. They just know what they need to say to give you and voters like you permission to support them. They are savvy, and you are not. Unfortunately we may all suffer for your ignorance.

[Riva]

I would advise you to reconsider this special kind of crazy conspiracy you're trying to create. Extraterrestrial interference would sound more plausible. You try to get a grip young man.

[SimonP]

"You're ridiculous for thinking that could happen. But I don't deny that I might also think that could happen."

[Commenter_XY]

I rather suspect the litmus test will be different, SimonP. The DC administrative state is about to be shaken, not stirred, for the next 4 years. I see that as a much more likely litmus test.

[SimonP]

You're an idiot if you think Trump gives a shit about what happens in the agencies, apart from loyalty.

His appointees may be very interested in "shaking up" the bureaucracy, streamlining them to better serve their private interests. That's what happened in the first term, after all. But loyalty to Trump will be the litmus test. And everyone smart and rich enough with a plan for kleptocratic takeover will know how to win Trump's favor.

[Bob from Ohio]

"kleptocrats, who are plotting a full capture of the American government"

Bur for which side?

"Bill Gates says privately he donated $50m to Kamala Harris campaign – report
Gates, who has not publicly endorsed Harris, reportedly expressed concern about a second Trump presidency" The Guardian [also at NYT]

"Laurene Powell Jobs is one of Kamala Harris’ biggest bankrollers—and closest friends"
Fortune BYSydney Lake September 26, 2024 at 4:34 AM EDT

"Democrat megadonor George Soros and his millennial son Alex are throwing their billions behind Kamala Harris as VP’s potential rivals back out" YahooFinance

Should I go on? There are "kleptocrats" on both sides.

[SimonP]

You don’t seem to understand what “kleptocrats” are. I’m not talking about rich people. I am talking about rich people who want to take control of the government, so as to use its power to direct government contracts to their businesses, to use regulatory power to shut out competitors, and so on.

Musk is a would-be kleptocrat. He has active business before the federal government and genuine legal risk on multiple fronts if Trump is not elected. He wants a Trump administration to unleash opportunities for privatization that rival the period after the collapse of the USSR. Same goes for Kushner, Mnuchin, and Trump himself.

Soros, Jobs and Gates are wealthy philanthropists who are trying to help sway the election. Their views on politics may be more or less welcome in the WH, but they are not doing this in order to benefit themselves financially, the same way Musk is.

[Bob from Ohio]

"they are not doing this in order to benefit themselves financially"

Says you.

You are just applying bad motives to people you hate, without evidence.

[shawn_dude]

Which is more likely to happen under a Harris administration or a Trump administration:

-Corporate tax cuts
-Tax cuts for the wealthy
-Reversal of Trump's tax cuts for corporations
-Reversal of Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy
-Deregulation of industry
-Continued and refined regulation of industry
-Removal of the ACA and deregulation of the medical industry
-Enhancement of the ACA and attempts to expand Medicare

Which of these help/hurt Soros and Gates financially?

[NOVA Lawyer]

There you go again, brining logic and facts to a political argument on VC. I've said it before, I'll say it again: It's so unfair to Bob and Brett, to say nothing of ML, ThePublius, Armchair, Bored Lawyer, and the rest of the Trump apologists.

[SimonP]

I pointed to some real, factual distinctions between the groups of people you are asserting are the same. You can rebut those, provide counterexamples, or explain why they are irrelevant.

But responding "Says you" just indicates how completely out of your depth, and committed to your ignorance, that you are. Completely juvenile. That's a playground retort, Bob.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That’s a playground retort, Bob.

To be fair, there weren't good counterexamples or counterpoints to make. Playground retorts in the nature of "nuh-uh" were really all he had.

Elon Musk =/= Bill Gates.
Peter Thiel =/= Warren Buffett

That anyone even tried to pretend otherwise is embarrassing for them.

[Estragon]

There are the brain-damaged true believers. Mike Flynn is a great example here. And there are the people who think they can ride the tiger to power or greater wealth before their faces get eaten. Many greedheads to choose from here but in this category are people like, for example, Woody Johnson.

Which group most of the commenters here fall into is left as an exercise for the readers

[David Nieporent]

There is, of course, a fourth camp, which strongly overlaps with the first: reflexive R voters. They vote R because they always vote R. They don't need to really examine candidates or policies or the like, because R is simply the default. Same reason one goes to a particular church or roots for a particular team. You don't examine the church's doctrine to see if your own views are closer to Methodist or Presbyterian or Baptist; you go to the church you always have gone to. (To be clear, there are plenty of people on the D side who are the same.)

[Randal]

You just described the stupid, the hateful, and the bored, but with more words.

[Krayt]

People vote for Trump for the same reasons Democrats vote for Kamala: because the other side are evil demons who need defeating.

When you say, “I have a tough time imagining why someone would vote for Trump”, what you’re really saying is, “I’m having a tough time imagining why someone doesn’t see me as a good person.”

Half the stuff you imagine is a sunbeam shining down on you is acidic, vomitous bile from a glow-eyed demon from their mind.

Doesn’t make it so, but it’s not hard to imagine. One concrete example, “What’s wrong with Kansas?” Why do all the cute little workers vote against their (economic) interests?

But that presumes that’s their most important issue. The rhetoric politicians spout sure seems to presume so, you stupid little workers who don’t know what’s best for you!

[Sarcastr0]

The rhetoric politicians spout sure seems to presume so, you stupid little workers who don’t know what’s best for you!

No, most politicians make campaign promises. Trump's the guy who spends all his time saying those who don't support him are stupid and maybe enemies.

[Bob from Ohio]

"all his time"

Wow, no campaign promises at all.

I seem to remember a promise to exempt tips from tax, copied by Harris.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow you sure will take something literally to make a tepid burn.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : "Wow, no campaign promises at all"

Apparently campaign coverage doesn't reach Ohio. Otherwise, Bob would have known no recent presidential candidate has ever so relentlessly pandered as Trump this year. When the National Review calls out a GOPer for nonstop policy whoring to every possible constituency, you know things are atrocious.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/09/trumps-scattershot-policy-pandering/

[Bob from Ohio]

Funny, Sarcasto said Trump spends all his time saying those who don’t support him are stupid and maybe enemies.

[grb]

Really, Bob? That’s the kind of argument you want to make?!? You might have harranged Sarcasto for not allowing Trump time to eat and made just as much sense.

I only noted the incongruity of “campaign promises” as your go-to rhetorical device. Given Trump has relentlessly whored with the absolute dumbest pandering possibly, that seemed particularly inept.

Of course, that also leaves you voting for the worst panderer in living memory of presidential contests. But obviously a Trump voter has no self-respect left….

[NOVA Lawyer]

People vote for Trump for the same reasons Democrats vote for Kamala: because the other side are evil demons who need defeating.

No.

People voted against Kamala, like they voted against Obama, because they think she is evil in a "she's the antichrist" kind of way. There's a metaphysical/religious element to their hatred and belief that the Democrat de jure is an actual agent of Satan.

People voted against Trump as "evil" because they think he is a small, venal man of limited intellect, powers, and morality, but who will do bad things, the most evil of which is undermine our constitutional democracy and, perhaps, bend us towards and Orban-style autocracy. They don't think Trump is evil in some metaphysical sense or that he's "trying to destroy the country", only that he is amoral, narcissist who is trying to take over the country and turn it into his personal fiefdom.

Perpetuating the false equivalence that both sides are voting against "evil" is dishonest. It obfuscates that one side is grounded in rationality, evidence, and realistic political/economic concerns based on Trump's rhetoric and promises, while the other is an irrational fear based on conspiracy theories (e.g., Democratic elites being Satan worshipping baby eaters who support public schools secretly cutting your chid's penis off) and overdeveloped religiosity turned cultishness.

When MAGA says Kamala is evil, they mean something different (something irrationally different) than what "the left" means when they say (much less frequently) Trump is evil.

MAGA thinks this is a war between Satan and their god. Democrats and Never Trumpers think this is a fight between rationality/democracy on the one hand and cultish authoritarianism on the other.

[Life of Brian]

So, I’ve been trying to work out what kind of a person could possibly vote for Donald Trump.

I take it you've been studying the recent polling/early voting trends and have decided to try to get out in front of the likely result.

But when your worldview is based on less than 50% of Scottish citizens actually being true Scotsmen, maybe it's time for just a touch of introspection rather than invective.

[Commenter_XY]

I actually addressed that question in Professor Post's article earlier this week. They should take the quiz from 'Coming Apart' and see where they score. 'Do you live in a bubble'

Then they can get an idea of what they do not see, meaning, why would people vote for Pres Trump.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, I missed that entire mosh pit. Was skimming quickly at the time and just saw the Yankees/world series part, so didn’t click in.

Fun test — got 63.

[Commenter_XY]

They are asking a very legitimate question; I don't think it is entirely facetious. Maybe for some. But that test is very revealing. Anyone with just a smidge of introspection might take the result and wonder what they don't see...and then find out. My guess is most will just move on and never do anything about it.

Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone) and Charles Murray (Coming Apart) did outstanding empirical work to explain much of what we are seeing now.

There are tracking studies of societal degradation that are very helpful in explaining what we see.

[Randal]

Of course Trump voters have reasons to be hateful and/or bored, a handful of which might even be legitimate.

[shawn_dude]

I took the quiz (45) and I still do not understand why people would vote for a billionaire convicted felon, sexual offender, and liar. The quiz attempts to ascertain one's economic and educational background and give bubble status to people on the higher end of that scale (which is represented as low on the Bubble scale.) I/m having trouble drawing the line between hard-working, middle-class, religious factory workers and Trump if I start by assuming that lack of a secondary education isn't an indicator of intelligence. Middle class Americans should be able to see how offensive he is as a person, generally, and how he uses his wealth to bully and cheat people just like them. The only conclusion, if I assume they're generally intelligent, is that they're pissed off and feel like blowing the entire system up out of spite and, given that, Trump is clearly the power move.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you live in a bubble? LOL.

Now you understand.

I am not being sarcastic.

[NOVA Lawyer]

feel like blowing the entire system up out of spite and, given that, Trump is clearly the power move

Commenter_XY, is this what you are saying is the primary motivation of the non-stupid, non-racist (at least not aggressively so), and non-fascist Trump voters (however small that contingent might be)?

68 on the test, btw.

It is true in at least some cases, but there is a limit on how intelligent and informed a person can be and just want to destroy the system because they are pissed off. History is replete with examples (by which I mean, history's examples are unanimous) showing this is the way to misery and some form of authoritarian, kleptocratic, and/or despotic government in place of what came before.

Destructive rage is just that: destructive.

[Super Scary]

For someone that talks a lot about other people's hate, you seem to have a lot of hate in your heart. Seek help.

[Randal]

What makes you think I hate them?

[Frank Drackman]

Ahnold, who fucked his nanny who had his kid, endorsed Cums-a-lot, who’s husband fucked his nanny and paid for her abortion, AlGore, who only fucked his maid (married to Tipper, cut him some slack) could not be reached for comment

[John F. Carr]

In August a viral TikTok video showed people how to get free money by depositing a large check in an ATM and withdrawing funds before the check bounced. Some got over $100,000. In October JPMorgan Chase started suing customers. CNBC:

JPMorgan is seeking the return of the stolen funds with interest and overdraft fees, as well as lawyers' fees and, in some cases, punitive damages, according to the complaints.

I think it will work out badly for the thieves. It used to be if your bank account was closed with a negative balance, as it would be in these cases, you couldn't open another account anywhere for several years.

Possibly the thieves had brain damage from eating too many Tide pods. This is not a new trick and not one the banking system is helpless against.

I recently deposited a five figure check at the counter and asked the teller when the funds would be available. It was her discretion to put a hold on it and she didn't because I and/or the check looked trustworthy. Different bank, different customer, online deposit and most of the funds were delayed a week. Check 21 (I think) puts an upper limit on check clearing time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why are so many criminals so incredibly stupid?

Because it's the stupid ones that get caught, of course.

[bernard11]

Yes. Classic selection bias.

[David Nieporent]

I think it will work out badly for the thieves.

True, but I think it's more about the deterrent effect than anything; I doubt the people who stole tens of thousands of dollars are going to be able to repay it.

[John F. Carr]

In the occasional series on Americans being forced to obey laws of the countries they operate in.

Wikipedia is in legal trouble in a defamation case in India despite playing the "we're a platform, not a service" card. It wasn't Wikipedia who called Asian News International a propaganda tool, it was some anonymous person. A court in Delhi said tell us about this anonymous user or we shut you down. Wikipedia has provided some information.

The Asian News International article was reportedly taken down by court order. It is visible to me now in the United States. It may be invisible in India. It is protected so only administrators can edit it.

There is a class of pages on Wikipedia which are used for airing of grievances rather than an encyclopedic overview. The targets tend to be people or groups seen as right wing, in a broad sense. United States law is very protective of online mudslinging.

[John F. Carr]

The parties have filed their sentencing requests in the case of Jack Teixeira, who shared a bunch of classified documents to impress his online friends. The defense asked for 11 years. The prosecution asked for 17 years.

The charges are essentially the same as the ones Donald Trump faces. Illegal retention and illegal dissemination are treated identically under the sentencing guidelines. In my opinion this reflects badly on the law. Trump's charged conduct is much less serious. The report that Trump shared national defense information did not lead to charges.

In cases that smell like espionage rather than self-aggrandizement or hoarding the guidelines call for a longer sentence.

https://apnews.com/article/jack-teixeira-pentagon-leak-sentence-7e62523340c7c081491943353f44d36d

[hobie]

Puerto Rico is a floating garbage pile.
Trump supporters are garbage
America is a failing garbage can

One of those I find infinitely more repugnant than the others

[Randal]

At first I thought Biden probably actually said it and was making up flimsy excuses. But hearing it, he said "The only garbage I see is Trump supporters[']." Maybe Biden's grammar is a little different than mine, but if I were saying that sentence without an apostrophe, I would use "are" instead of "is." Anyway, on actually hearing it, it came across more as "Trump supporters, like the comedian I just mentioned, are spewing garbage" than "Trump supporters are garbage."

Of course, it doesn't really matter for N reasons. It was a gaffe either way, but I don't think it did anything other than give us the opportunity to see Trump hysterically wrestle with a car door.

[hobie]

My favorite part was when the rednecks and Trump, after calling all of Puerto Rico garbage, and all of America (and by inference all American's [including themselves]) garbage, clutched them old pearls and howled in indignation.

So what gives, hayseeds? You call yourselves garbage but don't like it when others do?

[Ska]

I can think of another demographic who uses that same standard.

[Frank Drackman]

does it rhyme with "Figures"?

[David Nieporent]

My favorite part was when the rednecks and Trump, after calling all of Puerto Rico garbage, and all of America (and by inference all American’s [including themselves]) garbage, clutched them old pearls and howled in indignation.

My favorite part was that all of those people — led by JD Vance — first said, “It was just a joke; people need to stop being so sensitive.” And then it turned out that they only meant racial minorities need to stop being so sensitive.

[Commenter_XY]

You know when a drunk person starts talking, and they sometimes they say what is in their mind and heart, out loud. That is what happened here with POTUS Biden. He articulated what a certain sub-segment of society believes, yourself included.

What is not known (yet) is whether this will have the same motivational impact as the deplorables comment. We'll know by Sunday.

[Randal]

No, the people who really believe it, deep down, are Trump supporters themselves. I know that just based on the Trump supporters I know. Their inferiority complex is why they hate “elites” so much.

There’s a huge cognitive trap in the middle of conservative American ideology. Conservatives believe that opportunity is there for anyone with the ability and gumption to take it, with no need for helping hands or safety nets or whatever. But that means the only explanation for their shitty stations in life — compared to the elite who make it big — is that the elite really are better, with more ability and gumption. So they already think of themselves as garbage, and that’s why it’s so painful for them to hear… despite, as hobie pointed out, their own VP candidate telling Puerto Ricans not to be such crybabies about being called garbage just one day earlier.

[bernard11]

Biden was drunk? Evidence, please.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, he said, "the only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters".

Imagining an apostrophe and an unspoken rest of the sentence doesn't make that any better. It's just transparently trying to make excuses for a demented old man who has lost his filters. He doubtless always thought that about Republicans, but formerly had the restraint not to say it.

But even non-demented Democrats are starting to lose their filters at this point. Hillary's self-destructive "basket of deplorables" remark was just the leading edge.

I hunted up a video of the 'comedian' at Trump's rally, too. The garbage 'joke' went over like a lead balloon.

[Randal]

Why do you think “floating out there” makes any difference? If anything that makes it seem more like he’s talking about their rhetoric than the supporters themselves.

She floated some garbage story that she was there to ‘clean’. Why on Earth would she be In. My. Underwear. Drawer!

https://www.reddit.com/r/JUSTNOMIL/comments/sicif2/comment/hv8zws7/

[Brett Bellmore]

The point is that it was clearly the supporters themselves he was calling garbage, not their positions.

Look, he's an old guy with dementia, this is just how they talk, with the filters and emotional restraint failing. Hopefully after next Tuesday, when Harris no longer has to spend her time campaigning, they can get around to invoking the 25th amendment, and she can enjoy a few months in the history books as the first woman President. It will be a relief to everybody to get that guy out of the Oval office.

[apedad]

"Look, he’s an old guy with dementia, this is just how they talk, with the filters and emotional restraint failing."

Why did you switch to talking about Trump?

[Randal]

Well, like I said, where I come from…

The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters‘. [what he said]
The only garbage I see floating out there are his supporters. [what he didn’t say]

Compare to…

The only trash I see is my neighbors‘.
The only trash I see are my neighbors.

[ThePublius]

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to deny, negate, defend what Biden so obviously said. Are you trying for KJP's job?

[hobie]

So you don't like a candidate that calls Americans names?

[Randal]

I'm not defending him -- it was definitely an inartful gaffe that people like you and Brett are going to try to capitalize on.

I'm just telling you what, imo, he obviously meant.

I wonder if next time someone says something like "the garbage is my daughter's" you're going to freak out that they're calling their daughters "garbage."

[SimonP]

Christ, Brett. You really are putting in the work for the right-wing spin machine here. Did you come up with this on your own, or did you read it in some of your outrage media?

Biden has long worked with Republicans. He was a centrist, across-the-aisle Democratic senator, and has utmost respect for his then-colleagues and the legislative process. He shares in many ways the tendencies of Manchin, et al., in observing the Senate's countermajoritarian rules and structures, which is why he never pushed all that forcefully to overcome them during the difficult legislative period from 2020-2022.

So Biden's statement is not about Republicans generally but about Trump supporters. And while I would agree that calling them all garbage is too broad a brush - I hold to the belief that there are decent people out there voting for Trump - I can't say I've ever seen Trump supporters of character in the comments here. The "garbage" Trump supporters tend to be the vocal ones we constantly have to hear about.

And it is a contortion of the first order to argue that MAGA would reject that comedian's offensive take on Puerto Rico (which in my opinion was not nearly as awful as the media has tried to make it seem) just because you didn't detect a note of hilarity in response to it. We know who MAGA is, and so do you. MAGA and Trump has to be reminded the Puerto Ricans are citizens, citizens who can vote. They absolutely believe that PR is essentially a "third world country" - or to invoke Trump's rhetoric, a "shithole country."

[Bob from Ohio]

"not about Republicans generally but about Trump supporters"

That is just about an overlapping circle.

Per Roper Research, GOP went 94-6 for Trump in 2020, mirror of 94-5 Dems for Biden. Its going to be the same for both parties this year.

[SimonP]

There are people who would support Trump no matter what party he ran with.

There are others who support Trump because he's the Republican candidate.

That's the difference.

[Commenter_XY]

The math says differently (94-6, 94-5)....what difference?

[SimonP]

I am always amazed by how stupid Trump supporters turn out to be.

[David Nieporent]

Imagining an apostrophe and an unspoken rest of the sentence doesn’t make that any better.

Um, the apostrophe may or may not have been present — there's literally no way to know — but the rest of the sentence was spoken.

[Riva]

Aren't we Nazis too?

[Sarcastr0]

https://images.dailykos.com/images/574802/story_image/1350.png?1533664371

[Riva]

I think this, in essence, is why Democrats will lose. You’re just not funny. Not sure why, you lack the ability to be self-critical or self-reflexive? Maybe you lost it being wrapped up in the censorship, canceling and lawfare? Who knows? Now, in contrast, President Trump is funny:
https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1851775985286344992

[Randal]

Not sure why, you lack the ability to be self-critical or self-reflexive?

This, on the other hand, is a very funny reaction to Sarcastr0's link.

[apedad]

Defendants with Ties to White Supremacy Sentenced in Connection with Plot to Destroy Energy Facilities

Jordan Duncan, 29, of Bailey, North Carolina was sentenced today to seven years in prison for manufacturing a short barrel rifle in violation of the National Firearms Act. Joseph Maurino, 25, of Manalapan, New Jersey, was sentenced on Oct. 25. Paul James Kryscuk, 38, of Boise, Idaho, Liam Collins, 25, of Johnston, Rhode Island, and Justin Wade Hermanson, 25, of Swansboro, North Carolina, were sentenced in July. Duncan, Collins, and Hermanson are former Marines who were previously assigned to Camp Lejeune.

