Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

This will be a rough 4 years. I don’t care about Trump’s supporters but what about their children living on a baking planet. And the rest of the world subject to the momentary whims of such a reckless and unfit man.

[Kazinski]

Sorry Captcrisis, you portray yourself as deeply unserious with the baking planet rhetoric.

Especially when Harris herself jettisoned the net zero agenda, espousing continued expansion of fossil fuels via tracking (unconvincingly), and coming out against a 2030's EV mandate (also unconvincingly).

While under Trump we had the greatest reduction of carbon emissions in US history, while they've prison substantially in Biden's first 3 years.

However I have to.say I think atmospheric CO2 was dangerously low a.century and a half ago at 280ppm when plants start dying at 180, and are at their most efficient at 1000ppm.

[Martinned2]

Especially when Harris herself jettisoned the net zero agenda, espousing continued expansion of fossil fuels via tracking (unconvincingly), and coming out against a 2030’s EV mandate (also unconvincingly).

I thought the problem with Harris was that she ran too far to the left?

[Lee Moore]

You thought wrong. One of her (many) problems was that she IS too far to the left. She tried to run as more moderate than she really is. Unconvincingly. As Kazinski mentioned, twice.

[David Nieporent]

That is, of course, completely wrong. She was a moderate who tried to position herself as a progressive in 2019. But progressives didn't believe she was one so they didn't support her, and the rest of the party wasn't looking for a progressive in the first place. That's why her campaign went nowhere.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about calling a spade a spade. She is, was and always will be a political hack from California who rode first class on the identity politics train.

[Frank Drackman]

Isn't it great that most peoples don't know that "Spade" used to be a common racial epithet???

[Mr. Bumble]

Should I have said 1/2 spade?

[jimc5499]

It's funny where the term came from. When they were building the Transcontinental Railroad, there were laborers who use shovels and spades. The ones that used spades were paid a slightly higher wage because of the work involved. Sometimes when it came time to pay the laborers the foreman would list the ones using the spades as shovelers and pay them the lower rate. "Call a spade a spade, not a shovel."

[Noscitur a sociis]

As is pretty much always the case with this kind of etymological just-so story, this is complete bullshit. The phrase goes back at least to a 16th century (mis)translation of Plutarch, via Erasmus:

Philippus aunswered, that the Macedonians wer feloes of no fyne witte in their termes but altogether grosse, clubbyshe, and rusticall, as they whiche had not the witte to calle a spade by any other name than a spade.

[Brett Bellmore]

She was a moderate in the context of California, which makes her anything but moderate in a national context.

[Armchair]

Harris was one of the most liberal members of the Senate. She was not a moderate.

"Harris served in the Senate representing California during two Congresses (the 115th and 116th) before resigning to assume office as vice president in 2021.

In the 115th Congress (2017-2019), 48 Democrats served in the Senate and cast a sufficient number of votes for reliable analysis. Of those 48, Harris had the third-most liberal voting record, after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.).

In the 116th Congress (2019-2020), 45 Democrats served in the Senate and cast a sufficient number of votes for reliable analysis. Of those 45, Harris had the second-most liberal voting record after Warren."

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4816859-kamala-harris-is-extremely-liberal-and-the-numbers-prove-it/

[Brett Bellmore]

Webpage that rated Kamala Harris the 'most liberal' senator in 2019 suddenly disappears

"GovTrack, an organization that tracks congressional voting records, confirmed to Fox News Digital it had removed a 2019 web page that ranked Kamala Harris as that year's "most liberal" U.S. senator sometime within the last two weeks.

The self-described "government transparency website" scored Harris as the "most liberal compared to all senators" in 2019, outranking Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren at the time.

But the web page with the ranking, which was widely covered in news reports during the 2020 election, was recently deactivated. The link now displays a "Page Not Found" message. The Internet Archive shows the page was deleted sometime between July 10 and July 23, with some on X claiming the page was still up on July 22.

President Biden announced his decision to suspend his campaign and endorse Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee on July 21. Harris announced in the early hours of July 23 that she had secured enough delegates to lock up the nomination at the DNC next month."

[Armchair]

I can't tell for certain whether David is trying to gaslight us, or if he's gaslighting himself.

[not guilty]

How on earth does someone gaslight himself?

[Riva]

You don't. The public is the victim of gaslighting. The media tried to gaslight us on Ol' Joe's competence. Then they tried to gaslight us on Harris' moderate stance. Not to mention spending years trying to gaslight us on Russian collusion following by the dictatorship nonsense.

[not guilty]

Riva, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Riva]

I guess we could descend into some argument about the nuances of the meaning of “gaslighting,” in common or professional parlance. But that would be a stupid tangential discussion distracting from the obvious point that the democratic party and their media adjuncts spent years misrepresenting the facts and outright lying to the public to present a distorted view of President Trump and promote his democrat opponents. But distraction is your goal. And I guess I should give you a pass today. You go on with the nonsense distraction if it helps take away the pain of your loss.

[Armchair]

"How on earth does someone gaslight himself?"

Gaslight, verb. ": to grossly mislead or deceive (someone) especially for one's own advantage"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslight#:~:text=%3A%20to%20badly%20mislead%20or%20deceive,gaslighting%20noun

Well, it takes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance and self delusion to deceive one's self, but I'm sure David can manage

[Riva]

Could the Harris campaign still be paying people to lie?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think you need to pay people like GovTrack to lie for Democrats. They consider it a privilege, they'd probably pay for the opportunity to lie for them.

In fact they do, the lying reduces their credibility and alienates a substantial portion of their customer base, hurting their bottom lines. They accept that as the cost of helping Democrats.

[Randal]

What lie are you even talking about?

[Riva]

Well Randy, that would be David’s attempt to describe Harris, who was to the left of Bernie Sanders in the Senate, as a “moderate.” And my comment on the Harris campaign was a joke by way, although why anyone would embarrass themselves like that publicly for free is beyond me.

[Randal]

David is "people like GovTrack?"

[Riva]

Not sure what you're ranting about. My comment referred to crazy Dave above, who wrote "That is, of course, completely wrong. She was a moderate who tried to position herself as a progressive in 2019..." I'll be nice and assume you're still a little in shock rather than just, well, stupid.

[Randal]

I was referring to Brett's comment.

[Riva]

Sorry but you're not making sense. What are you trying to say?

[Brett Bellmore]

Randal, as Riva said, David's attempt to describe Harris as a moderate. And, of course, GovTrack's ludicrous excuses for memory holing their rating of Harris the moment she became the candidate, and needed to pretend to have been a moderate.

She really WAS rated the Senate's most left-wing member, ahead even of Bernie Sanders.

But I don't, as I said, think Harris needs to pay anybody to lie for her, they're unpaid volunteers.

[Randal]

Well, I'm talking about GovTrack, not David. And there's no way that memory holing, no matter how ludicrous, can be characterized as a lie.

My understanding is that it wasn't even ludicrous. Part of a top-down revamp of the site, not just like a single page that disappeared one day.

[Riva]

That’s your issue? You’re complaining that the gross organized effort to misprepresent Harris’ background is not being properly criticized? Missing the forest through the trees doesn’t quite cover this. But feel free to delude yourself further. In fact, I encourage you in this pointless effort.

[Randal]

I'd say that the only evidence you have of a concerted effort to misrepresent Kamala's background that stands up to scrutiny is David's comment above, and even his narrative is largely true -- progressives didn't trust her in 2019. Maybe David's definition of "moderate" includes Kamala, who knows, he didn't really elaborate.

But yes, you lot love to spin these ridiculous conspiracy theories that yes are worth debunking because they're stupid and divisive. There is no "gross organized effort" to do much of anything on the left. We're not a cult like some people I know.

[Riva]

You might want to review the media's hagiography of Harris, that would be the same media that tried to convince us that ol'Joe was sharp as a tack, before the democrat party coup to install Harris. Could be this denial is a stage of your grief but I think democrats are just inherently dishonest. You'll never change.

[Randal]

The media is who forced Biden out! You're angry about an alternative reality that only exists in your mind.

[Riva]

Not much point in this. You're lying and know you're lying. But, at least now you clowns are out of power. I'm not angry at all. I'm elated. And amused. Democrats can be safely laughed at when out of power.

[Randal]

Have you watched even the likes of MSNBC from after the Biden debate? If so, you're lying, and if not, you don't know what you're talking about.

You've said before you barely even know what Fox News is. You need to consume some media before you comment on it. As you don't, I stand by my observation that your grievances are best addressed to the voices in your head.

[Riva]

Give it up already. Yeah they turned on him… when the incompetence could no longer be covered up and they wanted to propagandize for the replacement. So they abandoned the gaslighting about Joe and began the gaslighting on Harris.

[Randal]

Yeah right. The media's all in the tank for Joe, except when they're not. They're all in the tank for Harris, except when they're calling her unreliable and phony. Whatev's.

Trump is the one who owes the media a huge debt of gratitude. Not just for the sanewashing, but for the unwavering attention. All news is good news, and that's especially true for Trump. Without the media's constant coverage, he would've turned around and ridden right back up that escalator in 2015.

[Riva]

Uh huh. And the overwhelming public rejection of Harris had literally nothing to do with the disastrously unpopular Biden Harris polices and her promise of more of the same. Your ignorance is good. I want you and your party to continue to remain completely oblivious as to why you lost.

[David Nieporent]

And the overwhelming public rejection of Harris

As of now — with millions of votes still to be counted — Donald Trump has 50.5% of the vote and Kamala Harris has 47.9% of the vote. That does not sound like an "overwhelming rejection." That sounds like a narrow victory.

[Randal]

Thanks for finally giving up on your "biased media" loser argument, Rivabitbot.

[Riva]

That the public rejected Harris overwhelmingly does not mean the media wasn't biased little Randal. It means the media is not affecting public opinion. And David, a victory in which Harris lost all swing states is not "narrow."

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

Dave's just broken. TDS melted his brain.

[bernard11]

Yeah, Brett. They deliberately set out to conceal her liberal record. Sure they did. Did you read beyond the headline?

GovTrack founder Joshua Tauberer said the page was removed because the company adopted a policy "several years ago" to end its single-year ratings of lawmakers to only do ratings based on Congressional sessions, which are two years....

Tauberer said the organization was still publishing report cards based on two-year congressional sessions and pointed Fox News Digital to Harris' existing 2020 web page, which ranked her ideology as the "most politically left compared to Senate Democrats" for the 116th Congress. She was ranked the second most liberal in all the Senate behind Independent Sanders.

Pretty fucking bad job of concealment, I'd say.

Would you please stop spreading your paranoid bullshit? And then you accuse Govtrack of lying for Democrats when you're one of biggest liars around here.

[Riva]

Just wondered if I could chime in here for a gloat? And, by the way, she was a nut job pseudo communist incompetent who was installed by party elites and who was rejected by a majority of the American people. That's why her campaign failed.

[Commenter_XY]

David, that was a rather surprising statement = She was a moderate who tried to position herself as a progressive in 2019.

What made you say that?

[Randal]

Probably the fact that she was a prosecutor and DA. Not a particularly liberal profession. She had to downplay that in the Democratic primary.

[Don Nico]

So was Sotomayor. It is an obvious political stepping stone independent of political philosophy

[Randal]

To the stepper, perhaps. To liberals at large, it's a red flag.

[Don Nico]

David,
Watching her in the Bay Area for many years, I found that she NEVER was a moderate but rather part of the San Francisco fringe left moderated by opportunism.

[Kazinski]

The problem with Harris is she has spent her whole career running on the far left bleeding edge, and that worked for her in California.

But it left her with no path to make a shift to the moderate center believable.

[David Nieporent]

She. Was. A. Cop.

[Bob from Ohio]

No. She. Was. Not.

A DA is not a cop. Mr. Pedant.

A DA can be weak on law enforcement in practice, see Gascon who got soundly beat Tuesday or the SF DA recalled last year [domestic terrorist Bill Ayers son!].

[Kazinski]

So cops are only right wing?

East Germany had a cracker jack police state, but I didn't think they were right wing.

If she got a law passed a law outlawing "misinformation" or misgendering, or an assault weapons ban, then I'd have no doubt she'd ensure it was fully enforced, but that wouldn't make her a conservative or even a moderate.

[David Nieporent]

So cops are only right wing?

American cops. Not sure why we care about the Stasi.

[Kazinski]

Next you will be calling George Gascon a right wing cop.

I don't mind you trying to bullshit me, but I hope you aren't bullshitting yourself.

[Bwaaah]

David has serious anti-cop issues. When you come upon them, they can be astounding. I suspect it is based on some damaging history, but that's just a theory. He's seriously fucked up that way.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, as a libertarian of course I have issues with cops, but my comment about Harris being a cop was what progressives say about her.

[Bwaaah]

I didn't say you have issues with cops. I said you have anti-cop issues.

I see little practical compatibility between your views and the actual task of policing in the United States (or anywhere else I know of). If you call that a "libertarian" thing, then judging by the typical views of other people who call themselves "libertarian," that explanation does little to clarify your distinctive anti-cop issues.

I suspect you are using the term "libertarian" to imply some orthodoxy that should be implicitly understood. I don't understand it. "Libertarian" is a broadly used term that implies a varied range of views. It would be clearer if you would more particularly describe your rather extreme anti-cop views than to shrug them off as, "you know...libertarianism."

[Don Nico]

Cops in Berkeley and Oakland are not right wing.

[Martinned2]

How about Vallejo?
https://www.vallejosun.com/vallejo-settles-lawsuit-over-2019-police-shooting-of-willie-mccoy-for-tk/

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Police do not have monolithic politics.
I could quote the news about the soccer event yesterday and say all people in Amsterdam are anti-Semites. That also would be nonsense.

[Martinned2]

@Don Nico: In only one of those places did the police hand out prizes for killing civilians.

[Kazinski]

Vallejo, is a majority minority city with large black, Hispanic, and Filipino communities, and an 80% minority city council.

I grew up about 15 miles from there.

But the issue is that cops are authoritarian, not that they are conservatives or right wing.

Authoritarians come from all political persuasions.

Did Gretchen Whitmer or Tim Walz become right wing when they imposed curfews, closed restaurants, stores, and required vaccine passports?

That was certainly authoritarian, but they aren't right wingers.

[Don Nico]

Also Martin, in only one of those cities did we see a pogrom reminiscent of Kristallnacht.

See how easy it is to distort what happens to spread political disinformation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I always wondered which one of Village People she was.

[Martinned2]

But does she know the YMCA dance?

[Drewski]

Man who uses a terrorist's name as a gag calls another person unserious, film at 11.

[John F. Carr]

America doesn't want to do anything about the climate. Half of America wants to feel good about pretending to do something about the climate. American voters do not want a $2 per gallon increase in gas prices. They make noise about guns and boys playing sports against girls. They care about gas prices.

[Commenter_XY]

What can America do to reduce pollution from CHN and IND, the two biggest polluters on the planet?

Agree = Americans care about gas prices. I miss cheaper gas and hope that policy changes under President Trump will help lower gas prices.

[Lee Moore]

Bomb them into the Stone Age. But the greenies don’t like that solution.

[Martinned2]

What can America do to reduce pollution from CHN and IND, the two biggest polluters on the planet?

Negotiate an international treaty that involves both the US and China and India reducing their outputs of climate gasses. But the US approach to international law/international relations is "we will do whatever we feel like", so I can see how that possibility might not occur to you.

[Riva]

Nope. But it looks like we're going to frack, and otherwise exploit every possible natural resource to achieve energy dominance. You'll thank me later.

[Commenter_XY]

Negotiating an agreement without real teeth for enforcement is a waste of time and a distraction.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If we don't want the teeth to bite us, it's hard to get other countries to agree to get bit. Some humility is called for.

[Kazinski]

India, nor any country is going to sign a treaty that will consign themselves to energy poverty.

But the good news is at least the India has the lowest beef consumption per capita in the world at 0.9kg annually.

How about giving them credit for that, instead of trying to tell them they can't have AC.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pursue a nuclear renaissance, and sell them a bunch of cheap self-contained mini-reactors, so that they don't have to return to the stone age in order to output less carbon dioxide.

The only presently available, practical way to reduce CO2 output without a dramatic reduction in the world's standard of living is going nuclear. Solar and wind aren't reliable enough to be the basis of a modern industrial society, and their EROEI (Energy return on energy invested) is disastrously low once you include the need for massive storage to make them look reliable.

[Bwaaah]

We can’t do nuclear. We need to listen to the accepted narratives. It’s way too expensive, having multiplied in cost since it was economical 50 years ago. (Also, nobody wants to fight off a giant spider apocalypse.)

But doesn’t technological innovation consistently drive down the costs of a technology like a nuclear power plant? Shouldn’t it have?

Could it be that irrational fears, NIMBYism, and an untenable morass of environmental regulation sponsored by people who call themselves “pro environment,” have destroyed the economic viability of an obvious solution to our energy needs and climate change concerns? Take a good look. This is exactly what has happened.

Not only is Big Stupid still running the show, but Big Stupid doesn’t know how to change its tune. As I fall into my senior years, I find solace knowing that I won’t be alive much longer. Big Stupid really bothers me, more and more as I get older, especially because it is so often characterized by the complaining voices of the very people who simultaneously demand solutions as they destroy them. It’s a popular but highly dogmatic brand of pseudo-scientistic zealotry. It’s Big Stupid, in charge.

[Joe_dallas]

Adding to Brett's comment, the renewable advocates bombard us with the claim that electric generation from renewables are now cheaper than the costs for fossil fuel generation based on LCOE. The LCOE computations are very deceptive, since they only include the cost of generation and dont include the costs of mantaining stability. The lcoe of renewables dont include the LCOE of baseload or peaker renewable generation. Finally, the LCOE doesnt include the costs of maintaining stability or storage. Currently the fossil fuel electric generation is bearing the cost of renewable generation, so those costs are excluded.

[Frank Drackman]

Anger, next will be bargaining, then depression, and finally acceptance.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I care about his supporters too.

The "whims" part also brings to mind that each executive brings a whole team as well as many federal judges.

Whims or concerted effort, I am deeply concerned about the decisions of these people. And, the readers' children and grandchildren will be affected too.

Justice Thomas became a federal judge in 1990.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Trump victory puts the American military at the command of America's plutocracy. What could go wrong?

[santamonica811]

I really hope we all end up being wrong about Trump. I would like nothing better than, 4 years from today, to be able to say, "Man, Trump put away the crazy, and was a really effective and fair president."

Given his cognitive decline, I think we will see his inner circle exerting more and more influence (which I believe in regards to Biden during his last 18 months, by the way). Policy set by Steven Miller? Yikes!

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, are you the same person you were 4 years ago? I do not think so. Your life experiences and observations changed you. That is normal life development. The difference is you have 4 more years of experience and perspective.

Is President Trump any different? He puts his pants on, one leg at a time, so no. My point to you is that he is not the same man, either, after his '45' experience. Do you think there will be things he changes, based on his '45' experience in office, as '47'? I do.

In 4 years, I am hopeful you can say that, too = Man, Trump put away the crazy, and was a really effective and fair president.

[David Nieporent]

Is President Trump any different? He puts his pants on, one leg at a time, so no. My point to you is that he is not the same man, either, after his ’45’ experience. Do you think there will be things he changes, based on his ’45’ experience in office, as ’47’? I do.

Leopards don't change their spots, and 80-year old leopards certainly don't. That doesn't mean that they can't learn from their mistakes and do things differently, but they don't change who and what they are. And I think most of us believe that if he makes changes based on his mistakes, those changes will be for the worse, as what he has learned is that there are no consequences to his actions and nobody will stand up to him (and that he doesn't have to keep anyone around who tries).

[Riva]

Oh I think he learned quite a bit about the deep state rats in the DOJ, CIA, and just about every other acronym out there while in office and out. And accountability is coming.

[Brett Bellmore]

"He puts his pants on, one leg at a time, so no."

That's why I took gymnastics for PE in college. So I wouldn't have to. Worked until I broke my leg years later, too.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I always wondered about this saying. Am I the only person who sits on the side of the bed and pulls both pant legs up at the same time?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Carla Tortelli reacts to being told that professional athletes take off their pants one leg at a time just like everybody else.

[Bwaaah]

I’m in a tailspin thinking about this now. I put my pants on while standing up, and indeed, one leg at a time. From a standing position, both legs at once would be an unlikely feat. But if I were to sit down, I’d probably do both legs at the same time.

Anyway, I now see that using that expression “putting his pants on one leg at a time” as a way to describe normal behavior is a little bit narrow-minded and unhelpfully exclusive. A better expression would be, “He puts his clothes on before leaving home.” That’s not perfect, but it leaves out much fewer people who should be considered normal.

Despite your difference, even when they say “he puts his pants on one leg at a time,” you should consider yourself to be among the people they’re talking about. They’re just saying it wrong.

[SRG2]

There's no evidence that Trump now is an improvement on Trump then, however. But I do expect that whatever he does, you will defend it, and if his admin is a disaster, you will deny it.

[Josh R]

I said the same thing in 2016, hoping the presidency would alter his behavior. It didn't, although his advisors and institutional guardrails kept him check.

I too hope he can change, but I am very doubtful he can. I am not sure how the guardrails will fare.

[Bwaaah]

I just want to remind everybody that we, the American people, can be the guardrails if things get bad. It is absurd to think that one person, even a President, can take this national project for a destructive dumb-ass joy ride while 350 million people stand by and watch their own demise.

All those Republicans who got their legs cut out from under them in 2016 when Trumpism threatened them will instantly find their legs again the moment there's a sweeping change of public sentiment against Trump.

A great lie propagated by both parties is that the other is bent on the destruction of goodness and life as we know it in America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Populism can cut any which way the population wants to go. We don't have to pray for guardrails. We ARE guardrails.

Calm down.

[Randal]

We can be the guardrails to an extent. But not voting Trump into office was one of the guardrails. (So was ratifying the 14th Amendment.)

What do we do when Iran nukes Israel, or Russia invades NATO, because Trump gives Putin his implicit ok?

[Mr. Bumble]

You are insane and stupid.
NATO isn't a country and during Trumps forst term Puyin did not even invade Ukraine. The two invasions of Ukraine occurred under Obama and Biden.
Obama drew a red line and ignored it and Biden called the second invasion a minor incursion.

[Life of Brian]

I see that time of quiet introspection and questioning of the assumptions you and your echo chamber have batted back and forth for the past several years is going just swimmingly!

[Randal]

It will be sad to see Trump give Ukraine up. But if we actually have a 2028 election, the insurrection act hasn’t been invoked, Iran doesn’t have a nuke, Putin is either dead or contained, South Korea hasn’t been invaded, no innocent journalists or politicians are in prison, we haven’t defaulted, we’re not doing any concentration camps, and Taiwan still exists, then I’ll be happy to say that our fears were overblown.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It will be sad to see Trump give Ukraine up."

You're going to miss getting jerked off while seeing Ukraine being given up?

[Randal]

You’ve had too much champagne there tiny pianist… I assume that’s some sort of inscrutable insult?

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, it's pretty clear to people who've been watching what's happening in Ukraine.

[Randal]

What's going on with Ukraine is exactly what I said was going to happen since day one. The US can't let Russia win....but we also can't let Ukraine win. We have to keep it a stalemate, at least until Putin is out of the picture. And that's what's happened.

Trump is gonna let Russia win.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh, I see. I hadn't realized that that was your position.

Seems risky.

[Life of Brian]

The situations with both Iran and Taiwan have unfortunately gone in a very poor direction under this administration. Hopefully Trump et al. are able to dial them back down.

I'd say the rest of your ooo-scarys are just about as likely as internet rando Randal working himself into such a paranoid lather over his ooo-scarys that he decides the only way to save the world is to take matters into his own hands and make the third time a charm.

[Randal]

You sound as drunk as the tiny pianist over here. I again don't get the insult. What matters am I lathering?

[Life of Brian]

The ones you enumerated in the post I responded to. Surely you still remember at least the rough contours of what you wrote a couple of hours ago?

[Randal]

You think I'm going to take Iranian nukes into my own hands?

[Life of Brian]

Interesting thought, but unlikely -- I suspect they're a touch too small.

[Randal]

The nukes?

Anyway, still wondering what I am taking into my hands, in your mind.

[Life of Brian]

I’m exceptionally comfortable you’re not taking anything into your own hands, whatever their size. Which was precisely my point. But I think you knew that.

[Josh R]

The American people failed to provide guardrails by not making Trump a pariah as a result of Jan 6. I have no confidence the people would do so for any action by the man who can shoot someone on 5th avenue.

[Kazinski]

I feel better with the Military in Trump's hands than under control of a Harris-Cheney administration.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and one of his first moves ought to be reducing the number of General Officers.

[Martinned2]

Of course. You have to purge the Democrats from the armed forces immediately.

[Mr. Bumble]

You really ought to seek medical attention for that wild hair up your ass.

[Martinned2]

I'm not the one who wrote the Project 2025 plan.

[Brett Bellmore]

Neither is Trump.

Trump team preps list of banned staffers

"The names include conservatives linked to Project 2025 and Republicans viewed as disloyal to the former president."

[Martinned2]

No, I don't think writing a 2000 page plan is the sort of thing anyone imagines Trump doing. But he sure seems to be likely to appoint the people who did write the plan to positions where they will be empowered to implement it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-20-who-would-be-running-top-jobs-trumps-second-administration-2024-11-06/

[Brett Bellmore]

Except for the whole part about explicitly rejecting the plan, and mounting an effort to avoid hiring the people responsible, I suppose you've got a point.

[Martinned2]

Rejecting the plan is something Trump did in the same way that he ensorsed or rejected proposals to ban abortion: Whatever the audience wanted to hear. He's certainly not avoiding hiring the people responsible. (Hence, presumably, the lack of blogging from Josh Blackman. Too busy preparing for job interviews.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I suppose there's hardly any point in Trump saying or writing anything, if you're just going to dismiss anything that contradicts your narrative.

Except that everybody else isn't dismissing it, you just come across as a partisan hack.

[bernard11]

You can believe Trump completely if you like.

I think doing so reflects extremely poor judgment.

[Voize of Reazon]

I suppose there’s hardly any point in Trump saying or writing anything, if you’re just going to dismiss anything that contradicts your narrative.

Aren't you one of the people who insist, when Trump says something outrageous that contradicts your narrative, that he shouldn't be taken seriously because he was "just joking"?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think automatically disbelieving everything Trump says is not any smarter than automatically believing everything he says.

He has been consistently disavowing Project 2025, and is apparently planning on not hiring anybody involved in it. I'm not sure how much more you need before you drop this partisan talking point.

[bernard11]

I think automatically disbelieving everything Trump says is not any smarter than automatically believing everything he says.

But of the two it is the percentage play.

[Voize of Reazon]

I’m afraid talking points are all we have, hand-to-hand combat points being impractical in this forum.
Accepting or rejecting a statement depending on whether it helps or hurts your side is the epitome of partisan talking. Judging the likely reliability of a source by its track record is not.
Unlike some, I don’t think Trump is a compulsive liar, or that he can’t tell truth from falsehood. He just doesn’t care. His decision to say something depends only on his assessment of whether it will help him. If it’s true then OK, but if not that’s OK too. His audience's perception is his reality, and he is confident he can manipulate that if he repeats a lie often enough. We know he believes this from his own actions, from Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts”, and from his confession to Stephanie Grisham of strategic lying.
With this record, his “consistent disavowal” of Project 2025 tells us nothing about his real plans. Remember this is the man who took five years to admit the truth of Obama’s birth after he released his birth certificate.

[windycityattorney]

Funny that Matt Walsh and Steven Bannon have both said (apparently not sarcastically) that project 2025 IS THE PLAN and its full steam ahead.

They don’t need specific members from Heritage to implement shit. They got JD Vance. All Trump has to do is hand it over to him and go golfing. JD Vance’s foreword to the book by the old head of Heritage should be coming out any day now – since it was intentionally delayed to after the election to align Trump’s campaign statements. The foreword was written prior to Trump picking JD as his running mate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, when were Matt Walsh and Steven Bannon elected President?

[David Nieporent]

Two days ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I'm pretty sure that was Trump and Vance.

[Life of Brian]

Matt Walsh and Steven Bannon have both said (apparently not sarcastically)

I presume you have something more behind "apparently not sarcastically" than Walsh's deadpan tweet and Bannon saying "Matt Walsh is a smart and funny guy," reading it, and chuckling?

[windycityattorney]

Oh come off it. Project 2025 is a christian nationalists wet dream. So that by itself means at least a 1/2 of the GOP Senate would back it in a heartbeat.

One of the problems with Trump is not that he is stupid, although that is a problem, its that he doesn't particularly care about things that don't interest him. He micromanaged the shit out of his business while running the Trump Org because it was his baby; it was his money and reputation at stake. He didn't micromanage running the country because a lot of it is BORING. He wants to run the country like he did his business...barking orders at underlings that saw to it that they got done. Much easier to do in private business than government.

But he has consistently blamed others for why he couldn't do things he promised the first go round...because he didn't pick people who were sufficiently loyal to carry out his commands. He got too much pushback and that annoyed him. So he would just tune out and go golfing. Do you think after all we heard on the campaign trail that he is going to make that same mistake again?

As we lead up to the inauguration please pay close attention to who he fills his cabinet with. Is he picking experts in their fields? OR is his #1 criteria kissing his ass and being loyal to Trump? I have been paying attention to his speeches and ramblings on the campaign trial and it seems to me has promised not competency....but loyalty to MAGA (which means loyalty to him) as the single most important criteria. His picks will get Senate confirmation no matter how shitty or unprepared for their jobs they may be.

[Life of Brian]

Well that certainly was a defensive wall o' text in response to a simple question.

Apparently the answer is "no, I was just passing on the latest breathless meme I read on the internet, either not taking 30 seconds to realize that it's unmitigated nonsense or knowing that full well and cheerfully taking part anyway."

Clearly the message has not yet penetrated that a sizable majority of the country has had its fill of these sorts of cockamamie wolf-crying distortions and is learning just to tune them out by default.

[Kazinski]

I'm a little confused about where Project 2025 is right now.

Would you say that since Harris ran so hard on opposing Project 2025, and the voters rejected her message that it has a mandate now?

Or would you say because Trump said it wasn't his plan and he doesn't know what's in it, that he can just pick and choose the parts he likes, and isn't obligated to the voters to implement the whole thing?

[Martinned2]

No all around.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, why not? Are you under the impression that the Democrats haven't been purging Republicans from the armed forces? Is that the rule, then? That if Democrats politically purge an institution, when Republicans take over they have to leave it that way?

[Mr. Bumble]

For the record, there are currently approximately 631 general officers across all branches of the US military including 44 of four star rank.

[David Nieporent]

Are you under the impression that the Democrats haven’t been purging Republicans from the armed forces?

Yes.

[Riva]

Yeah, but you probably also think President Trump plans on using a firing squad on Cheney. And also still believe the letter from the 51 lying intel pukes as well as the Charlottesville lie.

[Martinned2]

Well, why not? Are you under the impression that the Democrats haven’t been purging Republicans from the armed forces? Is that the rule, then?

The rule is that the Civil Service works best when it is non-partisan, and that politicians who care about things like democracy, the rule of law, and the quality of government don't mess with the Civil Service.

The US already has way too many political appointees, which screws things up for months every four/eight years. And for the life of me I can't understand that Biden didn't nominate Lina Khan for another term when her previous term expired in September. But that's all water under the bridge.

[Frank Drackman]

Biden wouldn’t know what or who a “Lina Khan” was if you dropped him in a vat of Namenda (I’m not even demented and I don’t know what or who a “Lina Khan” is)

[ducksalad]

J. D. Vance says nice things about Lina Khan. That alone is enough for any believer in free markets to put both of them on the “never” list.

[Drewski]

Um, the armed forces are not part of the Civil Service. Very different rules apply. Not my expertise but I believe Trump will have a lot more leeway, legally, with the military. To whatever extent "legally" has meaning now in the context of presidential power, anyway.

[Martinned2]

That's exactly the problem, that "legally". My point was about the things presidents have the legal power to do, because the US constitution is flawed, but that they should voluntarily not do because it's better for the country. Like only hiring people who voted for them for civil service jobs and/or military jobs.

[Drewski]

No, because the President doesn't have that legal power with regard to the Civil Service, but may with regard to the military. I didn't misunderstand you; you misstated American law and got confused about whether "military" and "civil" service are the same thing.

[EscherEnigma]

You know that Trump is going to re-publish his Schedule F EO, or something remarkably similar, right?

He very much does have a solid legal plan for purging the civil service.

[Bob from Ohio]

"purging the civil service"

Reforming

[Kazinski]

He didn't renominate Lisa Khan because there is opposition to her among some democrats in the Senate, and he might not be able to get it through.

And maybe more importantly there is even more opposition to Khan in the business and tech community and he and Harris needed their money for the campaign.

[Martinned2]

Well, he's definitely not going to get it through now. That's one of the reasons why the stock market was up after the election. No more antitrust.

[Bwaaah]

Well...since we don't have any apparent trusts, it seems fitting to not have antitrust. Being big, and even ubiquitous, is not against the law. But then, the law doesn't matter when your life is a morality play that subsumes anything, everything, including the rule of law. She, and her ilk, remind me of the potentially scary definitions of "justice."

[bernard11]

Brett,

At this point nothing you claim can be believed without substantial supporting evidence.

[Kazinski]

What the purge criteria should be is if you have any inkling of what their party is at all, then purge them.

Nobody knew what party Eisenhower was in until after he left the service, and both parties tried to.recruit him as a candidate.

[Martinned2]

I don't think Trumpists particularly care about making sure that the purge is accurate in all cases. That's certainly not their approach with everything else they do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Screw that. If they're doing their jobs, you should make no effort to find out their politics in the first place.

[Bwaaah]

Hear! Hear!

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned2 6 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Of course. You have to purge the Democrats from the armed forces immediately.

You dont have to purge the democrats, you just have to purge the idiots that have infested the pentagon.
Idiots that want to advance DEI
Idiots that belief climate change is the next greatest military threat,
Idiots that want to power the military with clean energy
Idiots that under stand geopolitics like neville chamberlian, instead of the likes of Eisenhower, Patton, Churchill, etc

[EscherEnigma]

"You dont have to purge the democrats [...]"

It's good you feel that way. Trump does not. He hasn't been shy on this, it seems to be one of the things he actually cares about.

[Kazinski]

I don't think Trump should purge Democrats, but he should purge anyone in the federal government that isn't wholeheartedly implementing his agenda.

He won.

80% of voters in the AP exit poll said they want Substantial Change in how things are run. And that should start with the bureaucracy.

[David Nieporent]

80% of voters in the AP exit poll said they want Substantial Change in how things are run. And that should start with the bureaucracy.

49% of voters in the actual election said that they wanted someone who promised to do the same things as Biden to be president.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski— Do you favor waiting until Congress changes the law to purge career bureaucrats, or do you think Trump should just go ahead and start firing despite the law?

For bonus points, if it’s the latter, what do you think this corruptly partisan Supreme Court will do? I wish I felt safe to predict the Court would vote unanimously to uphold the law.

[Bwaaah]

"80% of voters in the AP exit poll said they want Substantial Change in how things are run."

This reminds me of the useless statement that 90% of the public wants "immigration reform." It implies a false illusion of consensus by avoiding defining the meaning of "reform."

People want substantial change? Some want more government, some want less. And that's just the beginning of ways to slice the differences in "change."

Nieporent games the words too in saying "49% of voters in the actual election said that they wanted someone who promised to do the same things as Biden to be president." That's what she said, but likely not what the people who voted for her want. In fact, voters are quite heterogenous, as are their policy preferences.

When you examine the details, there's no "mandate." There never is. There's just the winner of an election, and a diversity of opinion-holders forced to make a binary choice of candidates.

Also, government employees aren't responsible for "implementing the President's agenda." They're responsible for doing their jobs, as reasonably defined through their chains of command. You don't tell employees what to think; you tell them what to do. (Unless you're *that* kind of a boss.) Insisting on some notion of ideological fidelity, and getting rid of the ones who fail some partisan's litmus test, is a formula for a trashy, unstable, short-lived bureaucracy. You might as well just burn it all down, and either way, the other team will be voted back in soon enough to use your strategy for opposing purposes.

As stated elsewhere here, it's a lot easier to destroy than it is to build. Methods of progress should be envisioned with modesty, only because bolder moves will almost surely be destructive. It's easy to pretend we don't already have a highly optimized bureaucracy that incorporates heterogenous interests into a mainly worthwhile value proposition. Anybody who thinks it's easy to do better is kidding himself.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You have to purge the Democrats from the armed forces"

Its not nothing to do with that. Our military is top heavy with brass. 4 times the ratio than in WW2.

"There are approximately 900 Active-duty general/flag officers (GO/FOs) today of 1.3 million troops. This is a ratio of 1 GO/FO for every 1,400 troops. During World War II, an admittedly different era, there were more than 2,000 GO/FOs for a little more than 12 million Active troops (1:6,000)." Oct. 1, 2017 Are There Too Many General Officers for Today’s Military? By Gregory C. McCarthy

I think its down to around 850 now, still to high. Too many 3 and 4 star generals and admirals as well.

[Mr. Bumble]

See my comment above.
631 general officers (all branches), 44 four stars (all branches).
They cut cut this in half and free up promotions for the lower ranks.

[Joe_dallas]

Just removing the officers supporting DEI and other politically correct stuff such as officers who are planning on fighting the next war caused by climate change would be a vast improvment

[David Nieporent]

Joe_dallas has now expanded his expertise to the military realm.

[Dan Schiavetta]

How do you explain General Milley's description of Trump? Or John Kelly's? We've never seen this happen before -- a President's top advisers saying that he's a fascist, unfit to lead, a danger to our democracy? What do you know that they don't?

[Michael P]

What "fascist" means and what constitutes fitness to lead the US, for a start.

[Frank Drackman]

anyone who's actually served in the military knows that the Generals/Admirals are the biggest cock suckers of all, I'd be more impressed with what a Corporal or Sergeant said.

[Paladin_44]

Worked out pretty well in '30s Germany, didn't it.

[Commenter_XY]

We’ve never seen this happen before — a President’s top advisers saying that he’s a fascist, unfit to lead, a danger to our democracy?

Au contraire...the pamphlets of the Founders time and the things they said about each other were the same as you hear here, and worse. This isn't anything new, your assertion is ahistorical.

[Bwaaah]

Quite correct. Way too much of the political class intersects with the gossip class.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You have to go back to the formation of this country to find another example.

[Commenter_XY]

Sigh, we can go back to the ancient mists of time to 2012, where the Mormon choirboy known as Mitt Romney was characterized as a cross between Attila the Hun, an animal abuser, and a nascent Hitler in waiting.

captcrisis, the election is over. Take a deep breath. The sun rose in the east this morning, and will set in the west this evening.

[bernard11]

Mormon choirboy known as Mitt Romney was characterized as a cross between Attila the Hun, an animal abuser, and a nascent Hitler in waiting.

Cites, please, and not some random city councilman.

[Noscitur a sociis]

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

[Brett Bellmore]

Snopes do it for you?

Did Biden Tell Racially Mixed Audience That Republicans Would 'Put Y'All Back in Chains'?

Rating: "Correct attribution".

Or maybe CSPAN?

Vice President Joe Biden in Danville, Virginia

"The speech was later denounced by Republican leaders for being culturally insensitive toward the deaf, and accusing Republicans of a plan that would put Americans “back in chains.”" 32'30".

[Frank Drackman]

Good point, the whole waiting until January 20 to get rid of the Plutocrats is Bullshit, it's like if the White Sox fire their Manager/GM but let them stick around for 3 months fucking shit up even more.

[Krayt]

The Trump victory puts the American military at the command of America’s plutocracy. What could go wrong?

What does this even mean? My worst fear is abandoning Ukraine, effectively letting the remnants of the Soviet Union complete the beginnings of reconquest of its post-WWII empire.

We don’t even have to get involved on the ground, which is why the “too expensive” fraud was conjured into existence ("Thanks, Gramps!"). Which, by the way, is a grand thing to spend money on, if you’re ranking important things to spend money on.

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

So much copium in the comments today. Did you guys cry and scream at the sky all day yesterday? LOL

[Bwaaah]

Good to see you with your moniker. Looks like a change of the guard is afoot in the "Banana Republic."

Letitia James will be trying to avoid some meeting requests coming in just about now. (The cowards never want to face off against a capable adversary; they depend on being uplifted by, and in front of, like-minded crowds.)

But she'll be questioned by a body behind a teat on which she draws milk. I hope she will quickly shrink down to her fully deflated size. Resistance will only make her humiliation worse.

[Commenter_XY]

This NEVER gets old. 😉

https://youtu.be/wDYNVH0U3cs

[Bwaaah]

"I am so sorry to my world for this."

LOL.
Is she the greatest victim in the world, or God himself? She is both!

That's a lot of hubris and self-importance wrapped up in one "caring" person.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Well, that didn't take long.

Last night's news reported Trump put Elon Musk on a call Trump made to Zelinsky in Ukraine. Musk has business interests he conducts with Russia and China, in ways which are contrary to the present foreign policy of the United States. Trump, of course, is not yet President. And Musk is not an employee of the U.S. government, although like many defense contractors he enjoys a security clearance.

To help Russia win in Ukraine, Musk agreed with Putin to turn off his Starlink Satellite communications system—which Ukraine had been using for combat communications—while leaving it on for Russia. Musk has likewise blacked out Star Link for Taiwan, apparently at the behest of China.

Musk has positioned himself to reap billions from such foreign policy meddling. Enough to make the $120 million he gave to Trump look like pocket change.

I predict the nation will shortly find itself wondering why it does not already have on the books a great many laws it never realized it needed, because such outlandish corruption had never been anticipated.

[Absaroka]

“To help Russia win in Ukraine, Musk agreed with Putin to turn off his Starlink Satellite communications system—which Ukraine had been using for combat communications—while leaving it on for Russia.”

Do you happen to remember your source for that? Because, for example, the NYT is referring to this Axios article as its source about the call, which says:

“Musk also weighed in during the call to say he will continue supporting Ukraine through his Starlink satellites”

And also “while leaving it on for Russia" seems at odds with e.g. this wiki page, which summarizes the efforts to block Russian use of bootleg starlink, e.g.

“On February 19, Ukraine communicated that they had found an algorithm, proposed it to SpaceX and were now working with SpaceX to disable Russian Starlink use.[141]

Russian forces were reported by the Wall Street Journal to still be using Starlink terminals both in Ukraine and abroad in April 2024. The US Department of Defense has been working with Ukraine and SpaceX to curtail Russian use of the network.[142] In May 2024, the Pentagon and SpaceX eventually blocked Russia’s use of Starlink satellites in the Ukrainian War”

[santamonica811]

Let’s try to come to a consensus about what Trump’s grace period should be, in an entirely fair world. (Same for Biden, 4 years ago, and for the next President, in Jan, 2029.) This is not at all a partisan question.)

We all agree that, regardless of what the unemployment level is on Feb 1, 2025, or the interest rate is on that date, or what the crime statistics are, or the number of border crossings; Donald Trump will deserve zero percent of the blame, and zero percent of the credit. Whatever good and/or bad exists will be left over from the Biden presidency. Duh.

But, what is a fair period of time to look at, and say, “From here going forward, it is Trump’s responsibility, for good or for bad.”? Off the top of my head, I would say about 3 months. And maybe 6 months, for unemployment. Maybe something in between those, for border crossings.

But, it also seems logical to give a shorter grace period for some things, and a longer period for others…and perhaps a much longer period for still others.

I’d genuinely like to know what others think. So that, 3 years from now, when we start to examine Trump’s second-term legacy, we all start from a fair baseline. So, if we agree that 3 months is fair regarding crime, then we give Trump no blame at all for a spike that happens before, say, June 1. And, if crime plunges during this same Spring, we give him no credit. We start calculating crime rates starting June 1, 2024 and judge him based on that.

Any thoughts? A rough start time is fine. Even better if you have a start time that differs for different things. (And bonus points if you explain why you think a shorter or longer grace period should be warranted.) Again, this is not partisan…at this point, we don’t know anything about the future, other than that the fed will cut interest rates by an 1/8th or a 1/4th. So, we should be tabula rosa—giving a fair grace period with know advance knowledge of how things will go, and therefore, if giving a shorter or longer grace period will happen to benefit this particular president.

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't think it's entirely accurate to give Biden credit/blame for things up to Feb 1. In areas like the stock markets, which are highly speculative, we already see them reacting to what investors anticipate Trump will do. Of course is also not fair to give Trump full credit, it makes the whole idea much messier.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"We all agree that, regardless of what the unemployment level is on Feb 1, 2025, or the interest rate is on that date, or what the crime statistics are, or the number of border crossings; Donald Trump will deserve zero percent of the blame, and zero percent of the credit."

I disagree. People will change their behavior based on what is about to happen.

We don't live near the border but I can give you two local examples of people changing their behavior based on the Trump victory:

The people who lived downstairs for 12 years, undocumented, are moving to a different place, though their address will still be our house and they will pick up mail here.

My nephew, who is here legally on a visa, is going to get a U.S. driver's license, even though his existing license is valid here.

[Brett Bellmore]

People will change their behavior based on what they ANTICIPATE is about to happen. That you don't like Trump doesn't gift people with the ability to see the future.

[ThePublius]

Exactly. For example, the market reacted already to the Trump win. Biden shouldn't be credited with that.

[Randal]

When people did this to Biden, you spent four long years blaming it on Biden.

[Kazinski]

That's certainly true:

BBC:

BBC

US shares, Bitcoin hit record high and dollar soars on Trump win

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6246e3w935o

[Martinned2]

Matt Levine is always worth reading. From yesterday's newsletter:

More generally, a lot of people in crypto would like clear US rules about what sorts of registration, disclosure and investor protections are required in crypto. The current SEC position seems to be roughly “the rules are clear perfectly, you can’t trade crypto.” This strikes me as (1) a plausible interpretation of the law and (2) not a crazy policy position, but I can see why crypto traders find it frustrating.
And now obviously Donald Trump has promised to be more crypto-friendly, and his SEC can’t possibly be less crypto-friendly than the current one, so the crypto industry is thrilled. The Information reports:
Investment bankers from top Wall Street firms including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have been meeting with crypto executives, according to industry participants, hoping to get a foot in the door for lucrative initial public offerings that crypto companies might pursue after the election.
The new enthusiasm reflects optimism that improving market and regulatory conditions after a Donald Trump victory in the U.S. presidential election could clear a way for companies like Kraken, Fireblocks and Chainalysis to go public. Bankers’ interest in meetings is also a shift from much of the past two years, when many investment banks saw crypto companies as too risky to do business with, advisers say.

I have two questions here. One is: What will crypto regulation look like under Donald Trump? There are two main possibilities:

1. Someone — Congress, the SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, some new crypto regulator, Donald Trump by executive order, etc. — writes new disclosure and investor protection rules tailored to crypto, with public notice and comment and some input from the crypto industry. And the result is that there is a path to registration for crypto token issuers, exchanges and brokers, and that path does protect investors and give them useful disclosure, and being a US-registered project/exchange/broker is helpful for raising capital. Basically the US government does to crypto what it did to the stock market in the 1930s: Impose requirements that are somewhat costly and restrictive, but that increase investor confidence in the market and so allow it to grow and become more institutional.

2. Nobody will do that, but the SEC will stop trying to enforce securities laws against crypto, and everyone will be able to do whatever they want? That is sort of the simplest outcome: It is hard for the SEC or CFTC or Congress to write new rules for crypto, but pretty easy for the SEC to just stop bringing cases. And while a lot of people in crypto probably do want clear rules for market-confidence and/or incumbent-protection reasons, others don’t. Because, uh, part of the case for crypto sometimes is “this is a way to raise money from investors for dubious projects without any regulation”? Here it is worth noting that Donald Trump himself has some involvement with a crypto project called World Liberty Financial that is, uh, I mean, it’s not Coinbase, you know?

[windycityattorney]

You hint at it but here let me do it:

3. Donald Trump creates his own crypto coin and uses his position and immunity to enrich himself.

If he does 3, then perhaps the others will ride his coattails.

[Martinned2]

He already has his own crypto coin, sort of. (Enough of one that he can enrich himself as much as he ever could in this area.) That's Levine's 2.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't believe in grace periods for presidents, so 0 (zero). Why?

When you take the oath, you're the President. For good or ill, you own whatever happens on your watch. You have 47 months, or roughly 1,410 days to achieve your stated policy objectives. That's it.

BTW, we don't get grace periods in private industry. Why should he?

[Lee Moore]

Of course there are grace periods in private industry. As soon as a new CEO is appointed, the next results include an eye watering write off of failed projects and losses, plus a large extra write off for good measure to allow the CEO to pad future earnings.

The market understands that the eye watering write off is an official “not my fault” beginners mulligan by the new CEO.

[Commenter_XY]

With respect, I see this very differently. Maybe it is definitional.

Term Definition: A grace period is a time where you were expected to produce something, but did not. And we 'hand wave away' consequence for inaction, and call it 'understanding'.

A POTUS doesn't get a grace period, period (pun intended). And for damned sure doesn't get a mulligan, geopolitically. You can't shank your foreign policy shot as POTUS. 😉

[Bwaaah]

My definition of a grace period: a time when you are *not* expected to produce something in a job because you are being given leeway to establish your startup legs. I also call it a "honeymoon" period.

But in general, I kind of like your unforgiving attitude toward the President. In the serious game of life, there are no do-overs.

[Commenter_XY]

There is no honeymoon period for the POTUS. Nor should there be.

[bernard11]

As soon as a new CEO is appointed, the next results include an eye watering write off of failed projects and losses, plus a large extra write off for good measure to allow the CEO to pad future earnings.

Yes. Quite common. A similar thing sometimes happens when the firm has a bad quarter. They try to throw a lot of extra crap in, because it's not going to make things worse, and will help going forward.

This is sometimes called the "Big Bath" strategy.

[Kazinski]

I think there should be some grace period, Obama definitely deserved one coming in at the early stages of a big mess.

it took Reagan 2 years to start turning things arround, they needed to raise rates and reduce the money supply after almost 10 years of out of control.inflation.

[Martinned2]

Reagan turning things around involved sitting back and watching Carter's decisions pay off, most notably the decision to appoint Paul Volcker as Fed President.

[Frank Drackman]

The pig finds a Truffle, yes, Volcker was great.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Martinned2:

Indeed.

[bernard11]

Exactly, Martinned.

Reagan didn't raise any rates.

[Jmaie]

Was it Carter’s good decisions that led to a recession in the summer of 1981, or was that Reagan’s fault?

[bernard11]

The recession was a consequence of Volcker's rate increases to fight drastic inflation.

If you want to blame Carter for the recession you also have to give him credit for Volcker's anti-inflation policy.

[Jmaie]

Do you really believe that a functional economy can be moved to recession within a few months? I do agree Volker's rate increases were possibly too aggressive, although it's hard to be too judgmental - at the time the rates on first mortgages were in the double digit range and second mortgages rates were like buying a house on your credit card. Fed action is a slow game and it's always difficult to judge at the time. But that has nada to do with either Carter or Reagan. the Fed is independent, right?

To be clear, I am not blaming Carter for the recession, I've always believed that presidents get unearned blame and credit for economic performance. I was responding to Martinned's (nonsensical) attempt to say R=bad D=good.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've always believed that Presidents have very little capacity to improve things, and that only gradually, but they have vast capacity to make things worse, and rapidly. Breaking things is far easier than building them.

[santamonica811]

I think that this is, unfortunately, true.

[Martinned2]

I was responding to Martinned’s (nonsensical) attempt to say R=bad D=good.

Wait, what? When, where, how did I say that?

The US has had many excellent Republican presidents. Not this century, but before that definitely. And even this century it's had a presidential nominee that I would have happily voted for if I'd been a US citizen.

[bernard11]

Do you really believe that a functional economy can be moved to recession within a few months?

Well, I don't know. Depends on definitions, I think. Per capita GDP grew through the late 70's, hit a bump in 1980, recovered slightly, and then declined over the next year+ from late 1981 to late 1982. Unemployment also hit a peak at the end of 1982. (This link is kind of interesting.)

As to who is to blame or credit, I agree that the President' influence is often overstated, but it was Carter who appointed Volcker, knowing he was eliminating "slim" from the set of chances he had to be elected.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, you might think that, and I might think that, but the American electorate is notoriously fickle, and they don't vote that way. They vote their present circumstance (completely understandable) and that means no grace period.

I am fine with that (no grace period). The job of POTUS requires flexibility and pragmatism; to get a solution.

If you don't want that kind of job, don't run for it.

[Kazinski]

Well the real answer is he has a two year grace period to keep his majority, assuming the GOP takes the House.

And 4 years to finish his last term, and make a case for JD Vance.

[ducksalad]

Wasn't he bragging about being a fry cook at McDonald's? The grace period for a new fry cook starting his shift is about 120 seconds.

[Krayt]

Whatever else, and whether this is "presidential" or not, he certainly knows how to push peoples' butons.

"She worked at a McDonald's? I can work at a McDonald's."

Left talking head response: (Angry-Crying-Wojak.jpg)

[Martinned2]

Who's pushing whose buttons in that scenario? Biden managed to get Trump to dress in a garbage bag and refer to himself as garbage. Who pwned who there?

[Brett Bellmore]

By definition, the guy who got elected did the 'pwn'ing.

[Martinned2]

Please go ahead and show me where it says that in the definition: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwned

[Liberty and Justice for All]

Great comment that raises an interesting and fair question that we should be talking about. Thank you for making me consider an interesting question I'd never really thought about explicitly before. You are dead right that, no matter the president, they inherit a number of things from their predecessor and, no matter how quickly they act, it takes some time for policies to take effect and for us to see their results. Thus, some form of a grace period is in order. As to how long the grace period should be, I also agree that it entirely depends on the thing you're measuring (e.g., the "no new wars" part will take 4 years to know for sure, but the "settling the Russia-Ukraine conflict" might take 6 months).

I think your estimates are a bit on the short side for the economic issues and, at least at first blush, I think that the most accurate answer to "when can we say whether Trump's policies were effective?" is not going to be timeframe you're going to like.

I will explain with an example: inflation. What caused the skyrocketing inflation that has plagued the last few years of the Biden admin and for which he's received significant blame? In my opinion, it was multi-factorial, and I think Biden has been unfairly blamed in some respects for the inflation under his administration, and in others the blame sits squarely with him and his administration/party's policies. At this point, I think we can pretty solidly say that inflation can be caused by government overspending and money printing. When the government passes a policy that blows out the spending and the Fed prints billions or trillions of dollars to pay for it and floods the economy with this freshly printed money, the increase in the total supply of money makes each unit less valuable, devaluing the currency, raising prices, and causing inflation. This is simple and backed by mountains of historical evidence (see Weimar Germany post WWII, Zimbabwe, the US pre-Reagan, etc). In the case of the Biden administration inflation, there was a significant amount of inflation caused by (1) the insane COVID spending which started as a bipartisan measure under TRUMP (i.e., Trump's admin bears some of the blame), then continued under Biden once the economy had already recovered and the COVID lockdowns were waning (which had an even worse effect imo); (2) multiple large spending bills like the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act" (which literally did the opposite and blew out the spending big time), CHIPS and Science Act, etc.

There's another factor to inflation as well. We calculate inflation using something called CPI, or the Consumer Price Index, which looks at market prices for a theoretical "basket of goods" that remains relatively constant over time. Things in the "CPI Basket" include things from gasoline and eggs to transportation and housing, and they're assigned different weights to balance against their relative importance (there's a lot of fighting over what goods go in and what weight they're given but that's a discussion for another time). The purpose of the CPI basket is both (1) to have a consistent baseline set of prices to track over time so we can make comparisons; (2) to have a representative sample of the various items people spend money on that realistically estimates the overall movement of prices in the economy. The fact that we use a "basket" of goods also comes with the added benefit that price spikes on certain individual items (e.g., if a chicken disease wipes out half of the egg-producing chicken population and causes egg prices to skyrocket) don't affect CPI much, and I believe that in the event of a price spike for a certain good due to a unique event, that good can be swapped out for a substitute to prevent the CPI from being skewed.

A chunk of the inflation we saw under Biden was caused by supply chain issues that occurred during the COVID disruption. The disruption in shipping and decrease in availability caused shipping prices to skyrocket and, shocker, increased the prices of many of the goods included in CPI. The supply chain issues continued for years after the initial COVID disruption. What degree of fault Biden bears for this and what level of control he had is questionable, but what's not questionable is that this contributed significantly to the inflation we saw under Biden.

So with inflation, we see that there are multiple factors, some of which could be blamed on Biden, some of which were holdovers from the Trump administration, and others of which appear to be somewhat out of the control of either Biden or Trump. Additionally, the inflationary effects of some of the Trump-era spending policies did not take effect until YEARS after the fact (inflationary effects usually take some time to be seen).

At the same time, Biden definitely made some mistakes when it came to handling the inflation once it started, but it's hard to judge at what time we could've made the criticisms. How long of a grace period should we have given Biden before determining that his admin's statements that inflation was "transitory" were bullshit? What about for putting pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates low for months and years to avoid a potential recession and help his election chances, rather than taking immediate action to slow inflation before it went out of control? What about for his energy policies which increased the price of fossil fuels and raised the prices of all goods (due to transport costs being a large part of the price of most goods)? And lastly, when was it right to say "Modern Monetary Theory's proposal that printing and spending a bunch of money doesn't cause inflation," a theory that the Biden admin adopted hook, line, and sinker, is a crock of shit?

Unfortunately, I think the answer to the "grace period" question is that most of the questions about whether a policy worked or didn't can only be answered in hindsight, years after the fact, with plenty of data to look back on. In other words, we likely won't know how good or bad Trump really was until after he's left office in 2028. I think the reason why Trump won this time was that, with 4 years of Biden and the effects of his policies to look back on, Trump's policies no longer seemed as shitty as they did at the time to many people. What at the time seemed like chaos actually turned out to be pretty solid compared to Biden's economy.

I think at a minimum it will take at least a year to see the effects of many of the policies Trump implements on the day he gets into office. And it may be that by the time we're able to look back and say "hey, wait a minute, this wasn't a good idea," the policy will have already changed to something else. Presidents really can only be judged as good or bad with the benefit of years of hindsight and dust settling. Many today look back on the presidencies of Reagan or Lincoln with awe and admiration, but at the time they were in office, I promise you that most people didn't see them as they're seen today (Reagan was seen as relatively chaotic, Lincoln was seen as a tyrant by many for how he handled the Civil War and things he did to win his 2nd term, only now do we consider him a hero).

[Bwaaah]

Excellent, sound analysis. Unfortunately, the periodicity of macroeconomic movement such as inflation is measured in years, while the periodicity of popular discourse about it is measured in hours and days. This is to say that political discussions about inflation are noisy and distorted by news and partisan motivations (and all kinds of other stuff), unlike your analysis which I think is quite correct.

And, yeah, the good old days never really were, except in the rearview mirror.

Anyway, you're way too realistic to be any fun. (lol) Much appreciated.

[EscherEnigma]

I remember when a poll came out showing that some 30% of Republicans in Louisiana blamed Obama for the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina. [link]

So I have to beg pardon, but regardless of how Americans "should" give credit/blame, they're going to do what they want.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's hardly news that most people, when asked questions by a pollster, are somewhat reluctant to answer "I dono." and just make shit up. If you ask them for their opinion about a topic they haven't thought about, or don't care about, they'll make up an opinion on the spot, one they think you're expecting. One of the reasons you shouldn't take polls too seriously unless they're being very careful to control for this.

Hm, maybe I've been unfair to LLMs? Could be they better approximate human intelligence than I've been inclined to admit...

The thing is, this is a problem across the political spectrum, it's hardly confined to the right. Unless you ask somebody on the left, of course.

[Kenneth Almquist]

One approach is to go by fiscal years, meaning that the grace period ends on October 1 of the year that the President takes office.

A big reason for this approach is that the U.S. government publishes lots of data about each fiscal year, but very little about Presidential terms. For example, you cannot find out how much money the Federal government spent while Obama was in office (that is, how much the government spent between Jan. 20, 2009 and Jan. 19, 2017), but detailed spending information for the eight fiscal years that began while Obama was President.

Another reason is that when a President takes office, the government is operating under a budget passed by his predecessor. That budget is not fixed in stone; the incoming President can try to get Congress to make changes to it that affect money not yet spent. However, the incoming President is better positioned to make changes that take effect in the next fiscal year.

The downside of this approach results in a grace period of a bit more than eight months. This is reasonable for stuff involving Congress, but way too long for issues that the President can address via executive order on day one.

[Brett Bellmore]

" when a President takes office, the government is operating under a budget passed by his predecessor."

Technically, budgets are passed by Congress, not the President. If there's a budget at all, which lately there hasn't been. The amount of leverage Presidents have over this process is fairly limited even with a Congress of their own party, and they're legally obligated to spend appropriated money whether they think it's a good idea or not.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will NG be attending Jack Smith's retirement party?

[Martinned2]

Are you suddenly in favour of politicising prosecution decisions?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ask the Biden DOJ. It is being reported that it was their decision to wind this down.

[Kazinski]

I predict Merchan will declare a mistrial for Trump's NY hush money trial next week when he is going to rule on the immunity motion.

He needs some way to wrap it up, and there is no way Trump is going to jail now.

[not guilty]

A declaration of mistrial would vacate the convictions but would leave the original indictment in place, subject to being retried.

I would think that one of the options available to Justice Merchan would be to pronounce sentence on November 26, but stay execution of the judgment until such time as Donald Trump leaves office as president.

[John F. Carr]

I think the best option is to sentence Trump to only a fine, possibly unsupervised probation if available, with a statement on the record that the court does not want to interfere with the duties of the president. If the prosecutor really wants more he can appeal claiming the judge considered an illegal sentencing factor. Personally, I think Trump's status as president-elect is a legitimate factor to consider.

If the judge sentences Trump to supervised probation or prison I expect the U.S. Supreme Court will free him for the duration of his presidency.

[Commenter_XY]

What do you assess as the likelihood of that scenario happening = ...sentence Trump to only a fine, possibly unsupervised probation if available, with a statement on the record that the court does not want to interfere with the duties of the president.