According to court documents and other information presented in court, the group researched, discussed, and reviewed at length a previous attack on the power grid by an unknown group who used assault-style rifles in an attempt to explode a power substation. Between 2017 and 2020, Kryscuk manufactured firearms while Collins stole military gear, including magazines for assault-style rifles, and had them delivered to the other defendants. During that time, Duncan, gathered a library of information, some military-owned, regarding firearms, explosives, and nerve toxins and shared that information with Kryscuk and Collins. Members of the group went on to conduct training, including a live-fire training in the desert near Boise. From video footage recorded by the members during the training, Kryscuk, Duncan, and others produced a montage video of their training. In the video, the participants are seen firing short barrel rifles and other assault-type rifles, and the end of the propaganda video shows the four participants outfitted in AtomWaffen masks giving the “Heil Hitler” sign, beneath the image of a black sun, a Nazi symbol. The last frame bears the phrase, “Come home white man.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/defendants-ties-white-supremacy-sentenced-connection-plot-destroy-energy-facilities-0

Yeah, let’s worry about leftist and illegal immigrants.

[Michael P]

They sound like classic Democrat KKK members.

Meanwhile, the firebombs used to attack ballot boxes in Oregon and Washington this year are reported to have had "Free Gaza" slogans on them. The suspects have not yet been identified, at least publicly, although their car apparently has been. "Volvo sedan driver in Pacific Northwest who wants to 'Free Gaza'" does not exactly scream white supremacy.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon (Man!) White Surpremercists love the Volvos!

[Randal]

If Kamala loses, one of the many things we'll be able to blame it on is Netanyahu's refusal to do a ceasefire. If that happens, I suspect the Democrats will become overtly anti-Israel.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I suspect the Democrats will become overtly anti-Israel."
...as if they aren't already?

[Krychek_2]

Bumble, you don't tell people they are engaging in destructive behavior because you hate them.

[Randal]

Some individual Democrats are, but the party as a whole isn't. Yet.

[Joe_dallas]

The anti israel is currently the dominate portion of the democrat party. Look at the advisors in the administration and Harris advisors. Hard to hide if you are paying attention.

[Krychek_2]

It's not anti-Israel to tell Israel it is currently on a destructive course of action. Any more than it is anti teenage boy to tell him you won't give him whiskey and car keys.

[Frank Drackman]

Well that's my problem, my parents gave me both

[Don Nico]

"Israel it is currently on a destructive course of action"
Says you from an ocean and a half away.

[Commenter_XY]

hamas has no interest in a ceasefire. hamas has violated every ceasefire agreement they have made. hamas are choosing to fight it out and die. That is what they do in that area of the world. Oblige them.

[Don Nico]

"Democrats will become overtly anti-Israel."
Many already are and are likely hoping for an Iranian rush to a nuclear weapon.

[Joe_dallas]

Victor Hansen in his book "The Second World Wars" has a discussion of the coddling of Nazi Germany by Britain, France, Russia and the US during the mid 1930's to Sept 1939. Very similar to the coddling of Iran that began with the Obama administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Why would Democrats be hoping for Iran to get a nuke?

[Don Nico]

1) Because then they have an excuse not to join Israel in an attack and/or to coerce Israel not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
2) Because they have been deadly silent on what the US might do if Iran starts a rush toward a gun-design bomb (which is the credible design with weapons grade Uranium.
3) Because they want an excuse to rein in Israel.
4) Any combination of these reasons.
You don't actually think Kamela and Bernie are Middle East hawks, do you?

[grb]

OK. That’s settled. Sarcastr0 asked a question and you had no rational response.

Which brings up the question why Right-wingers are so addicted to loony-toons conspiratorial statements of wildly sweeping scope. Doesn’t it occur to them they might have to justify their nonsense?

[David Nieporent]

You don’t actually think Kamela and Bernie are Middle East hawks, do you?

I do not think Bernie is a Middle East hawk. I also don't think he's a Democrat, nor do I think he has any iota of influence over American foreign policy.

[Randal]

likely hoping for an Iranian rush to a nuclear weapon.

As if. Anyway, it was Trump who gave Iran the green light on nuclear weapons development.

[Joe_dallas]

Quite the opposite .

[Don Nico]

Actually he did not.
That is just your interpretation.
The issues of weapons design, long-range delivery system, and uranium enrichment are rather independent.

[grb]

Don Nico : “That is just your interpretation”.

But a interpetation completely based on fact. The major obstacle to Iran (or any country) building nuclear weapons is refining bomb fuel. Iran’s refinement programs was completely stopped by JCPOA. Even Trump’s own administration repeatedly certified that as true.

But Trump sabotaged the treaty despite the pleas of our allies and lack of any plan to follow. He did so because he’s an imbecile and to an imbecile it looked like a cheap way to throw red meat to the dupes (see Joe_dallas above).

If you were paying attention at the time (which you weren’t), there were three objections to JCPOA: First, it was associated with Obama and “Obama Bad”. (That’s probably enough to settle Joe_dallas’ case). Second, Iran was cheating – except every single western government concluded otherwise and there was never any evidence Iran wasn’t in complete compliance.

The objection from think tanks & position papers had nothing to do with atomic weapons whatsoever. It was the treaty didn’t impede Iran’s missile program or growth in conventional weaponry. So when Trump junked a pact that required years of negotiation between the U.S., Europe, Russia, and China, he immediately announced he would negotiate a new super treaty that covered everything.

And guess what that led to? President Bullshit accomplished nothing but bullshit talk. The years of negotiations were wasted. Iran gave the other pact signatories time to salvage the pact even as the mullahs steadly increased their uranium refinement. After awhile, they just shrugged and went full bore. Now most estimates have them within months of having enough fuel for an A-bomb.

It was a colossal pointless massive fuckup with never the slightest clue towards an achievable objective. But Joe_dallas got his red meat and Trump delivered another soundbite to his base.

What’s a nuclear Iran compared to that?

[Commenter_XY]

Pres Obama's Iran policy initiative was a failure, and it stemmed out of hubris. Had President Obama held out, Iran would have been starved of funds. He did not, and rushed to get a completed JCPOA before he left office. Makes sense politically, but failed geopolitically, and ultimately harmed our national interest. BTW, PM Netanyahu was right (when he addressed Congress): The answer is (was) to hold out for a better deal.

POTUS Biden unwisely resumed a failed Iran policy initiative, and the region promptly blew the hell up. Now Israel fights an existential war, on multiple fronts. We are drawn into this mess, consequently, because we have multiple allies in the region (with competing interests).

Any way you want to look at this, the Iran policy initiative has been a costly, colossal failure. It has managed to kill Americans, and has not inhibited Iran in the slightest.

[grb]

Anyone can see with a casual glance that XY challenges none of my arguments, contests no facts, and offers nothing in contrast. But even his empty weaseling is telling. Let’s review:

1. Obama was a “failure” via Alternate Universe Fantasy. If only he’d “held out” awhile further, the policy of several preceding decades would have magically resulted in Iran putting George Washington’s face on the Rial. This is laughable but it’s the only thing XY has. It’s the only arrow in his bare quiver.

2. Biden was a “failure” because he couldn’t magically rebuild the treaty Trump destroyed. He tried, of course, but couldn’t reconstruct years of negotiations with China, France, Russia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. For XY, that impossible task constitutes “failure”.

3. But guess what! Somehow XY skipped over the biggest failure of all. What about Trump? The man whose own White House said JCPOA was working. The president whose administration repeatedly certified Iran in full compliance and its nuclear weapons program completely shut down. The bungler who sabotaged the pact without the slightest clue of any path to follow.

Yep: Trump did it without even considering a next step. He barely tried to deal with the resulting damage he caused. He had no answer or response when Iran restarted its nuclear weapons program. This, despite the fact it was the obvious consequence of his actions. There’s no indication he even cared.

Because this, the second-biggest foreign policy blunder in decades, wasn’t about foreign policy at all. It was only domestic politics, pandering to the stupidest & most fact-challenged of Trump’s base. Foreign policy never entered the equation. That’s why a next step wasn’t necessary. That’s why the consequences weren’t important. For Trump, the issue was over after the press release withdrawing from the pact. Red meat delivered to his dupe followers. Case closed.

XY has nothing to say on that massive failure and we can easily understand why. He was one of the dupe followers Trump targeted with this empty cynical move. So Trump’s moronic failure is a sore point for XY. In a way, he was one of its causes. There’s a direct line between his mindless cult obviousness and the nuclear power Iran soon to come.

[shawn_dude]

An Iranian rush to build a nuclear weapon would result in Israel engaging in an all-out attack, possibly assisted by the US government given our own desire to avoid Iran having that kind of weapon. Also, given that Israel has their own nukes, what, exactly does either the US left or right gain from this sort of disaster? Answer: nothing. In nuclear war, no one wins.

The main complaints against the Israeli destruction of Gaza are the mass deaths of the innocent civilians that Israel is responsible for as the occupying force. If the mass deaths of innocents is the primary concern here, then Iran having a nuke is a far bigger issue for those same concerned people. This may come as a shock to you, but the majority of people in the US who are unhappy with Israel's behavior in this war are not anti-Semitic and are equally horrified by attacks on Israeli citizens--both the Jewish and non-Jewish.

[Magister]

For Christians eager to rush the end times, nuclear war in the Middle East would be a vindication. Many right wingers hope for things in the world that would not be good for them; owning the libs, or like Dr. Ed 2 and his delight at the prospect of civil wars.

[Don Nico]

Magister,
You got the sign wrong. The reason to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities now is precisely to avoid a nuclear war in the Middle East

[Magister]

That does not address my observation that some Christians want Israel only for satisfying their end times prophecies, and nuclear war is not incompatible with the Second Coming.

[Don Nico]

True enough some minority of Christians want what you describe. As a nuclear war would fit the bill, but that is not likely in the immediate future in the Middle East.

[Magister]

Again, there is a segment of the US right that would welcome a nuclear war between Israel and Iran because of their religious beliefs. They are nuts, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Don Nico]

Shawn,
I think that you guess about Israel is likely correct, especially now that the major part of Iranian air defenses are destroyed. Where the US would join is highly questionable with the present administration.
I heartily disagree with you about your comment that "he majority of people in the US who are unhappy with Israel’s behavior in this war are not anti-Semitic.' but I am willing to agree to disagree.
Thousands of pre-teen shahidi was always Sinwar's intent; he just miscalculated how long it would talk the US administration be come squeamish.

[Commenter_XY]

In all likelihood, Iran is nuclear capable already, or, can/will assemble a weapon in very short order (less than 2 weeks), Don Nico.

Does Iran have the refined material? I would say yes.

They know the engineering and assembly already.

[grb]

The consensus I’ve seen is several months onto a year, but in the larger scheme of things, it’s the same.

Thanks Donald Trump!

You may have given us Iran as a nuclear power, but oh how your base cheered & cheered after that brainless bungling! And isn’t that what’s really important? Responsible foreign policy is all well and good, but it doesn’t keep the rubes in the cheap seats entertained. Keeping those dupes slapping their knees and happy must be the sole priority of TrumpLand,

[Riva]

Become overtly anti-Israel? With the "from the river to the sea" valedictorians, I'm not sure I even want to know how that would manifest on campus but I suspect we'd be in final solution territory for the Hamas terrorist supporting little tykes.

[Krayt]

If Kamala loses, one of the many things we’ll be able to blame it on is Netanyahu’s refusal to do a ceasefire. If that happens, I suspect the Democrats will become overtly anti-Israel.

Ironically, that may happen if they win, too. Every other YouTube ad in my swing state is Kamala marching across a stage, with her voiceover, “I unequivocally support Israel.” Yet in her speech yesterday, she promised a clamp down on their war.

It may be a valid policy difference, but it is decidedly not “unequivocal”.

I've already hypithesized Israel is taking advantage of the impending election to force more attacks, and the received wisdom on all channels sits back and finds silver linings, rather than screetch about an expanded war.

It's just a working theory. If she wins, we shall see.

[Joe_dallas]

Krayt - concur

As I have previously stated. Actions speak louder than words. Her choice of policy advisors, her behind the scenes effort to prevent Israel from entering Rafah, etc all point to her being anti Israel even more so than Obama and/or the current administration.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait...Kamala studied the maps regarding Rafah! 😉

[Randal]

Kamala is a career prosecutor. She knows how to do her homework.

Trump is a con man turned game show host.

As always, every accusation an admission. Please try to wake from your fever dream while you can.

[Commenter_XY]

What fever dream? Sinwar became Sinwas, courtesy of the IDF, in Rafah, nitwit.

[Brett Bellmore]

To tell the truth
Kamala Harris has a perfectly credible record. So why does she have to exaggerate it?

[Don Nico]

Netanyahu’s war calculus has very little to do with what Ms Harris wants. Presently he has a strong military upper-hand that would be foolish to relinquish.
I do agree with you that many Democrat's would blame him for a Harris loss.

[Randal]

I don’t think Netanyahu's trying to make Kamala lose. I think he’s trying to keep himself out of jail, same as Trump. Still, if his corruption ends up costing Kamala the election, Democrats are going to continue to forget about why we ever supported Israel. Sort of like how Republicans seem intent to forget about why we ever opposed Russia.

[Don Nico]

Win or lose, Trump is going to be sentenced in NY soon after election day. He could well see the slammer at least for a while.

[Randal]

Trump won’t and was never going to be sent to prison in the NY fraud case. NY sort of loves white-collar criminals, for better or worse.

[not guilty]

For someone without prior criminal history convicted of a low grade felony, probation is the norm. Donald Trump, however, has shown no remorse and no capacity for rehabilitation, and he is convicted of ten criminal contempts while on bond. The man is a scofflaw deserving of prison.

As I understand it, bail pending appeal is discretionary with the trial judge.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are one sick, Trump obsessed MFer.

[David Nieporent]

Win or lose, Trump is going to be sentenced in NY soon after election day. He could well see the slammer at least for a while.

It's unlikely anyone would get jail time in a situation like that. It's massively unlikely Trump would get jail time in a situation like that. It is less likely than the White Sox winning the 2024 World Series (which, yes, I know is now over) that Trump would get jail time in a situation like that if he is elected president.

[grb]

Don Nico : “Netanyahu’s war calculus …. (etc)”

Netanyahu’s war calculus is keeping Netanyahu in power. The minute a state of war ends in Israel, the clock starts ticking towards general elections he will lose. And like Trump here, power means protection from accountability for corruption charges.

So, yeah, Netanyahu will do everything possible to keep his “strong military upper-hand” even when divorced from any military strategic objective. To Netanyahu, keeping his butt out of prison counts as military objective enough.

[Krychek_2]

Michael, how long has it been since an actual KKK member voted Democrat? Fifty years? You've been reading Drackman too long; his stupid is rubbing off on you.

I don't know who did it, and it may turn out to be a leftist, but that would make no sense. Since it was Portland, presumably any destroyed ballots would have been votes for Harris, so why would a leftist target them? If you're a leftist wanting to destroy the ballots of people you don't like, wouldn't you head to, say, the conservative parts of Pennsylvania or Michigan where it might actually do your side some good?

[Mr. Bumble]

” If you’re a leftist wanting to destroy the ballots of people you don’t like, wouldn’t you head to, say, the conservative parts of Pennsylvania or Michigan where it might actually do your side some good?”
They are.
By the way, the Portland and Vancouver drop box fires are a strong argument in favor of doing away with drop boxes.

[Mr. Bumble]

…and they are working on it in Detroit:
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/10/30/what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-michigan-n4933794
""Vote early and often" is one of those election campaign jokes politicians like to indulge in, but one Michigan voter ID reportedly has voted 29 times so far — and one expert just found 164,568 little anomalies."

[jb]

LOL, maybe you should read the update at the top of things you post so you don't look like a dumbass by repeating the stuff from further down that's already acknowledged to be incorrect.

It was an error in the way the report was generated:

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=146844

[Brett Bellmore]

How long has it been since the KKK actually existed as a real organization, rather than cosplayers who get paid by Democrats to parade around at Republican events?

But they absolutely were voting Democratic, back when it was a real movement. The Democratic party has always had its military wing, and always publicly denied having it. They just wear black these days, instead of white.

[not guilty]

I am proud of how my political party during the mid-twentieth century repudiated its sordid history of support for slavery and segregation.

Brett, are you proud of how your party so eagerly stepped into the breach?

[Krychek_2]

+1

[grb]

On the money......

[Joe_dallas]

Antifa

[Krychek_2]

Joe, and Brett, today, the Democratic Party is the party that supports affirmative action, black lives matter, and more government services for black neighborhoods. The idea that Klansmen, or people who are in agreement with Klan principles, would vote Democrat is so ludicrous, so ridiculous, so completely absurd that I'm shocked that even you would believe it (if in fact you do as opposed to just being disingenuous). And Joe, ideologically, antifa is about as far removed from the Klan as you can get, though I will agree they use similar tactics.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Klan principles that survive to this day are that the favored race gets special treatment. The Democratic party just changed which race was favored, then fell back into its old habits.

Klansmen aren't voting for anybody today, there IS no Klan, like I said, just some cosplayers who get paid by Democrats to show up at Republican events.

[Krychek_2]

Um, no. That race gets a mention in both the Klan and affirmative action does not mean that they're the same thing, any more than the 9/11 hijackers and the pope are the same thing because both are about religion. That's a really bad category error even for you.

You want to make the claim that today's pro-immigrant party is the party of the KKK, knock yourself out. You might convince the white grievance gang to go along with you, but everyone else will just point and laugh.

[Brett Bellmore]

That race got mentioned by the Klan and Kennedy's "affirmative action" didn't make them the same thing, because Kennedy's "affirmative action" was affirmative action to make sure hiring was NOT done on the basis of race.

When LBJ got done with it, the practice was inverted into racial quotas.

[Krychek_2]

You want to argue that the party that supports immigration and black lives matter is the party of the KKK, knock yourself out. Everyone else will point and laugh.

[Frank Drackman]

You're right for once, because the Repubiclowns support (Legal) Immigration ("45"'s wife for one, you stupid fuck), don't support killing unborn Blacks, and the only party that's had an actual KKK Grand Kleagle erected in recent memory was Robert KKK Bird, of the DemoKKKrat's
so you're right, we're not yelling "Krychek_2!", we're saying "(Redacted) You!"

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Robert Byrd is of recent memory? The guy who was first elected to the West Virginia legislature in 1946 and died at age 92 in 2010 is of recent memory?

If by "killing unborn blacks" you mean abortion, they're not being aborted because they're black, and it's not the Democrats who are aborting them. It's the pregnant women and their doctors. Unlike the Klan, which actually did do violence to blacks, because they were black, themselves.

But you know all this. This has been explained to you before. So I shall simply respond as I did to Brett, that if you want to make the claim that the party that supports black lives matter, affirmative action, and immigration is the party of the KKK, knock yourself out. In your case, people are already pointing and laughing.

[Krychek_2]

And by the way, Byrd is not the most recent Klansman elected to public office. That would be David Duke, a Republican and Trump supporter. You can't even get basic facts straight.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Byrd was most recently elected to the US Senate in 2006, five years after he used the term "nigger" on national television.

Duke was last elected to a LA state office in the eighties.

[Magister]

Byrd was no longer a Klansman in the mid 1950s; yes, lots of white supremacists in the Democratic party at that time, but they either recanted or became Republicans in the Civil Rights era. David Duke only left the Klan because other Klan leaders threw him out, and not because he disagreed with the KKK; he continues to be an unrepentant white supremacist.

[Krychek_2]

12 inch, by 2006 Byrd was a living fossil who had been there forever and I'm more interested in the fact that his first election was in 1946. In the 1980s, Duke was something shiny and new.

Candidly, I don't think either of them qualify for Drackman's "recent memory" characterization; as far as I'm concerned they're both in the past. But if he's going to insist on dredging up Byrd, completeness requires him to acknowledge that the most recent Klansman to win a first election was in fact a Republican.

[bernard11]

some cosplayers who get paid by Democrats to show up at Republican events.

Have you seen the paychecks? I bet not, so STFU with your manufactured BS. It really is disgusting. And don't tell me you read it on some ridiculous RW site - John Solomon, or the Federalist, maybe, or worse.

You really do suffer from paranoid delusions.

[Joe_dallas]

K2 – I was replying to the type individual most likely to have firebombed the Ballot box in Portland and washington. You implied its was not likely to be a Harris supporter and thus most likely to be a trump supporter.

You decided to go off on an unrelated tangent when it became obvious that your line of attack on republicans didnt hold water.

[Krychek_2]

I did not imply it was a Trump supporter; I said it made no sense that it would be a Harris supporter. There is lots of ground between “Trump Supporter” and “Not Harris Supporter.” And it’s far from clear that most antifa are Harris supporters; some probably are, but most of them strike me as the intellectual purists that are more likely voting for a left wing third party.

But again, if you are antifa, and you are inclined to try to destroy ballots, why would you do it to Portland ballots that are more likely to lean left?

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, I've heard that the recent high profile refusals to endorse Harris weren't due to fear of Republicans, but actually threats from the extreme left, who regard Harris as too compromising to tolerate.

[Frank Drackman]

and several hundred thousand acted on their "Threats" cancelling Washington Post and LA Times subscriptions the papers were probably glad to get rid of anyway, they lose money on those old fucks who insist on getting a Newspaper printed on actual paper.

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Actually almost all subscriptions are electronic these days -- mine is, and I haven't cancelled -- so you know about as much about it as you usually do.

[Estragon]

Some younger fucks too. Only a truly misguided individual would do a crossword puzzle digitally.

[bernard11]

You've heard.

[David Nieporent]

In fact, I’ve heard that the recent high profile refusals to endorse Harris weren’t due to fear of Republicans, but actually threats from the extreme left, who regard Harris as too compromising to tolerate.

You've "heard" this from which voices in your head?

[grb]

Krychek_2 : “Actually almost all subscriptions are electronic these days”

My WaPo subscription was daily print (along with the NYT) and I canceled within twenty minutes of the announcement. It wasn’t the endorsement per se, which me and Jeff both agree is near useless (though we’ve never actually discussed it together in person).

But Bezos used the Post as a cheap tool to appease a thug, and I couldn’t abide that.