[David Nieporent]

An 80-year old first time non-violent offender — especially one without sympathetic victims — was never going to get jail time in the first place.

[Commenter_XY]

NG posited a mistrial declaration is another path. Is it?

And would NY/NYC retry it?

What do you think?

[David Nieporent]

I do not think there will be a mistrial; I 100% guarantee there will be no retrial if there is. (Even if Trump's response to another prosecution weren't merely a middle finger and "You can't make me," no way SCOTUS would let it take place during Trump's presidency. And after Trump's presidency it would be far too distant in the past.)

[not guilty]

No, I suggested a mistrial would be problematic, because it would not be a final disposition of the case.

I think that the judge should pronounce sentence on November 26 but stay execution of the judgment until Trump leaves office as president. I surmise that that would result in an appealable final order.

A direct appeal from a state criminal conviction would not disrupt the functioning of the presidency -- the record is frozen, and the appeal would raise legal issues which could be determined from the extant record. Lots of work for counsel, but little input from the defendant-appellant would be necessary.

Probation is the norm for a defendant without prior criminal history for a low grade non-violent felony, but Donald Trump's refusal to accept responsibility is problematic. As is his having committed ten acts of criminal contempt while on bond. Trump is a scofflaw, not amenable to rehabilitation, for whom a sentence of confinement would be (eventually) appropriate.

[Commenter_XY]

Is it really a 'not final disposition', though, NG?

Pragmatically, Pres '47' will be 82 years young when he exits the stage in 2029. Don't advanced age and other factors play into the decision to retry?

David suggests a mistrial declaration effectively kills this prosecution. I am not betting against him on this question.

To me, a mistrial declaration makes this entire episode akin to a huge middle finger from NY/NYC to a billionaire they really don't like.

[Drewski]

"Is it really a ‘not final disposition’, though, NG?"

What an odd question on a law blog. Of course a mistrial is not final. It isn't opposite day.

I seriously don't see how you've spent this much time at the blog without reading the many, many posts that lay out what finality is and what it means. The only explanations I can come up with are that you've recently suffered massive brain trauma, are descending into senility, or have been commenting all day, often hundreds of times per day, without ever reading the posts.

[Bwaaah]

I think C_XY was using the term “final disposition” in a practical sense, not a strictly legal sense. It seems pretty easy to theorize that that’s what he meant, and even though you may have misunderstood him, I don’t think you “recently suffered massive brain trauma, are descending into senility.”

[Randal]

I don't see why a mistrial is any more appealing (to the Judge) than a context-sensitive sentence. All sentences are context-sensitive. Whether that means a deferred sentence (unlikely IMO), a quick stint of some sort of probation designed to end before Jan 20 (wild), or just a fine (my bet), Merchan knows that the most important thing is the conviction anyway. He'll pick a sentence with the highest likelihood of making the conviction stick. Definitely not a mistrial. (Also definitely not jail, deferred or otherwise. That was never in the cards.)

[Bored Lawyer]

You write as if this were an ordinary prosecution. As the target in a political prosecution, Trump was always facing jail time.

Thought experiment: if Trump had not run for president and retired to Mar-A-Lago, would there have been this NY criminal case against him?

[Armchair]

Of course not.

[Bwaaah]

Surely not. The juice couldn't possibly be worth the squeeze.

[Randal]

Probably not, but that doesn’t make it a political prosecution, it makes it a high-profile prosecution. Ever heard of “laying low?” Running for president is the opposite of that.

[Riva]

Well Randal, I guess when prosecutors campaign for office on the promise to “get Trump,” the less enlightened among us might tend to confuse their prosecutions as political.

[Randal]

Once again, you're making stuff up to get angry about. Nobody did that.

[David Nieporent]

I guess when prosecutors campaign for office on the promise to “get Trump,”

Bot not familiar with how quotation marks work.

[Riva]

Well David, it seems you know as little about grammar as you do the law. Quotations have uses other than directly relating dialogue. And Randal, the fat slob Bragg and also fat Letitia James both campaigned on prosecuting President Trump. With James it was quite blatant. Why you progressive slugs always so fat?

[Riva]

I will concede though that you are tenacious liars. But it doesn't matter anymore. A reckoning is coming. And then justice. That would be justice without quotation marks David, as one would use for whatever Smith was misusing constitutional authority for.

[David Nieporent]

Well David, it seems you know as little about grammar as you do the law. Quotations have uses other than directly relating dialogue. And Randal, the fat slob Bragg and also fat Letitia James both campaigned on prosecuting President Trump. With James it was quite blatant. Why you progressive slugs always so fat?

Your programmers should work on your insult subroutine, because (a) "You're fat" is kind of elementary school level; and (b) Donald Trump is fatter, so it's sort of a weird attack line.

In any case, Bragg did not in fact campaign on prosecuting Donald Trump, and James could not have done so even if she wanted because the NY AG doesn't prosecute people.

[Riva]

Whatever you say crazy Dave. She certainly campaigned on “getting Trump.” And she lived up to that promise with her meritless fraud case. And you’re just engaging in more BS gaslighting regarding that fat slob Bragg, who is going to have his fat little hands full trying to justify his lawfare. It’s going to be amusing having fats explain away Colangelo. And where’s your alter ego Sarcastr0? Make sure he posts a photo of his anguished cry after President Trump takes his oath. You too if you want my bat shit crazy friend.

[Riva]

Yeah, not like he prayed before an abortion clinic. If that happens though, Katy bar the door.

[Frank Drackman]

The "no association with known felons" is going to be tough, on the other hand, it'll get him out of that whole boring "State of the Union" charade.

[Jmaie]

No association, does that mean he has to stay 1000' away from himslef at all times?

[Kazinski]

He really has to address the elephant in the room, Hope Hicks testimony should not have been allowed. Trumps.lawyers objected at the time, Merchan wouldn't even even address the issue, and then the Supreme Court ruled there was absolute immunity about communications with presidential subordinates.

And there is no argument that Hicks testimony was harmless error, all the trial coverage emphasized it. The prosecution cited it prominently in their closing argument.

For Merchan to pretend he can proceed seems to me to be judicial malpractice.

I think you know it too.

[David Nieporent]

Hope Hicks testimony should not have been allowed.

Of course it should have, as (a) presidential immunity for official acts is something that is completely made up; (b) inadmissibility of some evidence related to official acts is doubly made up; (c) Hicks' testimony didn't relate to his official acts anyway; (d) even if it did, it was about stuff that would not unduly interfere with the president's authority, which was SCOTUS's test; and (e) it was in fact harmless error even if it was inadmissible.

[Riva]

Stop with the nonsense already. I guess you didn’t get the memo. Your lawfare is over. Democrats will have to find another way to destroy the republic.

[Kazinski]

Good job telling me you didn’t read the Immunity decision without telling me you didn’t read the decision.

Well unless you are just ignoring it, which you are entitled to do, but Merchan, and Bragg are not.

The court said that the Presidents conversations with subordinates are official acts, that are presumptively immune. And that even using those conversations only to establish motive for other acts which are not immune was forbidden.

Hope Hicks testimony pertained to her conversations with Trump when she was Whitehouse Communications director, so any conversation she had with Trump was an official act, and prosecutors should not have been allowed to even call her to the stand, let alone question her about conversations with the president.

As for “harmless error”, this is how former prosecutor Andrew Weissman characterized it:

“Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann weighed in on Hope Hicks’ “devastating” testimony Friday after the ex-Donald Trump spokesperson broke down in tears during the presidential candidate’s hush money trial in New York.

And I also thought about how her crying was kind of icing on the cake for the DA’s office,” Weissmann said.

“I’m not in any way suggesting that they sought it, but her testimony was a body blow to the defense here because she put the guilty knowledge of the hush money payments into Donald Trump’s mouth, and she recounted that testimony to the jurors.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/former-prosecutor-andrew-weissmann-trump-hope-hicks-testimony_n_6635cfb3e4b0dfe17c0a844d

Come on, try to separate your rooting for a corrupt verdict against Trump, and your undoubted expertise in applying an on point Supreme Court decision to the trial proceedings.

[Riva]

I'm sure David thinks reading the syllabus qualifies as reading the decision. And I doubt he even read the syllabus. He probably just skimmed through some editorial in the NY Times or Wash Post.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Hope Hicks testimony pertained to her conversations with Trump when she was Whitehouse Communications director, so any conversation she had with Trump was an official act, and prosecutors should not have been allowed to even call her to the stand, let alone question her about conversations with the president."

That isn't how that stuff works, which you would know if you'd learned anything during your time here.

[Commenter_XY]

Which one of these is you, Jason? 🙂

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/11/leftist-women-absolutely-lose-it-after-donald-trumps-election-victory/

I thought this one was you.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854485221384568889

[Bwaaah]

LOL.

"Does my hair look good for crying? I don't want it to look too in place, or too messy. Does anybody have a mirror? I'm SO upset. Like me. Follow me."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

C_XY,

Did you have something relevant to say? No?
Did you have something intelligent to say? No?

Yet you commented anyway. Why should today be any different than any of the other retarded shit you say?

Here's you, btw. I think the irony is appropriate.

https://images.theconversation.com/files/193819/original/file-20171108-14177-a1lv3m.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1356&h=668&fit=crop

[Bwaaah]

As Jason Cavanagh commented below: “Don’t you have a Russian dick to be sucking, Nico? Sorry, I meant to ask if you could just go blow Putin in private, instead of doing it here.”

You’re low-hangin’ fruit, Jason. Hurtin’ like an emotional little girl, and low-hangin’ fruit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bwaah,

What did you contribute to this thread?

I engaged with Kazinski's stupidity in thinking that, because Hicks was WH Communications director, that all conversations with her were therefore official business.

You've been your usual fuckwad self, nothing more. Be grateful that you're allowed to have your ignorance unspoiled by reality, and that you are safe behind your pseudonym to be the cowardly shithead you were destined to be.

[David Nieporent]

The court said that the Presidents conversations with subordinates are official acts,

It did not.

that are presumptively immune.

…and of course presumptions can be overcome anyway, something you don't seem to realize.

Hope Hicks testimony pertained to her conversations with Trump when she was Whitehouse Communications director,

Most of her testimony pertained to conversations with Trump before he was elected.

[Kazinski]

First of all you have an important factual error, Hope Hicks testimony was about conversations she had with Trump in 2018, when she was Whitehouse Communications director, about events from before his presidency.

He was paying the hush money in 2016 to keep it quiet, so he wouldn't have to have conversations with people like Hicks about it. When it became public in Jan 2018 is when he discussed Stormy Daniels payoff and his motives with Hicks.

From the syllabus:

“Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual.”

“Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

Trumps official relationship with Hope Hicks makes their conversation an official act, discussing the daily communication strategy and the issues she would likely have to address. The conversation was an official conversation between the President and a subordinate within the context of their duties.

As Sotomayor neatly summarizes the majority: “The main takeaway of today’s decision is that all of a
President’s official acts, defined without regard to motive or intent, are entitled to immunity that is “at least . . . presumptive,” and quite possibly “absolute.”

The question isn’t even close.

[Kazinski]

From Politico:

Hope Hicks testified that Trump told her about a conversation he had with Cohen in mid-February 2018. It was the morning after Cohen had told The New York Times that he had paid the $130,000 to Stormy Daniels without Trump’s knowledge, Hicks recalled.

“Mr. Trump was saying he had spoken to Michael and that Michael had paid this woman to protect him from a false allegation. And that Michael felt like it was his job to protect him and that that’s what he was doing. And he did it out of the kindness of his own heart and he never told anybody about it.”

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/03/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/trumps-claim-of-cohens-kindness-00156072

[David Nieporent]

First of all you have an important factual error, Hope Hicks testimony was about conversations she had with Trump in 2018, when she was Whitehouse Communications director, about events from before his presidency.

He was paying the hush money in 2016 to keep it quiet, so he wouldn’t have to have conversations with people like Hicks about it. When it became public in Jan 2018 is when he discussed Stormy Daniels payoff and his motives with Hicks.

No. Much of her testimony was about her conversation with him in 2016 about the Access Hollywood tape, and other statements during the campaign. She also testified about conversations she had with people other than Trump. None of that, obviously, is remotely implicated by SCOTUS's ruling, and therefore your contention that she should have been entirely precluded from testifying has no merit.

But you are also mistaken about the substance of SCOTUS's ruling, which did not hold that all testimony about conversations with other government officials was inadmissible. (Indeed, SCOTUS expressly noted that because Trump's conversations with Pence about certifying the vote did not relate to Trump's duties, those conversations might not be covered by the ruling and the trial court needed to sort that out.)

What SCOTUS said was that if Trump had a conversation relating to his official duties, it couldn't be introduced. So his attempt to use Jeffrey Clark to overturn the election was a conversation between Trump and a DOJ official relating to potential actions that the DOJ might take to challenge the election, and supervising the DOJ's actions is related to the president's official duties.

But a conversation with Hicks about what Trump did in 2016 — even if the conversation was held in 2018 — obviously was not about his official acts.

[Riva]

Bragg’s case has Biden DOJ lawfare fingerprints all over it. The House is already looking into Colangelo. The judge is grossly conflicted. The trial is overflowing with due process violations, not to mention the presidential immunity concerns. I’m sure they’ll seize any opportunity to get rid of this steaming pile of lawfare crap.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He should, using the standard factors like lack of repentance and behavior during the trial, throw the book at Trump, and let the appellate judges do the cowardly political thing.

There's no precedent for the idea that his sentence should be stayed. It's been the tradition not to indict a sitting President, but that's not the situation here.

[John F. Carr]

The problem is a state judge would be interfering with the duties of the president. There is no precedent that I know of on this point. Subjecting the president to a civil trial is much different from putting him in prison. I predict the U.S. Supreme Court would set Trump free.

[Mr. Bumble]

The problem is a state AG whose stated goal was to get Trump as an election promise.

[David Nieporent]

Why would that be a problem, given that the state AG is not part of this case?

[Martinned2]

Just putting it out there: In a sane country a politician who is sentenced to prison would resign from office. But I guess that's not an option that anyone in the US would even consider.

[Joe_dallas]

In a sane world, there would have been no prosecution for a non crime

[Martinned2]

Your beef is with the statute book. That's what defines what is and isn't a crime. If you don't like it, repeal the criminal statute in question.

[Joe_dallas]

My beef is
1) the 34 counts had 8-10 counts which were duplications of the same action
2) the 34 counts included 10-12 actions committed by others
3) 2-3 of the counts were for actions that were correct and would have been fraud if not performed.
4) in order to convert the misdomeanor to a felony, those actions had to be infurtherance of another crime. There was little or no evidence that was presented that another crime was actually committed. the jury instructions basically only required the jury to assume another crime was committed.

[David Nieporent]

My beef is that you pretend to be a SME when you're actually an internet blowhard who doesn't know anything about anything except possibly GAAP. Everything you said there is wrong, and not just wrong, but legally laughable. You don't know the facts of the case and you don't understand the law.

No, they did not have to be in furtherance of another crime, no other crime needed to have actually been committed, and no jury instruction told them to assume that such a crime had been committed.

[Joe_dallas]

DN -
"No, they did not have to be in furtherance of another crime, no other crime needed to have actually been committed, "

You are completely wrong on that statement - you are an attorney and should know better than to flat out lie.

As previously stated, the falsified document charge is a misdmeanor and in order to convert to a felony it had to be in furtherunce of another crime. The 2 year statute of limitations had expired on the misdomeanor

[Joe_dallas]

DN - is quite telling of your intentional lie that you omitted my specific reference to what was required for the crime to be a felony.

[David Nieporent]

in order to convert to a felony it had to be in furtherunce of another crime.

That is incorrect. It is a dilettante's misunderstanding of how the law works.

[Joe_dallas]

175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

DN – you were wrong 3 times – unless you consider the term furtherunce instead of intent to be anything other than trivial.

It is also quite telling of your dishonesty with your intentional truncated my full statement, it complete changes the context

[Kenneth Almquist]

As I recall, the prosecution’s theory was that Trump falsified business records with the intent to conceal the commission of a violation of New York election law section 17-152. Under the statute you quote, falsifying business records with the intent to further another crime meets the standard for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, but so does falsifying business records with the intent to conceal the commission of another crime.

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, intent to further another crime is indeed different from commission of another crime. The other crime need not actually occur.

[Joe_dallas]

Kenneth Almquist 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
As I recall, the prosecution’s theory was that Trump falsified business records with the intent to conceal the commission of a violation of New York election law section 17-152.

Ken - go back to my original comment -
The 34 counts include several duplications, several counts against trump for acts committed by others and 2-3 counts for which were required to be performed. the actual number of counts should have been a max of 10-12.
The second point is there is a 2 year statute of limitations on a misdemeanor. The felony has a 4 year statute. Basic requirement is that the prosecution has to prove all the elements of a crime. one of the elements is that it has to be in the commission of another crime or furtherunce/intent to commit another crime. While the jury instructions did not use the term "assume" there was another crime, cutting through the rhetoric/legalese , that was the implication in the jury instructions,

[David Nieporent]

DN – you were wrong 3 times – unless you consider the term furtherunce instead of intent to be anything other than trivial.

I consider the term "furtherunce" to be misspelled repeatedly, and yes, it is entirely different. The extra element of the crime with which Trump was charged and convicted is intent. That is the mens rea — you can look up the term — which turns a misdemeanor into a felony. It is not about the act of committing some other crime.

[David Nieporent]

Ken – go back to my original comment –
The 34 counts include several duplications, several counts against trump for acts committed by others and 2-3 counts for which were required to be performed. the actual number of counts should have been a max of 10-12.

Why would you want him to go back to something that is utterly and completely wrong? Every word is wrong. There were no duplications, no "acts committed by others" — except to the extent you mean that he caused certain records to be falsified rather than putting pen to paper himself, in which case, duh; that's routine in criminal law — and no acts "which were required to be performed." No law requires someone to enter false information in a company's books.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I took another look at the jury instructions, which are here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

Basic requirement is that the prosecution has to prove all the elements of a crime. one of the elements is that it has to be in the commission of another crime or furtherunce/intent to commit another crime. While the jury instructions did not use the term “assume” there was another crime, cutting through the rhetoric/legalese, that was the implication in the jury instructions,

It’s pretty clear that you haven’t read the jury instructions; otherwise you wouldn’t be misstating the law so badly. The jury instructions are quite clear that the prosecution has to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt:

Therefore, in this case, from the facts you find to have been proven, decide whether you can infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent required for the commission of this crime

The jury cannot assume that there was another crime. To convict, they have to determine that intent can be inferred from proven facts, not assumptions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Judges and prosecutors should get a veto over who is President? That doesn't sound very sane.

[Martinned2]

If the President commits a crime, and is found guilty of doing so by a jury of his peers, he should resign in disgrace. If that concept confuses you, I really don't know how to help you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

President Clinton committed a very similar crime, and but for the decisions of a couple of bureaucrats he could very well have been prosecuted.

Why should Leticia James get veto power over who the people are allowed to elect?

[David Nieporent]

Why should Leticia James get veto power over who the people are allowed to elect?

Sigh. For the hundredth time, Letitia James did not prosecute Trump. She's the state AG.

[TwelveInchPianist]

My bad, all bureaucrats look alike to me.

The larger point stands.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Sigh. For the hundredth time, Letitia James did not prosecute Trump. She’s the state AG."

She is the NY AG whose office prosecuted the civil case. TIP comment remains valid in spite of the difference between her involvement in the civil case and Braggs prosecution of the criminal case

[Kazinski]

Well that’s still under dispute isn’t it? Bragg’s case depends on a novel interpretation of federal law that the FEC and DOJ both have decided is unsupported.

Well I think it is, did Bragg ever definitively say what the underlying crime he thought Trump.was trying to commit was? I'm not sure.

[David Nieporent]

Well that’s still under dispute isn’t it? Bragg’s case depends on a novel interpretation of federal law that the FEC and DOJ both have decided is unsupported.

That is, of course, wrong. DOJ sent Michael Cohen to prison based on that interpretation.

Well I think it is, did Bragg ever definitively say what the underlying crime he thought Trump.was trying to commit was? I’m not sure.

You're still making the same talking point mistake. Several possible (what you call) "underlying crimes" were indeed specified, but it's intent, not attempt, that's the element of the offense.

[William of Brooklyn]

It's not merely a "tradition;" no authority exists for the prosecution of a sitting president, as he would be prosecuting himself.

[Martinned2]

Not unless the president is "the United States", which (at least for now) he's not. The president is not the King, and he's not the one doing the prosecuting.

[David Nieporent]

Well, the president isn't the country, but he's the one in charge of prosecuting people on behalf of the country, so he would be prosecuting himself.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned2 seems to be suffering from the effects of bad booze.

[Martinned2]

If only there was some way to take prosecution decisions without involving the President...

[TwelveInchPianist]

Like a king?

[Bwaaah]

A ruling People's Party?

[William of Brooklyn]

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." There is NO other source of the Executive power, so...

[Martinned2]

Oh, if it's being reported it must be true.

[Frank Drackman]

What a burn

[John F. Carr]

Jack Smith might simply go back to his old job chasing war criminals who can't claim presidential immunity.

[Armchair]

Maybe he can try to extradite Putin from Russia.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm waiting for his indictment.

[not guilty]

An indictment for violating what statute(s), Dr. Ed 2, and supported by what facts? Please be specific.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm sure some one will find 34 bullshit felonies to charge him with, try him before a jury of his peers in Mena Arkansas or Waco.

[not guilty]

What offense(s) do you claim that Jack Smith committed in the federal judicial districts including Mena Arkansas or Waco?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm sure they'll come up with something

[Michael P]

Criminal defendants are not entitled to advance notice of charges against them before indictments are filed and law enforcement has the opportunity to execute search warrants to secure evidence of the crimes.

[not guilty]

Uh, the issuance of a search warrant requires probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found at the premises to be searched.

[Michael P]

That doesn't mean Jack Smith gets advice in advance on what evidence to destroy.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Dr. Ed 2. What criminal statute(s) do you claim that Jack Smith has violated? What facts support your assertions?

[Dr. Ed 2]

one thing that will end is this electric car bullshyte.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4dV1nfjQRY

[Martinned2]

With Elon Musk running the government? How do you figure? Tesla was up 15% in the stock market yesterday.

[Kazinski]

They made fun of Elon when he spent 44 billion buying Twitter, now he owns the Presidency, and the Senate, after helping Trump, and Moreno and probably McCormick too, win their races, besides having the most influential Social Media platform in the world.

And making himself almost untouchable in Europe and the UK, for a few years.

[Martinned2]

For the Musk group that $44bn is quite a good investment. For the people who loaned Musk that money, on the other hand...

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"They made fun of Elon when he spent 44 billion buying Twitter, now he owns the Presidency, and the Senate, after helping Trump, and Moreno and probably McCormick too, win their races, besides having the most influential Social Media platform in the world."

It's remarkable how you can speak the truth and yet still be too stupid to realize it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect that the Trump administration will kill the electric car mandate, and that will be very hard on the EV programs of the conventional manufacturers, but Tesla will not be hurt by it, because Tesla is a niche product, they're not competing with ICE vehicles directly.

[Commenter_XY]

That EV mandate will be history. No need to debate that one.

[Brett Bellmore]

I should add that the conventional manufacturers will be glad it's gone: Their customers didn't want the damned EVs, and without being mandated to build them anyway, they can lower the price of the vehicles people actually want to buy.

[Frank Drackman]

1: I'd love Elon Musk running the government, 2: Stocks don't just "go up" it's people buying them, umm, because they think they'll go up even more, 3: with a better economy peoples will have more money to spend on luxury items, like Electric Vehicles.

[Bwaaah]

Martinned2: "With Elon Musk running the government? How do you figure? Tesla was up 15% in the stock market yesterday."

It doesn't make you look smarter when you parrot the very voices you dismiss as not worth listening to. Do yourself a favor: pick a side and stick to it.

[Martinned2]

Could you unpack that one for me? I have consistently explained that crony capitalism is good for the stock market but bad for the economy, and capitalism doesn't come any cronier than electing Trump president and then having him put Elon Musk in charge of deregulation. (See also: crypto.)

[Bwaaah]

I don’t think Elon Musk will be running the government. Maybe I’m wrong. But it’s as stupid as RFK running the FDA, and Trump already hedged against that one.

What I was trying to say is that I can’t take seriously, from you, that which I don’t think you seriously believe. But if you really do think Elon the Idiot (your assertion, not mine) will be running the government, then you're certainly caught in a bad way.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty darned sure he won't be running the government. At most he'll be sending the government suggestions, as I understand it.

[Martinned2]

you’re certainly caught in a bad way

No shit, Sherlock. Why do you think I've been talking about damage control non stop since the election?

As for the rest of your comment:

Hope humbly then; with trembling pinions soar;
Wait the great teacher Death; and God adore!
What future bliss, he gives not thee to know,
But gives that hope to be thy blessing now.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast:
Man never is, but always to be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

[Bwaaah]

That's beautiful. Really. Beautiful.

Our differences are great in speaking of tactics. But our predicaments are quite alike, and probably, our aspirations too.

[santamonica811]

Well, I did extremely well on predicting the World Series, and quite well (wrong about Trump [probably] winning the popular vote) on the presidential election.

Before you ask; Yes, I do know next week’s winning Lotto numbers, and no; I am not sharing them with you.

[Mr. Bumble]

What is your take on Prop. 36?

[santamonica811]

I didn't offer a prediction, but since I voted for it; I hoped (obviously) that it would pass. I liked the idea of trying reduced penalties for minor crimes (hey, we're a laboratory of 50 states...why not try some liberal ideas, some conservative ideas, and see which ones work and which ones don't?) This one just didn't work...petty crimes were a bit out of control and we'll chalk that one up to: "Good intentional, but bad unanticipated consequences."

The only one I called wrong was 32 (raising the minimum wage), which I thought would pass in Calif, but didn't. Last time I checked, the gap was about 4%, so I don't know if it's been officially called. But I'm counting it as a personal 'miss' for me.

I correctly called the failure of 33 (which would have increased local govts' ability to do rent control). Whether or not it's a good idea; I like the idea of putting it into local govt control, rather than a statewide rule. My own city of Santa Monica already has rent control in place, so 33 would not have had much (any??) impact on me personally.

I also thought that Cal would elect a bunch more Dems to the House. I think I'll end up being wrong about that, as I did NOT anticipate a Trump Red Wave. But we won't know for sure for a week or three, California voting speed being what it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This one just didn’t work…petty crimes were a bit out of control and we’ll chalk that one up to: “Good intentional, but bad unanticipated consequences.”"

I think it's important to recognize that the consequences were not "unanticipated". They were unanticipated by supporters. By contrast, they were entirely anticipated by opponents.

In an ideal world, you wouldn't just reassess the effects of this policy. You'd also reassess your confidence in your own intuitions concerning this topic. You're only learning half the lesson, otherwise.

[Bwaaah]

What? Non-prosecution of criminals could have been expected to put upward pressure on crime? What's your thinking there?

The problem is that compartmentalized denial is built into the psyches of do-gooders (pejorative intended). They are driven by eternally good intentions, and willful inattention to real, obviously contrary indicators. They can't accept the fact of our woefully limited bag of tricks. As they say, so wrongfully, "Doing anything, ANYTHING, is better than doing nothing." Unfortunately, if all that matters is that you feel good about yourself for having tried, then doing anything is good.

But what of crime, and victims of crime? That's not not an important point at the forefront of their mission to seek "criminal justice." (Thomas Sowell's proposition of the "unconstrained view" haunts me.)

[Martinned2]

Some people might be amused to learn that, yes, I earned a bit of money betting on Trump to win the election (and on the Republicans taking the senate, and on Kemi Badenoch becoming the new Tory leader) but no, I can't actually get at that money, because my British betting app is blocked here in the Netherlands. So I won't be able to spend my winnings until next month, when I'm back in the UK.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm amused you think anyone gives a shit.

[Kazinski]

Looking at the exit polling Trump actually had a lower share of the White vote in 2024 than 2020, and just a slightly larger share of the black vote, It was Hispanics that he really made substantial gains with:

"* Trump wins 57% of white voters nationwide; Harris wins 41%. Trump's share is down 1 percentage point from a 2020 exit poll.

* Harris wins 85% of Black voters nationwide; Trump wins 13%. Trump's share is up 1 percentage point from a 2020 exit poll. [In 2016 it was 8%]

* Trump wins 46% of Hispanic voters nationwide; Harris wins 52%. Trump's share is up 14 percentage points from a 2020 exit poll."

And one other demographic he made substantial gains:

"* Trump wins 43% of voters age 18 to 29 nationwide; Harris wins 54%. Trump's share is up 7 percentage points from a 2020 exit poll

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/results-nevada-exit-poll-us-presidential-election-2024-11-05/

So the takeaway is that it was Hispanics (both men and women), and 18-29 year olds that carried Trump to victory.

[Mr. Bumble]

So Kirkland’s “betters” made the difference?
Trump wins most Latino county in the US by 16 points after 60-point loss in 2016
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3221626/trump-wins-most-latino-county-vote-16-points/

[MT-Man]

Kirkland what a loser, this must be a real tough week for the anime aficionado. I'm sorry for you Kirky and your lame insults.

[Mr. Bumble]

Kirkland has been absent for weeks (months?).
Maybe touring with the Stones.

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

Awwwwwww he's not around anymore? I wanted to remind him one more time of his analysis of the short-term impact of Barrett replacing Ginsburg.

Let's just say the overturning of Roe v. Wade was not in his forecast.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's possible that the election isn't the worst thing that's happened to him recently.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's significant is that, while his share of the black vote only went up a little nationally, it went up a lot in some swing states. The same was true of the Hispanic vote.

Was this due to the allocation of campaign resources, or some other factor?

[Frank Drackman]

The reason Hillary Rodman limited her appearances in MI/WI/PA in 16', it wasn't that she forgot about those states, but the more peoples were exposed to her the worse she did. Cums-a-lot was like the Queen Family Truckster, "You think you hate her now, wait until you drive her!"

[Commenter_XY]

There will be much data diving in the next few weeks. I know I will be doing some for fun. We won't know a good data story for a while (weeks). So I would not make any firm conclusions on a data story = So the takeaway is that it was Hispanics (both men and women), and 18-29 year olds that carried Trump to victory.

A couple of other takeaways, Kaz.

One: The public pollsters, by and large, underestimated Team R support, again. The underestimation was small, but consistent.

Two: The public pollsters, by and large, got the overall parameters right...meaning, the race was confined to the battlegrounds (with most polling was concentrated there), and the final vote tallies were close to or just within reported pollster MoEs.

Three: The better comparator for the 2024 election was not the 2020 election, but rather the 2016 election. I think this is only becoming clear in hindsight. This affected the modeling of many pollsters, and poll aggregators.

I would re-emphasize the importance of not making an erroneous data story conclusion at this stage. We just don't have the data, and tying down the win to 18-29 and male hispanics at this stage is premature. What I am saying is those won't be the only consistent data trends (if they are actually consistent state to state, and I don't believe that they are).

[Josh R]

Good post. I would only add I suspect the pollster underestimation of GOP support is a Trump thing, not a GOP thing (see 2018 and 2022).

[Frank Drackman]

You mean Harris didn't win Iowa by 4 percent?