Know what it reminded me of? During the ’16 election, people were perplexed and surprised by Trump’s tendency to metaphorically fluff Putin in interviews. Later Mueller’s investigation exposed why. All during the ’16 election season, Trump had his lackeys secretly negotiating with Kremlin officials on a massive business deal in Moscow. Trump Org agents even discussed slipping Vlad a high-dollar penthouse suite as a sweetener. Of course Trump repeatedly lied about his Russian business dealings to the American people, but he lies about everything.

But using a United States presidential election to close a business deal with a foreign government? That struck me as nauseatingly wrong. Just like Bezos using the Post to appease Trump.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not if you want to protest an expected Trump win.

[SimonP]

Yeah, I'm going to wait for the evidence to come in. Not draw absurd inferences from the make and model of the car used.

I don't understand why some protester who cares about the genocide in Gaza would firebomb ballot boxes, but I don't understand the electoral reasoning of that group generally, so I'm happy to have the feds go after them with the same intensity they go after the conservatives who are also trying to lie, cheat and steal the election in their own favor.

Do you see the basic distinction between us, Michael? One of us wants our elections to be free and fair, no matter the outcome, and is equally enraged by efforts from the left or right to interfere with that. The other cannot grasp with reality unless they spin every single event in a way that tars one side while exalting the other.

[Riva]

Don't know the politics in the specific area but I would suspect its one of the few local republican leaning districts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, sounds like a classic federal sting. They love encouraging idiots to cut rifles down to below the federal limit, because it's something that you can objectively prove with just a tape measure. Remember, that's what they got Randy Weaver to do, when they wanted to blackmail him into infiltrating the Aryan Nation for them?

Then you get the people to "train" together, and document it, and you've proven they were part of the conspiracy.

You get to recognizing this after a while, the cases all look like they came out of a cookie cutter.

I'm not saying these aren't bad people, by the way. I'm just saying that you'll likely find there was a paid informant or two involved, egging them on and encouraging them to do easily documented incriminating things. It's anybody's guess if they'd have broken the law without encouragement, maybe they would have. The feds just made sure they did, and in an easily proven way, so they could take them out of circulation. I'm not even sure I entirely disapprove, except for how often the feds don't swoop in in time.

You'd think these morons would figure out that the sites they're going to get these ideas are federal honeypots. But I guess they ARE morons, after all.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, lets do that
but lets get this out of the way first
Sidi Mohamed Abdallahi, 22, native of Mauritania, charged with shooting a Jewish man multiple times on his way to a Chicago synagogue last week is a Mauritanian illegal immigrant who was released into the U.S. last year.

Four law enforcement sources say that Sidi Mohamed Abdallahi, a Mauritanian national, was apprehended in Border Patrol’s San Diego Sector in March 2023 and was released into the U.S.
Police say he attacked the 39-year-old male victim on Saturday morning in Chicago’s West Rogers Park neighborhood. Police said that the suspect was identified less than 30 minutes after the shooting, at which point he allegedly shot at responders before police “returned fire, striking the offender.” The victim, who was wearing traditional Jewish clothing, survived the attack.
and of course no “Hate” crime charges, heck, in Chicago, he’ll probably be appointed to the Mayor’s (Fuck You Brandon!) staff

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile illegal alien from Canada, David DePape, Paul Pelosi's attacker (and lover?) is sentenced to life without parole.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/paul-pelosi-attacker-sentenced-to-life-without-parole/ar-AA1t9BMg

[Frank Drackman]

Jeezo-Beezo, it's almost like he beat up somebody who knows peoples in high places, he should have just murdered his parents, like the Menendez brothers.

[Voize]

DePape overstayed a valid visa, so was an illegal alien in the same sense that Elon Musk was.

He's also full-on MAGA like Musk.

[John F. Carr]

The sentence seems excessive. As a matter of opinion, not Eighth Amendment law.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm sure Tlaib and her anti-semitic pals are helping Sidi make bail, and providing a character reference for that job you mentioned. 😉

[Bob from Ohio]

"Energy Facilities"

Which ones did they attack?

[apedad]

None.

They plotted to destroy facilities (that's a crime).

It's right there in the title so you didn't even have to read the article.

. . . Plot to Destroy Energy Facilities

[Bob from Ohio]

So cosplay. 3 years and zero attempts to do anything.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqaW1LrMTY

3 part, 3 hour YouTube video on the rise and fall of the Reform Party.
Wild stuff I'd never known about.

[Armchair]

Policy proposal: Fighting for Freedom.

So, one of the biggest problems Ukraine currently has is a shortage of manpower. They simply don't have enough troops. They have other issues (shortages of arty shells), but troops is a big one. But the US isn't going to send its own troops there.

On the other end of the spectrum are the large numbers of illegal migrants coming to the US and claiming asylum due to fear of being persecuted in their own countries.

I propose a unique program, the "Fighting For Freedom" program. This takes the illegal migrants and offers them a choice. They can sign up for 2 years in the Ukrainian Military, and after their term of service is over, they will get a Green Card in the United States. They, of course, do not need to take this choice, but given the benefit, I believe many will choose to do so. If additional carrots are needed, if the migrants come with a family, that family could be given temporary asylum in the United States while they are fighting in Ukraine.

Some may consider this "horrible", but consider. If they are truly fleeing from persecution, is 2 years of service fighting in a war that bad? If we're serious about helping Ukraine, wouldn't tens of thousands of more troops help?

[Frank Drackman]

Wouldn't that be a huge waste? I thought the "Migrants" were all Physicians, Engineers, Nurses, Teachers, well even if they aren't they (mostly) aren't fucking Idiots, which is what you'd have to be to take that offer, heck, our own Military has trouble finding enough kids who can pass the (ridiculously easy) physical test to get in our own Military and spend 4 years sitting on their fat asses in Gender Equality classes.

Frank

[Armchair]

If you're truly being persecuted and in fear of your life being taken in your own country, 2 years of service in the military as well as protection from your family is actually a pretty good deal.

[Sarcastr0]

If they are truly fleeing persecution, why not a bit more coercion, courtesy of us, the good guys?

[Armchair]

You'd prefer for Ukraine to be overrun by the Russians?

[Sarcastr0]

Neato false choice you got there.

[Armchair]

Well, when you provide no real answers to a problem, the lack of an answer is a choice made to accept the consequences of the problem.

[Sarcastr0]

If that's your argument, why not enslave a bunch of people and send them over to Ukraine?

Unless you have a 'real answer' to the problem, I guess that's gotta be the plan!

[Frank Drackman]

I don't give a fuck about You-Crane

[Krayt]

Yes you do. It is in America’s interest to not have dictator tanks rolling through Europe, and to see the Soviet Union dead and buried, with as many daggers in its worthless heart as possible, and the surrounding tissue after that.

Unless your domestic hatred of the opposition is so great you throw in with a family probably more interested in cutting red tape for skyscrapers in Saint Petersburgh. There is value in capitalist peace, i.e. trade, of course, but not trading off that for something Chamberlain may have done. [Whether as a poorly though-out policy, or a delaying tactic forced from England’s position of weakness does not matter. The US is not in a position of weakness.]

A wise man once said, “You get the country you get, not the one you wish you got.” You can claim this never would have happened under Trump, but going forward, in the country he’ll get, I expect abandonment, or at least “peace in our time”, giving chunks to the neo-USSR.

"Thanks, Gramps!"

[Frank Drackman]

Which Dictator's tanks are you talking about?

[Krayt]

Thanks, Gramps! Dictatorial patter spread to US dupes detected!

[Jmaie]

Let's see, we're a bit shy of 1,000 days since Russia invaded Ukraine, a country with a fraction of Russia's (very small) GDP. Almost three years. Should they win, they can probably beat Moldova although I would expect a ramp up in western aid so maybe not. But let's assume, arguendo, that Moldova falls. Five years in all? Six? Then Putin runs into NATO.

Forgive me for not worrying about tanks rolling through Europe...

[Commenter_XY]

We heard all of this before = tanks rolling into Europe b/c of Orange Man Bad in 2016. Didn't happen.

UKR is not a vital US national interest. UKR is not a NATO member. UKR is not an EU member. UKR is corrupt AF. UKR has embroiled not one, but two US presidents in controversy.

The current policy has failed. It failed to prevent war, and it failed in preventing from RUS taking more territory. It has made the bilateral r'ships of RUS to CHN, NK, Iran much closer. That is reality.

For war, you are either all the way in, or all the way out. The half in and half out rarely if ever works as intended.

[David Nieporent]

What is the vital US national interest of Israel to the U.S.?

[Mr. Bumble]

Keeping the Islamic Republic of Iran at bay and away from the controlling the region's oil.

[Krayt]

Maybe if there were fewer evening newses in Russia where the state mouthpiece says, “Thanks, Gramps!” in response to Republicans getting in the way of Ukraine spending. This has happened at least twice now.

[Michael P]

In Gaslight0 World, a purely optional path that has clearly defined risks and benefits is "coercion".

[Sarcastr0]

Coercion is mandatory without being formally mandatory, and relies on transparently sharing the cost of noncompliance.

So yeah, coercion is squarely within the superset you defined.

[Brett Bellmore]

Coercion is when you impose new costs on people who do not obey. It is not when you merely refrain from lifting pre-existing costs experienced by those who don't obey. That's called "leaving them alone".

[Sarcastr0]

Join the military or you'll get deported isn't coercive.

Nonsense.

This is not how free countries treat people.

[Brett Bellmore]

You’re right: If there’s pre-existing cause to deport you, it’s not the least bit coercive. It’s like the hotel you decided to squat in offering to not kick you out of you pay for a room: They’re not robbing you, they’re just offering to refrain from ejecting you from where you’re not entitled to be.

That is, in fact, how free countries treat people who are illegally present within their borders. I know you want to pretend the “illegally present” part isn’t supposed to matter, but it does.

I think the problem here is maybe that you think people are always entitled to have at least one option they like? They're not.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not coercion to be offered a deal by which you can get something you're not otherwise entitled to. It's an opportunity, even if it's not the opportunity you'd prefer. I realize this IS a point left-wingers frequently have trouble with.

The proposal isn't totally off the wall, but I think ThePublius point is sound: Why in the US? Talk to the government of Ukraine about it, they're likely to have a shortage of military age men by the time this war is over, and might be interested in resettling those people if they do fight to earn that privilege. We could help foot the bill.

[Armchair]

"Why in the US?"

A couple reasons.

1. Incentive. The US is quite honestly a better place to immigrate to than Ukraine. I think if you offered Ukraine as the country, you would have very few signups.

2. Politics. There are a certain number of people who want more immigrants. This could get them on board.

3. Cost. You don't have to pay for resettling.

4. Insurance. This is a bit more twisted. One of the risks of sending a battalion of 10,000 Venezuelan Mercs to Ukraine is that they may desert...or betray you. That risk is alleviated if they have the promise of coming back to the US. That risk is far more alleviated if they all have families currently residing in the US.

[ThePublius]

"4. Insurance. This is a bit more twisted. One of the risks of sending a battalion of 10,000 Venezuelan Mercs to Ukraine is that they may desert…or betray you. That risk is alleviated if they have the promise of coming back to the US. That risk is far more alleviated if they all have families currently residing in the US."

Holy cow, that's just evil. Hold families hostage so their men will fight.

What do you do with the families of mercenaries who die?

[Armchair]

"Hold families hostage so their men will fight."

Not really. Not when you consider US soldiers are in exactly the same boat. When US soldiers fight abroad, their families are in the US. Among other reasons, US soldiers are less prone to treason because they want to come home to see their families.

Same logic.

As for the families of the Mercs that die? I might suggest writing into the contract they get green cards if the Mercs die. Or if the Mercs serve out their contract. Or if hostilities end before the end of the contract. They only don't get green cards if the Mercs desert or turn traitor.

[Sarcastr0]

Coercion has nothing to do with entitlement or not.

It has to do with persuasion via the cost of noncompliance.

[ThePublius]

Why the hell would we, the U.S., sponsor that? Why not give them asylum in Ukraine if they fight for Ukraine? It's not our fight! Let's stay out of it.

[Armchair]

"Why the hell would we, the U.S., sponsor that?"

If Ukraine "really isn't our fight"....then that's one thing. But most people agree however, we have an interest in supporting Ukraine to some extent. And this helps support them, without putting US troops or US Citizens directly in harms way.

[ThePublius]

So you're saying asylees' lives are worth less than U.S. citizen's lives?

"Most people agree?" That's bullshit. I haven't seen a single poll saying most U.S. citizens agree that we should be sending BILLIONS to support Ukraine, or that they even care about this conflict.

The logic that if you fight for Ukraine you win U.S. citizenship is just crazy. Why not Ukrainian citizenship? German, French, English, Italian, Polish citizenship?

We should stop our huge monetary support and stay out of this conflict. Not our fight, not in U.S. interest.

I honestly believe our monetary support of Ukraine is a grift, a scam, whereby Biden and his cronies, and Zelinskyy and his cronies skim huge wealth.

[Armchair]

"That’s bullshit. I haven’t seen a single poll saying most U.S. citizens agree... "

I don't know about Billions. I said to some extent. Here's a series of polls.

https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-continue-support-military-and-economic-aid-ukraine

[Frank Drackman]

So you'd have the US commit an act of Wah against Roosh-a (I know we're already committing acts of Wah against Roosh-a)
Umm, I know only weirdos, foreigners, and prisoners play Chess in this country, but don't you think Roosh-a might do something in retaliation? I don't know, like shoot down one of the airplanes carrying your Mercenaries to You-Crane?? (and if their happen to be a few hundred "innocent civilians" that die with them, who cares?!?!)
Like the Yippie's said back in the 60's
"It's a Civil Wah between Vietnamese/Slavs"
If the CIA had given Zelenski the Diem treatment he so richly deserves would have saved millions of lives.

Frank

[Krayt]

Killing invaders of a different European country by helping them defend themselves, is not an act of war.

The act of war is the invasion.

Is giving someone a gun to shoot a bank robber holding hostages an act of murder?

This is silly, and indicative of the grab bag of reasons to let a dictator run through Europe. This particular reason is a cowardly one, too. Why?

[Stella Link the dog]

"The act of war is the invasion."
How about organizing an army of mercenaries and sending them to a war zone in order to fight and kill Russians. Is that not an act of war against Russia? I don't know what the "international law" answer to that question is, but it sure looks like an act of war to me.

That's not the only reason that this mecenary army of illegal aliens is a stupid idea. Anyone who suggests that it would be easy and cost free has no idea what it would take to induct, train, arm, and transport a couple infantry brigades nor the difficulty involved in trying to integrate those brigades into the Ukranian (in this case) military. Who is going to train and equip them and how much fun is it going to be with a mass of people who neither speak nor understand English or Ukranian? Where does the leadership (officers and non comms) come from -- not from among the illegal immigrants, that's certain. This is just plain nuts.

[jb]

I suspect Russia wouldn't view this differently than the US putting its own troops on the ground. If France just deployed the Foreign Legion to Ukraine, do you think anyone would view that as different from some other part of the French army showing up?

[Armchair]

So, the French Foreign Legion is part of the French Military. These troops wouldn't be. They'd be foreign mercenaries, fighting for the Ukranian government.

There are already quite a number mercenaries fighting for Ukraine. And to an extent, the US is paying the salaries of those mercenaries. This situation would just provide an additional form of "payment" for those mercenaries.

[Stella Link the dog]

Is the United States currently recruiting, organizing, and financing mercenary military units fighting against Russians in Ukraine?

This is a really stupid idea that you have and, if it were to be implemented, ineffectual and dangerous.

[Armchair]

https://ildu.com.ua/

[Stella Link the dog]

So, Ukraine is trying to recruit foreigners to enlist in their military. How does that implicate the United States in that effort?

[EscherEnigma]

Asylum seekers aren't illegal immigrants. What is with the obviously motivated failure to deny that fact?

This is like people whining that the Haitian refugees with legal status in Springfield are "illegals". It's a straight up lie.

[Armchair]

Ehh... See, here's the deal.

You have millions of illegal immigrants who cross the border illegally. And they try not to get caught. They almost certainly don't go to the local embassy and try to claim asylum once they're safely across the border. But if they DO get caught...suddenly they claim asylum.

So, in many ways, they're in the same category.

[EscherEnigma]

So to be clear...

You see nothing wrong with looking at people that have legal permission to live and work in the US, often with their family, and then saying they're all really illegal immigrants, even though they literally are not.

Gee, that's normal.

[Armchair]

You do understand that IS what happens, right? They illegally cross the border, get caught, then “claim asylum” (despite not claiming asylum in the other countries they went through) in order to not immediately get deported.

You know this, right?

[EscherEnigma]

It's amazing how you can accurately describe the process, and then have a psychotic snap at the last step in which the person receives legal status and right to work while theyir case is being heard† and is no longer an illegal immigrant, and claim they're still an illegal immigrant.
________
†If they're not sent to Mexico, anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

The last step where they fraudulently make a claim that might give them legal status if it wasn't fraudulent, and get to stay only until we get around to predictably rejecting it.

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds more like Russian Roulette, to me - for America, that is.

You think Zelenskyy will put these imports in the rear? No chance, to the front lines. There would be a high mortality rate, you could reliably assume that maybe 25% to 33% don't come back, assuming a prolonged war (I'm looking at you, Professor Post). That is one way to reduce the numbers, I'll say that.

So after two years, we get back a battle-hardened soldier with PTSD, and we give him a green card and say what, "Have a nice day?" That is the Russian Roulette part...what the hell did we get back, and what's the risk to American citizens?

[Armchair]

"to the front lines"
Most likely

"25% to 33% don’t come back"
That's probably too high. Ukraine is currently at 1.2 Million enlisted and 20,000 - 80,000 dead through the entire conflict. (Dead, not casualties). 10% mortality is more likely.

"So after two years, we get back a battle-hardened soldier with PTSD."

Potentially. Although, if you wanted to be really twisted about it, you could think about sending 10,000 - 20,000 battle hardened Venezuelans back home to retake their country. That's one way to deal with asylum claims. Make sure they aren't afraid anymore.

Just a thought.

[Commenter_XY]

No I want to be realistic, not twisted.

Pres Reagan did the Contras, no need for a repeat = if you wanted to be really twisted about it, you could think about sending 10,000 – 20,000 battle hardened Venezuelans back home to retake their country.

You don't want them coming back. As a child, I remember vividly media coverage of Vietnam vets with PTSD and how they were suffering; we had no idea how to treat it. It was a mess.

Your idea was original. I liked it for inventiveness.

[David Nieporent]

I have objections, but even if I thought this proposal were a good idea in the abstract, if I were an immigrant why would I trust the GOP? MAGA don't even want to help Ukraine, and they hate immigrants. They'd renege if given the chance.

[hobie]

If the Democrats lose I think they should do the following

Create illegal slates of electors
Break into ballot machines
Blue states sue red states to have all their votes nullified
Dem congressmen and VP vote in unison to nullify red state votes

I doubt anyone here would have a problem with that, right?

[Frank Drackman]

Only a few hundred million

[EscherEnigma]

The argument for a long time was that a VP could just decide who to give the election to. That argument really didn't look ahead to a VP Harris.

[ReaderY]

The 4th Circuit heard oral argument in GenBioPro v. Raynes on Wednesday. GenBioPro, a manufacturer of mifepristone, is suing West Virginia and various officials on grounds that the FD&C laws and regulations governing mifepristone pre-empt and override West Virginia’s abortion ban. GenBioPro largely lost in the District Court, which focused on its Commerce Clause argument. The District Court held that under the recent National Pork Producers decision, West Virginia’s abortion law was clearly morals legislation similar to Califorinia’s laws on the treatment of pigs and similarly did not impose an obstacle to interstate commerce. The District Court also held that an FD&C amendment directing the FDA to balance safety with access in promulgating safety regulations, GenBioPro’s key argument for preemption, operated only as a limitation on the FDA’s own regulatory power and did not apply to or impose any limitations or obligations on states or individuals.

At the 4th Circuit oral argument, GenBioPro dropped the commerce clause argument and argued pre-emption only. Two of the 3 judges, and Judge Wilkinson in particular, used a different approach with much more far-reaching implications than Judge Chambers had used in the district court. They characterized West Virginia’s ban as a safety regulation protecting fetal safety rather than as morals regulation. And they equated fetal safety with adult safery, treating “safety” as a monolith. They pressed GenBioPro, asking if its position meant that States could not enact any safety regulations at all in the field of medicine. What about opioids? Does FDA regulation of opioids pre-empt all state regulation including all state narcotics laws?

I think several things anout this position were left unspoken. GenBioPro’s lawyer, I think mistakenly, never addressed whether fetal saftey counted as safety in terms of state interests, and never explicitly attempted to distinguish fetal from adult safety or argue that any interest in fetal safety was significantly less than adult safety. He just said there was no scientific evidence the drug was unsafe. I think not addressing this issue and making some sort of argument for distinguishing the two was a mistake. He may just not have gotten Judge Wilkenson’s point, which he repeated, that “safety” here included fetal safety.

I think if the 4th Circuit opinion focuses on abortion laws as safety as distinct from morals legislation, and emphasizes the view expressed in oral argument that “safety” is a monolith that includes adult and fetal safety alike, it opens up a line of argument that the FD&C Act’s core requirement that the FDA must ensure drugs are safe requires the FDA to protect fetal safety and hence completely prohibits it from approving abortifacients. The District Court opinion, which had characterized West Virginia’s law as morals legislation, had sidestepped this line of argument completely.

I don’t think GenBioPro’s arguments were very good. The District Court was persuaded by the fact that the FD&C Act itself contains a very strong anti-preemption provision saying nothing in the Act overrides any state law unless a provision explicitly says so. The District Court said this means GenBioPro’s arguments that state law is pre-empted by implication just won’t fly. GenBioPro tried to counter this by noting that the amendment calling for the FDA to promulgate safety regulations with preserving access in mind contained no such provision, and argued the anti-preemption provision didn’t apply to it. The problem with this argument is that Congress has amended the FD&C Act many times, and it has multiple times added express pre-emption language. For example, when it set up a national clinical trial registry, Congress expressly prohibited states from setting up their own registries or passing their own registry regulations. That language would be surplusage if Comgress hadn’t intended the anti-preemption clause to continue to apply to amendments to the Act.

GenBioPro also tried to make policy arguments: Congress intended a uniform system of safety regulation which would be defeated by seperate state rules, and congressionally-mandated surveillance of post-market safety would be defeated if states could ban drugs and keep their safety from being evaluated. I personally think the anti-preemption provision precludes such arguments.

West Virginia’s lawyer wisely focused on defending the district court’s decicion. She did say that if GenBioPro’s view of pre-emption was persuasive, then the Major Questions Doctrine would apply. The provision that the FDA promulgate safety regilations balancing safety and access, the core of GenBioPro’s preemption argument, was tucked into a nearly unanimously passed amendment. Nobody in Congress could have thought that the routine legislation they were passing was giving the FDA new authority to regulate abortion nationally and override all state laws.

It looks like West Virginia will win 2-1 on this one, possibly on grounds that could potentially provide a basis for a challenge to the FDA’s authority to approve abortifacients in general.

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/23-2194-20241029.mp3

[ReaderY]

Correction: The oral argument was on Tuesday.

[EscherEnigma]

"They characterized West Virginia’s ban as a safety regulation protecting fetal safety rather than as morals regulation."
With a straight face?

[ReaderY]

Why not? After all, the 1962 FD&C Act was passed after and, based on contemporaneous writings, in no small part because of the thalidomide fetal-deformity scandal, and long before the future Roe v. Wade was something in anybody’s conceptual radar screen.

Because of this, I don’t see any why one couldn’t argue with a perfectly straight face that protecting fetal safety was one of the original 1962 FD&C Act’s key purposes. Why not West Virginia’s abortion law as well?

[EscherEnigma]

'cause arguing that an abortificent didn't sufficiently consider fetal safety is like arguing that an electric chair has too low a survival rate.

It's moronic.

[ReaderY]

What makes it moronic? It’s been suggested that the FDA approve drugs for lethal-injection executions and assisted suicides. But its been argued that the FDA doesn’t have authority to do either because the purposes of these drugs, executions and suicides, themselves constitute safety problems within the meaning of the FD&C act; “safety” isn’t just side effects incidental to a drug’s core purpose.

So far, the FDA has accepted these arguments and refused to consider approving either type of drug; it considers them outside its scope, even though assisted suicide in particular is considered part of medical practice in some states.

The FDA might be right in thinking this. It might be wrong. But I don’t see it as moronic.

[Zarniwoop]

[ReaderY]

Perhaps it would help to articulate the argument. It would be something like this:

When the original FD&C Act was passed in 1962, in the shadow of the thalomide scandal, the Congress that passed it intended it to protect fetal safety in general and prohibit abortifacients in particular. Roe v. Wade, however, effectively rendered this aspect of the original FD&C Act unconstitutional and therefore suspended it. At the time the FDA approved mifepristone, Roe was in effect and hence its authority to approve abortifacients as medicines was clear. But Dobbs subsequently undid Roe.

What is the effect of Dobbs? The argument would be that Dobbs completely erased Roe’s effect, treating the law as if Row had never happened. So the original 1962 meaning and intent of the FD&C Act springs back into being. This means that while what the FDA did in approving mifepristone was completely legal at the time it did it, it would not have been legal before Roe, and this means that after Dobbs it is no longer legal.

I suspect it would be a grave mistake, given the views of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs majority, for opponents of this view to dismiss it as moronic and not to take it seriously or bother coming up with a serious argument against it.

[EscherEnigma]

"I suspect it would be a grave mistake, given the views of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs majority, for opponents of this view to dismiss it as moronic and not to take it seriously or bother coming up with a serious argument against it."

As a private citizen who has too much self respect and honesty to be a lawyer, however, there is zero chance of me ever being in front of the SCOTUS, so there's no reason for me to demean myself by pretending the argument that an abortificient isn't sufficiently safe for a fetus is a sane reason to ban it.

It's sophistry all the way down. They know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. The only reason you're pretending otherwise is because you're invested in this legal sophistry that has no basis in sanity or reality.

So should a lawyer arguing the SCOTUS buy-in to their idiotic statements? They should at least give the appearance of such, yes. But that's no reason to expect the rest of us to not call a stinking pile of biased and moronic reasoning exactly what it is.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you see SCOTUS resolving this case eventually, based on the major questions doctrine? When would something like that happen, timing-wise?

[ReaderY]

I think they will decide in West Virginia’s favor. The question is on what grounds. Judge Chambers, a Clinton appointee who decided the case in the district court, wrote a very persuasive opinion that the major questions doctrine doesn’t apply. The FDA was simply enacting safety regulations for a drug that Congress had specifically required it to enact. His opinion was instructive in no small part because he was, and came across as, a liberal who found himself constrained to rule in a way he would personally prefer not to.

I think the Supreme Court could easily follow Judge Chamber’s approach if it wanted to and decide the case narrowly in West Virginia’s favor without raising any issues that might implicate the FDA’s general authority to approve abortifacients.

Will it? Prior to Dobbs, I had thought that at least one of the conservative justices would join Chief Justice Robert’s narrower approach and create a majority to uphold Mississippi’s law without completely overturning Roe. They could easily have done so. But they didn’t.

The same might be the case here. That said, the general political backlash against restrictive abortion laws might counsel the court to take a narrower and more cautious approach to statutory interpretation.

I think this sort of judicial psychological prognostication might better be left to the good Professor Blackman. He has a talent for sounding much more self-assured on matters like this than I can.

[Commenter_XY]

Thx for the follow up response. Bet you are right about caution, and a narrow ruling. That is CJ Roberts' general approach, narrow the question.

[Armchair]

Retribution against whistleblowers by the Biden Administration.

Sure looks like it.

Blow the whistle, then suddenly you're given 3 options: Forced Transfer, pay cut and demotion, or resign/retire.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/retribution-irs-agent-who-blew-whistle-biden-family-given-ultimatum

[Roger S]

And, of course, prosecution of Trump for the crime of running against Biden.

[jb]

Maybe?

The letter says it's part of a broader program, and the implication Shapley's current position is part of a rotation program. Are a bunch of other people getting the same kind of letter because they were in similar rotations? If so, a lot less likely to be retaliation. If there's many other people in similar roles who aren't being asked to move, then it starts to look like a problem.

[Krayt]

I wish someone would force me into retirement, with a pension. See also bosses jamming their hands down my pants, people telling blue jokes in my presence.

[EscherEnigma]

Be the change you want to see the world.

[Armchair]

Why is Joe Biden biting babies?

I wish I was making this up....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14022815/biden-joe-jill-panda-halloween-white-house.html

[ThePublius]

Yes, I saw that, and am appalled. What on earth is he thinking, and what is with his handlers? Who does that? What normal person does that, let alone the POTUS?

[Sarcastr0]

FFS look at the baby. It's having a fine time.

This wasn't like chawing down on babyflesh, it was normal baby playing.

This is a nonstory.

You (and Armchair) are so caught in partisanship it's made you a moron.

[ThePublius]

No. That's not at all a normal and dignified thing for the U.S. president to do. It's bizarre. It indicates mental illness.

[apedad]

"That’s not at all a normal and dignified thing for the U.S. president to do."

Why did you switch to talking about Trump?

[ThePublius]

Yet another "I know you are, but what am I?" response from apedad.

[Sarcastr0]

Playing with babies is both normal and dignified. Politicians are known for it, actually.

It’s bizarre. It indicates mental illness.
You're bizarre. Not mentally ill, thought - this stupid reaching is all of your own volition.

[EscherEnigma]

You expect anyone to believe you sincerely care about "dignified"?

That said, who cares? He's president for another three months.

[OtisAH]

Partisanship is not what made garbage a moron. Practice, practice, practice is what made garbage a moron.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0 and OtisAH often revert to name calling, as they have nothing else. Garbage, moron, etc. Why can't either of you make a cogent argument instead of junking up this thread with name calling and vitriol?

I'm open to hearing why you think this behavior on Biden's part is acceptable, normal, dignified, etc. Likewise his inappropriate touching of children and wives of colleagues.

I say he's a creep who has lost control of his creepy impulses. What say you?

[SimonP]

I'd say he's an experienced grandfather, playing with babies in an unguarded moment.

Biden, Walz, Harris - they all come off as essentially human people, filling roles that are bigger than themselves, occasionally not following the script. In contrast, Vance is a highly artificial automaton, having replaced any principles he may once have had with ambition and a message precision-targeted toward aggrieved white men in their 40s-60s, and Trump is a growling, irritable, stupid narcissist, who has never shown affection publicly for anyone, save for those praising him.

[ThePublius]

That's a pretty stupid response. Biden, Walz, Harris good, Vance, Trump bad. Ha, ha.

[SimonP]

What's "stupid" is thinking the rest of us can't see how Trump and Vance behave in public. These are deeply strange people, and I think you understand that. You just choose not to care about it (while making hay out of cherry-picked images you can find of Biden, who is still not running for president).

[Sarcastr0]

ThePublius, who is not one to avoid name calling himself, is such a victim of getting called out when the says crazy and awful things.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If that baby didn't want Biden licking him, he shouldn't have been wearing such skimpy diapers!

[Armchair]

Ohhhh Kayyy....

Just so we're clear, you think strange old men sucking and nibbling on the toes of babies they're entirely unrelated to..is "normal" and "fine"?

Just making sure you don't want to take that one back. Or do you stand by your assertion?

[EscherEnigma]

I think it's normal and fine to let the parents set the tone on the outrage, and not jump the gun on their behalf.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why is Joe Biden biting babies?"

Inflation means that even Biden can't afford chicken!

[santamonica811]

I think it would have been funny if you had used "piggies" instead of chicken.

[Commenter_XY]

It is peak silly season in American politics = Why is POTUS Biden biting babies

He isn't doing Kamala's campaign any favors. They are too busy explaining, instead of campaigning.

[Armchair]

I mean...there's no real defense to it. Unless you count Sarcastr0's "It's fine, the baby is having a fine time!" defense.

[jb]

Why is Trump trying to kiss little girls on the lips?

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1get4m0/former_president_trump_tries_to_kiss_child_on_the/

[Zarniwoop]

Well, he was good friends with Epstein. And liked going unannounced into the Miss Teen USA dressing rooms.

Not surprised, TBH.

Trump's the creepy weirdo running for president here.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy Halloween.

There are many good scary movies. I watched Poltergeist recently. Very good film in various ways. JoBeth Williams was excellent.

The Chucky franchise also is overall excellent. The second and third films leave something to be desired. Also, the final film is not great. But, fans might like some aspects giving the multiple characters that return.

The Chucky t.v. series also has received a lot of love. Jennifer Tilly, of course, is a gem.

[Sarcastr0]

I can't do horror.

Best I can handle is Evil Dead 2.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I do some horror, mostly go for comedic, (Army of Darkness) or existential. Not a big fan of grossout horror or jump scare.

The Color Out of Space (AKA "The Color", AKA "Die Farbe") is Lovecraft done right. Not shlock like the reanimator movies, or grossout like From Beyond, good, subtle existential horror.

But I've only seen the 2010 version. While I have enjoyed some of Nicolas Cage's work, I don't have high hopes for his 2019 remake.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm too modernist for proper Lovecraft on film.

I do like him on stage, though.

[Frank Drackman]

"The Tingler" with Vincent Price, still weird as (redacted), and probably the first movie to reference the use of LSD (Vincent is hard core, doing it IV)

[John F. Carr]

I know a four year old who is enchanted by "Sing: Thriller", an animated remake of Michael Jackson's Thriller video starring the cast of the 2016 movie Sing.

The original Thriller video recently passed one billion views on YouTube.

[Ska]

Haunting of Hill House (the Netflix series from several years ago) is go-to October viewing. The horror isn't in the jump scares (though there are some), it's in the different ways it builds suspense through each of the characters' stories. Well done all around if you ask me. Or if you didn't.

[Krayt]

Like that, both seasons. Also, The Vast of Night is a creepy fest and takes place all at night, on Amazon.

[OtisAH]

You have to laugh. Convicted Felon Trump did not and will not apologize to the Michiganders he left standing around for three hours while he filled Rogan’s studio with his “musk.” He’s never apologized to any of the supporters his campaign left stranded in remote areas after his rallies. But he’s going to apologize to Puerto Ricans? Yes, in fact. Convicted Felon Donald Trump plans to apologize to Puerto Rico immediately after he apologizes to all the women he’s accosted, assaulted, and/or raped.

[Frank Drackman]

Ahh, Otis (My Man!) advanced to bargaining stage of Grief, and I already told you, ain't got no rent money yet, I'll have it for you tomorrow, next week, I don't know.

[OtisAH]

Since there’s no one around who is willing to help you, have you considered a talk-to-text application, piece of shit?

[Frank Drackman]

You be talkin' bout the back rent, you be lucky to get da front rent, you ain't gonna get none of it!

[OtisAH]

Oh, you’re already using one aren’t you? Sorry, I’m out of ideas. Best of luck, piece of shit.

[Frank Drackman]

Like a true Piece of Shit, Bruce Springstein*, playing "Glory Days" for the Billionth time (Now Bowie's "Golden Years" I've probably listened to a Billion times voluntarily)
Classics never get old
Frank
*You know how I know Springstein never played baseball? He refers to a Fastball as a "Speedball" no baseball player since Abraham Doublemint laid out the first Gridiron in Coopersville Ohio, has called a Fastball a "Speedball"
OK, except maybe Hunter Biden

Speaking of "Convicted Felons" does Hunter get to Vote? does "45" I know neither's vote is needed to carry Delaware or Florida, but still

Frank

[Guten]

Hi, Trump apologized at the Michigan rally.

[OtisAH]

I look forward to seeing the video or audio of that. You’ll post that soon?

[Zarniwoop]

Is that the "apology" where he blatantly gaslighted all of America by claiming the MSG rally was a fest?

[John F. Carr]

Last year the Easthampton, Massachusetts school committee rescinded a job offer after the winning candidate addressed committe members as "ladies". This week he filed a civil rights lawsuit. The complaint alleges

In interviews with the media, on social media, and at subsequent School Committee meetings, individual defendants intentionally portrayed [Perrone] to the public as an oppressor who is insensitive, unprofessional, dismissive, insulting, and sexist, and as a person who fails to grasp advancing social conventions.

The plaintiff got a comparable job at a nearby school district. The Easthampton school committee is still looking for a superintendent. Oppressors need not apply.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69319890/perrone-v-city-of-easthampton-massachusetts/ (nothing of substance there yet)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/30/metro/vito-perrone-easthampton-ladies-lawsuit/

[Moderation4ever]

I voted on last Tuesday. The line was long, and it took about 85 minutes. I expected the wait. I am retired, have the time, and I took along a book to read. I am amazed when I read the numbers for early voting. I attribute this to the fact we are all so sick of this election and we just want it to be over. Wondering if that is the general feeling?

[SimonP]

I early-voted for the first time ever this year.

For me, it's primarily down to expecting long lines on Election Day itself, having to work on that day, and wanting to avoid any polling-place shenanigans that Trumpers may have in store. (Though any risk of that in my neighborhood of Manhattan seem exceedingly remote.)

Republicans have also pushed for early voting more this cycle than they had previously. (I've read that they started promoting early voting as legitimate in 2022, but I don't remember that being as big a part of the message back then.) So that's likely part of it.

But I wouldn't be surprised if people just wanted to get it over with. Of course, it won't be, if the initial results show Harris winning.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are part of a select club of 54 million who have voted so far.

[Lennyk78]

I voted early because I think it makes it less likely that the Democrats can successfully cheat again.

[Commenter_XY]

Hope you didn't take a selfie with your ballot. 🙂

[bernard11]

The line was long, and it took about 85 minutes.

Don't tell Joe_Dallas. It will upset him.

[Commenter_XY]

Took me and spouse 30 minutes.

Relatedly, IMHO the NJ voting system is tough on the low acculturated immigrant (less English skill). The instructions required more than a grade school understanding of English. I was actually surprised by how the instructions were written (and orally given). I will also say, it is a system geared toward younger people accustomed to navigating quickly screen to screen in apps. The elderly, maybe not so much. The election workers I saw were friendly and helpful....until 'Karen' made her appearance to help preserve democracy, heh. Still, I came away from the entire experience convinced that 1 week of early voting is fine (I personally would not do more than that).

[Moderation4ever]

I was on the road yesterday and listening to the Michael Smerconish show on Sirius. I noted the host and some caller making remarks about Ron Reagan's commercial supporting the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which if you have heard it ends with Mr. Reagan saying he is not afraid of burning in hell. I bring this up because I have noted people uncomfortableness with atheism. When I tell people I am an atheist I often see a twinge of discomfort. Now I am not a radical atheist, I support people's right to believe what they will and only object when they stray from their lane into mine. I support religious charities that I feel do good works. That is feeding the hungry and helping the homeless, not saving souls. I simply believe that when we are dead, that is it, the end. Any thought on why just being an atheist, no radical atheist agenda, just being an atheist, bothers people?

[loki13]

In no particular order-

1. Many religions have a requirement to proselytize. So by saying you're an atheist, it puts them in the position of needing to convert you, which is awkward socially.

2. Some people truly believe that you're going to burn in hell, or whatever, and can't understand why you would choose that.

3. Saying it out loud requires them to (briefly) confront the fact that their belief system is just that.

4. Because their god told them atheists suck. And by god, I mean some dumbass person in their religion.

I try to avoid religion talk at all costs. If someone is persisting, well, bless their cotton socks.

[SimonP]

I don't think it's ideological or intellectual. I think it's tribal.

We all have our in-groups, to which we've become accustomed. When someone enters a social space where we expect just the in-group, but they're not in that in-group, it raises a tension. A political conservative at a Manhattan dinner party; a Black person in an office that is predominantly white; a straight person at Fire Island Pines.

It is uncommon, in my social circle, consisting as it does largely of highly-educated, well-off, LGBT professionals living and working in NYC, to encounter any outspoken Christians (though I know of a few). I once was friendly with a Catholic couple who have since moved from the city. Conversations on the topic had to be cordial and at a certain remove.

[Lennyk78]

Your social circle is predominantly LGBT?

[Frank Drackman]

Why the surprise? he works on Broadway/Fashion/WNBA

[SimonP]

The people I choose to spend time with, yes, are predominantly LGBT. Straight people are incredibly boring. Especially white men.

[Lennyk78]

That sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Hope you're taking your PrEP regularly.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

FFRF has various interesting programming.

https://ffrf.org/news/radio/

Some people associate atheists with extremists. They think of someone like Sam Harris. The “not afraid of hell” thing is a somewhat more mild form of that. But, it seems somewhat gratuitous to some people.

Now, as you say, not all atheists are like that. But, there are stereotypes.

For some, they are concerned that atheists have nothing to restrain or guide them. How will you be good if you don’t believe in God etc?

[The rejoinder is that atheists do have things that guide them. But, it's like those without our system of government & still manage to handle things okay -- our way seems so logical!]

If you aren’t an atheist, this is not as blunt. People can be “spiritual” or some such mild-sounding thing.

If someone is more concerned about the importance of God and believing in religion for one’s well-being and salvation, atheism will logically bother people. If nothing else, they might be honestly worried about your well-being. Or, again, they worry without belief in God, you won’t be a moral person.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you have to distinguish between atheists and agnostics who mistakenly call themselves atheists. Atheism, proper, is the affirmative assertion of the non-existence of God, it's an actual truth claim, while agnosticism is the absence of belief in God, it makes no claim about what is true.

In my teens I became an agnostic, on account of not finding any of the supposed proofs of God's existence logically coherent. (That was, ironically, the subject of my confirmation essay; If the pastor had responded to my concerns, I probably would never have left the church.)

As my life went on, I gradually began to observe that, while agnostics were alright, outright atheists tended to be a bit on the unpleasant side. (And sometimes not just a bit.) I eventually came back to the church on the theory that there was no way the truth would make people worse. But I'm still not very good at the whole "faith" thing. But given my observations, I'm OK with attempting it.

[Roger S]

No, atheist is a denial of a belief in God. Agnosticism is not knowing the nature of God.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I suppose you're entitled to your own private definitions of words, so long as you understand that other people aren't using them.

From Wikipedia: "Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3. "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by the human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational.""

[grb]

Roger S : "Agnosticism is not knowing the nature of God"

Humpty Dumpty : “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”

Brett's right. Your definition of agnostic doesn't match the dictionary or common usage.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“Gnosis” means knowledge. “A” is lack of.

So, “agnosticism” on a simple technical definition level would be lack of a knowledge of god.

[Merriam Webster: “the view that any ultimate reality (such as a deity) is unknown”]

“Theism” is a belief in god. It is an “ism” about god.

As MW notes:

Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god.

Bart Ehrman, a religious scholar, has a similar take:

Atheism, on the other hand, (in my way of thinking) is not about knowledge but about belief.

https://ehrmanblog.org/on-being-an-agnostic-or-atheist/

I’m somewhat careful about words since they have a lot of shades of means & people use them in different ways. Just parsing etymology and so on is a parlor game.

I try not to be too concerned about exact definitions while granting there are reasonable degrees.

[grb]

Sigh. If you don’t know “the nature” of something (per Roger S), then that accepts as implicit the “something” exists – however dimly or imprecisely understood.