[Brett Bellmore]

Polling has a basic problem now, which is that response rates have cratered, and are in the single digits. They go on as though everything was fine, but the whole theoretical basis upon which they calculate their margin of error assumes a response rate of approximately 100%, or that you can assume response is uncorrelated with people's opinions.

The first assumption is wildly wrong, and the second assumption is just wishful thinking.

[Commenter_XY]

AI makes the need for polling go away. You can get the basics with synthetic respondents.

With the datasets in use today, you can tie an individual's to a propensity to vote, and who they will vote for with a high degree of accuracy. Think about the data sets sold by credit agencies, data aggregators, finance companies.

You're right about response rates. I'd say that becomes moot very soon, if it hasn't already.

[Brett Bellmore]

In a world where AI developers where permitting the AI to just output the result the uncurated training data dictated, maybe you'd have a point. We don't live in that world, AI's are relentlessly skewed from the selection of training data onwards.

You think the people who produced an AI that would output pictures of black people when asked for pictures of kings of England, are going to produce an AI that's better than polling?

[Commenter_XY]

The outputs are sets of probabilities, Brett. It is just data.

As for training, you are 'training' on credit agency data, finance data, location data, insurance claim data, healthcare data, etc datasets. You no longer need survey respondents when you can predict the behavior of an individual from an in-depth profile with a high (but not absolute) confidence level. BTW, it isn't just the polling industry that will be affected.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I'm not saying that it isn't theoretically possible, especially if you didn't have ballot secrecy to keep you from including voting habits in the training data.

I'm saying that in the contingent world we actually live in, the people working on AI's have a very, very serious problem of building bias into them. Comical levels of bias.

They'd have to get over that, eliminate whatever is causing them to build bias into their LLM's, before your proposal would have a chance of working.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess I'll add that, so far as I can tell, the reason they're building bias into their AI's is that they think it's the morally obligatory thing to do. So it's going to be really hard to convince them to stop.

[bernard11]

I can believe there is bias in some AI's.

But the notion that it is deliberate because of the convictions of the developers is just more Bellmore conspiratorial fantasy.

[not guilty]

I believe it is appropriate to reiterate a comment I made on one of yesterday's threads, slightly paraphrased.

At the risk of casting pearls before swine, Matthew 7:6, I have an observation regarding commenters here who take potshots and then, when challenged to defend what they have said, run away like a scalded dog.

No human is omniscient. There is no shame in admitting that one does not know something.

When one is challenged to defend an ipse dixit assertion, however, simply making shit up is shameful — at least for anyone who has a soupçon of self-awareness.

I have been commenting here since the Discus days, before the Washington Post hosting. This started out as a law blog. The comments section has unfortunately turned into a haven for bloviators. The law matters. Facts matter. Original source materials matter. I wonder -- do self-respect and intellectual integrity matter anymore?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I agree. I've been looking around for another legal blog where the level of discourse is as it was in the volokh.com days. Any suggestions?

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[hobie]

And Bumble makes the point. That didn't take long.

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank, if I pay you for your stories like Peterman did with Kramer, will you stop telling them? I mean the thrilling one yesterday about how all the Knee-Grows were Bee-bopping (with rhythm, no doubt) around your neighborhood without a care in the world? you just left off the part about returning your pants.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Volokh is unusual in that they barely moderate the comments at all, so you actually get a mix of opinions and debate in the comments. The other law blogs I follow have either dropped comments or moderate them with an iron fist so that no opinions the proprietors disagree with can be expressed.

If anyone knows of an exception to this rule besides Volokh, I'd be interested.

[Frank Drackman]

Most I get is the occasional e-mail from our benevolent moderator EV to go easy on the crude sexual insults, like I'm friggin Andrew Dice Clay

[Brett Bellmore]

The shtick is a bit heavy at times, and that does seem to be the one thing that can get you banned around here, so I'd pay attention to those emails.

[Krayt]

Much of this is overrun from the rest of Reason, where such commenting is far worse.

My guess is most of it wandered in locally, rather than camp followers from other hosts.

[bernard11]

The other law blogs I follow have either dropped comments or moderate them with an iron fist so that no opinions the proprietors disagree with can be expressed.

Still butt-hurt over Balkinization?

[not guilty]

I enjoy the discussion of legal issues at emptywheel.net. Comments are actively moderated there, and Marcy Wheeler does admirable work -- especially considering that she is not a lawyer. Her attention to detail and grasp of legal issues is keen.

[David Nieporent]

Attention to detail is one way to phrase it; another is an OCD-like focus on minutiae.

[Commenter_XY]

I learn from your patient (and detailed) law explainers. Don't leave. Please.

[not guilty]

Hey, I'm not going anywhere. I have been commenting here since the Disqus days, before the Washington Post hosted.

I'm glad that my explanations are helpful.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm gonna need help with proper use of 'four corners', LOL.

[not guilty]

A judicial decision is said to be "on all fours" with the situation under investigation when the issue decided in the precedent is exactly the same as the question sought to be answered.

In the usual case there is some basis to distinguish the reasoning of an earlier decision; that is not so when the decision is "on all fours."

To illustrate, suppose the question is whether a state can exclude a candidate for president from the state's 2028 primary election ballot based on the candidate's having engaged in insurrection against the United States. There Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), is on all fours indicating that the answer is no.

[Commenter_XY]

Great explainer...Thank you! I will look for you to use it one more time, then start using it on my own.

[Drewski]

Not a blog, but Reddit's /lawyers sub is pretty good. Not to be confused with /law (same as here), /legaladvice (cops and bootlickers giving terrible advice on mostly fictional questions), or /lawyertalk (cosplay).

[Bwaaah]

“I wonder — do self-respect and intellectual integrity matter anymore?”

Of course they do. Very seriously. And they mean more today than ever, like every day in the past.

No amount of stupidity, especially deceitful stupidity, should make stupidity compelling. The more of it I see, the more I am repelled.

[John F. Carr]

Lebanon filed a complaint against Israel at the International Labour Organization, a UN body. The complaint alleges that Israel created an unsafe work environment by causing pagers to explode.

This reminds me of the American practice of rebranding rape as sex discrimination.

If I may make two logical jumps, a labor organization is probably stuffed full of socialists and a socialist organization is probably more anti-Israel than a body where the United States has a veto.

[Mr. Bumble]

This sounds like something from the Bee.

[Commenter_XY]

Doesn't there need to be a protected class to assert injury?
So what protected class does judeocidal hezbollah terrorist fall under? 🙂
I think you're right about your logical jumps.

[Frank Drackman]

The pager thing is easy, just set them to "Non Explode" mode.

[Dr. Ed 2]

After a few states pass "right to run over" laws, you will see a federal felony offense to block a highway, bridge, or railroad. A year in jail.

Constitution says "in the district" but doesn't say where. So you "transportation courts" in the rural red areas of these blue states.
Meritless Garland only had to arrest 1,265 Jan 6th folk --- arresting a couple thousand after the fact would be enough.

[John F. Carr]

The location of the court is not as important as the boundaries of the district from which jurors are drawn. Are you imagining gerrymandered judicial districts with tentacles reaching into cities along the major highways?

[Brett Bellmore]

I would guess he must be; All the highway blocking protests I've heard about have been in cities, not rural areas.

[Longtobefree]

Because if you block a rural highway, they just bury the body and carry on.

[John F. Carr]

A girl whose pet goat was seized by police in what was at least arguably a contract dispute will receive $65,000. She had sent the goat to a fair and wanted to back out of the deal once she understood the goat would be slaughtered. The goal was reported stolen.

She and her mother had sued about a dozen defendants in a section 1983 action. The case was settled for $300,000. One third of that goes to the girl, less 35% attorney's fees, held in trust until she turns 18. Her mother and her mother's lawyer share the other $200,000.

In addition to the civil rights claim the complaint wanted a declaration that a the minor plaintiff had the right to back out of ("disaffirm") a contract. I don't know when a sale of an animal for slaughter becomes irrevocable notwithstanding the minority of a party. There used to be a split of authority on when a minor can undo the purchase of a motor vehicle. Minor buys a car and wrecks it. Can he return the wreck and demand a full refund? Depends on which state's law governs.

The goat was worth less than $1,000.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64937502/el-v-fernandez/

[Brett Bellmore]

I remember that case. My view is that she and her mother were very negligent in not reviewing the terms of the fair entry, the animals at fairs are livestock, not pets, and everybody knows they're going to be slaughtered unless somebody wants them to breed.

But the fair management were being pretty unreasonable, too, even if they were legally in the right. They garnered some bad publicity for themselves by being so hard assed about not letting her back out of the entry.

[bernard11]

But the fair management were being pretty unreasonable, too,

That's unduly mild criticism, IMO. They acted like assholes. It's not like they had Taylor Swift signed up for a concert and she backed out at the last minute.

[Drewski]

It's undisputed that the fair entry terms did not include transfer of ownership or a requirement to sell. It merely reserved a portion of any sale price for the fair; the employees assumed that implied a requirement to sell. Contracts rarely work by implication, and then almost never in favor of the drafter. Most of the defense put forward involved immunity claims.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it was a mistake on the part of the fair to fail to make explicit what everybody involved normally understands about how these things work.

[Josh R]

As I said last week, the one good thing about Trump winning is Allan Lichtman’s keys flopped. The Keys are an informed guess from a smart professional, not a scientific model. They have performed as well, but not better than, the polls.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes = The Keys are an informed guess from a smart professional, not a scientific model.

[David Nieporent]

an informed guess from a smart professional

I'd have said "nonsense from a self-promoting hack," myself.

[Josh R]

I agree with self-promoting. And a hack from the standpoint of billing his keys as scientific. But, he is a professor of history whose knowledge informs the keys (for what they are).

[David Nieporent]

Claiming that (e.g.) charisma is relevant to an election is not nonsense (but also doesn't require professional expertise as a historian); the nonsense part is trying to make that banality into a "model."

[Frank Drackman]

Not to Brag, but I picked "47" to win 302 Electrical Votes, looks like I mis-underestimated him,

[not guilty]

In the Fulton County, Georgia prosecution, the Court of Appeals has scheduled argument on the appeal of the trial court's refusal to disqualify Fani Willis for December 5. When the matter is remanded to the trial court, Donald Trump will likely be severed from the other defendants, the prosecution of whom can proceed to trial. Any trial of Trump should be deferred until he leaves office as president.

Some of the defendants did not join in the motion to disqualify and are not parties to the interlocutory appeal. One of the potential outcomes is that Willis will continue to prosecute those defendants even if the trial court's ruling on disqualification is reversed and a substitute prosecutor is necessitated for the appealing defendants.

The State has cross appealed the trial court's dismissal of certain counts of the indictment. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-georgia-case-fulton-county-dismissed-charges-appeal/

At some point, possibly next year, one or more jury trials of the Georgia defendants other than Trump should begin.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me predict right now that the prosecution will have a policy of going light on any defendant who is willing to publicly implicate Trump. The usual plea agreement where the defendant pleads that somebody else was guilty...

[Michael P]

Clarification: Fani Willis's office has appealed the trial court's dismissal of those counts. The state of Georgia just voted for Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, may I ask a hypothetical question?

Could a GA governor end all of the GA state prosecutions by issuing a pardon for all the crimes President Trump was charged with?

[David Nieporent]

No. First, the GA governor has no pardon power; there's a state pardons board that does. And second, that board only pardons after a conviction, not before.

[Commenter_XY]

No way to sever that Gordian Knot, is there, David?

[Armchair]

Georgia could simply change the law (retroactively) in such a way that it made whatever is being charged here now null and void.

[Brett Bellmore]

They could. The ex post facto clause prohibits applying liability, it doesn't prohibit removing it.

[Commenter_XY]

Post election, it would be good for the country if GA could figure out a legal, face-saving way to extricate itself from the morass of litigation. That is the pragmatic solution.

Maybe a legislative action is needed, as Armchair suggests.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump committed what is widely recognized as extortion in mob cases. It's a very simple case, and he admits what happened -- it's on tape.

[Bwaaah]

You familiar with the guy who keeps going on after the party is over and the other guests have gone home? Can I call you a cab?

You're a cab.

[not guilty]

"Post election, it would be good for the country if GA could figure out a legal, face-saving way to extricate itself from the morass of litigation. That is the pragmatic solution."

I disagree. Donald Trump should be severed from his codefendants, but those co-conspirators, who are vicariously liable from Trump's criminal conduct, should stand trial before a jury.

As Louis Brandeis said in Harper's Weekly in 1913, "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."

Brandeis's historical antecedents are collected here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/09/22/sunlight/#b637f0b9-ad66-4436-ad3d-4fd8bc2ad9c7

[Dan Schiavetta]

I still don't understand how there is a conflict of interest. Neither Willis nor anyone in her office had any contacts with defendants, at any time. Wills having a relationship with someone in her office, and improperly meting out assignments, is an internal ethics matter at most and should not impact the case going forward.

[Bwaaah]

Did you watch the testimony of Dexter Bond, deputy of operations of Fulton County District Attorney's Office? It'll give you a chance to see how personal animus has infected official business in the Fulton County DA's office. He, like the whole prosecutorial lot, and like you, is completely unaware of his insurmountable byzantine bias.

[Life of Brian]

Man, I hate you right about now -- I'm two segments into that train wreck and just can't turn it off. LOL

As to Mr. Bond, he really didn't make any effort at all to conceal his dripping disdain -- one of the most openly smug and argumentative witnesses I've seen.

But setting the tone aside, the thing that really floored me was him basically saying "yeah, ok, so maybe one of my lackeys did just send you a random handful of shit rather than doing a full search for documents and emails responsive to your request, and maybe there were a bunch of other documents and emails we had that we didn't give you, but it was perfectly appropriate to just heave that subset over the transom and close your request until you came back later with a subpoena because YOU DIDN'T TELL US SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE DIDN'T GIVE YOU!"

[Bwaaah]

LOL. I, too, was gripped by the protracted audacity of his position. Not only did it reflect his bad faith, but the DA's office saw no problem in letting that position be righteously paraded in front of a judge. That's a sign, to me, of cultural rot. They don't even know they are bad faith hive mind.

[Lee Moore]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/results-senate.html

Some interesting Senate numbers. The States that the Rs were expected to win narrowly, they won by 8% or so. The Ds won NJ, NM and VA by about the same, although they were supposed to win those easily. If I had to guess, I’d guess that in 10 years NJ will be a Red State, and NC and GA will be Blue.

The Dems dodged a bullet or two in the Senate this time round, holding Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona narrowly. They could easily have been on the wrong end of a 7 seat loss, esp if the Rs had nominated a better candidate in Arizona. And even she’s only going to lose narrowly.

[Commenter_XY]

LM, I've lived in the People's Republic of NJ for decades. We compete with CA, NY, RI, CT and IL to see which can possibly be the bluest of blue states.

This will not happen in your lifetime, or mine = I’d guess that in 10 years NJ will be a Red State

NJ state legislature (I call it the Peoples Duma) has a Team D supermajority in both houses, and loves mail ballots. It isn't turning red.

[David Nieporent]

This will not happen in your lifetime, or mine = I’d guess that in 10 years NJ will be a Red State

As recently as 1988, the GOP presidential candidate won NJ.¹ (Okay, that's actually 36 years ago, but I'm getting old so that still seems recent to me.) And we had a GOP governor as recently as six years ago.

But I agree, it certainly seems unfathomable that NJ would be red.
​
​
¹Note that in that same election, California also went Republican!

[Commenter_XY]

I LOL'ed at this = Okay, that’s actually 36 years ago, but I’m getting old so that still seems recent to me

Yes! 🙂

[Bwaaah]

I did too! LOL. Maybe we're all human, and to some extent, implacably dumbed down by that predicament?

I enjoy finding moments of agreement with DN. They're more fleeting than I think they should be.

[Mr. Bumble]

New Jersey had a RINO governor who got elected because he was not Jon MF Corzine.

[David Nieporent]

Editor's note: Trump is a RINO. That someone opposes Trump (which Christie only started doing after Trump tried to commit a bit of light treason) does not make that other person a RINO. Christie — unlike Trump — has been a Republican his entire adult life.

[Bwaaah]

Right you are again, David! (I mean it. This day is unfolding surprisingly pleasantly.)

[Frank Drackman]

It was the last time California went Red, of course the D’s ran arguably the worst candidate ever until this year.

[Brett Bellmore]

They also had won a ballot proposition, and then stopped defending it. That kind of behavior makes your voters apathetic about continuing to vote for you.

[Lennyk78]

In 1988, there were a lot fewer Hispanics and Asians. The 1965 Immigration Act is why the country has moved left. And that was the goal. Fill up America with low quality mestizos and get permanent votes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I never dreamed that the California of Nixon and Reagan would go blue.

[Lennyk78]

The problem with New Jersey is demographics. It's only 55% white. Conservatism only appeals to whites, and even then, mostly white men. Even the Hispanic men voting for Trump will be fleeting.

[Josh R]

Outside of the seven swing states, The GOP has all 48 senators in the red states, and the Democrats have 37 senators, all but one (Collins), in the blue states. Democrats hold a 10-4 advantage in the swing states.

It is hard to see how the Democrats regain control of the Senate without making inroads in the red states.

[David Nieporent]

It is hard to see how the Democrats regain control of the Senate without making inroads in the red states.

And the closest thing to a D pickup in this cycle was a non-D independent challenging the GOP senator in Nebraska (but she ended up winning comfortably because the polls were off).

The GOP does have to defend more seats in 2026, but it's not clear whether there would be any potential pickups (other than Maine).

[Josh R]

Democrats will be defending GA and MI. The GOP, Maine and NC. Taking back a net 4 seats looks very hard for the Democrats.

[David Nieporent]

You are assigning PA to the GOP; that one hasn't been called yet. If Casey can pull it out, that makes the math easier for the Ds, but yeah, even though it's a midterm and the Dems should be expected to do well, I don't see the one red state senator that could be vulnerable. (Obviously retirements could give the Ds a better chance, but most of the red states are very red.)

[Mr. Bumble]

So you think it might be another Coleman/Franken contest where more votes keep being discovered to change the outcome?

[Commenter_XY]

This is point where the recent decisions by the PA supreme court come into play = votes coming in, mail ballots, provisional ballots

[Frank Drackman]

Especially when GA's 2 Senators pull a Ben Nighthorse Campbell and change parties. (I know they won't, but it'd be a shrewd move, get the perks of being in the majority, not have to listen to Chuck "The Penguin" Schumer)

[Moderation4ever]

Is what we need is the Democrats to make in roads or do we need all around better Senators. I think what is needed is more people voting in primaries for more moderate candidates of both parties. If I were in a state that was monopolized by one party, I would be working to move candidates of the controlling party to the middle.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't want moderate candidates in the Congress. I want different choices that are clearly distinguishable.

[Moderation4ever]

Moderate candidates can have all the differing opinions of crazies on the far left/right. The moderate realizes that to get things done they have to compromise. The men who drafted our Constitution had differing opinions but also realized that they would have to compromise to get a working document to run this country.

[Commenter_XY]

Moderate candidates are an indistinguishable hash.

[bernard11]

I think it is foolish at this point to speculate on the 2026 outcomes.

Trump and his cabinet are so unpredictable (being polite) that there are likely to be an unusually large number of events that affect the 2026 midterms.

How all that turns out will matter more than the facts behind these analyses.

[apedad]

I think West Virginia is the only state that permanently flipped from blue to red - and that was because of a single issue: coal.

Every other state that has permanently flipped went from red to blue (looking at Virginia recently).

I could see NC and GA permanently turning blue within a decade.

[Frank Drackman]

You forgot Texas, Iowa, and hey, did Ted “Pablo” Cruise squeak by in his race?
“W” carried Florida in 2000 by 538 votes, Barry Hussein won in 2008 by a few hundred thousand “47” carried it this time by 1.4 million. Those “Changing Demographics” you see.

Frank

[apedad]

I wrote three sentences, and each sentence had the word 'permanently.'

[Frank Drackman]

Good for you, I'll put an imaginary "Smiley Face" on your work.

[Commenter_XY]

There is no permanence in politics, apedad.

[Ridgeway]

This. Even a decade is an eternity in politics.

[SimonP]

I think you're reading too much into the numbers.

The rightward shift we're seeing in races across the country reflect less of a fundamental political re-alignment than they do a simple frustration with Biden's status quo. People are frustrated, fed up, want to try something new. If Republicans fail to deliver, they'll swing right back.

Democrats can help that swing back by realigning their politics and reconciling themselves to the fact that messaging aimed at women, social issues, and WOC, while ignoring working-class issues and men, will just continue to alienate those voters.

I hate to see how younger men are falling for the toxic masculinity of Rogan, Peterson, Musk, Vance, and Trump. But Democrats just have nothing to offer them but bile.

[Commenter_XY]

We don't really have the numbers, SimonP.

[SimonP]

On the exit polling? No, not a clear picture yet. But the rightward shift is broad, national, and clear. As such, I think it reflects more general frustration with the current state of things (as I said) than a fundamental realignment. It's not like we saw New York move left while Florida and Texas went right. Most of the country didn't move left. I don't think the nation's voters all just decided to be somewhat more Republican.

Democrats' strategy for responding to that will depend on the actual data, sure. But I don't think I'm off-base in suggesting that Democrats' messaging may be offputting for younger men and POC whose votes were taken as granted.

[David Nieporent]

I hate to see how younger men are falling for the toxic masculinity of Rogan, Peterson, Musk, Vance, and Trump. But Democrats just have nothing to offer them but bile.

One thing Democrats could do is retire the phrase — indeed, the entire concept of — "toxic masculinity." It just reflects extreme contempt, and it attributes it to men as men rather than as jackasses.

Andrew Tate (to pick someone who I think epitomizes the concept) is absolutely toxic. But saying that it's part of masculinity is, if anything, completely counterproductive.

[SimonP]

Well, they are toxic, and they present themselves as being "ideal" masculine figures. So how better to describe them?

I agree that the term is used too broadly and loosely, and that over-use is probably alienating to younger men who have grown up with it. (As opposed to us olds, who established our identity before everything was about qualifying your existence.)

[David Nieporent]

So how better to describe them?

Assholes.

Why would you adopt Andrew Tate's presentation of himself as valid?

[bernard11]

NC is a pet peeve of mine. It is perpetually "on the verge" of going blue and never does. Been that way for decades.

From this Democrat's POV it's a perpetual tease and money pit.

[Ridgeway]

mmmm, they went for Obama in 2008, consistently elect Democrat governors, and occasionally Dem Senators.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

NC, like a lot of states, is the rural areas vs. the urban ones. In most elections it's all about turnout. The Repubs lost a lot of the statewide contests this time because of the lunatic they had running for Governor. He dragged down the Republican candidates for Lt. Governor and Attorney General. But most realists here always thought Trump would win the state, I think. Harris wasted time and resources in NC better spent elsewhere. She was a poor candidate who ran a poor campaign, you don't need to look any further than that for an explanation of Trump's win.

[Commenter_XY]

On a more humorous note, I just want to say how disappointed I am that we don't have Senator Hung Cao. Can you imagine the endless double entendre by Night-time hosts, had he won? 🙂

[Moderation4ever]

This is a big surprise, Madison voting number were down in 2024 from 2020. Most early voting sites were packed with people. I waited 80 minutes to vote this year. At the polling site I worked, people were lined up starting just after 6 AM waiting for the polls to open at 7 AM. The first two hours of voting were intense with long lines of people. Even though the numbers dropped the number of in person voters was steady. Our poll site also processed absentee, mail-in and early voting, ballots throughout my shift. I am surprised by the drop?

[Ridgeway]

Curious to see what the actual data says, but one possibility is progressive college students staying home because of Biden/Harris being insufficiently pro-Palestine/anti-Israel.

[Moderation4ever]

I read today in my local paper that,

"a judge at the military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ruled that plea bargains struck by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants were valid, striking down an order by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to throw out the plea deals and continue to trial, a government official said Wednesday."

Good, let's get closure of this case. It doesn't matter if these men spend their life in prison after a plea bargain or spend their life in prison awaiting a trial that will never happen.

[Commenter_XY]

closure = a needle going into their vein, or Old Sparky. I am good with either.

[Bob from Ohio]

.32 to back of head

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, but that will not happen. These men die of old age either as convicted criminals or as men awaiting trial. I say convict them and send them away to a supermax prison never to be heard from again.

[John F. Carr]

AP story: https://apnews.com/article/guantanamo-plea-deal-911-austin-death-penalty-073c3455e27ecbfd0f7dd524ccffdef3

Although I approve of capital punishment in general I am satisfied with the deal in this case.

[Frank Drackman]

Peoples forget that there were more Faithless Erectors for Hillary Rodman in 16′ than for “45”
Who steals a vote or 2 from Cums-a-lot this time? Floyd George? Bernie? Imane Khelif? Poke-a-hontas?

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Tammy Baldwin was reelected to the Senate from Wisconsin. This is good, Tammy is a thoughtful and good politician. Her opponent was just another multimillionaire trying to buy a Senate seat.

[Frank Drackman]

Like with my 2 GA Senators, would be a good move for her to change parties, or at least go "Independent" She's got potential, she proposed articles of impeachment against Dick Chaney, was the only D from WI to attend Net N' Yahoo's address to Congress, OK, that's about it, but she's a Lesbian, which is always a + in my book.

[Stella Link the dog]

"she proposed articles of impeachment against Dick Chaney"

Wasn't there a comment around here not too long ago about the mental deficiencies of those who misspell names?

[Dan Schiavetta]

She also, while in Congress, voted against the Iraq War, which took a lot of courage at the time.

And for once, Republican homophobic dog-whistles did not have an effect in the campaign.

[John F. Carr]

One of my Senators at the time was John Kerry who voted for war to keep his presidential aspirations alive. When the war became unpopular he regretted his vote.

[Dan Schiavetta]

To be a little fair to him (and to Hillary), at that point they didn’t know how bogus the case for war was. It was like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which got almost unanimous support from both parties.

[Bored Lawyer]

Saw this on why Harris lost. Great summary. (OK, it's long, so more than a summary.)

https://graboyes.substack.com/p/the-thrill-of-victimy-the-agony-of

The Dems biggest problem is they think they can use perception to mask their reality, with the connivance of the media. Enough people saw through that. As Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

[Martinned2]

In a world where Fox, OANN, Newsmax, Twitter, and half the internet are Trump propaganda outlets, that's just not a credible hypothesis.

[Super Scary]

"half the internet are Trump propaganda outlets"

Hahaha. Good one.

[Martinned2]

Do you think it's a coincidence that everyone you read on the internet agrees with you?

[Bwaaah]

Said what?

[Brett Bellmore]

But politics is the art of proving that you can fool enough of the people enough of the time. Where "enough" isn't remotely all.

[Commenter_XY]

His "Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble" primer was outstanding.

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t want to stir the rubble from all the exploding heads, but how about Senator Tommy “Coach” Tuberville for Sec Def? I’m pretty sure he’s not enjoying all of the BS Senators have to put up with, he’d get that Senatorial Courtesy in any nomination hearings, and he’ll be replaced in the Senate by another Repubiclown, Government Jet instead of commercial (and a ride with the Blue Angels/Thunderbirds any time he wants) and as Ole Miss fans remember, he’s adept at taking new jobs with short notice.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

No.

And he would not get Senatorial courtesy; John Tower did not.

[Frank Drackman]

Good one, forgot about him

[bernard11]

Sure, Frank. Let's have the biggest moron in the Senate be Secretary of Defense.

Are there really no rational, intelligent, Republicans who have some sort of qualification for these jobs?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

While the claim that Trump sexually assaults women is controversial, it's become obvious that he definitely beats the shit out of them.

I know of two beatings...

Enjoy!
https://youtu.be/M_WEoKDxWlE?si=WgVbhgWYSeFDpuMW

[Armchair]

So Trump won, convincingly.

Last time this happened, the Democrats decided to go with "massive resistance" rather than self-examination and compromise.

Will Democrats go the same route again? Convince themselves they really were right? All the voters were just wrong and misguided? And if they just double down and show what a bad person Trump is, and undermine him, legally or not, it will be great?

[Martinned2]

I agree that that would be a mistake. Voters know that Trump is a bad person but don't care.

But obviously Democrats still have a moral duty to resist the most evil president America has had since slavery with any legal means necessary.

Like the lady said:

while I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign—the fight: the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness, and the dignity of all people. A fight for the ideals at the heart of our nation, the ideals that reflect America at our best. That is a fight I will never give up.

I will never give up the fight for a future where Americans can pursue their dreams, ambitions, and aspirations. Where the women of America have the freedom to make decisions about their own body and not have their government telling them what to do. We will never give up the fight to protect our schools and our streets from gun violence. And America we will never give up the fight for our democracy, for the rule of law, for equal justice, and for the sacred idea that every one of us, no matter who we are or where we start out, has certain fundamental rights and freedoms that must be respected and upheld.

[Armchair]

Got it. So, keep tilting at the windmill.

Well, that's one way to get Vance in 2028 elected.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Trump will eventually cut Vance off at the knees, just as he does to all his allies. His popularity is non-transferable.

[SRG2]

Voters know that Trump is a bad person but don’t care.

And I think that this uniquely applies to Trump. I doubt any normal candidate with a 100th of Trump's baggage could get nominated by either side.

[SimonP]

Kamala was never that candidate, for me. I do not view her as an inspiring leader in opposition, and the speech just conveys a failure to grasp with what the electorate is telling us.

Kamala was the best we could do, in the circumstances, after Biden refused to bow out of the primaries. But on a fresh slate I would be looking for someone else to lead the cause.

[Commenter_XY]

The Team DF bench for 2028 looks interesting.

[Martinned2]

That's one of the oddities of the US system. A party doesn't really have a leader unless it has the White House. For the next four years (or longer) the Democrats will run around like headless chickens.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"a failure to grasp what the electorate is telling us"

Trump is not a leader. He is a follower -- of his crowd's many prejudices, ignorance and hatreds.

A leader tries to point the people in the direction it must go, if big problems are to be solved. Harris was trying to do that. Trump is only telling people to sit back and suck their thumbs. He only says things that are easy to say, and does things that are easy to do.

[Martinned2]

The last major Republican politician who told voters (well, a voter) they were wrong was McCain. When he lost, Republicans well and truly gave up on doing that. Lesson learned.

But in their pandering, they at least felt the need to not get caught lying. That's how you ended up with weirdos like Romney awkwardly straddling what we knew about him and what he was saying. But in the Trump era, there isn't even an attempt to conceal the pandering. In 2016 GOP voters could pretend to believe what Trump was telling them. In 2020 he lost. But in 2024 he was an unapologetic conman and won. So that's the political system now.

It's like Gresham's Law. The bad drives out the good. Meanwhile, all public confidence in politics and government is undermined, and the US becomes increasingly unable to deal with the very real challenges it faces as a country.

[hobie]

Or we could try the Republican approach of the last 15 years: oppose or block every single thing until power is regained. I mean look...it worked!

[SRG2]

But that's different because it's Republicans.

[Lennyk78]

Block every single thing? You're a fucking moron.

[Martinned2]

Opposition parties oppose. That's their right. If you don't like it, do a deal that gives them some of what they want in return for them giving you some of what you want. It's called compromise, and the US hasn't done it since Missouri, so I can see how that might be confusing.