So if you’re saying the Roger S definition is partially correct as a microscopic subset of the word’s usage, then (metaphorically) go with God. Personally, I was never a fan of Anselm’s proof and don’t follow how “existence” can be assumed in something defined as totally unknowable. But that’s just me, long ago destined for fire & brimstone. (On the plus side, I hear you meet a more interesting class of people there)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I used a lot of words to show that his summary was not ridiculous as a matter of usage. People here say a lot of Humpty Dumpty things. I don't think that was one.

The two words overlap but have different shades. Belief and knowledge do not completely overlap. It also reflects how agnostics and atheists operate.

[M L]

There are many facets to the topic, but the main thing is probably just the idea that there is no meaning to anything in the universe, no telos – this cuts against the grain of what seems to be a rather universal human predisposition. And along with that is the corollary that there is no actual truth behind any moral claim or any of our keen senses of morality – feeding the hungry, helping the homeless, thou shalt not kill, etc.

A related aspect, which is less significant I think, is people have trouble with the idea that there is no “creation.” I.e. no design or intention behind the observed universe, which has been likened to the idea that a detailed picture book could have assembled itself from random bits of ink and paper falling out of the sky, or that a bunch of metal and materials swirling around in a hurricane might result in a fully assembled jet airliner. Incidentally I just saw this amusing new study/headline: Not Enough Time In Universe For Monkeys To Pen Shakespeare: Study https://www.barrons.com/news/not-enough-time-in-universe-for-monkeys-to-pen-shakespeare-study-0ded3a76

Of course, the materialist neo-darwinian will say that any such predisposition toward meaning, morality, etc is just an evolutionary adaptation. Maybe, but that doesn't really negate the hypothesis here, and assuming it is so, there's no reason to think that your biology is so easy to overcome, and moreover the assertion that human beliefs are the result of evolutionary adaptation and not selected for truth is sort of a self-defeating human assertion as far as its truth is concerned.

[Voize]

How do you respond to the criticism that creationism just kicks the can down the road?
If something as flawed as humanity and the universe we inhabit required a designer, how could something infinitely more perfect, God himself, not need one?

[Frank Drackman]

It's Turtles all the way down.

[M L]

Personally, I’ve never responded to such a criticism, and I don’t know. From a quick search, it looks like popular Christian apologists, for an example of one religious view, might say something like this: It appears the observed universe had a beginning. Anything that begins to exist needs a cause. Therefore the universe needs a cause. On the other hand anything that did not begin to exist and is instead timeless and eternal, does not need a cause, and is uncaused and unchanging. Furthermore the universe requires just such an eternal first cause.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgBZlhp2XqU

[Voize]

Thanks for the reply. Those videos are answering "Did God have a creator?", but not my question which was "Did God have a designer?". If irreducible complexity-type arguments establish that the universe must have been designed then they should yield the same answer for God.

I suppose an answer (though not an entirely satisfying one) might be that God designed Himself, which He could do without creating some kind of chicken/egg paradox because, after all, He exists outside of time and space.

It reminds me of Stephen Hawking's response to the question "what was there before the Big Bang?". Hawking believed that both space and time came into existence at that moment, and that asking what was there before was meaningless because there was no "before". Or if you prefer, the universe has existed for all past time, but "all past time" is finite.

[Ridgeway]

The usual answer is that the question is meaningless. God transcends time and space, and with that, human understanding. By asking temporal/causal questions you are imposing human strictures where they do not belong or apply.

It sounds like a cop out, but it is the best answer there is: the human mind is not set up to fully understand God, so there are going to be fundamental questions for which we cannot have an answer.

[SimonP]

It is a cop out. And not atypical for theological reasoning - the whole discipline is made up of ridiculous inferences that would be absurd on their face if not for the fundamental premise that "Well, God does exist, ergo..."

The explanation that God is beyond human comprehension can be imported back to the question that first motivated it. That is - why can't the universe be so large, complex, and beyond human comprehension that we can't fathom how our existence within it is possible?

[EscherEnigma]

Eh, it's the whole "God of the Gaps" thing.

If you're uncomfortable with "I don't know, and no one else does either", then plugging a deity into the answer is a pretty common human response, and has been since prehistoric times.

Plugging the gap with a god might not give a meaningful answer, but it gives a answer, and for many (perhaps even most) people, that's enough.

[SRG2]

I don't think being an atheist bothers believing Jews much, and I suspect that in most non-full-on-Orthodox synagogues a significant proportion of the congregation are at best agnostics.

FWIW my parents' very small community in England was majority-atheist/agnostic - many of the members came from the local science-orientated university.

[Ed Grinberg]

I suspect that in most non-full-on-Orthodox synagogues a significant proportion of the congregation are at best agnostics.

I suspect you're right.

I don’t think being an atheist bothers believing Jews much

There are some who say that what such "believing Jews" really believe in / worship isn't Judaism but ... leftism.
"In America today, leftism has poisoned so many non-Orthodox synagogues, they differ only from the American Civil Liberties Union or the Democratic Party in their use of Hebrew liturgy."
source: https://dennisprager.com/column/left-wing-jews-a-jewish-and-american-tragedy

[SRG2]

Certainly some aspects of traditional Judaism might be regarded as leftist by modern conservative standards, from the treatment of foreigners and metics, to the idea of tikkun olam.

Source: me. Not obviously any less reliable than Prager, with neither agenda nor i-megaphone

[santamonica811]

Heh (and 100% true, as well).

[bernard11]

Prager, who is an extreme right-winger, is hardly a reliable source on whether non-orthodox Jews worship leftism.

Religious conservatives, Jewish and other, hardly do a good job of adhering to their faith's teachings in the political realm.

Prager, of course, singles out the non-Orthodox and liberalism because those are the people he dislikes.

[EscherEnigma]

I think that a good rule of thumb is that minority faiths tend to be more tolerant in general compared to majority faiths.

Choose just about any faith that's in power in one place but minority in another, and you see that.

[Frank Drackman]

"Oh, I love trash
Anything dirty or dingy or dusty
Anything ragged or rotten or rusty
Yes, I love trash
If you really want to see something trashy look at this
I have here a sneaker that's tattered and worn
It's all full of holes and the laces are torn
A gift from my mother the day I was born
I love it because it's trash
Oh, I love trash
Anything dirty or dingy or dusty
Anything ragged or rotten or rusty
Yes, I love trash!!!"
This advertisement paid for by Trump/Vance 24'

Frank

[Lennyk78]

Voting based on abortion alone is prima facie evidence that one does not have the wisdom or temperament to decide policy for others.

[Frank Drackman]

I know, those crazy people who think every human life is precious

[OtisAH]

You’re not one of those people, piece of shit. In fact, none of the people you refer to are people “who think every human life is precious.” Neither is Lenny here or garbage or Brett or ML or any of the other regular VC losers and shut-ins.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, I'm sorry, didn't realize you were a Surpreme Being, who knows everyone's innermost thoughts, might want to keep that on the QT, they still have places for peoples like you.

[OtisAH]

The first coherent thing piece of shit has written in weeks and that’s what he comes up with. Pathetic.

Didn’t deny it either.

[Moderation4ever]

Could you not say that of any single-issue voters?

[Lennyk78]

No. Certain things are important enough to justify voting on that issue alone. A woman having a right to kill her unborn baby does not constitute such a thing.

[not guilty]

"Voting based on abortion alone is prima facie evidence that one does not have the wisdom or temperament to decide policy for others."

Lennyk78's absence of self-awareness is astounding, although he seems to have gotten this one right. Blastocystophiles, who most assuredly do not have the wisdom or temperament to decide policy for others, are highly likely to be single issue voters.

[Lennyk78]

No. Pro-abortionists are likely to be single issue voters. Anti-abortionists are not. Just like homosexuals. All issues must yield to their burning desire to get their sodomy validated.

[M L]

Top Maine Democrats Decline to Investigate Full Scope of Legal and Illegal Aliens Voting in Maine’s Elections

Medicaid records obtained by the Maine Wire show noncitizens are registered to vote in Maine's elections -- and the total number of illegal votes could be large enough to tip congressional and even the presidential election
https://www.themainewire.com/2024/10/top-maine-democrats-decline-to-investigate-full-scope-of-noncitizen-voting/

[Lennyk78]

Why would they investigate? They know illegal votes go 5 to 1 to Democrats, and they know the courts won't actually do any analysis on anything.

[M L]

Is the mainstream media still ignoring the allegations that Doug Emhoff is a woman beater?

"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) gushed over Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff on Wednesday night applauding him as the very model of modern masculinity at a campaign event for his wife Kamala Harris...AOC echoes previous media backing for Emhoff with the Washington Post publishing an opinion piece in August calling him a “modern-day sex symbol,” “fantasy man,” and “ideal partner” despite reports he impregnated his children’s nanny while married to his ex-wife."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/10/31/aoc-gushes-over-doug-emhoff-as-ideal-man-brimming-with-masculinity/

[Frank Drackman]

and he's a Nanny-Fucker, like that other Nanny-Fucker Ah-nold, but don't say anything or Ah-nold will take your Clothes, your Boots, and your Motorcycle.

[SRG2]

If only he were a rapist and serial adulterer - he could have stood as a GOP candidate and be praised for his masculinity.

[Frank Drackman]

Bill Clinton's a Repubiclown???

[Lennyk78]

Serial adulterer, sure, rapist, no.

[Frank Drackman]

So you don't believe the women?? Pig!!

[not guilty]

What women, Frank? Only one woman accused Bill Clinton of rape -- the same woman who, under the pseudonym Jane Doe #5, swore in an affidavit:

4. During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.

5. I do not possess any information that could possibly be relevant to the allegations advanced by Paula Corbin Jones or which could lead to admissible evidence in her case. Specifically, I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton, any discussion offer or provision of state or federal employment or advancement in exchange for sexual conduct, or any use of state troopers to procure women for sex. Requiring my testimony at a deposition in this matter would cause unwarranted attorney's fees and costs, disruption to my life and constitute an invasion of my right to privacy. For these reasons, I have asked my attorney to advise Ms. Jones's counsel that there is no truth to the rumors they are pursuing and to provide her counsel with this sworn affidavit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/janeaff033098.htm

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why should Trump apologize?!?

It was a botched joke by a not-funny comedian whom Trump personally didn't hire. And the underlying issue -- the government of Puerto Rico being so incompetent and corrupt that it can't even remove and dispose of trash -- something most places take for granted -- is legitimate. It is raised by residents of the island.

Guam has the same issue.

[Roger S]

Trump is running on free speech. The cancel culture Democrats who want to censor everyone are already voting against Trump.

[SRG2]

He shouldn't. By not apologising, he shows his supporters his steadfast commitment to free speech.

Of course to everyone else it shows his acceptance of bigotry. It was his show, he takes responsibility for who's on it. you know, responsibility.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Look at how racist and bigotted the EPA is!

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-government-calls-end-disposing-solid-waste-puerto-rico-municipal-landfill

And those White racists at NPR!
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/14/570927809/after-maria-puerto-rico-struggles-under-the-weight-of-its-own-garbage

You people are so stupid.

[EscherEnigma]

"Why should Trump apologize?"
If he thinks the joke was offensive, in poor taste, etc., then he should apologize because that's what real leaders do: they take responsibility for the fuck-ups of their subordinates, they don't shift blame onto them.

If he does not think the joke was offensive, in poor taste, etc. then of course he shouldn't apologize, it would be insincere.

[Bob from Ohio]

Never apologize, its a sign of weakness. [Captain Nathan Brittles]

[bernard11]

Bullshit.

Refusing to apologize when merited is a mark of being an asshole, a weakling, a coward, and an egomaniac, unwilling to take responsibility for his actions.

The only thing worse is the all too common phony "apology."

[Mr. Bumble]

Your self awareness is refreshing.

[Josh R]

RFK Jr. as HHS secretary? Egads!

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Richard/Rachel Levine as Assistant Secretary of Health/4 Star Admiral in Pubic Health Service?!?!?! E-fucks!

[Josh R]

There is nothing at all wrong with Levine in that role.

[John F. Carr]

For the abortion-obsessed commenters.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68388800/gonzalez-v-ramirez/

This is the lawsuit by a Texas woman who was charged with murdering her fetus, which is not a crime under Texas law. The indictment charged a “self-induced abortion.” That’s like charging murder and adding “in lawful self-defense.” The indictment is facially deficient.

Charges were dropped and now she wants a million dollars.

Nothing new recently. In July the initial motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice. On skimming the complaint it looks like prosecutorial immunity should be available. The grand jury was aware that she was accused of killing her own unborn child. This does not look a case where an indictment depended on false statements of fact.

One of the prosecutors was fined $1,500 for bringing the charges. Absolute prosecutorial immunity is a defense in federal civil rights lawsuits. It is not a defense in state disciplinary proceedings.

[Frank Drackman]

The whole "Apostrophe" thing reminds me of that "Gilligan's Island" episode where Gilligan thinks he's a Vampire,
in his Dream, the Professor (as Sherlock Holmes) apologizes for the Skippers (Watson) insult to an "Ugly old Woman"
"I apologize for my friend's remark, Ugly old Woman!"
or was it "I apologize for my friend's remark, "Ugly Old Woman"!?

Frank

[Bored Lawyer]

"Let's eat, grandma."

"Let's eat grandma."

Amazing what a comma can do.

[ReaderY]

An earlier post discussed a federal district court decision finding that an employee allegedly fired for objecting to a DEI training program had sufficiently alleged religious discrimination against his Christian beliefs to pass summary judgment.

SimonP had commented, basically saying that as a gay supervisor he didn’t think such an employee had any business working in a company and he would never hire such a person. Since nobody’s looking at that thread anymore, wanted to offer a reply.

The core purpose of the Civil Rights Act is to protect people that supervisors like SimonP think have no business being in a workplace, that supervisors may indeed think are total pieces of shit. In this respect it absolutely cuts both ways.

We live in a country where, rightly or wrongly, a significant fraction of people hate each others’ guts. The Civil Rights Act in no way prohibits people from hating each others’ guts, and in some cases, for example where based on religious belief, at least, it protects it. All it requires is that people treat each other reasonably fairly in hiring decisions and behave somewhat civily towards each other, e.g. not harass each other, in the workplace. It in no way requires that people agree with each other, affirm each other, welcome each other, or like each other. They are absolutely free to continue to hate each others’ guts.

In this respect, the Civil Rights Act protects the conversative Christian from SimonP’s belief that he’s a moralizing piece of shit to the same extent that, after Bostock, it protects SimonP from a conservative Christian supervisor’s belief that SimonP is a sodomizing piece of shit. Both remain completely free to believe the other is a piece of shit. Neither has to like the other. Neither has any obligation to personally believe that the other has any business darkening their workplace.

All the Civil Rights Act requires is that each evaluate the other fairly in hiring and performance decisions and not harass the other. Nothing less. But nothing more.

Trainings which demand more of employees, for example which demand they affirm beliefs or people or behavior that go against their religious scruples, are indeed very likely prohbited by the Civil Rights Act.

And the SimonPs of this world just have to accept that they can’t force everyone around them to accept and affirm them, but nonetheless have to work and put up with those who don’t. They just have to suck it up and live with it. Every bit as much as their conservative Christian counterparts.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The world has gone to shit once these mentally ill folks gained political & institutional power.

[EscherEnigma]

As I said in that thread, if the case is as the guy describes, then it's straight-up retaliation and he'll win.

But if it turns out that he was fired for anti-gay behavior (for example†, rude/disparaging comments about gay co-workers/clients, refusing to work with gay co-workers/clients, e-mailing a gay co-worker/client ten times a day with Leviticus quotes and clips from Westboro Baptist protests), then he'll probably lose.

Because at the end of the day, if you can maintain professional conduct, you can think whatever you want. But if you let your bigoted thoughts leak into bigoted conduct, then you don't have much of a defense.
________
†Just examples of possible behavior. I have no insider knowledge of the case.

[Commenter_XY]

Totally agree = Because at the end of the day, if you can maintain professional conduct, you can think whatever you want. But if you let your bigoted thoughts leak into bigoted conduct, then you don’t have much of a defense.

They used to call that tolerance. 😉

I don't want to take away from your point - it is spot on.

[Lennyk78]

What if you do those things on your own time, but treat your gay coworkers respectfully?

[bernard11]

EE sounds right to me.

[loki13]

I hope that there is one thing people can agree on.

Your co-worker isn't a problem because he's gay. Or black. Or Christian. Or trans. Or old. Or in a wheelchair.

Your co-worker is a problem because he uses the microwave every day to re-heat fish.

People, actual people, can be jerks or not. And jerkdom is independent of the things people here get all crazy about.

[EscherEnigma]

No, my co-worker is a problem because he let Fox News poison his mind and now he thinks "groomers" are coming for his kids, and thought this was a sane thing to say to a gay man to his face.

[Ed Grinberg]

Sorry, no sale. I still say: down with the Civil Rights Act.
From my OP comment: If it were up to me, I’d repeal Title VII altogether. The federal government has no business telling private employers how to run their companies.

[Lennyk78]

Yeah, leftists frequently say when Bigtech deplatforms conservatives, or private businesses ban guns, that private businesses should be allowed to do what they want.

but when it comes to telling groups predisposed to theft that you don't want their type inside, or when it comes to cake bakers who don't want to make a cake to celebrate a "marriage" that can only be consummated through the abuse of the digestive system, then private interests must yield.

[SimonP]

This comment, like many others that I received in that thread, fundamentally misses the point I was making.

The Christian bigot in that post’s example was alleging that his religious views weren’t accommodated, as required by the Civil Rights Act, and that he was fired for holding those religious views. Whether or not he ultimately succeeds on the merits, it is an example of what is sure to be an increasing trend, of Christians asserting the right to workplace “accommodations” for their religious beliefs, now that the bar for showing that an accommodation would cause an “undue burden” on the employer has been raised.

So I tried to formulate an example of an hypothetical LGBT supervisor who might similarly claim to have sincere, moral beliefs that are protected by the Civil Rights Act and that preclude them from working closely with Christian bigots like the plaintiff in the original case. Why shouldn’t such a supervisor have just as much as a claim to “accommodation” as the Christian? That guy was saying (among other things), “I shouldn’t have to attend drag bingo, because I believe that the Bible says that gender is biologically determined at conception.” The hypothetical LGBT supervisor I was describing would be saying, in turn, “I shouldn’t have to promote or work closely with someone who says stupid shit like that about me and my colleagues.”

Your response, that the Civil Rights Act requires us to tolerate one another, misses the mark because my point was to say that Christians are increasingly arguing that their religious beliefs require non-tolerance, and they are entitled to “accommodation” under the Civil Rights Act, where the “accommodation” means finding ways to cater to their non-tolerance. The Christian in the original case wanted drag bingo and DEI lectures to be strictly optional. In my hypothetical example, the supervisor would want to be free to limit working with the Christian bigot in question.

[ReaderY]

Appreciate your comments. Perhaps I had misunderstood your post.

With regard to DEI trainings, I think there have been reports of DEI trainings that go well beyond mere tolerance or merely passively listening to ideas and ask people to express affirmative acceptance as a condition of passing, either in the training itself or in quiz questions. I think that people like the plaintiff would be entitled to be excused from such trainings, or these aspects of them, for much the same reasons that in a previous generation (but one still within living memory), non-Christian students would ask to be excused from school prayer or the school Christmas pageant.

[EscherEnigma]

"That guy was saying (among other things), “I shouldn’t have to attend drag bingo, because I believe that the Bible says that gender is biologically determined at conception.” The hypothetical LGBT supervisor I was describing would be saying, in turn, “I shouldn’t have to promote or work closely with someone who says stupid shit like that about me and my colleagues.”"

Punishing someone for asking for an accommodation is retaliation, straight-up. You cannot ethically punish someone for asking for an accommodation.

You have to find a different basis for discipline/punishment/firing. And that basis has to be some action/behavior, and not a belief that you only know about because they voiced it in their request for an accommodation.

Yes, anti-gay Christians in this country have increasingly tried to use the law to seek special privileges. And if Trump wins the presidency, then the DOJ is very likely going to turn it's civil rights division on it's head and carry water for them. But it remains that, under the CRA (1964) religious beliefs --no matter how repugnant-- cannot be the basis for adversarial employment decisions in most cases, and you have to wait for behavior --even behavior informed by religious views-- to act on.

Or, to put it another way... under CRA (1964) and Bostock (2020) I can't fire someone for being a member of a church I know is virulently anti-gay, and they can't fire me for being gay. We both have to wait for the other to slip up in some other way first.

[OtisAH]

Over the past week we have two MAGA ballot box arsonists, two MAGA who physically and/or verbally assaulted pollworkers, a MAGA man wielding a machete outside a polling place, and a MAGA state official who stole two ballots from a polling place. Those are just the stories I’ve seen. I expect we will see some more of all of that through Election Day. And I wonder how many ballots have been stolen by MAGA who didn’t get caught or who were abetted by MAGA poll workers?

[Roger S]

More evidence against early voting.

[OtisAH]

The existence of thieving, violent, and deranged Trump supporters is evidence against early voting? Fascinating.

[SRG2]

Notice the absence of condemnation from Roger.

[Bob from Ohio]

"MAGA ballot box arsonists"

They made an arrest?

[Frank Drackman]

No, but the Volvo and "Free Gaza" stickers gave them away

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when you supported Bush/Cheney sacrificing 7000 troops to improve the lives of Muslims?? That was weird. 😉

[John Rohan]

They arrested one dude, who was homeless, mentally ill, and authorities don't even believe there was a political motive. Apparently he was trying to get arrested so he could go back to prison. And it turned out he torched a mailbox that had some ballots in it, it wasn't a ballot drop box. But that didn't stop the bots on Twitter from spamming the site with "Republican arrested for torching ballots!"