[Martinned2]

Unsurprisingly, Macron is pushing his strategic autonomy agenda again. At today's EPC summit:

"We must not delegate forever our security to America," Macron said, arguing that returning US leader Donald Trump would legitimately "defend the interests of the American people" and asking: "Are we ready to defend the interests of the European people?"

[Mr. Bumble]

Since when have they ever?

[Martinned2]

We used to go around attacking whatever we could get our hands on, pretty successfully. That's how your ancestors ended up in North America. But we decided to stop doing that, because a foreign policy based on being however much of an asshole you can get away with short-term isn't actually helpful long-term.

But make no mistake, strategic autonomy, if Europe manages to do it (which I doubt), is not in the US interest. It basically involves very politely telling the Americans to fuck off in various ways.

[Mr. Bumble]

Please expedite.
Mother Russia is waiting.

[Commenter_XY]

EU strategic autonomy is a pipe dream. Can I have what you're smoking?

[Martinned2]

What part of "which I doubt" do you not understand?

[John F. Carr]

I remember when France was ready to stop Soviet tanks the moment they reached the Rhine.

[Don Nico]

Macron is asking the right question. The EU has to stop acting like a colony of the US

[Martinned2]

I agree. For example, I think Europe should work with China to develop an alternative for Swift.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Europe should work with China"

You prefer the EU works with a totalitarian dictatorship instead of a [Europe saving] democracy because you hate one president.

[Martinned2]

No, I prefer the EU works with whoever will work with us. Which, for now, isn't the US.

As for whether the US is a democracy: we'll see. Like the man said: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

[bernard11]

Why?

[SimonP]

The disengagement of the US from Europe will be one of the enduring legacies of Trump's presidency.

He, and MAGA, wrongly believe that American global hegemony has been the product solely of our military and economic dominance. But it has also been the product of our alliance with Europe and other like-minded nations, in building international organizations and norms, organizations and norms in which we have kept a guiding hand.

He, and MAGA, wrongly believe that encouraging Europe to go their own way furthers our own interests, because we will no longer be responsible for their security. That much may be true, but once America and Europe are separate power centers, not always aligned, our collective power will be diminished. In the future multipolar world, where China, India, Brazil, and one or more nations in Africa (I am not really sure whether that would be Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, etc.) are working for their own interests, America will be weaker without Europe reliably by our side. We will see Europe side with China, against us, on economic issues. We will see Europe reach out to other competitors, on security issues. America will be looking for friends.

It will prove to be a foolish self-own.

[Commenter_XY]

There is precisely zero objective evidence of the US disengaging from EU, or the EU disengaging from the US. There is a lot of talk, which is moving hot air without action.

[bernard11]

I hope you are right, but am unconvinced.

Whatever Trump thinks about it, and I doubt he thinks about it at all, there will be plenty of people in his administration who would be happy to disengage.

I thought that you favored disengagement.

[Commenter_XY]

Why on earth would you ever think I favor disengagement from Europe? Or that a Pres Trump would, for that matter? That is crazy. Pres Trump greatly increased bilateral EU engagement, with NATO as the tool, while he was in office. 😉

This is separate and distinct from UKR policy, that I've discussed separately.

[bernard11]

Well, XY, it does happen to be the case that Ukraine is in Europe, and it seems likely that the outcome there might affect the rest of the continent, not to mention the US-China situation.

Do you think Putin merely wants to seize a chunk of Ukraine, and go home? I don't. I bet the Poles and some others don't either. Letting expansionist dictators run loose is not great policy, IMO.

[Commenter_XY]

They (UKR) are not an EU member, bernard11. That is a fact.

It would be good to find a face saving exit ramp for UKR. Pres Putin has indicated a willingness to talk. Maybe take him up on the offer, and see if that is even possible.

What does Putin inherit in a peace deal? A bombed out piece of land with the 2nd most corrupt people in Europe living on it. They are welcome to both. Sounds like a booby prize to me.

[Stella Link the dog]

“In 2023, Ukraine harvested almost 60 million metric tons of grain, with corn, wheat, and barley being the most produced types.”

“Ukraine is home to a vast array of critical minerals with an estimated value in excess of US$26 trillion, making it a significant player in the global supply chain. The country boasts approximately 20,000 mineral deposits, covering 116 types of minerals.”

By taking over Ukraine, Russia becomes a less corrupt nation.

[Commenter_XY]

Since RUS are rated the most corrupt, yes, the corruption would improve with the addition of a slightly less corrupt people. 😉

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"What does Putin inherit in a peace deal? A bombed out piece of land with the 2nd most corrupt people in Europe living on it."

It's remarkable that no matter how many people point you towards information to cure your stupidity, you're still the hateful fuck who only cares that Ukraine wasn't nice to Jews 80 years ago.

[bernard11]

In fact, Ukraine was worse than "not nice." But we have a very strong alliance with Germany which, by any conceivable measure, was a lot less nice. (And let's not let Poland off the hook, even pre-war and post -war). I could name other European countries as well.

Tales of Ukrainian corruption are somewhat exaggerated, IMO, and are more of an excuse to cut off aid, disastrously, than a basis for policy.

[SimonP]

Trump has done a lot to weaken NATO, and has suggested pulling out of it entirely. Meanwhile, the Europeans are sketching out what a future without America's security guarantee looks like, for them.

Add to that Trump's tariff-driven policy, and we'll have Europe as a separate world power, unaligned with the U.S.

Plenty of "objective evidence" of that.

[Commenter_XY]

What exactly did Pres Trump do to weaken NATO? Do you mean successfully twisting the arms of EU to increase their NATO budget contribution? That isn't weakening anything. Quite the opposite.

We heard all this before. He has a 4 year record. The Parade of horribles you posit didn't happen when he was '45'.

What makes you right now, when you were wrong then?

[Don Nico]

Simon foolishly confuses Europe acting as if it is a colony of the US with Europe acting as a peer ally.
The cultural ties are exceedingly strong and need not depend on Europe acting like an inferior supplicant.

[Martinned2]

That's the whole point of this confusing bit of the thread: No one seems to understand the difference betwen the US and Europe engaging with one another and Europe doing whatever the US wants. Trump and his party very much favour the latter, and don't inherently care about the former.

[Don Nico]

I had this very conversation with friends i was visiting in Switzerland this past weekend.

I will say that the present and previous administrations in the US think of Europe as a quasi American colony.

[David Nieporent]

The present administration of the U.S. took great care with respect to the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine to work behind the scenes to rally our allies to have them take the lead in opposing the invasion, rather than just charging ahead and dragging them along behind us.

[Don Nico]

David,
Mr Biden took care only because he wanted to oust Mr Putin no matter how many Ukrainians had to die.

[Bwaaah]

Well...Putin *is* "The Russians," and you *know* who their partner is. So there's really no other way to be about it.

Let me be clearer. You're either against Putin, or you're for Trump. (Ukraine, shmukraine. Russia, shmussia. STOP TRUMP!)

Am I being too cynical?

[Don Nico]

Yes, you are being too cynical and simplistic. The world is more complicated than that.

[Bwaaah]

I agree.

[David Nieporent]

President Biden — this, unlike when discussing Trump over the past 4 years, is where the title actually does apply — did no such thing. I know this is beyond your tiny little comprehension, but it is Ukraine that is fighting the Russians, not the U.S. Ukraine is the country that was attacked. And countries that are attacked fight back.

It is astonishing how much it offends you that the U.S. opposes its enemies.

[Don Nico]

It offends me that Mr Biden prolongs a war that will only cost Ukrainians more lives and ruins all in the name of Mr Biden’s professed regime change.

Your crude insults only reflect poorly on you and your character.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't you have a Russian dick to be sucking, Nico? Sorry, I meant to ask if you could just go blow Putin in private, instead of doing it here.

Your argument is not backed by any evidence whatsoever, and you are a traitorous piece of shit for spreading Putin's propaganda.

[David Nieporent]

It offends me that Mr Biden prolongs a war that will only cost Ukrainians more lives and ruins all in the name of Mr Biden’s professed regime change.

PresidentYou don't give a fuck about Ukrainian lives. Biden is not "prolonging" the war, except in the sense that he's not stabbing Ukraine in the back (as Trump is going to do) by cutting off assistance to them. And nothing is in "the name of Mr. Biden's professed regime change." If Russia leaves Ukraine, the war is over.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure what happened there with that formatting. Point stands, but somehow the word "president" got moved from the beginning of the second sentence to the beginning of the first.

[Commenter_XY]

David, first of all, POTUS Biden is up to his eyeballs in UKR, due to his activities as VP during the Obama admin, and his wastrel son Hunter on the business side. Biden and his old boss created some of the ground conditions that motivated Putin to invade.

Second, no US policymaker has stated what a US policy success looks like in UKR. POTUS Biden has not. Kamala did not. You have not. Crimea is gone. Donbas is gone.

Third, the current policy has failed. It did not deter RUS from invading UKR, it did not stop RUS from annexing areas of UKR, it has not stopped the Russian advance. It has however, driven RUS closer to China and Iran. Great result.

[bernard11]

POTUS Biden is up to his eyeballs in UKR, due to his activities as VP during the Obama admin, and his wastrel son Hunter on the business side. Biden and his old boss created some of the ground conditions that motivated Putin to invade.

Stop being a moron.

[Bob from Ohio]

"America will be weaker without Europe reliably by our side. "

Europe will be far weaker without America reliably by their side.

America on the other hand will be fine.

[Martinned2]

Everyone will be weaker, you absolute muppet.

[Bored Lawyer]

And in the comedy hour section:

Biden set to address nation after Trump's decisive US election win

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-set-address-nation-after-trumps-decisive-us-election-win-2024-11-07/

[Martinned2]

That's what the US president is supposed to do: address the nation when there's been a disaster.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm actually agreeing with you for once, his whole term has been one.

[ThePublius]

Jerk.

[Martinned2]

I think you can say without exaggeration that this election is the worst thing to happen to the US since Pearl Harbour, and arguably since the Civil War.

A country's ability to deal with all sorts of other bad things, from war to economic depressions to pandemics, depends on the quality of its institutions. And Trump being elected president blows it all up.

The GOP has been attacking America's ability to make and enforce laws, and more generally the government's ability to help solve problems, since the Reagan era. But electing a known conman and fraud as President is next level.

And once the institutions are destroyed, it's not easy to get them back. After the Civil War it took decades before Americans had a functioning system of government again. And in the meantime the Long Depression of 1873-79 happened, and the Jim Crow system was set up, without the country having a government capable of solving these problems.

[Commenter_XY]

And I can say without exaggeration that you are completely ignorant of contemporary US history if you are telling us that the 2024 election is the worst event to happen to the US in 80 (ww2), or 160 years (civil war).

Get real.

[Jmaie]

I have always enjoyed Martinned's comments even when I thought him (her?) wrong. I am hoping that time passing will reduce his despair.

[Martinned2]

Like I said, the US won WWII, and overcame many other hardships, because it had functioning institutions. Blowing those up is really, really bad.

[EscherEnigma]

"I think you can say without exaggeration that this election is the worst thing to happen to the US since Pearl Harbour, and arguably since the Civil War."
Too early to tell. Looking back that might be a reasonable claim, but right now you're assuming consequences that are only maybes.

And even then, I imagine historians would point to 2016, not 2024.

[Martinned2]

In 2016 everyone could pretend they'd elected a president who was simply different by degree from presidents before. But an unapologatic liar and felon, someone who doesn't even feel the need to pretend to be telling the truth or obeying the law, undermines public trust in the whole system in an entirely new way

And trust is the magic pixie dust that makes the whole thing work. The US has always been a low trust society compared to most of (Northern and Western) Europe. Hence the high crime, guns, underdeveloped welfare state, and weak government. As a country it succeeded despite all of those disadvantages. (Having lots of indigenous land and resources to steal was a great start. Having an ocean between you and any enemies helped too.) But that doesn't mean the US could continue succeeding if it had to do without a functioning government altogether. It struggled in the 1870s for the same reason, and arguably one of the reasons for the poverty in the South was (and is) that it's the lowest trust part of the United States, the part where the dominant parts of society spend/spent the most time, effort, and resources oppressing the rest, instead of doing something productive.

[Kazinski]

That's very perceptive, but what disaster is he addressing?

His presidency or Harris' candidacy?

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like the old Bazooka Joe joke “Would you rather be in a collision or an explosion?”
Wont ruin it for you with the punch line

Frank

[Don Nico]

There is no disaster. The election was a very clear expression of Lathrop's sovereign people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, sure, sort of. Especially if you concentrate on the partisan part, and leave off support for the joint popular sovereign's Constitutionally decreed institutions.

You have to respect elections, at least until one of the candidates sets up to contest against the People for their sovereignty. Unfortunately, in Trump's case, that already happened.

With Trump's victory, the nation lost an opportunity to settle that contest in favor of the jointly sovereign People as a whole. So Trump's contest seems destined to continue, now reinforced by government power the Constitution was intended to constrain.

Trump may win. I hope not.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, those pesky sovereign people with their voting! 🙂 LOL

[Don Nico]

Stephan,
He did win. And he did connect with your joint sovereigns. Ms Harris failed miserably at that, exactly because the joint sovereigns were ignored in her mid-summer coronation.
Ms Harris' abilities are overshadowed by those of many Democrats, but the people never had a chance in any form to make their opinion known.
Democrats need to stop their denialism this morning and look to the possibilities that many in their ranks offer.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — The Ds have long-since needed root-and-branch revision of their politics. Of that I have been certain since the 1980s. Politically, I have been on sustained red alert since the Clinton administration, when the Ds pitched working people overboard, to join the Rs in an attempt to out-court the plutocrats' largess.

But none of that mal-practiced politics from the Ds makes nihilistic opportunism as practiced by the Rs a legitimate example of joint popular sovereignty. Not when it took an attempted coup, plus connivance by a corruptly partisan Supreme Court, to keep Trump out of prison, and install him instead in the Oval Office.

Judicial supremacy is no part of joint popular sovereignty. Trump is supremely unqualified for the office he will presently commence, and certainly will further dishonor.

Reflect on this just-concluded election campaign. The Rs chose the worst candidate for President ever in history—and the Ds lost! Muddle and confusion are not aspects of sovereignty; they are symptoms of its absence.

The best I can say for the Rs today is I hope their predictable frustrations will sound an alarm loud enough to wake them up. Which I doubt. Grinding the hubs of hell wouldn’t have been loud enough to do it this year.

What it will take to wake the Ds I cannot predict. More losses, maybe. But if those are inflicted by MAGA Republicans, there will shortly be nothing left worth winning.

The point of my remarks about joint popular sovereignty has been to call attention to the role the founders expected that invention to serve in American governance. Drift away from practicing that innovation began long before anyone now alive was born. That is why I refer to modern politics as, “decapitated constitutionalism.” It is working about as well as a head-shot hare.

Congratulations on your, “victory,” of course.

[Don Nico]

“Reflect on this just-concluded election campaign.”
The R’s chose a person of exceedingly low moral character, but the D’s chose one of the worst candidates ever.
Trump was not my candidate. I never voted for him, not now, not ever.
But I am relieved that we don’t have a stupid person in line to be POTUS.

"there will shortly be nothing left worth winning. "
You are needlessly pessimistic. The US will survive Mr Trump, and it would even have survived Ms. Harris.

[David Nieporent]

But I am relieved that we don’t have a stupid person in line to be POTUS.

But we do.

And even if one bizarrely didn't realize that Trump was stupid, stupid is better than evil.

Also, you said a couple of times that you supported batshit (RFKJ), which also seems worse than stupid.

[Don Nico]

David,
Mr Trump is far from stupid. But if you have to choose between evil and stupid, choose evil. Evil people have the hope of reform; stupid people will always remain stupid.
I would have voted for Mr Kennedy. With half a brain he is far more intelligent and far more authentic than Ms Harris.
But I could not waste my time voting this year, not in MA where 60% of the voters chose to remove passing a high school proficiency test as a requirement for high school graduation. Like you, MA voters prefer stupid people. Stop being so delusional.

[David Nieporent]

Mr Trump is far from stupid.

I agree. What's far from stupid? Imbecile? Moron? Idiot? The r-word? He needs binoculars to even glimpse stupid. And he'd probably use them to stare into the sun if you gave them to him.

But if you have to choose between evil and stupid, choose evil. Evil people have the hope of reform; stupid people will always remain stupid.

Well, that says a lot about you. Stupid people can do good things. Evil people, no.

I would have voted for Mr Kennedy. With half a brain he is far more intelligent and far more authentic than Ms Harris.

Well, call us when he gets half a brain, then. He's batshit crazy and stupid as well. And pretty evil, for that matter, as he's personally responsible for lots of deaths with his anti-vaccine crusades.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I agree. What’s far from stupid? Imbecile? Moron? Idiot? The r-word? He needs binoculars to even glimpse stupid."

Kinda weird how the keeps getting elected president then, huh?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's not weird at all. It's exactly why the framers didn't want a popularly elected President.

[David Nieporent]

Kinda weird how the keeps getting elected president then, huh?

Not really. Since when is an election an IQ test? (And more specifically — as I said the other day — what is it with the weird idea that an election is something a candidate does rather than something that voters do?)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"what is it with the weird idea that an election is something a candidate does rather than something that voters do?"

Huh? An election is where candidates attempt to convince voters to vote for them, and voters decide whom to vote for, partly based on the candidates' messaging.

"Since when is an election an IQ test?"

Running a successful campaign and convincing voters to vote for you requires cognitive ability.

[Don Nico]

David,
Your reply just shows you to be a person full of hate and arrogance about your own opinions. Just like many in the party that lost on Tuesday.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

TIP

You voted for Trump, so the 'cognitive ability' it took for him to ramble about Arnold Palmer's penis and spread lies about immigrants, and suggest that the media be shot and 'radical left lunatics' have the military sent after them is basically zero.

[Commenter_XY]

Very interesting perspective = But if you have to choose between evil and stupid, choose evil. Evil people have the hope of reform; stupid people will always remain stupid.

I had not thought of it this way.

[bernard11]

Don,

Trump is plainly stupid, and even more plainly utterly ignorant.

Have you listened to his speeches, or objectively analyzed his policy proposals, or, more recently, looked at his proposed cabinet appointments. The man is an idiot and as a matter of fact, his business career does nothing to dispel that.

[John F. Carr]

Speaking of post-election comedy, YouTube just showed me Pat Paulsen's concession speech on losing to Nixon.

[dwb68]

Who had, "Trump comes into office winning the popular vote by millions and has a conservative mandate" on their bingo card?

not me.

Latesha James turned Trump into a martyr. Biden's Progressive policies showed everyone that the cause was worthy.

His message was, "They're not after me, theyre after you, im just standing in the way." Hes an asshole, but like one of those billboard lawyers, he convinced people he's their asshole.

After 4 years of Biden, this resonated.

I hope this makes people rethink 8 years of lawfare, and 4 years of leftist policies. Trump resitance only made him stronger.

It wont, of course, because, the Dems will probably need one more election for this message to sink in.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they'll scale back the lawfare, and double down on the social media and search engine bias.

Though I won't rule out continued state level lawfare against Trump, it's hard for that to be effective once he's back in office.

And, again, I remind people: 73 days until Trump takes office, and he's already faced two assassination attempts, one of which barely failed. Don't be totally shocked if it's the Vance administration...

[Commenter_XY]

Nope, not a chance = scale back the lawfare. It will increase.

[bernard11]

Does it ever, for a moment, occur to you that Trump has actually done things that justify various legal actions?

Ever?

[Commenter_XY]

Sure = Does it ever, for a moment, occur to you that Trump has actually done things that justify various legal actions?

President Trump was a real estate developer in NYC. AYFKM?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, I think he has done things that would justify various legal actions, far short of the legal actions that actually happened. I also think that it is obvious that those actions would, none the less, not have been undertaken if Trump hadn't running against the Democrats, hadn't had the bad taste to win in 2016.

Who the hell gets prosecuted and convicted over a sexual assault that supposedly happened decades earlier without witnesses, and with no evidence beyond a naked accusation? That just doesn't happen in normal life!

The prosecution over his supposed financial fraud for listing a payment to his lawyer as a legal expense? And rationalizing it as a felony on the basis of a hypothetical, unspecified crime the prosecutor had no jurisdiction over? Does. Not. Happen.

"Important" people in DC routinely get a pass on enforcement of laws that ordinary people would be nailed to the wall for violating. That's what Comey was talking about when he said no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Hillary for what she'd done: Not that she wasn't guilty as hell, but that she was an important person of the sort who routinely got a pass on enforcement of that law.

So the idea that Trump was going to be hit with a raid over documents he was still in negotiations over who properly owned, when Biden had boxes of classified documents in his bloody garage? Nuts.

I will blame Trump, only because even if these were nakedly political selective prosecutions, he walked right into some of them. But that doesn't change that they were nakedly political selective prosecutions, that never would have happened to somebody like Trump if they hadn't been declared an enemy of the state.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Who the hell gets prosecuted and convicted over a sexual assault that supposedly happened decades earlier without witnesses, and with no evidence beyond a naked accusation?

Lots of people do. But Donald Trump isn’t one of them.

[David Nieporent]

Besides Brett getting confused about what actually happened, he continues to fail to understand that there was a witness, and that testimony under oath is evidence.

[not guilty]

Being charitable, I suspect that Brett’s meaning is that he claims there was no corroborating evidence apart from Trump's accuser’s testimony.

The flaw there is that while sometimes a witness’s testimony must be corroborated — such as the testimony of a defendant’s accomplice in a criminal prosecution — a civil suit for damages from sexual assault is not one of those situations. There an accuser’s testimony, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Determining whether a witness is or is not telling the truth is the province of properly instructed jurors, not that of internet kibitzers.

Brett seems unable to understand that, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to trial with the evidentiary rules you have, not the rules you might want or wish to have at a later time.

[dwb68]

There are so many laws on the books, most people are guilty of 3 felonies a day.

I'd be more inclined to take you seriously if Hunter Biden had not been given a sweetheart gun plea deal that literally NO ONE ever gets. That is, until it was reported, and the DOJ withdrew it.

"Show me the man I'll show you the crime" is not what prosecutorial discretion means.

[David Nieporent]

Biden had not been given a sweetheart gun plea deal that literally NO ONE ever gets.

No such event happened. In fact, it's the prosecution that virtually never happens in matters of this nature.

That is, until it was reported, and the DOJ withdrew it.

Yeah, that's not accurate either.

[dwb68]

Trump's Joe Rogan podcast is now up to over 48 million views, when I checked yesterday.

X outperformed other social media, and musk is not afraid to broadcast it on his platform. I tend to think good old capitalism and competition is going to kick in and other platforms will start to desensor their content.

Trump brings eyeballs, and eyeballs are good for advertising Revenue

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you think that any meaningful portion of the electorate voted for Trump because they were made that his company got fined for lying about the value of its assets, you have a much dimmer view of the intelligence of the American people than I do.

[Bwaaah]

“his company got fined for lying about the value of its asset”

That certainly added to my pile of reasons for voting for him. Admittedly, that was pretty deep down in the pile.

But dwb68 probably doesn’t have a dimmer view of the intelligence of the American people than you do.

[dwb68]

I don't understand your point. Trump supporters thought the lawfare was political witch hunt, and it motovated them. I don't like Trump, but I read the indictment and the opinion in the New York fraud cases, and I think it will be overturned because they stretched the law beyond comprehension. Even the deep blue appellate judges were skeptical.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t understand your point

His point is that not one of the scores of millions who voted for Trump said, "I wasn't going to vote for him, but because I find these civil and criminal suits unfounded, I am going to switch my vote to him." It may be an after-the-fact grievance in their minds to rationalize supporting a sociopath, but it played no role in a single voter's choices.

they stretched the law beyond comprehension.

Which specific elements of either the civil or criminal offenses involving Trump do you contend were not met, or were "stretched beyond comprehension"?

[Martinned2]

NB *whose* comprehension?

[Frank Drackman]

Any Veteran Shysters out there? does Admiral Rachel Levine rate VA benefits? the US Pubic Health Service is one of the 8 Uniformed Services (Army, Air Force, Space Force, Navy, Marine Corpse, Coast Guard, what's the 8th one?)
She's an "Admiral", she wears a Uniform (Badly, in his defense it's hard for real women to look good in those Navy Dinner Dress Blues), can't wait until she shows up at happy hour at her local VFW in Hershey PA

Frank

[Swede425]

I was on Twitter (X) last night watching these compilation videos from TikTok of people losing their shit over this election.
Some observations:
Overwhelmingly white, young women really like to record their mental instability and post it. Joking aside, there was a lot of mental illness on display. The shrieking tantrums were not funny to watch. It was very concerning. My youngest son is a senior in high school this year. He's been saying for the last couple of years that "Dad, you wouldn't believe what these girls are like". I definitely believe him.
A young black women, crying, asked "Am I going to be a slave when I wake up tomorrow?".
There are also, apparently, a ton of young, liberal women who are boycotting sex to show those boys how pissed off they are. I couldn't help but feel better for those boys.
There was also a lot of blaming Trump for tricking their stupid parents into voting for him.
There appears to be a portion of young, liberal women (what percent I have no idea) who are truly batshit insane. And there were dozens of these compilation videos. Sometimes with the same characters in them, but all of them with enough different individuals to suggest this problem is rampant. And these are just the one's who record themselves.
Where TF are these women getting their information from?

[Roger S]

There is a very high rate of mental disorders among girls and young women today.

[Bwaaah]

Where does it come from? #believethem

It can be beneficial to nurse your inabilities now. They give you entitlement in the victim benefits game, whatever that looks like in your neck of the woods. The more fucked up you are, the more you can cash in. Not that that helps you any...you just become a bigger part of the victim-industrial complex, which isn't a nice place to live.

[EscherEnigma]

Hey, as long as they don't storm the capital and chant about how they're going to hang Harris if she doesn't throw the election, I think they're doing better then Trump's supporters.

[Swede425]

I'm sure that makes sense. To you.
Anywaaaay....ignore this if you want to, but this isn't something I'm hearing the left talk about. Maybe they don't care?
I have twin daughters and if they were this irrational and distraught, it would be my number one concern.

[EscherEnigma]

Yes, it makes sense to care more about actual violence and attempting to stop the certification of a free and fair election then people being dramatic on a social media app where it pays (often literally) to be dramatic.

[Bwaaah]

The OP was about emotionally messed up teens, not January 6 violence. That wasn't significant enough for you? January 6 is the epicenter of your focus on "actual violence?"

When you decide to focus on actual violence, as in the problems of violence in the U.S., you'll move on from your incidental January 6 vignette. I get the symbolic import of that riot. But violence is a serious problem, has risen substantially in the past few years, and has only come part of the way back down. People, a LOT of people, are getting hurt and worse. Yet for Democrats, the whole subject continues to sit under a rug somewhere while they pretend there's nothing notable there, and that they had nothing to do with it. (Did you miss Democrats' widespread silent respect for the anti-policing movement? For the non-prosecution movement? Are the U.S. Capitol Police the only cops on your Which-Cops-Have-Been-Fucked-Lately list?)

New York City alone has had over 23,000 felonious assaults this year (up 2% over last year) and 315 murders (down 7%). That's a small fraction of the country's problems which are particularly endemic in the cities.

And you think you have your eye on the ball? January 6, indeed. Violence shmiolence.

Your sense of crime and injustice is cruelly blind to the more significant realities. You, and the Democratic party, are deaf to what matters, obsessed with symbols, and beside the point.

[Michael Ejercito]

Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Tracey are the only three journalists that I am aware of who have the credibility to call out Trump.

[Armchair]

Now that Trump has won, let's hit the priorities and what I think will happen.

1. Foreign affairs.
a. Israel.
-Trump doubles down on support for Israel, promising to back them to the hilt, unlike the wishy-washing Biden administration. Israel uses this to hit Iran hard. Iran backs down when faced with overwhelming odds. We see relative peace in the Middle East again.

b. Russia and Ukraine.
-Trump lifts all restrictions on weapons use by Ukraine that Biden put in. Trump also by executive order scales up production of key munitions, while reducing non-essential spending. This allows Ukraine to strike long and hard at multiple targets inside Russia. Faced with large scale infrastructure destruction in Russia, Putin goes to Trump for peace, but says he needs to save some face. Trump says he can convince Ukraine to give up Crimea, and pushes Ukraine on that. Crimea is transferred to Russia, but the war ends.

2. Justice and law enforcement.
a. Jack Smith is fired.
b. The DoJ is "realigned"
c. The FBI undergoes a heavy IG inspection and reorganization, in order to reduce the level of partisanship and ensure the FBI remains on core responsibilities and doesn't have "mission growth."

3. Immigration.
a. Trump reinstitutes "Remain in Mexico"
b. The current executive orders that allow for flights of tens of thousands in are revoked.
c. Border Patrol is re-funded and encouraged
d. A program to evict those illegal immigrants with gang/criminal records is established.

[SRG2]

We will not see relative peace in the ME. We will see Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia on one side, Iran and its proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah on the other - IOW where we are atm.

No way is Trump going to make it easier for Ukraine to win. If anything, he will simply cut back on US support for Ukraine.

Trump pardons all the 1/6 criminals. He will also pardon himself, and any attempt to challenge the self-pardon will be dismissed for lack of standing. He will appoint a loyalist AG and instruct the DoJ to engage in lawfare that makes the current alleged lawfare seem like a traffic ticket.

Trump will fuck up immigration.

[Don Nico]

SRG,

Trump will support Israel in eliminating the Iran nuclear threat. The oil bonanza will be eliminated. Without money from Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are toast. The Abraham accords will be broadened. Probably there will not be One Jewish State.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not clear what you mean by there not being one Jewish state.

[Don Nico]

There will not be a single sovereign entity in which Judaism is the state religion. Trump is going to insist on some sort of sub-national Palestinian entity.

[Stella Link the dog]

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "sub-national Palestinian entity." Whatever it means, do you think that the Israelis will accept it?

[SRG2]

He can insist what he likes, but Israel is not going to accept a non-Jewish state, any more than Palestinians are presently accepting of a Jewish one.

[Don Nico]

SRG,
You misunderstand my comment. Israel will remain a Jewish state. But it is unlikely that Trump will push a structure in which Palestinians have no governmental structure. In other words it is not likely that Trump will accept the full annexation of Gaza, Judea and Samaria by Israel. That is what Ambassador Friedman advocates as One Jewish State.
And there will be no State of Palestine recognized by the US.

[SRG2]

Ah, ok

[Martinned2]

it is not likely that Trump will accept the full annexation of Gaza, Judea and Samaria by Israel.

I see no basis for making any sort of statement about that one way or another. It's one of those things that no one can credibly claim to know. Trump may back Israel when they annex the Palestinian territories, or he might not, it's impossible to tell today. It depends, amongst other things, on how much Netanyahu flatters him, how much money Israel and its supporters spend at Trump hotels and other Trump businesses, on who is US Secretary of State that week, on what the Democrats at that point say about it, on what Fox News tells Trump to do, and on countless other unforeseeable things.

[Brett Bellmore]

I see no reason at all to expect Trump to do anything of the sort.