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Sounds like typical Republican white garbage.

[Frank Drackman]

Bargaining already? are you going trick or treating as Budd Dwyer?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Meanwhile in Bucks County PA you have police officers intimidating and blocking Republican voters and the county elections office shutting down early to block Republican voters.

[OtisAH]

No, you don’t have that in Bucks County, PA, or anywhere else. You’re just an idiot. And an untrustworthy one at that.

[Frank Drackman]

Guess you missed the news Otis, but early voting was extended in Bucks County exactly because of that, might want to lock your guns up for awhile (Like Cums-a-lot I know you own some guns, even though you want to take everyone elses)
Oh yes, I'm a Piece of Shit, I know

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Now the Trump supporters have embraced being white garbage like Vance’s violent drug addicted skank mom. I guess that makes Rubio brown garbage!! 😉

[Joe_dallas]

OtisAH 6 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
“Over the past week we have two MAGA ballot box arsonists, ”

Its extremely unlikely to the trump supporters firebombing or any other attempt at destroying a ballot box in Portland or Vancouver WA.

Also of note is while the suspect has not been identified (at least as of my search today), none of the storie mention any connection to maga/trump/or republicans

on the other hand lots of destructiive behaviour from antifa types in portland.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://x.com/ChiefTrumpster/status/1852027575846973751

ThEy ArEn'T CHeaTinG, GuyZ

[loki13]

Oh boy.

I am going to try and watch a bunch of movies for the next week. Because the level of discourse here as the election approaches looks like the potato salad that's been left next to the grill all day at the BBQ. As tempting as it might look, you know you better not partake.

Legal thought for the day- you know how I'm a big fan of writs, right? Or is that the right writ? Anyway, because of some strange issues I've had to go down a rabbit hole of some fine distinctions between writs, and post-Mandate motions to an appellate court.

Gotta say, this is the part of my work that I truly love. Given all the other BS, I am just hanging on for two things now- weird technical appellate issues, and mangoes.

[Commenter_XY]

I have mango chutney on my mind....I am certain you have a good one. Can you post it?

[loki13]

Weirdly, I don't make mango chutney, even though I love chutney, and I love mangoes!

I do have a killer mango salsa recipe, but not at hand. I'll have to dig it up if I can and post it on a future open thread.

You know, if I can manage to bring myself back and wade through this. I just wish politics was boring again.

That would be my slogan- MAKE AMERICAN BORING AGAIN. If I ran, I would run on a platform of not passing any new laws (except emergency ones and those that are required) and instead focus on combing through the U.S. Code and slimming it down and getting rid of as much cruft as possible.

[Estragon]

You hands and feet are mangoes/Youre gonna be a genius anyway

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xk7KeO-o7wQ

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>The Chinese national, 19, had registered to vote on Sunday – using his student ID and other documentation to establish residency. He also signed a document attesting to being a US citizen. The student later contacted the city clerk’s office and attempted to retract the illegal vote, according to Benson’s office – however his ballot had already been processed through the tabulator.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/chinese-national-charged-voting-illegally-michigan

But I thought OtisH and Sarcastr0 said this was impossible?

Don’t worry guys, Michigan isn’t racist or bigotted and protects our Sacred Democracy, his illegal vote will still count!

[jb]

Dude, scroll up a little.

[M L]

Check out the Community Notes to NYT's Nick Kristof's tweet.

https://x.com/NickKristof/status/1851284338505404874

[Kazinski]

Sounds like he got his facts from a Kamala campaign ad.

[Kazinski]

A Russian court has fined Google for blocking Russian media on YouTube:

Russian court fines Google $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000”

"The court imposed a fine of 100 thousand rubles ($1,025) per day, with the total fine doubling every week."

https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/29/russian_court_fines_google/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Someone said Jonathan Turley was a reasonable person. Okay.

[Kazinski]

Well that is a pretty rare trait among law professors with tenure, so I can understand your skepticism.

Even here while some think of EV as reasonable, others think he promotes a Trumpian agenda by not explicitly condemning it, and promoting free speech.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

No. Turley particularly is a dubious character.

[ducksalad]

You talking to me?

Understand I’m grading on a curve. I mean Powell, Giuliani. Anyway Turley puts a conservative or conservatarian spin on stuff, but he usually doesn’t make up facts or misrepresent the actual words of a court ruling.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Turley has a rather bad reputation as a hack.

[Brett Bellmore]

Among unreasonable left wingers, anyway, who demand that everybody else must be an unreasonable left winger, or else a hack.

[Kazinski]

There's a heartwarming story about some miners from WV volunteering their time and equipment to open up a blocked road in NC in 3 days that it might have taken 6 months to reopen through normal channels:

CHIMNEY ROCK, West Virginia — Blue-collar workers prevailed over bureaucracy in Hurricane Helene-ravaged North Carolina by rebuilding a highway at breakneck speed on their own terms – allowing residents to finally return home.

Coal miners from West Virginia – whom locals have lovingly dubbed the “West Virginia Boys” – moved a mountain in just three days to reopen a 2.7-mile stretch of Highway 64 between Bat Cave and Chimney Rock washed away by Helene."

"The miners, who were all volunteering their time, were too sheepish about building a highway without legal permission to speak on the record."

"Officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), North Carolina Department of Transportation and the local Sheriff’s office all visited the site but turned a blind eye to the unsanctioned build."

https://nypost.com/2024/10/27/us-news/west-va-boys-build-road-so-helene-victims-can-go-home/

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah that is a good story.

But it's not being offered to warm hearts. It's spun all to hell to attack FEMA.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Your midwit comrades at FEMA deserve everything they get.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh noes, not my sacred institutions!!!

[Kazinski]

I guess this is the first time you've ever followed a hurricane response closely.

FEMA always gets dragged after a natural disaster for their response.

[SimonP]

"Let's elect Trump so that FEMA is even less involved in these kinds of efforts."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That would benefit the community more.

FEMA actually came in and demanded actual patriots stop helping other Americans so they could prolong their suffering with their Disaster Equity agenda.

[EscherEnigma]

Huh. I saw a reference to Trump's comment about how he was going to be a "protector of women" "whether you like it or not" earlier today and thought it was parody. But nope, he actually said that.

Good thing he isn't depending on women's votes 'cause yikes.

[Roger S]

A lot of women do not know what is good for them.

[Estragon]

Truly your mother’s son

[grb]

EscherEnigma : “Good thing he isn’t depending on women’s votes…”

Personally, I’ve always been a big fan of women. Watching Trump run a Bro Campaign of unrelenting coarseness, lies, empty rhetoric and gross stupidity only reinforced that.

If we’re all lucky, Trump loses. Aside from the overall benefit to the country, maybe we’ll never see another presidential campaign run as a frat boy prank. On a related front, his loss will be an excellent opportunity for the GOP/Right to finally grow-up. They can restructure as an adult party, geared towards adults, making adult arguments, and comporting themselves in an adult manner.

It might be harder. It might be less fun. But no one ever said maturity was easy.

[EscherEnigma]

Yeah, no. The Republicans did that whole "autopsy" after they lost in 2012, and after concluding that the problem was that they were appealing too hard to straight white men and needed to broaden their appeal and give up on repealling Obamacare, they doubled down and eventually gave us Trump.

Losing in 2024 might sting, but I'm very skeptical it's going to cause a major realignment.

Ironically, all the talk about how Democrats are "stealing" elections will only reinforce that doubling-down. After all, if the reason they're losing elections isn't because the American people don't want them in office, but because of "cheating", why should they change?

So no. Win or lose, I don't expect a realignment after 2024. Now, if they lose 2024 and then 2028 as well? Meaning they wouldn't have won the presidency in three elections, and only won the popular vote once in the past ten? I could see a major realignment then, similar to how the Democrats did a sharp turn to nominate Clinton. But not after 2024.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and after concluding that the problem was that they were appealing too hard to straight white men and needed to broaden their appeal and give up on repealling Obamacare,"

Their base said, "Oh, no you don't!" and picked Trump over their strenuous objections.

[grb]

No. They picked Trump for pro wrestling-style thrills and the slap-your-knee entertainment of watching him wipe his lard ass on every civic, political, and ethical standard that came within reach.

They picked him because he hates everything they do - except it's all a con and Trump sees his supporters as dumbass losers to be played.

They picked Trump because they are addled in infotainment from decades of talk radio, pet media, & Fox agitprop - having long since lost the ability to see governance as anything more than cartoon theatrics or a consumer entertainment product to boo & cheer like a sporting match.

I saw a quote from a self-professed non-elite type who said he'd never vote for Harris because she looks on his kind with contempt. Isn't that laughable, Brett? I guarentee with 100% assurance that Trump holds him and you in much greater contempt than Harris ever could.

[SimonP]

This is a notably false re-telling of the 2016 Republican primary.

Trump successfully did what Sanders attempted but failed to do, in 2020, which is gain a plurality of delegates while his opponents picked each other off, circular firing-squad style. Once he led the GOP, he pushed through rule changes that would make that even easier for him to accomplish, in the 2024 primaries.

It might be true enough to say that Trump had the Republican "base's" support in 2024 (with a notable faction peeled off by Haley). But that wasn't true in 2016. A majority of Republican voters didn't want him. They just didn't consolidate behind a single opponent.

You keep asserting that you speak for a "silent majority," Brett. But the majority are not with you. The only way people like you win power is by running against a weak and splintered opposition, with first-past-the-post voting rules and gerrymandered districts. You are, and always have been, part of a very-loud minority.

[Mr. Bumble]

Blah, blah, blah. He won the primaries in 2016 against 16 opponents who were basically all the same.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, the establishment picks kept the field divided too long, while Trump and Haley competed for the anti-establishment vote. I've already conceded that, if the establishment had settled on one candidate early on, they probably could have beaten Trump by accumulating enough of the delegates before he caught his stride to deny him a majority.

But once Trump was being taken seriously by the GOP base, it was all over. Starting with the NY primary, he won every state with an absolute majority, not just a plurality.

[not guilty]

In the D.C. prosecution of Donald Trump, the government has filed its opposition to Trump's motion for leave to file a proposed motion to dismiss and for injunctive relief based on the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.277.0.pdf

Much of the response deals with the untimeliness of Team Trump's belated proposed motion. The deadline for filing pretrial motions was originally set by Judge Chutkan on October 9, 2023 and was later extended to October 23, 2023. The defense has averred no good cause for waiting until recently to file its motion to dismiss. The antecedent facts were known to the defense when the original indictment was filed. Trump filed a motion to dismiss on similar grounds in the Southern District of Florida on February 22, 2024, but no motion on these grounds was filed in the District of Columbia.

The D.C. Circuit’s decision in In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (2019), squarely forecloses Trump’s Appointments Clause argument. And the Appropriations Clause challenge fails because it is entirely derivative of his faulty Appointments Clause claim and because the Special Counsel is plainly an “independent counsel” as that term is used in the relevant appropriation.

[Roger S]

The only purpose to these prosecutions was to derail Trump's campaign. It is over. Whether Trump is elected or not, these cases will probably soon be dismissed as meritless.

[not guilty]

"The only purpose to these prosecutions was to derail Trump’s campaign. It is over. Whether Trump is elected or not, these cases will probably soon be dismissed as meritless."

I disagree strongly. The merits have already been proven in Manhattan, and the evidence against Trump in the other three cases is strong as horseradish.

Donald Trump's only hope of avoiding prison is to win another term as president. If he does, he will no doubt appoint an Attorney General who will direct the Department of Justice to dismiss the government's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and move the District Court to dismiss the D.C. prosecution. Sentencing in New York and further proceedings in Georgia would likely be put on hold until he leaves office, dead or alive.

If Trump loses the election, however, there is no reason to avoid imposition of sentence in New York and further proceedings in the two federal prosecutions and the Georgia prosecution. Why on earth would any of the prosecutors or judges decline to proceed?

[Dan Schiavetta]

A major factor in sentencing is the defendant being sorry for what he did. Given Trump’s behavior, they should throw the book at him.

[Roger S]

The NY case involves that have never been used on anyone before, and which are defective for about ten reasons. The Miami case has already been dismissed. The Georgia case is a joke. The DC case does not accuse him of insurrection, and is severely limited by Scotus rulings. It is a campaign tactic, and there is no longer a reason to continue with charges that cannot withstand appeal.

[not guilty]

If for sake of discussion Donald Trump loses the election, how do you surmise that dismissals of the various prosecutions will come about?

Trump is due to be sentenced in Manhattan during November. He will no doubt appeal, but if there is reversible error, the remedy is a new trial, not dismissal.

The Fulton County, Georgia case will proceed to trial, whether with or without Fani Willis leading the prosecution.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is highly likely to reverse Judge Cannon's dismissal of the indictment, and it may well bump Cannon from presiding further after remand. In the alternative, if the dismissal were to be held it would be without prejudice to a new grand jury indicting Trump.

The Supreme Court has placed some obstacles in the path of the D.C. prosecution, but Jack Smith has skillfully navigated around them. It may take a while, but the case will eventually be decided by twelve men and women in the District of Columbia.

[not guilty]

Suddenly not so voluble, Roger S?

[Mr. Bumble]

Why do you expect a response to an eleven hour old comment on a day old thread?
Maybe if the VC had a system that gave a notification of a response to a comment that might be reasonable.

[not guilty]

Roger S made an ipse dixit assertion 14 hours ago. I promptly called him out on it. His response: crickets.

When someone makes an inane comment on these threads, he should be prepared to defend it. Facts matter.

[Mr. Bumble]

You ignored the second part of my comment.

[not guilty]

So what?

[Roger S]

You have made your prediction. We will all find out.

[grb]

I think he went beyond a “prediction”, Rog. He asked how your own assertions can possibly come true. He asked for the means, justification or scenario that underlie your prediction. That could possibly make your claims come true.

You can address that. There’s no reason not to. But you have nothing to say.

[apedad]

' . . . these prosecutions was to derail Trump’s campaign."

OR . . . the alleged or convicted events occurred after the previous election and were then investigated, grand-juried (is that a word?), and prosecuted or are scheduled for prosecution.

You know...the way the system is designed to work.

[bernard11]

Site-related issues.

I am now being asked to log in virtually every time I come here. Do others have the same problem?

Suppose I forget to log in and try to submit a comment. Then the nasty software tells me I need to log in to comment, and sends my comment off to Jupiter (or maybe Saturn) and it is not recoverable, so I have to retype or abandon the project.

Can this be fixed?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, the frequency does seem to be increasing. The problem arises when you’re logged in at the first time the page renders, but their server-side timer for your login session expires and silently logs you out before you try to post your comment.

Probably the best all-around bandaid that comes to mind would be to verify you’re logged in when you press reply and then at that point reset the server-side timer, but that would probably be a non-trivial redesign and likely itself would cause a good bit of teeth-gritting by users who then would have to wait for a server transaction before they can start typing.

That issue and other reasons that comments may fail to post have driven me to pretty routinely just doing a defensive control-C right before posting.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It isn't every time, but yes, it is happening to me frequently.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s happening to me also. All the commenters I muted show up until I sign in.

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor you. Ghosts coming to haunt you.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

In PA, Democrat election workers are telling Republican voters to just hand their registrations and ballots to them and they will feed them into the machines later.

Why aren't Democrats in prison?
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1852086981234429991

I'm guessing the Democrat FBI will start to raid these whistleblowers and then in five weeks after the Big Steal Part Deux, every Democrat around here will pretend this never happened and everyone saying it did should be arrested for undermining our Sacred Democracy. Just like in 2020.

[bernard11]

So Trump had a rally at a private hangar at the Albuquerque airport.

Apparently he wasn't allowed to use the Convention Center because he still owes the city $200K from a 2019 rally. And..

Of course, Albuquerque is not the only city waiting for the Trump campaign to pay some outstanding bills.

“According to the convention center, there is outstanding obligations with 16 municipalities throughout the country. And that is what they looked at, is one of the reasons for not signing a contract with the organization,” said Patrick Montoya, the chief operations officer for the City of Albuquerque.

And you guys make a bfd about Harris' 30 years ago affair with Willie Brown, and pretend to be concerned about ethics. Gullible fools all in on worshiping this deadbeat, incompetent, moron.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wonder what the outstanding bills were for?

That is, by the way, not a link. It's just underlined. (In Crocodile Dundee voice) THIS is a link!

So,
"$71,000 for police services
$7,000 for barricades
More than $132,000 for employee leave (City Hall shut down for half-a-day)
Interest from the past five years that is still accruing"

"We asked the mayor’s office about other recent political visits, including second gentleman Doug Emhoff earlier this year and President Joe Biden last fall. A spokesperson said the city doesn’t bill dignitaries for official visits and that Trump’s 2019 visit was a campaign rally."

So, they billed his campaign for things he didn't request, and that they don't bill Democrats for, and then he didn't pay for them? Kinda reminds me of the antics left-wing campus administrations have been getting up to in order to burden conservative event organizers.

[Lennyk78]

Cities should never be allowed to bill for police or security. The fact remains, preventing violence and maintaining order are core functions of government. The costs of that must be borne by society as a whole. Not by the people, who by their circumstances, are more likely to be victims.

[bernard11]

You're a dishonest fuck.

First, the way to approach this sort of thing is to negotiate with the city, not to say "fuck you. I'm not paying." But since you know shit about all that I'm not surprised you're confused. There is a difference between a contested invoice and an unpaid one.

Second, it's not that they "don't bill Democrats," you liar. It's that there is a difference between official visits and campaign rallies.

Again, there is nothing Trump can do that you won't defend, even if you know shit about the facts.

[Lennyk78]

You're the dishonest fuck. First, you don't negotiate with terrorists. If someone sends me a bill for bullshit, I don't tell them I'll pay half. I tell them to fuck off.

Second, there is a difference between official visits and campaign rallies, but the city seems to use a self-serving definition of each.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not going to be saying this often, I expect, but I entirely endorse what Lennyk said.

They decided to give city hall a half day vacation at Trump's expense, and he's supposed to negotiate with them about it? Did he ASK them to shut down city hall? You think cities get to volunteer services, and then charge you? You hold a birthday party, say, and the cops spontaneously, unasked, send a dozen cop cars to manage traffic in front of your house, and then you get a bill for $20K in overtime?

Notice what they don't say in the account: They claim he owes them $200K, but have they filed a lawsuit to collect it? Apparently not.

Why? Because it's a bullshit bill, and they know it.

This is exactly the bullshit that universities have been reported pulling in these very pages, hitting campus conservative groups with over the top security bills in order to punish them for holding events the university doesn't like. That BS may work when you're holding not issuing a diploma over somebody's head, it doesn't work for Presidents, nor should it.

[Lennyk78]

Remember, I'm a troll, so half of what I post is complete nonsense.

[santamonica811]

Don't worry...we all knew that about you pretty quickly. 🙂

[bernard11]

Who said they didn't request it? Have you seen the contract? Or maybe they were informed that this was standard procedure and should expect to be billed?

Do you think that these kinds of rallies normally proceed without some extra security arrangements?

Making shit up again, or quoting some fact-challenged website?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sigh.

If the city had a contract with Trump specifying that the service would be rendered and paid for, the service was rendered, and Trump stiffed them, taking him to court and getting the money would be a simple exercise. And yet they haven't.

You can figure out what that implies as well as I can.

[Estragon]

In light of this, I’d say it’s pretty understandable why the busses didn’t pick up the huckleberries in Coachella without getting paid first

[Estragon]

It’s so funny. A few months ago we had people ranging from commenters here to actual legacy news media pouring over video of Biden’s gait as if it were proof positive of parkinson-dementia.

Now, yesterday, we have Trump in his orange vest (very unflattering contrast with his makeup, btw) missing a truck door handle right in front of him twice… and all of a sudden the burning issues of cognitive and physical stamina seem to have faded to the back-back-back burner.

And both WAPO and NYT have the ridiculous Biden “garbage” garbage above the fold today. And normally sane people like NAS keep talking about liberal media bias.

The stretch between now and Next January are going to be the longest decade of our lives.

[Mr. Bumble]

...while Biden was giving love bites to other people's children.

[Estragon]

Hey at least he didn’t grab em by the pussy

[Estragon]

Or beat the baby after a painful hair transplant

[Estragon]

Did you see him miss the handle? He looked drunker than Brett Favre spending welfare money! See if you can respond without typing the word “Biden” since he’s retiring… like Donald should!

[EscherEnigma]

... did you forget that Biden isn't on the ballot?

[Lennyk78]

What about when those papers had the ridiculous Hincliffe Puerto Rico joke? Were you similarly offended?

[Estragon]

“offended?”

I bet some Puerto Ricans were!

[Lennyk78]

No, it was mostly white liberals.

[Roger S]

More precisely, white liberals pretending to be offended.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you're pissed about the WaPo and NYT not collaborating in suppressing that story, I'm sure you'll love this:

White House altered official transcript of Biden’s ‘garbage’ remarks despite stenographer concerns

"WASHINGTON — White House press officials altered the official transcript of a call in which President Joe Biden appeared to take a swipe at supporters of Donald Trump, drawing objections from the federal workers who document such remarks for posterity, according to two U.S. government officials and an internal email obtained Thursday by The Associated Press."

"The supervisor, in the email, called the press office’s handling of the matter “a breach of protocol and spoilation of transcript integrity between the Stenography and Press Offices.”

“If there is a difference in interpretation, the Press Office may choose to withhold the transcript but cannot edit it independently,” the supervisor wrote, adding, “Our Stenography Office transcript - released to our distro, which includes the National Archives - is now different than the version edited and released to the public by Press Office staff.”"

The stenography office is apparently fairly ticked that the WH altered their official transcript before releasing it to the media.

[Michael P]

Apostrophegate is a fittingly stupid note on which to end Kamala Harris's election campaign.

[Bwaaah]

The Democrat explainers of the garbage remark are assholes'.

Note that I'm not calling them assholes. I'm just trying to say that they have been owned by their own assholes.

Think of me as a sympathetic onlooker.

[Estragon]

Did you notice how not one single one of you hucklers engaged with the main point?

Aren’t you supposed to be at a rally guffawing about Paul pelosi getting hit by a hammer? It’s a laughably transparent ploy to try and use something— anything— to push the Puerto Rico comments off the front page. The question is after months of similar comments by Trump (assuming without conceding the worst interpretation of what Joe said the other day) why media would fall for it. Wait, don’t answer that… Les moonves already did— years ago!

Ever missed a car door handle right in front of you twice in a row? The guy is not well. All of a sudden, nobody cares.

[Estragon]

“Let's put her with a rifle standing there with 9 barrels shooting at her. Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

Anyone want to argue about apostrophes here or are we pretty clear on what’s being said?

[Bwaaah]

The supposed Republican “outrage” over the garbage remark is not genuine. It’s merely a tu quoque response to Democrat outrage over every nasty remark, as if trash talk weren’t as cheap, abundant, and immaterial as it is.

You actually care and argue against people who don’t actually care. You don’t seem to know that.

But this is just my conjecture about others. Let me speak for myself: I don’t give a rat’s ass about trash talk. (Except for Frank Drackman's, which I tend to find entertaining. You'd have to have a robust sense of humor to understand.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"You’d have to have a robust sense of humor to understand.)"
Any sense of humor would do. Something noticeably absent from so many on the left.

[Estragon]

Humor tips from someone cracking Paul pelosi jokes!

[Mr. Bumble]

Only recent comment re Pelosi was to note that his attacker was sentenced to life without parole. Hardly a joke.

[Estragon]

Untrue, and you know it!

[Mr. Bumble]

Make a claim then back it up or STFU!

[Estragon]

Well there’s that parentheses in your comment above… which wouldn’t seem to be related to Mr. DePape’s sentence. Is that meant to be humor, or idle speculation? If it’s the latter, can you tell the class where you saw it first?

[Magister]

A long time ago I heard (long enough that the numbers should be adjusted upward) that if you owe the bank $X you're in trouble, but if you owe the bank $Y >> X then the bank is in trouble.

Donald Trump's lies and outrageous statements are like that; a politician with a small number of lies or outrageous statements would be in trouble, but with so many there's always another to distract with.

It's good that you recognize that Republicans are driven by tu quoque responses. Puerto Ricans seem to care about the "joke" at Trump's rally, so I guess that one was not immaterial.

[Bwaaah]

"Puerto Ricans seem to care about the “joke” at Trump’s rally"

You'd like to think Puerto Ricans care about Tony's bad joke. You have the benefit of knowledge from news organizations who you trust to give you accurate readings like that, do you?

But really, the only people who are offended are the ones who can't stomach a bad joke. (Tony is a pro at doing bad jokes. You just have to be willing to laugh.)

You can't laugh at bad jokes? You don't?

You think Puerto Ricans don't laugh at bad jokes? You think you're dialed into the pulse of those people? Do you really know? Does it really matter to you? Why no outrage from Jews or Muslims for Tony's cheap insensitive insults in the same rant? Did you miss those? Do they not matter? To you? To Jews? To Muslims? To whom?

You overestimate the pervasiveness of leftist cultural pussification. The alleged offense is incredibly unimpressive, as is your implied revulsion.

[Magister]

I'm following the news, yes, which is full of people who represent Puerto Ricans saying this bothers Puerto Ricans. The speed with which Republicans like Rick Scott condemned this joke says they've reached the same conclusion.

It's entertaining to watch you spin so furiously to downplay this. People being offended by being compared to garbage can only be because of leftist cultural pussification? Given what whiny snowflakes the right wingers are, that doesn't seem likely.

[bernard11]

Do you distinguish between trash talk aimed at one's opponent and trash talk aimed at an entire island's worth of people, with whom you have no quarrel whatsoever?

There's a difference between, "Bernard is garbage," and "Jews are garbage."

[Bwaaah]

You must've missed Tony's cheap sweeping insult of Jews, and his cheap sweeping insult of Muslims, both included in that same little rant.

By the way: he's a comedian whose shtick is to do raw bad insults.

Maybe this isn't really about insults or Puerto Ricans or comedy.

Comedy. Remember that? ouch

[Magister]

Who invited this comedian to speak at Trump's rally? Who reviewed his material in advance (and rejected one "joke" while allowing these others through)? Yes, it was the Trump campaign, as arrogant and incompetent as the candidate.

[Bwaaah]

They probably weren't thinking of you as their audience.

[Magister]

No, and they weren't thinking of the five million plus Puerto Ricans living stateside. It does seem that the Trump campaign has given up on getting votes and is planning earlier than last time for a violent insurrection.

[Frank Drackman]

I listened to the whole comment, pretty clear he's saying she's a fucking bitch who loves sending other peoples kids into combat, like her Dad, Lindsay Buckingham-Nicks-Graham, Cums-a-lot, and whoever heard of a Firing Squad with 9 shooters?

Frank

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Republicans are finally just saying the quiet parts out loud.

Women are expected to serve their husbands and be subservient to their desires and interests.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4964265-kamala-harris-ad-julia-roberts/

Republicans have responded to the video with outrage, with some claiming that a wife lying about her vote is as bad as an affair.

“If I found out Emma was going to the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said on air Wednesday in a clip highlighted by Mediaite.

Other GOP members including Charlie Kirk said the thought was “nauseating.”

In criticizing the ad, he discussed a husband working hard to afford his wife’s lifestyle, and then said a wife who lied to her husband about whom she backed would amount to undermining her husband.

“I think it’s so gross. I think it’s so nauseating where this wife is wearing the American hat, she’s coming in with her sweet husband who probably works his tail off to make sure that she can go you know and have a nice life and provide to the family, and then she lies to him saying, ‘Oh, yeah, I’m gonna vote for Trump,’ and then she votes for Kamala Harris as her little secret in the voting booth,” Kirk fumed to radio host Megyn Kelly.

“Kamala Harris and her team believe that there will be millions of women that undermine their husbands and do so in a way that it’s not detectable in the polling,” he added.

Women being allowed to make their own choice at the ballot box = undermining their husbands.

Trump supporters are garbage. I don't see the controversy in calling shit what it is.

[Dan Schiavetta]

They are also “deplorable”.

[Lennyk78]

Women should be subservient to men. That's the way nature intended, and the way God intended.

The last 60 years of liberation is the aberration. Throughout most of human history, women served men.

[Roger S]

It is worse. It is encouraging wives to lie to their husbands.

[Magister]

Husbands who expect to dictate their wives' vote, and question them about it enough that the wives have to lie, are abusive. Women lie to abusive men all the time to avoid more abuse; it's abuse that encourages women to lie.

[Roger S]

The ad does not show men being abusive or anything like that. It just shows the wives voting and lying.

[Magister]

I didn't see any lying; she said she voted for the right candidate, the candidate she wanted to vote for.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don’t like referencing people with terms like “garbage” — it is a form of dehumanizing them. Similarly, terms like “vermin” or whatnot.

I’m glad that Vice President Harris works hard to avoid doing that.

A person can have “garbage” positions. A blatant racist has a horrible belief system. It is garbage.

This is separate from one comment by someone who is not running for president which is being misconstrued. To be clear on that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Vice President Harris has never worked hard a day in her life (well maybe letting Willie Brown ride her was hard work).

[not guilty]

Courtroom litigation is physically taxing, Mr. Bumble. (Granted, it's been a while since Kamala Harris was a line prosecutor.) One thing that surprised me when I began practicing is how tired I would become after each day of a jury trial. Sitting, paying attention and keeping mentally focused four several hours is difficult.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Trump supporters are garbage. I don’t see the controversy in calling shit what it is."

Biden certainly agrees with you.

Judging by the reaction, this ad seems to mostly be pissing off moderate women, who don't like the implication that they are incapable of having an honest conversation with who they're voting for.

Talk about saying the quiet part out loud.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Judging by the evidence I presented, and the evidence you did not provide, you're a lying sack of shit (as usual).

[Bwaaah]

If Trump wins, the popular hatefulness of the left will have been one of the reasons. You model the behavior, Jason. Most Democrats don't like it. (Most *people* don't like it.) It's nasty. You're nasty. Trump's nasty, but not as nasty as you. Go figure.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't lecture me on the consequences of your own behavior while pretending that you have nothing to do with how you're treated. If you think Trump is a nicer person than I am, you're absolutely unconnected to reality. I'm nasty to people who have earned it. Around here, that generally means being a lying fuck.

Perhaps you're too busy dealing with the poisoning of the blood of our country to pull your head out of your ass. (I heard a really nice guy say that recently!) Maybe you're too busy making excuses for being a racist, and a misogynist, and a felon, and a rapist, and a pathological liar, and a malignant narcissist, and a con-man, etc. to pay attention to reality.

Thanks for the humor.

[Lennyk78]

Do Democrats realize that constant endorsements from celebrities are having the opposite effect? People support Trump because they perceive him as an outsider.

[SRG2]

Analysis of presidential speaking styles:

https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/10/pgae431/7814873?login=false

From the abstract:
Trump is significantly more distinctive than his fellow Republicans, whose uniqueness values appear closer to those of the Democrats. Contributing to these differences is Trump’s employment of divisive and antagonistic language, particularly when targeting his political opponents.

Basically, Trump speaks like a demagogue, the rest don't. Simple sentences, appeal to emotions, latent xenophobia, etc.

[Roger S]

In fairness, Harris is threatening to jail Trump. Maybe his speech should be compared to others who talk about their jailers.

[apedad]

I thought it was a good thing to put convicted felons in jail.

[Frank Drackman]

Only if they're peoples you don't like, is it possible you are actually an Ape?

[Frank Drackman]

Not in Georgia, where yesterday Jeffrey Lamar Williams, AKA “Young Thug” was convicted of one gang charge, three drug charges and two gun charges, and also entered a no contest plea to another gang charge and a racketeering conspiracy charge, meaning that he decided not to contest those charges and accepted punishment for them.
Jail time?
None, Zero, Zippy, Nada, Zilch,
He does have to avoid the “Atlanta Area” so there’s that.
and like Hunter Biden, he'd be better off in jail, he'll likely die from Tupac's disease

Frank

[SRG2]

"In fairness"?

In fairness, Trump's speech should be compared with other demagogues approaching senility?

[not guilty]

Another woman has died of sepsis after doctors at a hospital in Houston delayed care for her miscarriage until there was no detectable fetal heartbeat. https://www.propublica.org/article/josseli-barnica-death-miscarriage-texas-abortion-ban

The anti-abortion crowd is many things. Being "pro-life" is not one of them.

[Michael P]

Once again, the death cult gave bad information to doctors and scared them out of providing legal medical care, and Propublica crows about killing another woman.

[EscherEnigma]

I wouldn't call Ken Paxton a "death cult", but I can see why others would.

[Frank Drackman]

Did you even read your own fucking bullshit article?, she died in September 2021 when Abortion was legal everywhere, including Te-jas

Frank

[not guilty]

No, Texas then had a so-called "fetal heartbeat" law, which SCOTUS had refused to enjoin.

[James Alp]

I have written a substack article on January 6th and the Brandenburg rule: https://open.substack.com/pub/jamesalp/p/trump-and-the-gops-incitements-have?r=4699rc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

[Roger S]

As you say, Trump wants a fair election, and is working toward that end.

[SRG2]

Hahahahaha! You should write standup lines for Rob Schneider

[Frank Drackman]

And where’s our “Second Gentleman”????
Dougie? I kid the Doug-ster,
Hey, how’s that “SLAPP” case going,
oh, you can’t talk about it? why not, I’m not talking about the one where you “SLAPPed” your girlfriend
Hey! that was for the Hearing impaired, you need Closed Captions to get that Joke! I said "SLAPP", not "Slap"
See? our Sign Language Interpreter got it, check out the Jugs on this Broad, Hey, how about one for the Deaf?
“Why did Hellen Keller masturbate with one hand??”
Whoa, tough crowd,

Frank

[Estragon]

https://www.wired.com/story/russian-propaganda-unit-storm-1516-false-tim-walz-sexual-abuse-claims/

Frank did you know this was Russian BS before you started posting it here?

[Frank Drackman]

1: I was talking about the Second Gentlemans Domestic Violence, not the VP Nominee's Sexual Preversions,
2: I thought we were supposed to "Believe the Women"?? except with a big Roger Maris Asterisk *"Unless they're Liberals" 3: Sergeant Major Pepper-Waltz should already be disqualified for A: "Stolen Valor", B: the whole Tampon thing, and C: He's queer as a Football Bat, A Basketball Glove, Ping Pong Cleats,
OK, that last one isn't disqualifying, I could deal with a VP Richard Grenell, or even a Kristin Semena

Frank

[Estragon]

Non-responsive. You have been pushing Russian disinformation on these threads over the last few weeks. Any comment?

[Estragon]

“Sexual Preversions”

Do you work for Jack Posobiec? I’d ask about your Q views but according to Mike Flynn’s brother that’s defamatory.

[grb]

Estragon : “Frank did you know this was Russian BS before you started posting it here?”

I’d believe Frank a Russian spy before believing he’s a doctor. There was a discussion a few months back about heroin and Drackman badly flubbed something any first year resident would know.

[Michael P]

I'm sure some shameless gaslighter will be along any minute to tell us that the government lying about important statistics but eventually getting caught is an example of the system working.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/10/28/true-scale-migrant-crossings-under-kamala-harris-revealed/

[Brett Bellmore]

I do find it a bit disturbing how often we American have to go to foreign media to find coverage of important things at home.

[Frank Drackman]

Al-Jizz-eara is actually not a bad news site for non Israel related stories

[Brett Bellmore]

So I've noticed. Heck, RT isn't horrible for things unrelated to Russian ambitions.

US media outlets are just too involved in US politics to even effectively feign objectivity at this point. Foreigners often don't have to feign it, not because they're better people, just because their own biases don't map well onto ours.

[Michael P]

In related biased-statistics news, https://x.com/TomBevanRCP/status/1852336986905890989

[OtisAH]

Early voting.

Before Convicted FelonDonald Trump started lying about early voting, republicans took advantage of the opportunity at higher rates than Dems. One second after CFDT started lying about early voting, his supporters fell right in line. Suddenly, folks who mailed in ballots or used drop boxes knew in their souls that early voting was a dem plot and was rife with fraud. This helped contribute to creating the Biden presidency. So it wasn’t all bad.

At some point someone got it through fathead’s fat head that lying about early voting was a monumentally stupid thing to do. So now, Convicted Felon Donald Trump regularly implores his adherents to vote early. Despite the deadenders, of which we have several here, MAGA now rushes to vote early and it’s claimed they are again voting early in larger numbers than Dems. And at least a few of our local deadenders have likely already voted despite the lies about it they repeat here.

But we have to allow that, perhaps, CFDT I did not see the light and realize what a dumbass he’s been. Perhaps he just thinks now MAGA can get in on all that fraud we hear so much about and rarely see? We may never know which it is. Regardless, Years of lying about early voting resulted in CFDT ratfucking his own 2020 campaign, millions of easily mislead Americans believing then forgetting those lies, and absolutely nothing else.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey man, I know it's the first, can ya let me slide? Ain't got no job, Can't pay da Rent, I'll have it for you tomorrow, the next day, I don't know.
Frank

[John F. Carr]

Things you might not expect to be felonies, but are in Massachusetts.

1. Last spring, a protester threw glitter on the President of Harvard. The victim of glittering is over 60. Instead of misdemeanor assault and battery the crime is felony elder abuse.

2. This week, a Cohasset man drew a swastika on a Trump campaign sign. This is not only a felony, but is being treated as a civil rights violation.

I don't think we have enough space in our prisons to lock up everybody who compares Trump to Hitler.

[Mr. Bumble]

Time to purge the statutes.

[Frank Drackman]

and you can murder an unborn baby right up to the moment of birth, oh wait, it's Massachusetts, I expect that.

[Bwaaah]

I find your posts pretty consistently interesting. And they tend to inform a legal perspective, which many here complain is a vanishing angle in VC discussions. And your remarks lack nastiness.

I'd like it if there were more posters like you. Too many have grown too angry. Maybe at least some can find their way back to less acrimonious ground? (You guys know who you are.)

Please keep it up.

[John F. Carr]

I have a personal guideline for commenting: "post calm." This is only a guideline. I can offer no warranty. More than that, I can guarantee that I do not consistently follow it. Sometimes all must hear about this outrage! But calmness is a goal. Death to vermin.

[EscherEnigma]

"I’d like it if there were more posters like you"
Be the change you want to see in the world.

[Bwaaah]

I try. I have some success. The real me is much worse than the one I portray here.

[OtisAH]

Garbage man and part-time fry cook Convicted Felon Donald Trump, a candidate for the US presidency, on Liz Cheney, a United States citizen who has criticized Convicted Felon Donald Trump, candidate for the US presidency (Glendale, AZ):

“Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with 9 barrels shooting at her. Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

[Frank Drackman]

"45/47" was nice, I would have said she's a Cunt who doesn't mind other peoples kids getting killed to support her Bullshit wars, she's truly her dad's daughter.

[OtisAH]

Yes, we know you’d be a piece of shit, too. Because you’re a piece of shit. That’s why everyone calls you “piece of shit.” How are you not getting that?

[Frank Drackman]

Hmm, I thought I was "Garbage" (who here remembers Jonathan Winter's Trashman character pronouncing it "Gah-Bahge"??)
so I'm a piece of shit??, obviously living in your big fat head rent free (already tole, yo, ain't got no job, how I gonna have money to pay da Rent??)
Man, your head must smell like shit, explains a lot.
If you don't mind, I'm gonna have an Ill-legal clean up the place, don't worry, I'll take it off next months rent,
I mean this month's rent, if I get a job

Frank

[grb]

OtisAH : That’s why everyone calls you “piece of shit.”

To be honest, I'm not sure that's totally fair. A piece of shit, however reeking, has a purpose as the culmination of the digestive process.

But Frank? He's just a fucking worthless troll. Metaphorically, the two are remarkably similar. But I don't think the comparison gives shit its fair due.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I’ve already voted for Kamala…but I would vote for Trump after his awesome comments about Liz Cheney. I f’n despise the Chickenhawk Cheneys!!! I’m going to see if I can change my vote.

[John F. Carr]

You can't change your vote. You have to send two votes for Trump and the effect will be the same.

[JasonT20]

I see that no conspirators are going to write anything about the shadow docket Virginia voter purge case. Typical.

[Mr. Bumble]

Feel free to comment away.

[Bwaaah]

When people who have a right to vote are denied their vote, there'll be something to talk about. But until then, all you and your fellow partisans have is a hair up your ass about every attempt to enforce voting laws.

Remember all the screaming in 2022 about Georgia's draconian new voting laws? The election came and went without any major media outlet, all of whom reported that "threat to our democracy," reporting a single instance of a disenfranchised voter.

In theory, you got something. In reality, you got nothing.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's telling that you don't care eligible citizens are being caught up in this.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/29/nx-s1-5169204/virginia-noncitizen-voter-purge

[Bwaaah]

I suspect they can all file provisional ballots, and if their numbers become material, they will be properly considered.

I care about actual voters who are actually disenfranchised, not your party-popular fears.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You should tell Nadra Wilson how easily you move goalposts; I am sure she would be quite impressed.

[JasonT20]

It's telling that you don't know how provisional ballots work. Provisional ballots are always counted, if they are found to be valid. A lot of the time, though, they have to cast a provisional ballot because they were at the wrong precinct or lacked some documentation required or whatever, that they then have to come back to an election office (during business hours) and clear it up.

What you are saying, then, is that it is no problem to make some voters make a second trip to an election office, that won't be as close as their precinct was, most likely, or as conveniently open from 7am to 7pm as the polls were, when they shouldn't have had to do that. And all of that is so that you can feel better about being sure that non-citizens can't cast ballots that doesn't occur in remotely significant numbers.

[Bwaaah]

I'm saying I don't see a problem with enforcing voting laws. And I see this as *no material threat* to our democracy, nor to well established voter rights.

[JasonT20]

I’m saying I don’t see a problem with enforcing voting laws.

How about the voting law that says a state can't do systematic voter purges within 90 days of an election?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Provisional ballots are always counted, if they are found to be valid."

Which is more than you can say for write-in votes. Which in many states aren't counted unless the total of write-in votes for a given office exceeds the number of votes for the otherwise winning regular candidate.

[JasonT20]

Which is more than you can say for write-in votes. Which in many states aren’t counted unless the total of write-in votes for a given office exceeds the number of votes for the otherwise winning regular candidate.

This doesn't exactly make sense. How would anyone know whether the write in votes were greater than the "otherwise winning regular candidate" votes if they hadn't been counted yet?

Some states allow write ins, but require the candidate intending to run as a write in to register in advance. Other states don't allow write ins at all, and it can vary by what office people seek as well. The purpose of pre-registering is so that the election offices don't have to actually tally up the votes for Mickey Mouse or Cthulhu.

[Brett Bellmore]

They count the NUMBER of write in votes cast for an office, without distinguishing write in votes for Goofy from write in votes for Mickey. This is fairly trivial to do as an automated process.

Then they only go on to examine what names were written in, (A more laborious process requiring human labor.) if the total number of write in votes exceeds the number of votes cast for the on-ballot winner, so that if they were all cast for the same person that person might be the actual winner of the election.