I think Israel will continue to be such a sovereign entity, while Palestinian areas will be put under some sort of temporary arrangement where they are no longer self governing, because they have overwhelmingly demonstrated that to the extent they are self-governing, they are a genocidal threat.

They won't be annexed, they won't be independent.

[SimonP]

Neither Israel nor Iran wants a direct military confrontation. Every move they've made has been to convey strength while avoiding an escalatory spiral. I don't expect that to change with Trump.

A really powerful hit from Israel against Iran will not go unanswered. Iran will hit Israel as hard as it can. When/if that happens, we'll find ourselves in a regime-change war with Iran. MAGA voters who claimed that Trump will keep us out of unnecessary wars will pivot easily to explain that Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons, it's time to "clean house" in the Middle East, etc.

It is true that Netanyahu's approach to Gaza and Lebanon will become more muscular, once it's clear that harsh action in those areas will not trigger a reduction of weapons from the U.S. The ouster of Gallant already conveys this. So the "general's plan" of starving Palestinians out of northern Gaza will be more openly embraced, a "raze it to the ground" approach to Lebanon will be more actively pursued, and outright annexation of territory in Gaza and the West Bank will begin. Where Palestinians will go is an open question, one that I doubt Netanyahu or Trump will care to address directly. Let them starve, or emigrate, I expect, will be the plan.

You're also bizarrely blinkered on Ukraine. Trump's "peace plan" for Ukraine is not to permit Ukraine to use American weapons against Russia. It's to cede territory to Russia and commit to their non-admission into NATO. He'll get into office, say "Okay, this is your last installment of military aid, either finish this or agree to a truce." If Europe does not come forward with their own arms and cash, Zelensky will have no choice but to agree to Putin's terms. Putin will sit on the new status quo for another few years, prepare for the next military invasion, time it for the next Democratic administration, MAGA will blame the Democrats once again for allowing that to happen (ignoring Trump's setting the ground conditions), rinse and repeat.

MAGA's obsession with the DOJ is so strange. They have consistently been a right-wing organization, and probably have plenty of Trump supporters in their ranks. They ratfucked Hilary's campaign, they released a damaging memo about Biden, and so on. A few Democrats in their ranks is inevitable for any DC-based agency.

I think the real question, on immigration, is whether Trump goes further than his previous policies. I agree that he'll probably start with the status quo ante. I suspect his mass deportation plan will turn out a lot like his "border wall" promises.

[Mr. Bumble]

With Trump having won the election I think Iran will be very cautious about continuing to attack Israel.

[SimonP]

If Trump wants to avoid war outright with Iran, he’ll maintain a continuity of approach with Biden, at least on that front. If Iran believes that Trump will want to do what he can to avoid direct conflict, they will continue to calculate their own strikes to do minimal damage to Israeli targets. And since I think Netanyahu definitely wants to avoid a hot war with Iran, which would pull in not just Iran’s proxies but potentially Syria and Iraqi militias, while forcing Russia, Egypt and Turkey to pick a side, I think Netanyahu is likely to advise Trump that avoiding war with Iran is the smarter move, and continue their own strategy of pulling punches when striking Iran.

I don’t think Iran just eats a real strike from Israel out of fear of the American response – unless you take for granted that Trump would engage in a forceful military response, or even a nuclear strike. Either approach would seem to be a repudiation of his campaign promises, wouldn’t it?

[Bob from Ohio]

You are delusional.

Iran is far too weak to withstand a fight with the US and Israel. It can fire some missiles, that is it. So can we.

It has no modern air force or navy. IDF just eliminated its Russian air defense system. Nothing will remain of its military and nuclear capacity but craters.

Syria and Iraqi militias, LOL

Russia, Egypt and Turkey are not going to confront the US to save Iran.

[SimonP]

I'm not surprised that you're having difficulty tracking the strategizing. Unfortunately, I think we can expect Trump to have similar difficulty.

[Bob from Ohio]

Israel has been "pulling its punches" because of US pressure. That's not going to be there come January.

Most every politician in Israel is eager to smash Iran, Bibi and all the leading opposition figures included.

[Don Nico]

Bob,
I have to agree with you on this one. I watch Israeli television every day and it is clear that there is a very broad consensus to conclude this war quickly with a meaning victory.

[SimonP]

They might be eager for the U.S. to go to war with Iran. I don't think Israel wants to take the brunt of it.

So, again. The question is whether you think Trump is interested in that. I was given to understand that he wasn't; he campaigned as the "peace president," remember?

[Martinned2]

Not only was that something he talked about in his campaign a lot, I have been repeatedly assured on this blog that that's one of the ways he was better than Biden.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Taking out Soleimani didn't lead to a hot war.

"I think Netanyahu is likely to advise Trump that avoiding war with Iran is the smarter move, and continue their own strategy of pulling punches when striking Iran."

What's being reported is that the US is encouraging them to moderate their targeting. We'll see if that continues to happen.

[SimonP]

Taking out Soleimani didn’t lead to a hot war.

No, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat attacks, in each case calculated to stop short of pushing into an escalatory spiral. That is the kind of thing that Israel and Iran are doing now, and I would expect Netanyahu to continue to do.

There is a line that Israel can cross, which will trigger the need within domestic Iranian politics to kill actual Israelis in response. I don't know where that is. But if Iran kills actual Israelis, it will be difficult for American politicians to avoid calling for direct American involvement. Unless you - like Bob - want to take the position that Trump no longer wants to avoid unnecessary foreign wars, I would expect both Netanyahu and Trump to stay just short of that line.

The moderation you're talking about is in Gaza and Lebanon, which Netanyahu has been observing for different reasons (e.g., geopolitics vis-a-vis states other than the US, military aid from the US). I do expect him to drop that moderation, as I said in my original comment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat attacks,"

No, Iran shot some missiles into some empty buildings and said they retaliated.

[Don Nico]

Israel cannot afford to let Iran retain its nuclear program

[Bored Lawyer]

Trump will also reinstate sanctions on Iran. And, if he is smart, try to effect regime change there. Many Iranians are fed up with the current regime. But I don't think this will be a priority. (Ah for the days of Bill Casey, head of CIA. One of the unacknowledged soldiers in winning the Cold War.)

[SimonP]

And, if he is smart, try to effect regime change there.

It is really tiresome, the way that MAGA supporters just waited for the election to be over, to change their tune on their appetite for unnecessary foreign wars.

Your hypocrisy was always transparently obvious, of course. But it's really frustrating to be gaslighted for months only for the mask to slip entirely once nothing further can be done about it. You all just lied to Americans long enough to fool them to elect Trump. Now you're all, "who cares about the national debt when you're cutting taxes" and "who cares about military adventurism when you're talking about bombing Iran - for their own good, of course."

[Commenter_XY]

I thought BL referenced sanctions, not military action.

[SimonP]

Do you think "effect[ing] regime change" is something that happens by way of sanctions?

[Commenter_XY]

I think economic sanctions can go a long way toward doing that (regime change) when the country is Iran and their inflation rate is tremendously high and their currency devalued. And it has been tough times for a number of years now.

When people are poor and hungry, they typically do things to change it. Make them poorer and hungrier, it guarantees action.

[David Nieporent]

I think economic sanctions can go a long way toward doing that (regime change) when the country is Iran and their inflation rate is tremendously high and their currency devalued. And it has been tough times for a number of years now.

When people are poor and hungry, they typically do things to change it. Make them poorer and hungrier, it guarantees action.

I'll take "theories that have never ever worked" for $1,000, Alex.

If you want sanctions to make the country economically and militarily weaker, fine. That may work. But sanctions do not cause regime change.

[Bored Lawyer]

Sanctions alone don't. But there are other ways, covert and overt, to undermine a regime. See my reference to the late, great Bill Casey.

[SimonP]

Now that the Supreme Court has declared the president is constitutionally immune from prosecution for his "official actions," I suppose there's nothing to stop Trump from illegally selling weapons in order to fund terrorist groups.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree, sanctions alone won't do the job. I don't think I said that.

Adding on to what BL stated....Economic sanctions don't put the noose over Khamenei's neck, but can make life miserable enough to motivate people who would.

[bernard11]

Think what a rousing success sanctions on Cuba have been. A sensible Cuba policy would have produced regime change some time ago.

[bernard11]

The last time we (and the British, mostly) tried to effectuate regime change in Iran it didn't turn out so well, even though the effort was a success.

Something similar could be said about efforts elsewhere.

[Commenter_XY]

Foreign affairs: I expect geopolitical events prior to 1/20/2025 to change somewhat '47s' policy responses to ISL, UKR. For ISL, internal political issues will dictate the aggressiveness of a response to Iran. The bottom line for ISL is they have to meet their stated war objectives wrt gaza and Lebanon or the government falls, so expect increased kinetic activity.

I would not expect a POTUS Trump to green light long range missile attacks into RUS by UKR, absent an explicit warning to Putin (which may, or may not have been already delivered).

[ducksalad]

You probably follow ISL closer than I do, but it seems to me the opposite: the government falls as soon as the war is over.

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, PM Netanyahu is a political operator. Bibi has been pronounced as 'politically dead' countless times. Nope. There will be a commission after the war.

If I had to pick a worthy successor, Naftali Bennett is at the top of the list.

[Don Nico]

I have been impressed with Netanyahu's performance as a war PM, almost another Churchill and like Mr. Churchill he should expect to loose the next election

[Martinned2]

Out of curiosity, what do you think Netanyahu's war aims are, and has he actually achieved any of them?

[Don Nico]

1) Eliminating the Iranian nuclear program and ending its funding stream for anti-Israel terrorism.
2) Make it safe to annex Gaza, Judea, and Samaria or have them administered by a neutral third party
3) Expand the Abraham accords and sattle with KSA.

He has come close to #2. He has been held back by Mr Biden on #1, but he remains publicly form on that aim. #3 must wait until the conflict ends.

[Martinned2]

In what way has he done #2? The IDF gets shot at in Gaza every day, so it's hardly safe even for the military. And on the West Bank (which is presumably what you mean by Judea and Samaria) there is no war, and therefore no war aims. At least in theory.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
The war in Gaza is not yet finished. I grant that, but the end is close.
You do know what Israelis mean by Judea and Sumaria as you know more history than you want to let on.
Destroying Hamas is essential to annexing those parts of historical Jewish homeland.
The PLA is just a leach on the Arab population there.

[Martinned2]

As long as there are still people in Gaza, the war there is not finished, and Hamas is not destroyed. People have been trying to destroy terrorist organisations by shooting at them for literally centuries, going back to the original Assassins. And it almost never works.

[Don Nico]

It worked getting rid of the Nazis and without killing all the German people.
You are just repeating a worn-out debating line.

[SimonP]

Christ, you're a fucking moron.

[Bwaaah]

Armchair: I'd be surprised if Trump thinks like you. But I do like your thinking.

[EscherEnigma]

I'll give you Israel, Trump is likely to double-down on giving Netanyahu (sp?) anything he wants.

On Ukraine, Trump has been vocal for years about how he doesn't want to support Ukraine at all and thinks it should just surrender. He's only going to be a help to Putin there.

As far as the DOJ goes, he has been very explicit that he literally wants to increase partisanship. By saying he'll reduce partisanship, you're calling him a liar. Which he is, but it's weird to read it from you, especially since this is one of the things he actually tried to do at the end of his last term, so there really is no reason to think he won't make the DOJ and other agencies dramatically more political.

Regarding immigration, again, he's been explicit here. If you think he's going to be that reigned in, you're deluding yourself.

[Don Nico]

With respect to Ukraine, Mr Trump needs to stop the bleeding caused by Obama's regime change in 2014 and Biden's determination to engage Putin in a proxy war, which has led to 700,000 Ukrainian and Russian deaths. The war would have ended in April 2022 had not Biden and Boris Johnson leaned Zelenskiy to walk away from a diplomatic settlement.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's silly, it completely ignores Russia's normal behavior, which is that in another year or two they'd come back for another piece of Ukraine. You can't buy lasting peace with a treaty with somebody who doesn't abide by treaties.

[Martinned2]

You can’t buy lasting peace with a treaty with somebody who doesn’t abide by treaties.

True.

Note that that is also an important problem for the US in its international relations. As far as I can tell, the US has only ratified 9 treaties this century (in the current Congress the Senate ratified a double taxation treaty with Chile), and executive agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on. Depending on how you count the latter, the US either doesn't do international agreements or doesn't keep its promises. Either way, you can't do business with a country like that.

[Don Nico]

"the US either doesn’t do international agreements or doesn’t keep its promises."
That is close to accurate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I wouldn't argue with that. Our word, historically, has been near worthless; Ask the Indians about that.

But Putin's word isn't near worthless, it has if anything negative value.

[Don Nico]

It isn't silly. Russia does not want those parts. You don't understand Mr Putin's concept of Greater Russia.

[David Nieporent]

Why are you continually repeating Putin's propaganda? There was no "diplomatic settlement" on the table, and neither Biden nor Johnson leaned on Zelensky in any way to walk away from it. It is 1,000% a fabrication.

Also, there was no "Obama's regime change in 2014," nor is there a proxy war.

So aside from getting every single fact wrong, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Don Nico]

"Why are you continually repeating Putin’s propaganda?"

David,
Yours is the same bullshit line that has cost 700,000 their lives. You repeat Biden's propaganda. I hope that Mr Biden can sleep well with that much blood on his hands.
Sleep well yourself content with your lie.

[David Nieporent]

The unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine cost those lives. Not anything Joe Biden said or decided. You are a full on Putin cocksucker.

[Don Nico]

"You are a full on Putin cocksucker."
Stop being such an asshole just because someone disagrees with you.
Or maybe you are just a full on Biden cocksucker.
You actually how very little knowledge or concern for what has happened in Europe in the past 15 years. Instead you continue to reveal in your ignorance while more Ukrainians die.

[David Nieporent]

I don't call you that because you disagree with me. I call you it because you're a liar spewing Russian propaganda. Hitler claimed that Poland had attacked Germany, and that's the equivalent of what you're doing here. Russia bears 100% of the blame for the deaths. Not part of the blame, not some of the blame, but all of the blame.

[Don Nico]

No you spew lies and insults because of bad character and myopia.
Again, I will repeat that Turkey had brokered a settlement in April 2022. Zelensky was going to accept. Biden sent Boris (Bad-hair Day) Johnson to cajole him out of the agreement.
Biden wanted a proxy war with Putin. He was public in statements about removing Putin. This is just another example of fucked-up US policy that destroys countries in the name of regime change.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Zelensky was going to accept."

A bald-faced lie, barely distinguishable from the Russian cum drooling out of your mouth.

[David Nieporent]

Again, I will repeat that Turkey had brokered a settlement in April 2022. Zelensky was going to accept. Biden sent Boris (Bad-hair Day) Johnson to cajole him out of the agreement.

That is literally Russian propaganda. There were indeed talks; there was no "settlement" that had been "brokered." Rather, Russia proposed an abject surrender by Ukraine. Ukraine would get nothing — not its territory back, not security, not control over its own foreign policy, nothing. But while they were discussing this, the Russians were forced to retreat from their failed assault on Kyiv, so Ukraine lost any incentive to surrender. (Also, the Bucha massacre came to light.)

Biden wanted a proxy war with Putin.

Another fabrication. He did not say anything about "removing" Putin.

[Mr. Bumble]

Remember, Biden called it a “minor incursion” and offered to fly Zelenskyy out of the country as a first response.
Don’t underestimate Biden’s ability to fuck things up.

[David Nieporent]

Why you remember things that are false? Biden did not call it a minor incursion. That's a fake talking point that you've still managed to screw up. The original claim was that Biden said in advance of the invasion that the U.S. wouldn't oppose a minor incursion. That was false, but you've taken it a step further and claimed that he called the invasion a minor incursion.

(What Biden actually said was the perfectly reasonable point that the U.S. response would depend on exactly what Russia did; we would react to a minor incursion differently than a full invasion.)

[Don Nico]

" Biden did not call it a minor incursion."
I never said that.
Why you remember things that are false? Why do you conveniently forget all the rest?
Oh yes. US psuedo-colonialism.

[David Nieporent]

I never said that.

Yes, which is why I didn't say you did. I was responding to Mr. Bumble, as you can see by, you know, actually reading.

Oh yes. US psuedo-colonialism.

Oh, yes. Don Nico pseudo-intellectualism.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As people who supported her said would happen, VP Harris conceded when the polls went against her:

“I concede this election but I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign: the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness,” she said.

No cries of "FRAUD!" or incitement of insurrection.

(Per the 14A, Trump is ineligible to serve. The Supreme Court wrongly held in Trump v. Anderson that Congress alone could enforce the provision. So, akin to voting rights for black people in the segregation South, the amendment will lie dormant.)

I respect President Biden's response to her statement and am disappointed (among other emotions) that the public decided to go another way. We shall replace an honorable man with a dishonorable one.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/11/06/statement-from-president-joe-biden-10/

[Mr. Bumble]

...and an incompetent one with a competent one.

[SRG2]

LOL. Trump wasn't competent first time around, as one can tell by all the signature policies and promises that weren't carried out. This time, "competence" will also apply to his cognitive faculties, which are declining rapidly.

[Commenter_XY]

The election is over, SRG2. Just saying.

[SRG2]

I know. That doesn't change facts. He was administratively incompetent the first time and it's only a matter of faith that he won't be this time. And his mental competence is clearly waning, and this too was true on Monday and did not change on Tuesday night just because enough people either overlooked it or didn't see it - or possibly didn't care.

[Commenter_XY]

I have to agree about '45' being administratively challenged. The transition got totally messed up over and above the extended confirmation hearings.

Hopefully with a Team R Senate in place, and some hard won experience from 7 years ago, his tenure as '47' will administratively be better.

[SRG2]

The transition got messed up because they didn't bother. IIRC Trump hadn't even put together a team in advance of the election just in case. It's that stable genius thing.

Hopefully with a Team R Senate in place, and some hard won experience from 7 years ago, his tenure as ’47’ will administratively be better.

As Dr Johnson described a second marriage, the triumph of hope over experience. Let's see.

[SimonP]

Trump has been called many things, but "competent" is not one of them.

[Mr. Bumble]

Relative to Biden/Harris he is.

[SimonP]

You haven't got a single fact to back this namecalling up.

[Mr. Bumble]

None you would accept in your insular little world.

[Roger S]

At least Trump can do an interview. Biden and Harris are too incompetent to answer questions.

[SimonP]

I hear he gives the very best interviews behind closed doors with Putin.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, we just saw a 3-hour unscripted interview a week ago, that wasn't too shabby.

[Bwaaah]

So you're going with reality, and not fantasy?

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, afraid so. I have to go with reality.

[SimonP]

I am not sure why MAGA supporters think this is such an effective talking point. Or why you're maintaining this particular talking point, after the election, while dropping so many other ones.

In short, who gives a shit? We do not choose the leader of the first world based on their ability to sit on their ass and ramble for three hours with a friendly podcast host. Harris is no great orator, but so the fuck what? Did a teleprompter touch you when you were a child, or something?

[Bwaaah]

Clearly, that which you think is compelling is *not* what a lot of other people think is compelling. (Like that Rogan interview made Trump look relatively mild-mannered, engaged, and normal, despite conflicting reality.) You could learn something from that if you didn't so easily dismiss it as "they're all stupid."

You wouldn't make a good campaign strategist. You're way too stuck in your beliefs, unmoved by unfolding [shifting] reality. You're unmoved by the aspirations of others who aren't quite like you.

Anyway: you're a loser. LOL. Seriously, laugh! You're a loser! It's OK. (We are all, one way or another, losers.)

[EscherEnigma]

"Clearly, that which you think is compelling is *not* what a lot of other people think is compelling. "
Assumes facts not in evidence: There's no reason to think that Rogan's interview was the tipping point for people and honestly, I'd be skeptical of anyone who made that claim.

Simply put, "politically ignorant" people don't listen to three hour interviews with politicians, and anyone who wasn't "politically ignorant" already knew who they were voting for.

[SimonP]

You could learn something from that if you didn’t so easily dismiss it as “they’re all stupid.”

And you could learn something if you read what I actually wrote, instead of attribute to me claims I hadn't made.

The interview with Rogan didn't clinch the deal for Trump. It's not as though thousands of voters in all of the swing states were waiting to see how he and his surrogates performed on a podcast hosted by a supplement salesman. Trump won because prices are high, immigration seems out of control, and people wanted a change.

Undecided voters weren't waiting for confirmation that Trump could sit still for three hours, the same way they didn't care about Trump's McDonald's stunt or dump truck stunt. That was all fan-service for the too-online base.

[Bwaaah]

All C_XY said was that the 3-hour unscripted interview a week ago wasn’t too shabby. And that was too much for you to let go.

"The interview with Rogan didn’t clinch the deal for Trump."

No shit, Sherlock. You're boxing with shadows.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Like that Rogan interview made Trump look relatively mild-mannered, engaged, and normal, despite conflicting reality."

A reasonable person would understand that, while a mild-mannered, engaged and normal person is perfectly capable of pretending for three hours to be unhinged, an unhinged person is NOT capable of pretending to be mild-mannered, engaged, and normal for three hours.

If you act that way for three hours straight, it's because you ARE that way.

[Bwaaah]

And though that didn't occur to me, it explains why the interview intuitively struck me as telling me something unfamiliar about Donald Trump; of presenting a quite sane tempered manner. I found it somewhat boring, but compelling for the reason you say...it was authentic.

Anyway, all the deeds of Satan are wasted on SimonP who sees through it all.

[CountmontyC]

I am quite willing to investigate any potential fraud in the 2024 elections. I don't believe that the left would be willing to do so because of things like the 2500 fraudulent registrations in that one county in Pennsylvania. I believe Harris's willingness to accept defeat is because Trump's victory was just too big to rig.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t believe that the left would be willing to do so because of things like the 2500 fraudulent registrations in that one county in Pennsylvania.

Setting aside that "the left" isn't involved in anything (and assuming you just mean Democrats), why would Democrats be unwilling to investigate attempted GOP fraud? (Note that it was not "election fraud." It did not involve ballots.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Suspicious voter registration forms in Pennsylvania linked to Arizona city councilman’s company

"Two Pennsylvania counties have identified an Arizona-based company as the source of thousands of last-minute voter registration applications that they are investigating.

The company, Field+Media Corps, which conducts voter registration and outreach programs, is run by Francisco Heredia, a Mesa councilman and a longtime voting activist in Arizona."

From Open Secrets:
"Money to Candidates HEREDIA, FRANCISCO
MESA, AZ 85210 SELF CONSULTING 12-21-2019 $100 TERAN, RAQUEL (D) AZ

Money to Candidates HEREDIA, FRANCISCO
MESA, AZ 85210 SELF CONSULTING 04-02-2020 $75 SANDOVAL, MARIANA (D) AZ

Money to Candidates HEREDIA, FRANCISCO
MESA, AZ 85210 SELF SELF 07-16-2021 $250 Robert Menendez (D) Federal"

Got a strange donation history for a Republican, if you ask me.

[ducksalad]

The article appears to be a reasonably calm account of what happened. There's no statement in the article that this was rigging the vote, leaving open the most obvious explanation - an unscrupulous businessman paid by the form submitted a bunch of bad forms, in order to make money.

What's not reasonable is how stories like this morphed online at each stage in the telephone game: changing the word "forms" to "registrations" and then changing the word "registrations" to "votes".

The worst one was the utterly false accusation of 200,000 non-citizen voters in Arizona. The fevered right changed "had neglected to complete the registration by sending a birth certificate" into "non-citizens registered", and then changed "non-citizens registered" into "non-citizen voting".

So don't blame us if we dismiss the occasional correct accusation when it's buried in a continuous stream of lies. Aesop specified the correct penalty for the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason I suspect it was intentional is that it directly mirror’s ACORN’s practices: Not just including a bunch of fraudulent forms, but dumping them all at one time at the last minute, rather than delivering them in batches the authorities would have plenty of time to process. ACORN routinely did exactly that.

Also, this dude has a history of doing it in Arizona, this isn't the first time for him. (As ACORN kept doing it over and over, too.)

But the only thing I’m asserting here is that he wasn’t a Republican…

[CountmontyC]

So if Trump creates a commission to investigate election fraud ( which would include fraudulent registrations) you would support such a commission? They could investigate the non-citizens registered to vote in Arizona, Oregon and Virginia. They could also investigate all of the fraudulent donations that go through Actblue.
Remember nobody is above the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

" The Supreme Court wrongly held in Trump v. Anderson that Congress alone could enforce the provision."

The Supreme court didn't hold at all that Congress alone could enforce the provision. They held that Congress alone could specify the procedure to enforce the provision, and that the currently specified procedure is a federal conviction for insurrection.

It doesn't have to be, prior to 1948 there was also a federal civil procedure.

The DOJ did not attempt to prosecute Trump for insurrection, and the reason they didn't is that the career prosecutors judged that there wasn't remotely a winnable case that he was guilty. You're trying to leverage figurative insurrection to have the consequences of legal insurrection, and that was never going to happen.

[ThePublius]

California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico, Colorado, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, D.C., and Maine have all enacted the compact. Will they follow through now, and award all of the electoral votes to Trump, since he has won the popular vote? I doubt they have the integrity to do so. This is probably the end of the Compact.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[Kazinski]

Well the compact states that they aren't obliged to award their votes based on the popular vote majority until enough states comprising a majority of the EC join the compact.

Also its unconstitutional for states to join a compact unless Congress approves it.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into Any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”

Would a candidate or a voter have standing to challenge awarding electoral votes according to an illegal compact?

[ThePublius]

Oh, I didn't know that, about Article one. So, why have they plowed ahead with this? Why hasn't the DoJ stopped it? It's been going on since 2006, I think.

[Bored Lawyer]

I think because, even on its terms, the EC Compact does not take effect until enough states enact it. So there is no point in seeking Congressional approval for something that will not take effect anyway.

However, given the recent election results, I think the EC Compact will die anyway.

As I have said here before, I think a better system would be to enact a Constitutional Amendment to require each state to apportion its electors acc. to the percentage of votes in the state. That would immediately make most of the states (except the smallest) competitive.

[Commenter_XY]

Really? You'd do away with 'winner take all'?

Would you make the EC bigger if you apportion by vote percentage?

[Bored Lawyer]

Answers: yes; did not think about it.

For most big states I don't think you need to. Texas has 40 electoral votes. California 54. Pennsylvania 19. That means, respectively, each increment of 2.5%, 1.85% and 5.2% would mean one more elector. I think that's fine.

To illustrate, our State of NJ has 14 electoral votes. Harris won 51.5% to 46.5%. Under the current system, Harris got all 14. Under my proposal, they would split 7-7.

The feature is, it encourages candidates to campaign and pay attention to all or almost all states. Rather than focus primarily on 5 to 10 "swing states."

[Lennyk78]

I like that, but obviously it only works if every state agrees. Also, I'd make sure the popular vote winner get at least one more. So in your example, I would do 8-6. But otherwise, I like it.

[bernard11]

I would absolutely do away with winner-takes-all. It's a big part of what makes the EC an insane system.

[Noscitur a sociis]

However, given the recent election results, I think the EC Compact will die anyway.

Why?

[Brett Bellmore]

The motivation behind the compact was elections where Republicans won the EC and lost the popular vote. That's why it has almost exclusively been joined by states dominated by Democrats in near rank order of how Democratic they are.

If Trump actually has won the popular vote, after all the counting is done, these uniformly Democratic states will be confronted with a real possibility that the compact could cut against them, not for them, in a future election, and that they might be forced by it to give their EC votes to a Republican they'd voted against. Possibly even a Republican they hate as much as Trump.

That's going to take away a lot of the attraction the compact had for them when they assumed it would only be 'red' states forced to give their EC votes to Democrats.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If Trump actually has won the popular vote, after all the counting is done, these uniformly Democratic states will be confronted with a real possibility that the compact could cut against them, not for them, in a future election, and that they might be forced by it to give their EC votes to a Republican they’d voted against.

How? All it does is show that this time, the Electoral College and the popular vote produced the same winner (which is, of course, what usually happens). It doesn’t say anything about which party is more likely to be the beneficiary the next time they diverge.

(This is, of course, granting arguendo your doubtful premise that no one genuinely believes that popular vote is a better way of choosing a president, even if that ends up being worse for their preferred candidate in some cases.)

[EscherEnigma]

Not my claim, but I agree, but I don't blame "recent election results".

Simply put, there are three categories of states.

There a re reliable-blue states, which include every state that has adopted the compact.

There are swing states, none of which have adopted the compact.

And there are red states, none of which have adopted the compact.

There are not enough blue states to implement the compact on their own. They need some support from swing or red states.

But the compact would reduce the political relevance of a swing state, so they're disincentivized to adopt it.

And Republicans have twice in recent memory won an election without the popular vote, and have broadly embraced their structural advantage, so they're also disincentivized to adopt it.

So before we see the compact (or a real nationwide push for popular vote) I expect we would need one (or more likely, two) elections where Democrats won without the popular vote, something that, again, is unlikely to happen in at least the next few election cycles.

[bernard11]

I think a better system would be to enact a Constitutional Amendment to require each state to apportion its electors acc. to the percentage of votes in the state. That would immediately make most of the states (except the smallest) competitive.

Good idea. It would also encourage turnout, because every extra vote cast increases the state's influence. One not-so-small change: have fractional EV's. Otherwise you'll have a million lawsuits trying to get the state counts changed by a little, to pick up an EV.

[EscherEnigma]

"[A] Constitutional Amendment to require each state to apportion its electors acc. to the percentage of votes in the state. "
I'm curious why you'd stop there, instead of just going for the popular vote. I can think of a few pragmatic reasons, but I'm not convinced it's worth the extra complexity of keeping electors when you'd already be spitting-close to popular vote anyway. And while you'd reduce the odds of a popular vote/EC mix-up, I think you would also increase the drama if it did happen.

[Kazinski]

I think the better solution would be to go with the Nebraska/Maine solution. In most states it would provide representation to different regions, like Eastern Washington, and metropolitan areas like Austin that currently aren't heard in presidential elections.

And give a two vote bonus for winning the state.

[EscherEnigma]

Hard pass from me. That would make gerrymandering even more a problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, gerrymandering needs to be solved anyway for independent reasons.

I think it's a real shame that Democrats tried to redefine "gerrymandering" as any failure to negate their own political geography based problems. It only convinced the Court's majority that it was a totally political fight, and that there was nothing in there they could objectively rule on.

But, of course, the Court couldn't really undertake a consistent treatment of gerrymandering so long as the Voting rights act is interpreted as mandating racial gerrymandering under some circumstances. Hard to square that circle.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because practice has been that the compact clause only applies to 'significant' compacts with impact beyond the states that join, not all compacts. And there was no need to have a legal fight until the compact had enough members to take effect, which was unlikely to happen, because in order to do so it would need to convince some swing states to join, and voluntarily start being ignored in all future presidential elections.

The closer they've gotten to enough members to put the compact into effect, the harder a time they've had getting states to join. I think this election may have killed it.

[Martinned2]

In a sane world, this election would save it. Even though Trump probably won the national popular vote, it is clearer than ever that if someone like him is going to be anywhere near the White House, he should at least convince a majority of Americans to back him.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, the only actual motive for the compact was elections where Republicans, specifically, won the EC without winning the electoral vote, so that Democrats, specifically, thought that replacing the EC with a popular vote would be politically advantageous to them.