So, in an election where Bob and Gerry manage to get on the ballot, and George runs as a write in, if Bob gets 95 votes, Gerry gets 80 votes, and only 90 votes were write in votes, you will know for sure that Bob won, but it will not be clear if Gerry came in second or third.

[Michael P]

The drone is Very Concerned about hypothetical VA voters who might be disenfranchised, but does not write anything about actual voters being driven away from polls in PA, hundreds of thousands of bogus ballot records in MI, illegal ballot harvesting in WI, "Free Gaza" ballot arson in OR and WA, and so on. Typical.

[JasonT20]

Both parties have what are probably thousands of lawyers across the country ready to file lawsuits over things like what you describe, on top of local and state prosecutors and law enforcement personnel. What is typical is that you take all of those things that show up on social media or are talked about on right-wing podcasts or published on highly partisan media outlets as being proof of something nefarious, when a courtroom is where those cases belong.

Voting fraud is a crime. Election fraud is a crime. Arson is a crime. Voter intimidation is a crime. Why not treat them like that and reserve judgement on what happened and who's to blame (if there is anything to blame someone for) until you see the facts presented in a courtroom? Or at least, wait until someone announces a lawsuit and you can read the complaint, or announces an investigation, which would also be a sign that there might be something real to investigate.

But social media and partisan accusations, wild claims from eccentric tech bros, pillow salesmen, and former online retail CEOs, and other assorted contrarians is not something anyone rational should give credence to. And certainly rational people would not give credence to the losing politician with a long history of playing the victim and lying about, well, everything.

[Bwaaah]

"Voting fraud is a crime."

Our new New York State voting laws explicitly forbid the state from prosecuting anybody for submitting any incorrect voter registration information.

But, yes, that's not inconsistent with your view that "voting fraud is a crime." Consistent with your views, that's being relegated to a largely symbolic saying.

Under New York law now, you have to opt out of voter registration, and explicitly declare you are not a citizen, in order avoid being registered. And there will be no check or verification of any of the information at voting time. So, you can call it a crime; it's designed to go through like an oopsy-daisy. Frictionless. That's what voting should be. Frictionless. And voting laws...they're friction.

[JasonT20]

Please link me the law you are talking about, because that just sounds like too much like the usual bullshit for me to bother looking it up myself. I've followed far too many rabbits down these kinds of holes to waste more of my time on it.

[Bwaaah]

Here's the law. See section § 5-904 (page 5 line 18) for the no fault protections built into the law to protect from prosecution for "mistakes." See § 5-900 6. (c) and (d) (page 3 line 14) for the opt-out checkbox and the "I am not a citizen" checkbox.

Note our legislature's decision to not require registrants to declare that they are citizens, and therefore to have to make an affirmative representation therein. Instead, in order to avoid automatic registration, they are required to represent that they are *not* citizens. So doing nothing as a non-citizen not only causes you to be wrongly registered, but it assures no evidence of a misrepresentation, so it can't possibly be deemed to be intentional, much less of fraudulent intent.

I would have made it so you have to check a box that says you are a citizen in order to be registered. But that's just the way I design control systems (with accountability in mind). I have no reasonable theory as to why they designed it as they did, other than a pursuit of "frictionless" voting where mistakes go through unchecked.

This automatic registration system is intended to be integrated into all touchpoints between state agencies and the public. So whenever you engage in an administrative process with the state where you register and identify yourself, the respective agency is expected to pass your information through for automatic voter registration unless you check those boxes.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"So doing nothing as a non-citizen not only causes you to be wrongly registered, but it assures no evidence of a misrepresentation, so it can’t possibly be deemed to be intentional, much less of fraudulent intent."

Just quickly looking at the statute, that isn't what it says.

5-900(6)(A):

THE VOTER REGISTRATION RELATED PORTION OF EACH AGENCY'S INTEGRATED APPLICATION FOR SERVICES OR ASSISTANCE SHALL: (A) INCLUDE A STATEMENT OF THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTER REGISTRATION AND SHALL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO ATTEST BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE THAT HE OR SHE MEETS THOSE REQUIREMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNLESS SUCH APPLICANT DECLINES SUCH REGISTRATION;

5-900(B):

[the application shall:] (B) INFORM THE APPLICANT, IN PRINT IDENTICAL TO THAT USED IN THE ATTESTATION SECTION OF THE FOLLOWING: (I) VOTER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS; (II) PENALTIES FOR SUBMISSION OF A FALSE REGISTRATION APPLICATION;...

5-900(D):

[the application shall:...] (D) INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING WARNING STATEMENT IN PROMINENT TYPE, "IF YOU ARE NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU MUST CHECK THE BOX BELOW. NON-CITIZENS WHO REGISTER OR PRE-REGISTER TO VOTE MAY BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND SUCH VOTER REGISTRATION OR PRE-REGISTRATION MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL, EXCLUSION FROM ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES, OR DENIAL OF NATURALIZATION.";

There absolutely remains potential criminal liability. For example, the presumption of innocence provision you rely on states:

A PERSON WHO IS INELIGIBLE TO VOTE WHO FAILS TO DECLINE TO REGISTER OR PRE-REGISTER TO VOTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AND DID NOT WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY SEEK TO REGISTER OR PRE-REGISTER TO VOTE KNOWING THAT HE OR SHE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO DO SO: (A) SHALL NOT BE GUILTY OF ANY CRIME AS THE RESULT OF THE APPLICANT'S FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH DECLINATION.

I don't know if you misread this yourself or if you relied on some untrustworthy propaganda outlet, but you've misrepresented the law. As a discussion about the Crystal Mason case demonstrated, criminal law, including the crime of ineligible voters voting, generally requires the person knew they were ineligible and registered or voted anyway for it to be a crime. Shocker, to be thrown in jail, you generally have to have intentionally done a bad thing. That's all this New York statute does.

To have committed a crime, a person would have to vote knowing they are ineligible (just like everywhere else) and the registration forms specifically list the eligibility requirements and inform the person that registering while ineligible could subject them to various criminal/civil penalties including jail and/or deportation. You're way overhyping this.

[Bwaaah]

I’ve seen nothing about this in any media outlet. I merely read the law. And I see (and acknowledged) that it remains unlawful for an unqualified person to “willfully and knowingly seek to register”.

Why does it make more sense to have the would-be registrant check a box that says “I am not a citizen” (in order to not be registered) rather than have them check a box that says “I am a citizen”? And to game this out fairly, why does it make sense to do it the other way?

Would that be your choice? It would not be mine.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Why does it make more sense to have the would-be registrant check a box that says “I am not a citizen” (in order to not be registered) rather than have them check a box that says “I am a citizen”? And to game this out fairly, why does it make sense to do it the other way?

Right. Theorectically, they are the same thing. As a practical matter, having to check a box to say you are a non-citizen means fewer people have to check the box (presuming there are far more citizens than non-citizens). For the same reason, there will likely be far fewer mistakes, as an unchecked box is the default, so if X% of people will mistakenly not check a box when they should, having the box check for the less frequent outcome means you have reduced the overall number of mistakes.

Your point, or part of it, seems to be that the mistakes are more impactful if a non-citizen doesn't check the non-citizen box than if the citizen doesn't check an "I am a citizen" box. I see the argument for that, but it is not self-evidently true.

Purely on the issue of mistakes, I don't see how it is really worse for there to be one more mistaken but ineligible vote than one less eligible voter who is deemed ineligible by mistake.

But, I assume you would, even if you agreed that far, say two things: First, if the mistake is the voter's, then it is less bad to deny someone the vote when it was due to their mistake. Second, what about instances that aren't a mistake?

Those are reasonable points (that may or may not be your actual position). I'm not sure I am convinced on the first one (it's there mistake, so it's less bad they don't get to vote). Voting shouldn't be hard, literacy tests for the right to vote are bad.

As to the second, intentionally registering despite being ineligible is still illegal. And non-citizens voting should be dealt with fairly severely. I'd rather that than mistakenly deny more people the vote because a box didn't get checked.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the point was that this is exactly how you'd design the form if you wanted to make sure that non-citizens who registered would always have a plausible "it was just an inadvertent mistake!" defense. It seems designed to make the law hard to enforce in practice.

[Bwaaah]

“Theorectically, they are the same thing.”

No. They are not. Brett describes my point.

Checking a box, like initialing, is an explicit attestation to something. Not checking a box is, as a practical fact, not even an action. It is a non-representation. It’s a nothing.

Imagine writing a contract with a place for a party to sign at the bottom with the words, “Failure to sign this contract implies that you accept its terms.”

That can’t be so. It isn’t. As a legal matter, it implies nothing.

This is the serious way to design the voter registration document: “You must be a citizen to vote. Write an ‘X’ here if you are a citizen: ___.” That’s *not* the same as NY State’s “You must be a citizen to vote. Write an ‘X’ here if you are not a citizen: ___.”

The state has decided to make it assumed, for the purpose of voter registration, that all people are citizens. With no representation from anybody that that is so, the state goes ahead and registers them.

When I design a control document, I not only include verbiage that describes the implications of the document, but also a positive attestation from a person who uses the document to indicate that they are saying “yes” to the implications of the document. The document is not just data for which nobody vouches; it’s a representation.

But absurdly, the New York State legislature has designed its voter registration process to register people by way of a document in which those people make no representation they are qualified to be registered. And, the process doesn’t include the information needed for the state to make a determination of the person’s eligibility.

It’s not even an honor system. It’s a whatever system.

I’ve designed a lot of administrative systems. I’ve never seen a serious control system, such as a voter registration system, that has been designed with such a built-in lack of regard for accountability for the representations (i.e. there are none) and implications (i.e. you are hereby registered to vote) therein.

[Magister]

The forms I could find online for New York voter registration make it clear that you have to be a citizen to vote, and has a check box for yes and no; this form specifies clear penalties for lying on the form and requires an affidavit to be signed.

Are you a citizen of the U.S.? Yes No
If you answer No, you cannot register to vote.

Affidavit: I swear or affirm that
• I am a citizen of the United States.
• I will have lived in the county, city or village for at least 30 days before the election.
• I meet all requirements to register to vote in New York State.
• This is my signature or mark in the box below.
• The above information is true, I understand that if it is not true, I can be convicted and fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to four years.
Sign
Date

The voter registration section of this DMV form makes it equally clear and has the same penalties threatened; a 2015 form on the Wayback Machine has pretty much the same form; I found similar forms to the first one I linked (which has 2024 in the URL), with the same question and information, by searching on Google with:
new york "2015" voter registration form

I have no idea what Bwaah is talking about.

[Bwaaah]

You have switched away from the law, and instead referenced an example that you think implies what the law says. It does not. Here’s what the law says (emphasis mine) (and please don’t treat me like I’m making something up here):

(c) include a box for the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant would like to decline to register to vote along with the following statement in prominent type, “IF YOU DO NOT CHECK THIS BOX, AND YOU PROVIDE YOUR SIGNATURE ON THE SPACE BELOW, YOU WILL HAVE ATTESTED TO YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO REGISTER OR PRE-REGISTER TO VOTE AND YOU WILL HAVE APPLIED TO REGISTER OR PRE-REGISTER TO VOTE.”;

(d) include the following warning statement in prominent type, “IF YOU ARE NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU MUST CHECK THE BOX BELOW. NON-CITIZENS WHO REGISTER OR PRE-REGISTER TO VOTE MAY BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND SUCH VOTER REGISTRATION OR PRE-REGISTRATION MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL, EXCLUSION FROM ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES, OR DENIAL OF NATURALIZATION.”;

You describe a form that includes a positive representation of the answers. The law, our legislature, says the form should be constructed otherwise.

[Bwaaah]

Your DMV form is clearly not in compliance with the law. It doesn't contain the required wording that's clearly stated in the law.

Are you doing this just to make me look like a liar?

[Bwaaah]

If there’s a checkbox, only one checkbox, on a form that says, “I, the undersigned, am not a citizen,” and I give you that form with my signature at the bottom without having checked that box, would that mean to you, as a matter of law, that I am not a citizen?

I interpret that form, as described, as not saying anything. Do you feel otherwise?

I now see that this law was passed in July 2020. It looks like it may be one of those laws that remain unchanged but somewhat unenforced due to untenable elements included therein, i.e. bad law.

[Bwaaah]

Don't talk about it. Don't acknowledge it. Treat me like I'm either crazy or trying to pull one over on everybody. Resume battle anew tomorrow, leaving it behind.

You seem to mistake me for a gamesman here.

There are a lot of real oopsies out there in our laws. The least you could do is say, "Oops."

[Bwaaah]

Correction to my wording above:

If there’s a checkbox, only one checkbox, on a form that says, “I, the undersigned, am not a citizen,” and I give you that form with my signature at the bottom without having checked that box, would that mean to you, as a matter of law, that I am a citizen?

[Magister]

First, it's not my DMV form; it's New York's.

It didn't take me more than a couple of minutes to find information on the delayed implementation of this process.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2024/07/will-new-york-ever-begin-automatically-registering-voters/398483/

[Bwaaah]

If there’s a checkbox, only one checkbox, on a form that says, “I, the undersigned, am not a citizen,” and I give you that form with my signature at the bottom without having checked that box, would that mean to you, as a matter of law, that I am a citizen?

I interpret that form, as described, as not saying anything. Do you feel otherwise?

I don't understand why you won't address this question.

[Magister]

I rarely have an opinion on anything "as a matter of law". As a matter of data entry, I would expect three states: yes, no and blank. A paper form should indeed have two check boxes, because it is unclear whether a blank check box is no or blank. An online form can do this with a single box (say, containing Y, N or ? and requiring one of the first two).

But New York has not implemented this law, and it's not unknown for the legislatures to pass contradictory laws (Indiana backed off of legislating the value of pi, but they could have); the amendment being considered to revise this does seem to loosen the requirements on the forms.

[Bwaaah]

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that the law seems to demand a recording method that does not intuitively make sense, in that it tends to obfuscate the representation it is intended to obtain.

[Bwaaah]

And I don’t see this is as being a material risk to voting integrity. I see it as reflecting Democratic inclination to create frictionless registration and voting processes, with little interest in anything that might add friction, such as having to check a box, even if that would improve enforceability of rules.

As I’ve previously pointed out, New York City [Democrats] already passed a law, that has thus far been enjoined, granting voting rights to non-citizens. They are continuing to pursue it, consistent with the now emerging and evident Democrat philosophy that everybody should vote in U.S. elections. Of course, they mean everybody who can legally vote. But they do evidence their preference for EVERYBODY, even though they don’t really defend that philosophy (like they don’t defend open borders). And they are writing laws consistent with that unstated philosophy.

That is my point.

[JasonT20]

When people who have a right to vote are denied their vote, there’ll be something to talk about.

When there's enough evidence of fraud to prosecute people for fraud, then there will be something to talk about.

[Bwaaah]

"When there’s enough evidence of fraud to prosecute people for fraud, then there will be something to talk about."

More correctly, when there’s enough evidence of fraud, then there will be something to talk about.

[JasonT20]

More correctly, when there’s enough evidence of fraud, then there will be something to talk about.

There is "enough" evidence of fraud to be worth talking about when there is enough to take to court and not get laughed out of it or have lawyers sanctioned for being dishonest and making clearly bogus claims.

[Bwaaah]

Not getting laughed out of court is certainly a start. I retain significant confidence in the courts as arbiters of allegations of election fraud. I don't recall ever having seen evidence of a statistically significant amount of voter fraud in a U.S. election.

[Mr. Bumble]

Big Brother smiles:
Wayback Machine hacked. Nothing archived since October 8.
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/11/01/the-internet-is-getting-flushed-down-orwells-memory-hole-n4933849

[Brett Bellmore]

And google terminated their caching of websites on the same day, which is an interesting coincidence.

The internet archive has been an absolute pain for so many people who wanted to memory hole past versions of what they'd put on the web, or other people's stuff they'd managed to take down. I wonder if one of those groups put in the hit on the archive, or everybody pooled their resources...

[M L]

This is a perfect ad for Dems! Very compelling.

https://x.com/MAHAalliance/status/1846975529649389993

[M L]

Every time there's some new current thing the propaganda machine is grappling with, you get this message on Google. Anyone else been seeing this for the last 5 years or so?

"It looks like the results below are changing quickly
If this topic is new, it can sometimes take time for reliable sources to publish information"

[M L]

Hard to believe these clips of Kamala. Never saw these before. I don't see how anyone can defend this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxeIqTbQRnk

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Hard to believe that you're anything other than a piece of shit propagandist working for a foreign government.

[M L]

Do you agree with Kamala on this?

[Roger S]

Jailing parents for truancy is what defined Harris, more than anything else, until she ran for national office.

[Voize]

Except that she didn't jail anybody.

She did, however, support a followon statewide law that empowered other DAs to jail parents of truants, and some of them took advantage of the opportunity. I don't know the details of those cases, but she deserves criticism if she helped give prosecutors more power than they could responsibly wield.

California isn't the only state with a similar law. TN, VA, FL, GA, IN, AL, AZ can all jail parents for failing to have their kids attend school.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has sued CBS Broadcasting in the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, for broadcasting what Trump alleges to be a deceptively edited 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Trump seeks $10 billion in monetary damages and “an order enjoining CBS from continuing to post the deceptively edited October 6 Version on its 60 Minutes website and elsewhere, as well as requiring CBS to post the full video version and unedited transcript of Kamala’s actual answer about Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the full version of the Interview altogether both in video and transcript form.” https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/trump-vs-cbs.pdf

This is batshit crazy. Will those who yap and yammer about “lawfare” denounce Trump for this nonsense?

[Roger S]

CBS did deceptively edit the interview. I hope Trump keeps filing these cases, until we put some limits on lawfare.

[not guilty]

The First Amendment be damned?

Almost any judge other than the execrable Matthew Kacsmaryk would likely dismiss Trump's complaint sua sponte and issue an order to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Rule 11 sanctions are definitely warranted. You can't sue someone for posting an edited interview of someone else. There is no plausible basis for this bullshit. A stupid publicity stunt. And losers like Roger S cheerleading for this ethically vacuous bullshit.

[John F. Carr]

The Courtlistener copy of the docket is at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69332852/trump-v-cbs-broadcasting-inc/

On this second day of the case there is no meaningful activity other than the complaint.

[John F. Carr]

This is a consumer protection case, not a defamation case as I expected, and Trump alleges

President Trump is a “consumer” within the meaning of the DTPA, since he is an individual who sought and received CBS’s broadcast services. Moreover, as the leading presidential candidate, President Trump will be evaluated by the Texas electorate – and the electorate in all states—on November 5, 2024. As such, President Trump stands in the shoes of each Texas voter entitled to the honest services expected from CBS-owned and affiliated television stations in Texas.

[grb]

Roger S : “I hope Trump keeps filing these cases”

Fox edited several minutes out of multiple Trump answers at a recent Bronx barbershop “interview”, deleting several egregious lies, eliminating some embarrassing coarse & inflammatory talk, and paring-away incoherent rambling word-salad responses that highlight Trump’s deteriorating mental state. Several times participants had to re-ask their questions after the addled old coot forgot what he was responding to.

And remember, CBS made both versions available of the Harris answer, longer & shorter. Fox didn’t. The only way people knew the network intervened with dementia triage was a participant downloaded the entire video to social media. Of course this isn't new. Fox has edited-out Trump’s mental lapses in several interviews before.

Of course, being an uniformed bootlicking cultist, Roger S, you probably didn’t know any of this. That’s the only way you could humiliate yourself with the above comment.

https://newrepublic.com/post/187500/fox-news-edit-trump-answers-video

[Roger S]

Ads on both sides use selective edits. Some are misleading. What CBS did was different. The shorter version is not an edited version of the longer answer. They seems like answers to two different questions. Maybe CBS will explain it when it files its answer or motion to dismiss.

[grb]

CBS says you’re full of shit:

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

But we’ve always known you’re dishonest, Roger. There was zero difference between what they did and Fox except:

1. CBS was transparent. Fox wasn’t.
2. The CBS edits were limited; those of Fox pervasive.
3. The CBS incident was singular; Fox has a pattern of covering Trump’s gaffes.

Yet you caterwaul with indignation, making a foolish spectacle of yourself! Personally, I believe both networks have the right to edit interviews as long they’re transparent – which CBS was & Fox wasn’t. To be fair to you, your bootlicking mission in life is to believe every Trump lie and parrot whatever hysterical gibberish he’s peddling to the dupes at any given moment. Sure, it often makes you look silly. But no one said a bootlicker’s life is easy.

[Roger S]

No, CBS was not transparent. It gave two completely different responses to one question. Were they both edited down from one longer response? If so, what was that longer response? Or did they come from different questions? We do not know.

I am sure Fox has edited interviews, but I never heard of anyone doing what CBS did.

[grb]

Roger S : (sweaty & frantic) “They’re different I say! Different!”

Sure they’re different. CBS “exposed” itself. Fox’s interventions were more frequent, much broader, aimed more at protecting their pet candidate, and the only reason they were exposed is someone at the event surreptitiously recorded his own video and gave it to Instagram. Otherwise, no one would have ever known about Fox’s cleanup to cover for Trump.

Not the difference you claim, to be sure. But it’s pretty damn clear you’re in frenzied damage-control-mode over the wreckage of your position.

[not guilty]

“Ads on both sides use selective edits. Some are misleading. What CBS did was different. The shorter version is not an edited version of the longer answer. They seems like answers to two different questions. Maybe CBS will explain it when it files its answer or motion to dismiss.”

There is nothing for CBS to “explain.” Absent an adjudication of defamatory falsehood or obscenity — claims which Donald Trump is not making here — a court’s awarding money damages or issuing an order of prior restraint based on what a news organization elects to broadcast is verboten under the First Amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Been in the early voting line for an hour now. The end of the line has finally come into sight. I'm thinking only another 45 minutes.