As soon as it looks like that EC/popular vote disconnect can go both ways, the actual, partisan motive for replacing the EC goes away.

[David Nieporent]

Remember, Brett gets offended if anyone else tries to talk about what their political opponents are really thinking. But Brett knows the "only actual motive" for a group he has no connection to of any sort.

[Martinned2]

Trump's majority in the NPV will still be smaller than his majority in the electoral college, so I don't think you've thought this through.

(At the time of writing the NPV is 50.7% vs 47.7%, and the Electoral College is 295 vs 226, giving Trump 56.7% of the Electoral College votes that have already been declared.)

[Voize of Reazon]

Section 10 has been litigated in the context of two states settling a boundary dispute. Virginia v. Tennessee 148 U.S. 503 (1893):

The Constitution does not state when the consent of Congress shall be given, whether it shall precede or may follow the compact made, or whether it shall be express or may be implied.

[FrancoisDB]

wrong way. we should do a popular vote, but with each county getting one vote. look at pennsylvania. over a million niggers in philadelphia county are able to wipe out the votes of real patriotic white americans in the 20 smallest counties. that's so unfair.

[Frank Drackman]

Not kind or gentle

[Bwaaah]

LOL. awwww...Frank...you cared.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm sorry, did you get your browser tabs confused, FDB? I think you were looking for Stormfront and hit Volokh Conspiracy instead.

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran, you may be interested to know that Cleveland has a huge Jewish population, they practically own all of east Cleveland: both civilian Jews and Hasidim alike. And their districts voted 80+ for Harris. So you must belong to some militant Jew strain that doesn't vote with the tribe. Maybe you're the hayseed of Jews. Say, that's a catchy nickname there

[Bob from Ohio]

"civilian Jews"

??

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You should try reading the links before sharing them, or you can continue to look like an ignorant fuck.

"Taking the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among participating states only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College."

Literally the first sentence of the main article.

[apedad]

Another Arizona woman imprisoned for role in polygamist child sex abuse ring

A sixth spiritual wife of an Arizona religious leader who sexually abused 10 underage girls in the name of God was sentenced to prison Wednesday afternoon.

Leilani Barlow, who admitted to marrying her underage daughter off to the man who would repeatedly rape the girl for two years, will spend six years in federal prison followed by five years of supervised release.

https://www.courthousenews.com/another-arizona-woman-imprisoned-for-role-in-polygamist-child-sex-abuse-ring/

Man, religion and sects can influence weak-minded people to make ugly, disgusting choices.

Can anyone think of any other recent events where people willingly chose to follow a deranged leader?

[Mr. Bumble]

See most Muslim Imams

[Bored Lawyer]

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Neither of whom were particularly religious.

[hobie]

Yeah, that's that Samuel Bateman character. He also tried to marry his own daughter but that was too much for the mother so she fled. He also regularly engaged in sex with the other men in the cult while the child brides watched.

But, yeah, as long as personal gratification and power are what you care about most, I suppose you can tolerate all sorts of other shit

[ThePublius]

"Biden team debates how to ‘Trump-proof’ foreign policy"

I don't think it's possible, but it will create more work for team Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/biden-trump-proofing-foreign-policy-00187875

[ThePublius]

And just like that - all of my neighbors' Harris/Walz lawn signs are gone....

[Swede425]

Honestly, that's how they all should be.
I'm building a cabin and watch a lot of videos on YouTube.
All the political ads are gone and I couldn't be more thankful.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're building a cabin? That's cool. Always wanted to do that.

[EscherEnigma]

Meanwhile, one of my neighbors has had a Trump banner up since 2016, only changing it out when he gets the new model.

I think your neighbors sound much more courteous.

[ThePublius]

I'm looking forward to eight years of president Vance after Trump 47.

[Moderation4ever]

This is tricky for Vance he can get ten years if he shelves Trump after 2027, but would be term limited if he shelves Trump too early. Best for Vance in the country if he leaves Trump in place and runs a shadow Presidency for 2025 to 2029 term.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's really up to Vance, unless Trump ends up in really bad shape medically. But it's at least possible that, if Trump has a good 3 years or so, and his health is starting to fail, he might want Vance to have the chance to run as the incumbent.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump is never going to step aside. Joe Biden ego is half the size of Trump's but he would not step aside. Trump brain is mush. His supporter did not care and elected him. I think we will find that he is on a steep slope down. He could plateau for a while but he never going back.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump's not going to step aside as long as he thinks he's up to the job, but at the same time he doesn't want people comparing him to Joe Biden. If he suffers a serious stroke, expect him to step down just to avoid that.

[Moderation4ever]

Brett, take a look at your first sentence.

"Trump’s not going to step aside as long as he thinks he’s up to the job,"

The only way Trump will not think he is up to the job is when he is dead and no longer thinking at all. Trump has long believed that he is better than the experts at things. He is never going to think he is not up to the job.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Trump has long believed that he is better than the experts at things."

Who said this? “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

I don't think it was Donald Trump.

[gVOR08]

Kevin Drum at jabberwocking.com had a nice summary of the conditions Trump is inheriting.
– Inflation, Last quarter to previous quarter, annualized, 1.2%.
– Border encounters are down to pre-COVID levels.
– GDP grew at 2.8% last quarter. This won’t last as GDP is 2.6% above “potential”.
– China. Imports are at 1.28% of GDP, a 20year low.
– Oil and gas production are at record highs.
-Crime is “already down because it never went up” except for murder, which is down.

Biden, and Harris, didn't get credit for any of this, which says a lot about our supposedly liberal MSM. Trump, again, inherited a good situation. How long before he screws it up?

[Moderation4ever]

A lot depends on if he really follows the agenda he ran on. There is no doubt that deporting immigrants and tariffs will affect the economy in a very bad way.

[ThePublius]

Your stats are bullshit. Crime is not down, for example. The bogus FBI crime stats report has been revised. The inflation rate may be down, but prices are still way up, not only for groceries and fuel, but for houses, too. And so on. Keep up the lies, that's the Dem way....

[Lennyk78]

Also, the inflation rate is bullshit. It oversamples things we don't need, like flat screen TVs, and undersamples things we do need, like housing, medical care, child care, insurance, and so forth.

Even with wage increases, most people are poorer than they were before. That's why the economic mood is so bad in this country, and that's why Trump won.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Since sitting presidents get praise or blame overall, even when the situation is to a large extent out of their control, Trump will benefit from these positives. He will in a fashion “own” them.

There is a good chance that an immigration bill like the one he blocked will pass and he will get some praise for that too. If the Dems win the House, there is even more possibility the bill will have additional positives, which would be required for their sign-on.

[David Nieporent]

I generally agree with your point, but it's not clear to me why you think that imports from China being down is something to get "credit" for. Trade is good. More trade is better. It's not — as Trump thinks — a zero-sum game in which there are winners or losers, with losing measured by trade deficits.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trade with allies is good. Dependency on strategic enemies is bad.

[bernard11]

Who said anything about "dependency?"

We import tons of not-particularly strategically important goods from China. You think we need to start paying a lot more for domestically produced TV's as a matter of national security?

And that can be easily abused. Remember when Trump put tariffs on Canadian steel as a national security matter?

[Bob from Ohio]

We get nothing important from China that other countries don't already produce or can quickly tool up to do.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd like to think that.

We get nothing from China we couldn't in theory get from someplace else, or make at home, but in many cases it could take years to develop that capacity.

[gVOR08]

I don't, particularly. But it's another thing Trump's been saying that we needed to elect him to do that's already been done.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden and Harris didn't get any credit for lowering border encounters, because the very fact that they lowered them after they started to hurt them politically proved that they could have lowered them at any time. It totally gutted their claim that they weren't responsible for the ultra-high numbers that set in as soon as they took office.

It's like demanding credit for somebody's headache going away, when it only went away because you stopped hitting them with a hammer. They're not going to forget where the headache came from in the first place.

[Bwaaah]

^that^

[loveconstitution1789]

Whew, Trump won! Well, that was a long 4 years to work with Trump campaign to get him re-elected.

I see a lot has changed and a lot has stayed the same here at Reason.

Next mission is to get good SCOTUS replacements for Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas and Alito.

[Roger S]

Yes, it will be tough to find good scotus replacements.

[ThePublius]

I think Roberts, Thomas, and Alito are just fine. I'd like to get rid of Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown-Jackson.

[Lennyk78]

Yeah, but Thomas is 76 years old, and he'll be 80 when Trump's second term ends. The time for him to resign and be replaced by a Republican is in the next 4 years, lest it become a Ginsburg situation.

[Commenter_XY]

No need to rush on Justice Thomas. It can wait 2 years.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Roberts needs to go.

[Commenter_XY]

No way. CJ Roberts has been a great Chief.

[Bwaaah]

Despite widespread opinions to the contrary, I'm inclined to agree with you. But then, I'm staunchly moderate (which is a sort of oxymoron).

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly great. Hardly adequate.

[Commenter_XY]

He will go down as the 3rd or 4th most consequential Chief Justice in US history. And unlike others, CJ Roberts has delivered on what he said he would do during his confirmation hearings. Roberts promised to be a consensus builder; as Chief Justice, he has one of the highest rates of 9-0 decisions, historically.

Who is a better alternative, aged 50-55? Can you name one? I cannot.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure Candide he is the best of all possible Chiefs.

[Lennyk78]

No, he sucks. He's squishy, and he likes to let things "percolate" to maintain "legitimacy." Meanwhile, the lower court judges run amok.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I cannot forgive him for his Obamacare it's a tax ruling.

That subverted the constitution and common sense.

[Commenter_XY]

A tax can be repealed....by Congress. They haven't done it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is it wasn't a tax. It was an unconstitutional penalty, imposed without a trial before the judiciary with the right to trial by jury kicking in. The bloody law actually SAID it was a penalty!

So the upshot of Roberts' penaltax ruling is that Congress can fine you for refusing to do anything Congress decides to order you to do, as long as they have the IRS administer the fine, and the IRS doesn't have to allow you a trial, let alone a jury trial.

That's a very bad development which could come back to bite us at any time in the future, so long as that precedent stands.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can't wait until Congress passes a law mandating every adult citizen buy and maintain a firearm and "tax" them if they don't.

[Brett Bellmore]

That they'd be on solid constitutional grounds for, actually, given the militia clauses and founding era precedent.

[Commenter_XY]

When '47' was '45', he spoke about repealing that penaltax. The best he could do was zero it out. Maybe this time it can be repealed. There is a long list of proposed policies that need to be turned into legislative language in the next 60 days. When '47' was '45', he got a very slow start, legislatively. And a slow start on vetting judges and holding hearings.

[Lennyk78]

The problem is that the subsidies and things that cost money are too baked in to ever repeal now. This was basically a single payer system by another name.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was the shame of Roberts' ruling, really: Entitlement programs are basically immortal once they get entrenched, and he sabotaged the last chance we had to get rid of the ACA, just in a hopeless effort to suck up to the left.

[Lennyk78]

Exactly. The problem is that leftists like to say "People like Obamacare now." Of course they do. Who doesn't like getting free stuff paid for with borrowed money? It's all fun and games until we can't borrow at reasonable rates, or worse, lose the reserve currency

[SimonP]

How do you propose to do that, Pube?

[ThePublius]

No idea.

[EscherEnigma]

"Next mission is to get good SCOTUS replacements for Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas and Alito."
A worthwhile mission, but I don't think one that Trump will help with.

[Stella Link the dog]

Trump has claimed that he does not intend to try to enact a federal abortion ban or, as implied, federal abortion regulation though as late as March of this year he was proposing that a national ban as early as 15 weeks might be something he would agree to.

But, is it likely that he would allow enforcement of the Comstock Act with respect to mifepristone and perhaps other things? Is it likely that his FDA could withdraw approval of the drug or require in person examination rather then some sort of remote physician's appointment?

How about "morning after" birth control which some claim, perhaps wrongly, prevents fertilized egg implantation? Is it likely that the Trump Administration might try to prohibit that, and perhaps IUD (or other hormone birth control) which some claim prevents fertilized egg implantation?

How about attempts by states, for example Texas, trying to access out of state patient medical records with the intent of tracking down women who have had out of state abortions. Could the Trump Justice Department take some sort of federal action to facilitate those states' attempts? Could the Trump Admin try to force states to report the state of residence of all women who receive abortions?

Probably less likely, but is it possible for the Trump Admin to try to get Griswold overturned?

[SimonP]

I think the FDA is likely to unwind its most recent regulatory change for the distribution of medication abortion, in order to make it more difficult for women living in red states to obtain that medication remotely. The Trump administration is likely to drop the FDA's litigation before Fifth Circuit defending that regulation, and the Fifth Circuit is unlikely to permit other parties to intervene.

I expect that a Republican Congress will go further. Trump will not need to lean on the Comstock Act if Congress is able to pass its own legislation on abortion. I expect they will take steps designed to give them "plausible deniability" on enacting abortion bans, but it may look more like, "The FDA may not approve for human use any drug or device whose primary use is to end a pregnancy," or "In evaluating the safety of any drug for human consumption or medical device, the FDA must consider its effect on unborn fetuses." By blocking FDA review/approval of abortifacient drugs and devices, that'll leave medical practices in blue states in a kind of limbo that state legislatures would have a hard time working around (particularly if Congress expressly pre-empts any attempt at authorizing such drugs or devices).

Anyway, that is not going to be their first priority. Apparently, their first priority, in an attempt to address high prices and housing and childcare costs for working families, will be to extend and expand on the unfunded 2017 tax cuts - Trump's only legislative accomplishment in his first term - so as to add trillions of dollars to the U.S. debt, provide massive tax give-aways to the rich, and offer some trickle-down economics to the voters.

[ThePublius]

No one cares. It's up to the states. Trump can't "decree" an abortion ban, and he has no intention to do so.

[Commenter_XY]

This is the correct answer.

ReaderY had an interesting post a week ago about the WV case.

[EscherEnigma]

The thing to remember about Trump and abortion is that he really, sincerely, truly... does not care.

Of all the "big" positions, this is one he's most inconsistent on, because he has such little interest that he can't even remember what his last position was, so he just says whatever he thinks the person he's talking to wants to hear.

So he might make a big public move if he's trying to appease/distract someone, but lacking that, the real movement will be on his appointees. So if he ends up putting a diehard culture warrior into the DOJ, the Comstock Act could be relevant. But if he puts someone that just doesn't care about abortion into the DOJ, that probably wont' happen.

So it's hard to make predictions until we know who he's going to put where.

[not guilty]

"Probably less likely, but is it possible for the Trump Admin to try to get Griswold overturned?"

Regulation of birth control is primarily a state matter. I can foresee some state legislature prohibiting emergency contraception (Plan B) and IUDs on the mistaken belief that such measures are abortifacients. That would pass the rational basis test under Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), but it would likely be struck down under Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and its progeny.

The state could then appeal, urging that Griswold should be expressly overruled. Would Trump's Solicitor General support overruling Griswold? Who knows? (Keep in mind that Trump has an 18 year old son, who likely benefits from the ready availability of birth control.)

[Brett Bellmore]

But does Trump benefit from minimizing his number of grandchildren?

[Stella Link the dog]

"But does Trump benefit from minimizing his number of grandchildren?"

I don't see how it benefits Trump one way or the other. Besides, it's too late for his number of grandchildren to be minimized.

[Stella Link the dog]

At least on of the SC justices seems to think that over-ruling Griswold should be considered:

"Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage."

[Lee Moore]

not guilty : I can foresee some state legislature prohibiting emergency contraception (Plan B) and IUDs on the mistaken belief that such measures are abortifacients.

Just for the record :

1. IUDs are abortifacients - that is not their main method of action, which is indeed contraceptive, but if they fail to prevent conception, they can indeed interfere with implantation

2. There is reasonable evidence that Plan B is not abortifacient, but it is statistical in nature, and so by no means conclusive

3. Thus while it is fair to say that these emergency contraceptive methods are usually contraceptive, it is certainly not "mistaken" for those - like the Catholic Church - who are concerned about the life of a new human from zygote onwards - to describe these methods as abortifacients.

Just for the avoidance of doubt I am using "contraceptive" and "abortifacient" in the sense understood by the folk mentioned in 3 - ie distinguishing between that which prevents the new crittur being created, and that which kills the new crittur after it has been created. And which was the universal scientific and medical sense up until The Great Redefinition (see below.)

I am of course aware of the redefinitions of those terms to adjust the moment of "conception" from fertilization to implantation*, with consequential amendment to the definitions of pregnancy and abortion, but I do not think we need to take those redefinitions seriously, as they were undertaken solely for propaganda purposes, as their coiner was kind enough to admit out loud :

"the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech." (Bent Boving)

* the redefintion applies to humans only of course 🙂 For all other species, conception is still fertilization. Naturally enough, since the majority of species don't have implantation.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yesterday's oral argument at SCOTUS had a Trump connection:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/11/securities-disclosure-over-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-comes-before-court/

[loki13]

Well, one of the things I've feared and banged the drum about has (at least anecdotally) come to pass.

I kept saying that constantly spreading lies about election integrity and voter fraud was a terrible idea. Because you can't put that genie back in the bottle. And we know, unfortunately, how far those lies have gone and become an "emotional truth" on the right.

This morning, I talked to a (normally) level-headed friend of mine that was pro-Harris. The type of person who always mocked the "election BS." And guess what?

She was saying, "I've been looking at some of the numbers, and they don't make sense." And it went on from there.

Yay! Now it really is "both sides." Congratulations?

Ugh. I think I'm going to throw myself into local community activities. Or booze.

[hobie]

Booze...already there, dude. I mean it's been four years of fun pointing out the rank hypocrisy of election theft to party that actually tried to steal the election. I hope the Democrats don't turn down that dark road though

[Commenter_XY]

hobie, what strong spirit are you partial to? I will create a drink in your honor. We can call it hobie's hopium, or hobie's hooch, or something light-hearted.

If you tell me the spirit, and maybe what kind of flavors you like, I can create it.

[hobie]

I had a cocktail in Aberdeen that they called a 'ginger smash'. It had ginger and lime and mint and probably cachaça and another alcohol. It was absolutely delicious. Nail down that recipe for me and maybe I'll feel a little better

[loki13]

A smash is just a cocktail (often, but not always, with mint) that you muddle the ingredient with before adding the booze.

There are various recipes for variations of the ginger smash that you can find, but you should experiment and find what you like.

Since you think it had cachaca, I'd look for a ginger smash recipe to find the ingredients to muddle (and include mint if it's not already there) and muddle, then add booze like it's a caipirinha.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds somewhat like a Moscow Mule, which is a favorite of mine. I'll have to look into it when the surgery is far enough past that I'm allowed to drink again. (They advise against it for a LONG time after nasal surgery.)

[Stella Link the dog]

A couple years ago, I stopped drinking because of esophageal ulcers and haven't consumed any alcohol since. Although it surely doesn't make me glad to have ulcers, for me, not drinking is a good thing and not only because it has made it quite easy to lose about 35 pounds. Like smoking, I found alcohol consumption enjoyable, but I know and accept that it's better that I neither smoke nor drink.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually drink very little, relatively speaking, and almost never to the point of actually getting drunk. However, on my birthday, and only on my birthday, when we go out to dinner, I make a point of drinking enough that my wife has to do the driving, because why should I have to drive myself home from my own birthday dinner?

[Randal]

I hope the Democrats don’t turn down that dark road though

The road would've been through the House via the 14th Amendment. But without the House, I don't see much opportunity to manufacture controversy.

[Roger S]

The fix is to have free and fair elections.

[Stella Link the dog]

" free and fair elections"
Which we had in 2016, 2020, and 2024 among many other years.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's universal irony that the Democrat cheating from 2020 is causing such dissonance in Democrats after losing 2024.

Of course the numbers don't add up, their anchor point was based off fraud.

[Stella Link the dog]

Bullshit.

[Noscitur a sociis]

2020 was worse, of course, but desperate and reflexive resort to stolen election conspiracy theories has been a feature of every presidential election this century, with the possible exception of 2012. So there’s not necessarily a reason yet to be concerned that this is more than a passing fad. I guess we’ll see…

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think you need to wait a bit. See how she feels in February, for instance. Will she still be on this track then?

[EscherEnigma]

This time in 2020, Trump supporters were protesting outside county election offices chanting "stop the count", sending death threats and harassing poll workers, and so-on.

So I think it might be a bit early to "both sides" this.

[Randal]

I think I’m going to throw myself into local community activities.

I feel like if Democrats took this advice in general, we'd be way better off in several dimensions.

But it doesn't seem likely.

[Bwaaah]

Here is a very interesting graphic on Bloomberg election coverage page. Scroll down to the headings above the pseudo-map of the country, and click on "Shifts from 2020". It's a graphic visualization of the relative changes toward red or blue, county by county, across the country. Note that it only reflects counties where >95% of the vote has been counted, so there's more to come, particularly in the west.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not a terribly useful graphic, because when you get down to a county level map of election returns, it ALWAYS looks like a sea of red, because Democrats are concentrated in cities that cover very little area, but contain close to half the population, while Republicans are in the low population areas that add up to most of the land area.

[Bwaaah]

Correct. Though it doesn't show the relative weighted shift in votes, it does indicate the geographical broadness, and prevalence, of the shift toward Trump.

[Randal]

What these show is that 2020 was about covid. We all kind of knew that, now we really know it.

The same map relative to 2016 would be much more interesting.

[John F. Carr]

Trump's biggest gain was among voters who lean Republican. I guess they were turned off by this weird ex-Democrat outsider in 2016 and by 2024 had decided they could live with him.

[Randal]

They were afraid of covid.

[Bwaaah]

Republican voters bowed out in 2020, due to COVID, more than Democrat voters? That's the first I've heard that theory. On what do you base that.

Note that the map shows changes in Rep/Dem percentage spreads, not vote count spreads.

[Randal]

They weren't afraid to vote. They were noticing that Trump couldn't handle the situation. Injecting bleach and all that. 2020 was all about Trump's abysmal covid response.

It's astounding that one of the many things voters forgot about Trump is his complete inability to cope in a crisis.

[Bwaaah]

That’s your answer?

It shouldn’t surprise you that people appear to behave so nonsensically. You live in a world of pure conjecture, which is a technical way of saying stupid thinking.

[Randal]

Covid was by far the biggest issue of 2020. It's the natural, obvious answer for why people voted for Biden that year.

What's your answer? Some sort of enormous yet undetectable voter fraud?

[Bwaaah]

The OP is about the 2024 election shift vs. 2020, not the 2020 election.

My answer for why people shifted their votes from Democrat in 2020 to Republican in 2024 is that they didn't like the Democrats' way of running things. For example, Democrats did nothing serious to combat inflation, opened up the border and provided benefits to undocumented immigrants, did nothing serious about rising crime, and called everybody who disagreed with them "racist."

I don't know why you're talking about COVID. I don't hear voters saying it was a significant issue in 2024.

[Randal]

No, the question was why didn't moderate Republicans vote for Trump in 2020.

Trump’s biggest gain was among voters who lean Republican.

Obviously, understanding the change between two years requires knowing why voters voted how they did in both years. And out of the two, 2020 was the unusual one.

In other words, why did people vote the way they did in 2024? Because it was a return to normal. And what was abnormal about 2020? Covid.

[Bwaaah]

We just had an upset election. And you learned that COVID is the reason.

Go with it, Mr. Genius.

[Randal]

In what sense was it an upset election?

If you mean the presidency switched parties, then 2016 and 2020 were also upset elections. That’s another thing that makes 2024 more like 2016 with 2020 as the outlier: Trump was the unpopular incumbent in 2020.

Mainly because of covid.

You seem to think it makes sense to compare the present to the past in order to understand the present... but without understanding the past. Why even bother comparing 2024 to 2020 if you don't know anything about 2020? That's like asking why 1 AD had so many fewer visible Stars of Bethlehem than 0 AD and concluding that it must be because of cloud cover.

[John F. Carr]

In more business and less political news, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts ruled against a buck-passing health care business structure. A hospital outsourced its radiology department to a corporation that I infer existed solely to provide radiologists to the hospital. The corporation and the hospital both use the name Saint Vincent. A man died allegedly because the corporation did not have a radiologist on duty at the hospital. The corporation can be held liable even though one might think only the hospital owed a duty to the patient. The court quoted with approval a decision of the Supreme Court of Washington:

A patient who goes to the emergency room, if conscious, is mostly concerned with getting care, not with untangling the contractual relationship between the hospital and the doctors who work there. And yet the characterization of the hospital-doctor relationship has profound implications for a patient’s ability to recover against the hospital for negligent treatment.

Estate of Essex v. Grant Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 546 P.3d 407, 409 (Wash. 2024)

Whether the corporation negligently failed to provide a radiologist is a jury question.

The claim against the hospital was settled.

Brown v. Saint Vincent Radiological Associates, Inc. No. 23-P-771 (Mass. App. Ct. Oct. 24, 2024)

[loki13]

The whole "contracting out" thing at hospitals has a much bigger impact than just when things g wrong.

You can find a lot of true horror stories of people who go get a "covered" surgery at a hospital, and later find a massive bill because one or more of the people involved in the surgery wasn't employed by the covered hospital, but a different entity that doesn't have a relationship with the insurer.

[John F. Carr]

Since 2022 the No Surprises Act should put an end to this practice for people with ACA-compliant insurance. The new rules "Ban out-of-network charges and balance bills for certain additional services (like anesthesiology or radiology) furnished by out-of-network providers as part of a patient’s visit to an in-network facility." https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/no-surprises-understand-your-rights-against-surprise-medical-bills

[loki13]

Huh! I must have missed that.

Thanks for the pointer and update, JFC!

(Aside- JFC? Seems like a southern fast food chain... Jesus Fried Chicken. Okay, that might just be me.)

[bernard11]

Good. Because even if the patient can untangle it, while nervous, not at his sharpest at the moment, what can he do about it? Wait a week until the in-network radiologist is available?

[Dan Schiavetta]

In New York, suing a hospital for malpractice in an E.R. inculpates anyone who provided or should have provided treatment, whether or not they were hospital employees or independent contractors. As one court put it, patients in such situations can't be expected to know about "secret contracts". Mduba v. Benedictine Hospital.

[loki13]

Also also... RFK Jr. in charge of public health?

We all heard that? And it looks like it is seriously going to happen?

This is a guy who is General Jack D. Ripper concerned with public health.

[ThePublius]

I think he will be great. Have you watched any videos with him??

[loki13]

I was familiar with him from his trial work, before he became the poster child of the anti-vax and anti-fluoridation movements.

And while some of it was laudable, there was some that ... was not. But certainly ties into this scientific (I use the word advisedly and sarcastically) views.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The science is on his side when it comes to flouridating water.

[Stella Link the dog]

No, it's not. It might be that extremely high levels of naturally occurring fluoride have deleterious affects; some water taken from the Ogallala aquifer, for example. But no adverse affects are related to fluoridated municipal water supplies.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is this some anti-science judge?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/health/epa-fluoride-drinking-water/index.html
A federal judge has ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water because high levels could pose a risk to the intellectual development of children.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Is this some anti-science judge?"
I read the CNN article and it does not support your claim that "The science is on [Kennedy's] side when it comes to flouridating water."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are you not capable of making an inference?

lol wtf jesus, what’s your IQ? 2? Are you a Federal bureaucrat or something? lmao wow

[Stella Link the dog]

"Are you not capable of making an inference?"

Yes, I m capable of making inferences. However, I've found it beneficial to avoid making unjustified inferences.

Do you infer from the CNN article that the Judge is claiming that the science is on Kennedy's side? If so, your inference is unjustified.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I inferred that the judge saw some evidence that convinced him to make this judgement.

Seeing's how the context of this case is what it is, I concluded that evidence must be science.

Why don't you reason like that?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Why don’t you reason like that?"

Because I try to not reach unjustified conclusions through faulty reasoning. It is my belief that, in general, it is better to not believe in the truth of that which is false.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If he wasn't pro-Trump or at least anti-Biden/Harris, the people here would not generally support some of his views. I don't see people here, for instance, exactly big pro-environmental sorts.

John Oliver had a good segment on him. Various articles questioned his advocacy work on environmental issues. The details there do appear somewhat sketchy.

[Frank Drackman]

John Oliver's a somewhat sketchy guy.

[hobie]

Can he stop dragging animal carcasses everywhere? Also, what is the brain worm's agenda part from his own? I doubt these things matter little to the circus of the grotesques being assembled

[Bwaaah]

Suggestion: react to what has happened, and not what might happen. Otherwise, you might as well kill yourself now and avoid all the misery.

The rumors of a coming zombie apocalypse are real. But I’m waiting first to see a zombie (and if they’re as slow in real life as they are in real life).

[loki13]

"Otherwise, you might as well kill yourself now and avoid all the misery."

Don't threaten me with a good time!

Naw, I actually changed what I originally posted (that it would be my first warning sign if he actually carried through with putting RFK Jr. in that role).

I am devoutly wishing for a boring four years. People really discount the value of boring. I want my politics and politicians so boring that I don't have to pay any attention to it.

[Bwaaah]

One of the early Trump lies that stuck with me was a 2016 campaign interview in which he said that if he gets elected, everyone will be disappointed by how boring he'll be as President.

I so hoped that would be true.

Anyway, perish that hope for boredom now, lest it add to your list of disappointments. And seriously: don't listen to him. He's much better when you don't hear what he's saying.

[loki13]

Ugh, tell me.

I LONG for the days when the people rejected the "boring" Dukakis for the SCINTILLATING George H. W. Bush.

Politics should not be entertainment. I don't want to know that a Congresswoman is getting fingerbanged at a musical. I really don't need to wall-to-wall coverage of hours of meandering remarks. I don't want constant alerts about pols dunking on each other, or pwning each other, or whatever.

Go to Washington. Get something done. Or DON'T. Just don't eff it up, and make it so I don't have to think about you at all until the next election.

[Dan Schiavetta]

agree

[Bored Lawyer]

Wait, Trump isn't appointing all zombies to his cabinet?

Well that's a relief.

[Bwaaah]

I’ve never used this one before…

“That relies on facts not entered into evidence.”

But seriously: a zombie in charge of the FDA, or RFK?

I’d definitely go with the zombie. There’s something comforting about their relative lack of interest in matters of detail.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Considering our current health status as a people, why would you want to continue the same system that produces these outcomes it's been producing?

What about it do you want to keep? The mental health crises? The obesity crisis? The chronic disease crisis?

[M L]

To be fair, they are "fixing" the obesity crisis with big pharma drugs that cause suicidal thoughts, or something.

[bernard11]

To be fair, they are “fixing” the obesity crisis with big pharma drugs that cause suicidal thoughts, or something.

"They???" Are Democrats going around making people take Ozempic? Isn't that a more or less free market decision?

You're a moron.

[M L]

Where did I say anything about Democrats? I think the discussion was about the healthcare system/industry.

[bernard11]

Market-based, ML.

Big Pharma is simply reacting to market incentives.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What sort of market incentives do you think complete indemnification from any product liability would create for Big Pharma?

[bernard11]

They are not indemnified from any product liability.

They are indemnified for vaccines because vaccines, RFK, Jr. and some other morons notwithstanding, have enormous social benefits - more than enough to outweigh the rare mishap. But we don't want that possible mishap to dissuade drug companies from producing vaccines to avoid tort liability. We want (I do, anyway) vaccines to be inexpensive and widely used. The indemnification helps a lot with that.

[Stella Link the dog]

"We want (I do, anyway) vaccines to be inexpensive and widely used."

i do, as well.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Every vaccine that Big Pharma creates?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Vaccines are products.

>have enormous social benefits – more than enough to outweigh the rare mishap.

Are vaccines the only Big Pharma product that provides this social benefit?

>They are indemnified for vaccines because vaccines

What market incentives might this create for Big Pharma in the vaccine market?

>We want (I do, anyway) vaccines to be inexpensive and widely used.

Every vaccine product that Big Pharma invents?

[SRG2]

That's one solution to fixing Social Security - let more Americans die sooner.

I wonder how many supposedly pro-science Trump supporters will become anti-vaxxers if RFKjr is appointed.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hopefully all of them.

How on Earth can you trust Big Pharma with a no-product-liability vaccine market while reviling them in every other?

How can you hold those two contradictory beliefs in your mind?

[Stella Link the dog]

How can you believe that epidemics of small pox, polio, and measles are good things?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh yeah, I’m sorry. I forgot about small pox. Big Pharma really are the good guys. We should absolutely trust them.

Will you notify Bernie Sanders that he’s on the wrong side of history when he rails against Big Pharma and their greed (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx9FzLoUl0k&ab_channel=BernieSanders) and remind him about small pox?

Look at anti-vaxx jerk:
https://berniesanders.com/no-insurance-money-pledge/
"I pledge to not take contributions from the health insurance or pharmaceutical industry and instead prioritize the health of the American people over health industry profits."

Doesn't he know about polio? What's wrong with him?

[Stella Link the dog]

Christ, you are a dimwit.

"Doesn’t he know about polio? What’s wrong with him?"

1. Offer some supporting evidence which indicates that Sanders is an ant-vaxer.

2. Who cares what that dimwit Bernie Sanders thinks about anything? (lots of people, so it seems, but not I.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you think the evil greedy Big Pharma people he's talking about are different than the Big Pharma people that make vaccines?

Are those different groups of humans, or the same groups of humans?

[Stella Link the dog]

1. I don't care what Sanders says or does.

2. I think that vaccines have saved innumerable lives and that the saving of lives continues to this day.

3. rfk, jr is a brain-addled dope and he should not have any position of trust or responsibility in or out of the government.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you think you think it's good that Big Pharma has zero product liability for the vaccines they manufacture?

If so, why shouldn't they also have zero product liability for the countless other life-saving pharmaceuticals they make?

Why are vaccines a special class of product when there comparable other products equally important to public health?

Is every vaccine invented and distributed by Big Pharma necessary and life saving? If so, is that some inherent quality of that particular class of products or because some other reason like the trust you have in Big Pharma?

[David Nieporent]

Do you think you think it’s good that Big Pharma has zero product liability for the vaccines they manufacture?

Do you think it's true that Big Pharma has zero product liability for the vaccines they manufacture? Because if you do, you're mistaken.

There are certain categories of vaccines — not a blanket law — for which a no-fault regime (like workers comp) is in place. Instead of having to sue a manufacturer to get recompense, you file a claim with the NVICP, which is funded by a tax on manufacturers. You don't have to prove fault.

Vaccines outside that category you can sue just as you can sue pharma companies for other medicine-related injuries.

[Frank Drackman]

You just come out of your Tomb Toot N' Ramen? Small Pox Vaccine's only given routinely to the Military, and the CDC (yes I'm citing the Government Center for Disease Continuation as a source) only recommends it for
"When there is NO smallpox outbreak, you should get the smallpox vaccine if you:
Are a lab worker who works with virus that causes smallpox or other viruses that are similar to it.
If you need long-term protection, you may need to get booster vaccinations regularly. To stay protected from smallpox, you should get booster vaccinations every 3 years.
When there IS a smallpox outbreak, you should get the smallpox vaccine if you:
Are directly exposed to smallpox virus. For example, if you had a prolonged face-to-face contact with someone who has smallpox.
If there is a smallpox outbreak, public health officials will say who else should get the vaccine. CDC works with federal, state, and local officials to prepare for a smallpox outbreak."

Frank

[hobie]

One of the imperatives of Project 2025 is to raise the age of Social Security to 69. Which would cut off benefits to millions of hayseeds. I hope they try. Will be wild

[bernard11]

Great fucking idea. Must be one of Blackman's contributions.

"I know. Let's cut off benefits to people who need it, and who find it difficult to work past age 65 because their jobs are physically demanding. "

How about Musk and his billionaire pals kick in some money to help out?

[EscherEnigma]

For fear of sounding like I'm defending project 2025...

First, you need to understand how SS currently works, and it kinda sounds like you might not. So here's a quick run down: You have a full and minimum retirement age, based on when you were born. For people born after 1960, minimum is 62 and full is 67. If you start collecting at your minimum, your monthly check will be 70% of what it would be if you'd waited till full, with the percent increasing a smidge for every month you wait.

Now, last time they changed the retirement age (1983) they did it by keeping it the same for folks already in retirement and folks that were within 20† years of retirement, and increased in incrementally for later births, until you get to people born 1960 or later which gives us the 62/67 min/full numbers.

That's the history. Now, Project 2025. Unless they're complete dumbasses, they'd raise in incrementally for people further from retirement, while keeping people in/near retirement the same, just like in '83.

So no one kicked off, people that can't wait till full retirement still get to retire (just for a reduced benefit), and so-on.

And of course it's important to remember that the current estimate for when the SS trust fund runs out is 2035. Absent action, the SSA will simply not have enough money to meet it's obligations, and will have to cut benefits. And the closer we get to 2035 without taking action, the more dramatic that action will have to be.

And that said, that estimate for when the trust will run out is continually revised and pushed back, so by the time we get to 2035, it might be 2045. So who knows.
________
†I think. This number might be wrong. Point being, people in and near retirement were unaffected.

[hobie]

Appreciate the education, Escher.

[bernard11]

Which does not change the fact that the increase in retirement age will, ultimately, badly affect those least able to deal with it financially.

Nor the fact that an increase in contributions by, for example, raising the maximum contribution is an entirely plausible approach.

[Michael P]

Increasing the Social Security income limit with a corresponding increase in payable benefits will not help the program's solvency.

Increasing the Social Security income limit *without* a corresponding increase in payable benefits would be a step towards unraveling the whole system because it turns Social Security into just another part of income tax. In the long run, that would probably be good for fiscal responsibility at both individual and national levels.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you'd need to introduce more of an element of need, permitting people in physical occupations that have taken a toll on the body, or mental jobs who can demonstrate cognitive decline, to retire at full SS sooner than those still capable of working.

But the fundamental problem is that SS is a Ponzi scam, which was only sustainable so long as the government gave people no choice about 'investing' in it, AND enough new marks were being born to keep it going. The first factor is still present, but the second has gone missing.

When I was younger they increased the SS contribution, supposedly to make the system more sound. In theory the increased contribution would have paid down the debt, leaving the federal government in a better position to pay SS claims when the cash flow went negative.

But instead of paying down the debt, they just spent more, and went deeper into debt at a higher level of spending. You can't cure deficit spending by increasing revenue, they just spend the extra money and keep borrowing.

[Frank Drackman]

still with the "hayseeds" Hobie-Stank? I hope you call your neighbors that, they'll cut off your "Hayseed". Will be wild.

[Ridgeway]

Don't give Trump any ideas, Mandrake -- we could end up with Bobby Jr. as head of the FDA and Secretary of the Air Force.

[Krayt]

From the We Don't Need No Stinking First Amendment department, Australia to ban social media for under 18s. Note this apparently won't exempt kids with parental permission.

[Bwaaah]

See? You just have to opt in to get your freedom. All the doors, by order of law, get slammed closed, and then you knock on the ones you want opened.

The project will be surgical in its focus, where only underage people will be impeded, but everybody else will pass through seamlessly.

They mean well. (grrrrrr)

[John F. Carr]

"Fat Leonard" got 15 years in the Navy procurement scandal. Formally, 16 months of that term is for fleeing the country in an attempt to avoid going to prison. Many prosecutions of Navy officers have been affected by prosecutorial misconduct.

[Bored Lawyer]

In another case of "youthful exuberance"* directed at Jews:

Masked attackers assault two Jewish students outside DePaul University of Chicago

Two Jewish students were physically assaulted on Wednesday outside the Lincoln Park campus of Chicago's DePaul University, university officials confirmed on Thursday.

The attack, which occurred at approximately 3:20 p.m. outside the school's student center, saw masked attackers punching Jewish students while they displayed their support for Israel.

One victim was struck in the face and body and the other victim was pushed to the ground, according to CNN. Both students declined medical attention.

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-828035

This illustrates the need for anti-mask laws.

________________
*"youthful exuberance" is how one of the leftist fellow travelers around here excuses such behavior.

[Michael P]

Also: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/07/europe/israel-soccer-fans-attacked-amsterdam-intl-hnk/index.html

Israeli soccer fans were attacked in a “serious incident of violence in Amsterdam” overnight into Friday, authorities said, with the Israeli government saying it was sending planes to evacuate affected citizens.

Hundreds of fans of Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team “were ambushed and attacked in Amsterdam” on Thursday night as they left the stadium following a Europa League game against Dutch side Ajax, the Israeli embassy to the United States said on social media platform X.

[Mr. Bumble]

Waiting for Martinned2 to weigh in with an explainer.

[Martinned2]

Football hooligans looted the city. Even the Daily Mail thought that the behaviour of the Israeli "fans" was a disgrace.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-14053391/Israeli-football-hooligans-Palestine-flags-Ajax-Maccabi-Tel-Aviv.html

[Swede425]

Figures a hayseed rube like you wouldn't recognize cultural enrichment when you see it.

[Martinned2]

Football hooliganism isn't new. Ajax is, of course, famously a Jewish club whose fans waive Israeli flags.

[Michael P]

Clearly, "waiving" Israeli flags justifies hostage taking.

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-828103

At least if you're Martinned.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wonder why the Netherlands has changed it's immigration and asylum policy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Eugene Volokh, not for the first time, liked a bad conservative take.

I had an expanded reply on the Bret Stephens-related thread.

But, tl;dr, Stephens says we should not accept Trump voters were inspired by what he SAID. This comes off as somewhat absurd and far from refuted by the Trump cheerleader squad here.

Volokh voted Libertarian* but endorses such conservative bullshit. This is a large part of why we are here. Republicans and others who grant Trump is not a good choice go along with him in the end.

(For instance, Orin Kerr voted against Trump at least once. But, if followed past sentiments, he will now say Republicans should join his administration. He took a blog break to work with Republicans in Congress. Trump is a product of modern-day Republicanism. At some point, you have to make a decision. What side are you on?)

The reason he was not defeated isn’t Trump or those who support his horrible positions. The blame apparently is on Democrats.

As Murc’s Law says, only one side has agency.

===

* The purity pony caucus had various options.

[loki13]

“(For instance, Orin Kerr voted against Trump at least once. But, if followed past sentiments, he will now say Republicans should join his administration. He took a blog break to work with Republicans in Congress. Trump is a product of modern-day Republicanism. At some point, you have to make a decision. What side are you on?)”

I mean, on the one hand, it’s hard to imagine how someone with principles working for that guy.

On the other hand … WE NEED PEOPLE WITH PRINCIPLES WORKING IN THE GOVERNMENT. If they aren't there, then who will be the grownups?

So, on balance, I hope that Prof. Kerr (and people like him) fill most of the positions in the next administration. Unfortunately, I doubt that will occur.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If by some fluke qualified professionals get into the Trump Administration, they will be sacked once their lack of absolute loyalty to Trump is detected. In fact they will probably be required to sign a Loyalty Oath (and non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements) as a precondition.

[SRG2]

The Trump supporters believe in Trump's effective motto of l'etat c'est moi, and so would regard loyalty to Trump as loyalty to the US. Let's hear supporters here disagreeing.

[Frank Drackman]

You haven't hanged yourself yet? sounds like you're still in the "Anger" stage,

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Uh-huh.

I am also saying that he is ultimately a Republican. There is a reason why he joined this blog & not Balkinization Blog or something.

At some point, you have to see where your party is going. Having a few moments of principle but continuously still working for the team will in the end aid and abet the team.

[David Nieporent]

On the other hand … WE NEED PEOPLE WITH PRINCIPLES WORKING IN THE GOVERNMENT. If they aren’t there, then who will be the grownups?

So, on balance, I hope that Prof. Kerr (and people like him) fill most of the positions in the next administration. Unfortunately, I doubt that will occur.

I agree with you, assuming that they are willing to stand by those principles. If they're always compromising those principles on the theory that it's better to have themselves in office than some MAGA cultist, then you might as well just have the MAGA cultist.

[John F. Carr]

The 11th Circuit reinstated a defamation lawsuit by Project Veritas against CNN. A live discussion implied that Project Veritas had been suspended from Twitter for spreading misinformation. In fact, Project Veritas says, the suspension was for airing a video with a house number visible in the background in violation of an anti-doxxing policy. The complaint also alleged malice by citing evidence of actual knowledge of the correct reason.

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202211270.pdf

The 11th Circuit also has before it the appeal against the multi-million dollar defamation judgment in favor of Roy Moore, which is also based on statements that are close to the truth but not the truth.

[loki13]

Interesting. I skimmed it, but the main takeaway is twofold-

1. It's only at the MtD stage. It's still a battle to win a defamation case against a media entity.

2. That said, getting past the MtD stage is massive in terms of leverage, and it follows a pattern of defamation claims being treated more favorably (IMO) by the courts the past few years.

[Brett Bellmore]

It really did help Project Veritas that they could prove from CNN's own publications that CNN knew the claim was false before they made it.

[Stella Link the dog]

Has Project Veritas proven "actual malice" or have they just alleged facts sufficient for a jury to so find if proven to be true?

[David Nieporent]

Well, if it's a MTD then by definition they haven't proven it.

[bernard11]

Is it possible for hoi polloi to be told what MTD stands for?

Thanks.

[TwelveInchPianist]

motion to dismiss.

[loki13]

Motion to Dismiss.

It's when the defendant files a motion that says, "Even if you accept all the allegations in the Complaint as true, the plaintiff still loses."

Usually, a plaintiff can plead again (amend the pleading) but some errors can't be fixed.

(The point is- you can't use evidence of any kind.)

[David Nieporent]

(The point is- you can’t use evidence of any kind.)

Pedantry: While you can't use evidence on a 12(b)(6) motion; you can use evidence for a motion to dismiss on other grounds in 12(b).

(But I am now probably just muddying the waters for Bernard here, so he should ignore that, since it's not relevant to this particular case.)

[loki13]

You are. I mean, in addition to other grounds, technically the court can also just convert it to an MSJ.

But let's keep it simple. The vast, vast majority of MtD (in federal court) are 12(b)(6) and you can't provide anything, and the Court must only look at the allegations in the complaint and accept them as true.

[not guilty]

"Pedantry: While you can’t use evidence on a 12(b)(6) motion; you can use evidence for a motion to dismiss on other grounds in 12(b)."

Right. The court can consider extrinsic evidence on a motion to dismiss for: (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) improper venue; (4) insufficient process; (5) insufficient service of process; and (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.

"I mean, in addition to other grounds, technically the court can also just convert it to an MSJ."

Correct, but the court must declare its intent to convert the motion, and all parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion. For example, if a defendant presents matters outside the pleadings and the court does not exclude it, then the plaintiff must be given the opportunity to present extrinsic evidence as well.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Fed Chair Powell has already indicated he going to insurrect against Trump and ignore our sacred norms if President Trump asks him to resign so he can put in a more pro-American Fed Chair.

Insurrection. Violation of norms. Typical Democrat accusing others of what they themselves do.

[Randal]

You are the poster child for an abortion exception for retards.

[Brett Bellmore]

NBC: Fed Chair says he won't resign if Trump asks him to

Added, there doesn't seem to be any basis for thinking Trump is going to ask him to resign.

[Randal]

Do you think Trump can force Jamie Dimon to resign?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I love your tacit admission that the Federal Reserve is more like a private institution than a public one.

It's almost as if they named it "Federal Reserve" to mislead people into thinking it was a government agency.

I also love your tacit admission that "M'uh Sacred Norms" complaint against Trump was bullshit all along. By Any Means Necessary folks don't give a fuck about norms only power and controlling others.

[Randal]

It's not a tacit admission. It's quite intentional, as loki observed.

There's no norm, sacred or otherwise, around asking the Fed Chair to resign.

I love how you think Republican Chairman Powell, appointed by Trump, is a "typical Democrat."

As I said, retarded.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If it isn't a norm, why did that reporter ask it? Just create controversy? What a jerk Democrat thing to do, to intentionally undermine a President-Elect like that, no?

"I love how you think Republican Chairman Powell, appointed by Trump, is a “typical Democrat.”

Uh, I love how you think Establishment Republicans are anything but Democrats. lmao where have you been dude?

[Randal]

Uh maybe because Trump has been bleating about changing Frd policy and nominating the Fed Chair is pretty much his only tool.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Uh, Powell's term is up in 2026. He clearly is referring to who he appoints at the end of Powell's term.

[Randal]

Oh ok so now you agree with us "typical Democrats" that Trump asking Powell to resign would be the norm-shattering move, not Powell declining to do so. Wonderful pivoting, Jesus, you should join America's Olympic figure skaters with that very beautifully twisty toe loop.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Some dipshit TDS addled reporter posits a hypothetical, and you want me to agree with you that Trump is a dick for doing this hypothetical thing that some hater came up with?

Are you stupid?

[Randal]

Remember back in the days when you thought Powell was a Democrat and an insurrectionist just for contemplating declining a request from Trump to resign that you now agree is a dipshit hypothetical in which Trump is the dick (your words)? It seems like only yesterday...

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey remember when doing anything a Democrat didn’t like was insurrection, and how when Trump was President all those Republicans showed their true Democrat colors? Like John McCain who election after election, decade after decade said he was going to build a wall, then voted against building a wall under Trump?

Every last Republican whose based out of Washington D.C. is a Democrat.

This guy remembers, hbu?

To be fair,
I had assumed the reporter was asking a legit question and along with that comes the implication that asking heads of agencies to resign is the norm. Shame on me for believing a reporter is a legit, honest actor. Mea culpa.
I'll go back to thinking they are scummy dickeating shit-stirrers like most Americans do.

[loki13]

The independence of the Fed is so important.

Because you don't want to politicize it. Look around the world- put the Fed subordinate to politicians' short term desires, and you have a recipe for inflation that will make what we just experienced a walk in the park.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I know! This institution is so important, you don’t want it accountable to voters! It would be a disaster!

That’s also why these other institutions independent too, the work they do is just way too important be subject to short term whims of politicians and their voters:
– Amtrak
– Central Intelligence Agency
– Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
– Commodity Futures Trading Commission
– Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
– Consumer Product Safety Commission
– Election Assistance Commission
– Environmental Protection Agency
– Export–Import Bank of the United States
– Federal Communications Commission
– Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
– Federal Election Commission
– Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
– Federal Housing Finance Agency
– Federal Maritime Commission
– Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
– Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
– Federal Trade Commission
– General Services Administration
– International Trade Commission
– National Aeronautics and Space Administration
– National Archives and Records Administration
– National Credit Union Administration
– National Labor Relations Board
– National Science Foundation
– National Transportation Safety Board
– Nuclear Regulatory Commission
– Office of Special Counsel
– Peace Corps
– Postal Regulatory Commission
– Securities and Exchange Commission
– Selective Service System
– Small Business Administration
– Social Security Administration
– Surface Transportation Board
– Tennessee Valley Authority
– United States Agency for International Development
– United States Postal Service
– United States Trade and Development Agency

Like monetary policy, the work of these agencies is too important for society’s protection in national transportation and infrastructure, intelligence and national security, chemical and environmental safety, financial markets and consumer protection, consumer product safety, election integrity, international trade and economic development, communication and media regulation, energy regulation, housing finance, maritime regulation, labor relations and mediation, public employee retirement and investment, consumer and competition protection, government services and facilities management, aerospace research and exploration, archival and historical preservation, scientific research and education, transportation safety, nuclear safety, government accountability and whistleblower protection, humanitarian service and development, postal services and regulation, military preparedness, small business support and development, social security and disability benefits, and international development aid.

Each of these are a critical function that demands stability, continuity, and independence from political cycles to safeguard the well-being and prosperity of society!

This is what democracy looks like! Vote Democrat to protect democracy!

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

[Brett Bellmore]

Is Trump on the JP Morgan board? I really have no idea.

[Lennyk78]

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111140036.pdf

The bad faith from the judiciary is astounding. This particular piece of shit is a public defender turned federal judge by Biden.

He cited Heller to say "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are presumptively lawful."

The idea that one of these "conditions" could target an entire group not based on crime or anything else is shocking. How long is the piece of shit John Roberts going to tolerate this rebellion from the lower courts?

[loki13]

So I think it is necessary to point out that (obviously) it wasn't one judge- appellate panels are three judges.

I can't really comment on the merits, because IT IS SO LONG, but it's just the usual blah blah blah Bruen blah blah blah Rahimi blah blah blah lots of history and can a state have a minimum age for commercial gun purchases.

Angels dancing on the head of a pin.

[Lennyk78]

Okay, let’s look it up. The other two judges were appointed by Obama and Clinton. So three Democrap party judges who don’t give a shit about precedent.

The opinion is long, but this paragraph says it all:

To recap, Pineda has partially met his burden at step one by demonstrating that (1) 18- to 20-year-olds fall within “the people,” and (2) the arms he wishes to purchase constitute protected “arms.” However, Pineda fails to prove that SB 23-169 implicates his right to “keep and bear” arms, the third prong of step one. This is because SB 23-169 is presumptively lawful as a law that imposes conditions or qualifications upon the sale and purchase of arms and thus does not fall within the protections of the plain text of the Second Amendment. Laws or regulations imposing conditions or qualifications – such as a minimum purchase age of 21 – on the commercial sale or purchase of arms, when not employed for abusive ends, remain outside the scope of the Amendment’s protections under the third prong of Bruen step one.”

Can you say with a straight face that this is not unfettered bad faith? He can’t buy a gun and it doesn’t implicate the right to keep and bear arms because it'[s a condition of the sale. How else are you supposed to keep and bear arms if you can’t purchase them?

[loki13]

Two things-
1. I think that you are unlikely to get any kind of generous reading of your comments (or productive discourse) when you refer to "Democrap party judges[.]"

2. There is an interesting legal question between the majority and the concurrence regarding whether to apply the analysis at step one or step two.

I express no opinion on the historical analysis employed because ... I'm an attorney, not a historian.

And I can't tell you if the result is "right" or not because I don't look at the outcome and base my opinion on that. Obviously, there is going to be some age restriction that would be upheld- I am sure that if the legislature said, "You must be at least 12 to buy a firearm," that would pass muster- even at SCOTUS. And I have no friggin' clue what would determine that line- I am equally sure that "30" is right out, but somewhere between 12 and 30?

Who knows?

[not guilty]

I'm still reading the Tenth Circuit opinion, but I have questions about the sole remaining plaintiff's standing. (Two plaintiffs originally sued, but one of the two aged out and his claims became moot.) The plaintiff's declaration states:

1. My name is Adrian Pineda. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this Declaration.

2. I am over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 and a citizen of Colorado and the United States. I have never been charged with nor convicted of any misdemeanor or felony offense. It is my present intention and desire to lawfully purchase a firearm for lawful purposes, including self-defense in my home. I am or soon will be precluded from purchasing a firearm by SB23-169, which bars me from exercising this fundamental right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment.

The plaintiff notably does not state that he plans to purchase a firearm after the effective date of SB23-169 but before his 21st birthday. He included no facts evincing a credible threat of prosecution. A plaintiff can bring a preenforcement suit when he "has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 160 (2014), [emphasis added] quoting Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979).

The plaintiff includes no averment that he is presently without access to firearms to use for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.

[not guilty]

The appeal to the Tenth Circuit is from an order granting a preliminary injunction, which appears to have been entered solely upon a plaintiff’s skimpy, conclusory and self-serving declaration.

A preliminary injunction requested under Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A plaintiff seeking such an injunction must establish:

(1) a substantial likelihood that they will ultimately succeed on the merits of their suit;
(2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
(3) this threatened harm outweighs the harm a preliminary injunction may pose to the opposing party; and,
(4) if issued, the injunction will not adversely affect the public interest.

Id. at 20.

Certain “longstanding” regulations of firearms – including “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” – are “presumptively lawful.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626–27, 627 n.26 (2008). The instant plaintiff failed to rebut that presumption at the preliminary injunctive stage. That does not preclude a successful effort at trial (unless this plaintiff ages out and his claims become moot).

The plaintiff did not even attempt to show that he will be irreparably harmed if he is required to wait until the district court hears his case. As the D.C. Circuit opined last week, https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/10/23-7061-2082477.pdf , “irreparable harm,” in this context, refers to harm within a specific timeframe. That is, the plaintiff 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.

The instant plaintiff’s declaration states that he intends desires to lawfully purchase a firearm for lawful purposes, including self-defense in his home. Federal law has long prohibited licensed gun dealers from selling firearms to anyone under 21, except shotguns or rifles which may be sold to those over 18. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1). A lawful purchase by the plaintiff would necessarily exclude handguns.

“When [the term ‘bear’ is] used with ‘arms,’ . . . the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose–confrontation.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584. Thus, the phrase “bear arms” “implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action.’” Id.

The instant plaintiff’s declaration nowhere addresses what access to firearms he may presently have or potentially have in the interim before he turns 21. During that time he could acquire a firearm by gift, bequest or loan. To surmise that he will need to carry a newly purchased shotgun or rifle for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action” during that brief window of time is necessarily speculative and conjectural.

[Lennyk78]

It's beyond obscene that there are states that still haven't counted 20-40% of their votes. WTF are you idiots doing?

[SRG2]

Are you sponsored by Summer’s Eve?

WTF are you idiots doing?
Making sure that the count is accurate and that no citizen is deprived of their constitutional rights by their vote not being counted?

[Lennyk78]

If most states can do it one day, then they all can. Arizona must be filled with special ed children like the Rev. Kirkland. Maybe their election people are having too much gay sex on the Hopi Reservation to count votes.

[David Nieporent]

No states can do it in one day.

[Michael P]

Perfection has not been demonstrated, therefore tolerate the awful. How very Democrat.

Florida, for example, got to 99% within about three hours. It's now been almost three days and California is only in the 63% (per BBC) to 66% (per NBC) range. It's shameful in terms of efficiency and stinks of integrity risk.

[Mr. Bumble]

Remember the Notimportant Rules:
1. David is always right.
2. If David is wrong see rule #1.
There is also the Pompous Ass factor to consider.

[David Nieporent]

Anklebiter strikes again.

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor you.

[Frank Drackman]

Florida did, so did Jaw Jaw, what are you, Stew-Pid?

[Mr. Bumble]

No, he's Notimportant.

[Martinned2]

Presumably one of the things they're doing is obeying laws that forbid the counting of votes before election day. I wonder where such laws might have come from?

[Mr. Bumble]

...or counting votes that came in after election day.
By the way:
"Judge[Shitcan] Grants Jack Smith’s Request To Halt All Deadlines In Trump’s Case After Election Victory"
https://dailycaller.com/2024/11/08/breaking-jack-smith-asks-judge-to-halt-all-deadlines-in-trumps-case-after-election-victory/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"What's on your mind?"

Maybe it rhymes with "stump."

[Mr. Bumble]

Congratulations to Susan Wiles (daughter of the late Pat Summerall,who along with John Madden was the best NFL announcing duo ever) on being named Chief of Staff for the Trump White House.
The first woman to be named to that position.
Gonna be a great four years!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If he names Mike Davis AG, it's going to lit.

People who need justice are finally gonna get justice.

[Frank Drackman]

are you sure? Mark Cuban said "45/47" is afraid to be around strong women.

[Lee Moore]

So, leaving aside Executive Orders, what can Trump and the GOP majorities in Congress actually do ? (DDHQ still has a 15% chance of the Ds winning the House btw, though the betting markets have it lower. Since the races in California will still be being counted in April, who knows what will happen – but for today let’s stipulate that the GOP gets 53 in the Senate and a small but MTG-proof majority in the House.)

1. The Rs are DEFINITELY not going to can the legislative filibuster, so it’s down to reconciliation.

2. It seems to me that Trump has a couple of Aces here. First, I suspect the GOP can include swingeing tariff rises in a reconcilation Bill…..but which don’t kick in for a couple of years. Thus they can produce a lot of phantom revenue for reconciliation purposes that can be set against tax cuts. Come time for the hefty tariffs to actually bite, they can do another Bill to trim them to something less swingeing. That would require D support, but if the Ds chose not to support, the political egg would be on their faces.

3. And ditto for hefty taxes on Trump’s enemies – like Google, Facebook etc. They can be somewhat backloaded too. It would be a twofor. Phantom money the bank for reconcilation purposes. And a threat – play ball or pay up.

4. And ditto again for hefty spending cuts on. They can be backloaded. If the Ds want to rescue them in a coupe of years time, they have to come up with the votes to override a filibuster.

In short, backload the 2025 reconciiation Bill with revenue raisers and spending cuts that the Ds hate, and well, their hearts and minds will follow.

[bernard11]

I suspect the GOP can include swingeing tariff rises in a reconcilation Bill…..but which don’t kick in for a couple of years.

Does he need a bill? I thought POTUS had substantial independent authority over tariffs.

The whole thing illustrates the stupidity of these ten-year windows we keep dealing with. "Yeah, we're spending a lot now, but in 2034 there's going to be this massive tax increase that will straighten it all out." Idiotic, of course, but that kind of thing seems to drive fiscal policy.

[loki13]

I wish someone would actually try and do something about the deficit. It hasn't been done since ... CLINTON.

But the GOP just talks about it when the Democrats are in power, and then passes tax cuts and ignores it when they have the power.

I know we are the world's reserve currency, but this can't continue indefinitely. At least try and stop increasing the deficit?

[Bwaaah]

The trajectory, combined with neither party finding a way to address it, suggests we'll deal with it once we get our assess kicked (fiscally speaking).

The slow trainwreck metaphor comes to mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

The dynamic is the same in every democracy: Once it's permitted to buy votes with borrowed money, anybody who'd stop doing it loses their election, and is on the outside looking in. It's a classic failure mode of democracy, the only defense against which is to prohibit the borrowing in the first place.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't actually call Congress and the President being at each other's throats, and too busy to immediately get around to spending an unexpected windfall, Clinton "doing something".

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They can't. Congress has spent a generation outsourcing it's power or hamstringing itself so the politicians can bleat about foils they can never beat, election after election after election.
Our federal spending goes like this (this is 2023) out of $6.6T:
* "Mandatory" spending - $3.8T
* Interest - $1T
* "Discretionary" spending - $1.7T

All Congressional appropriations that they bicker and fight over is the $1.7T discretionary spending. Guess how much our deficit was for 2023?

$1.7T.

The politicians best lever they have left to pay off their clients is with appropriations.

Congress has created a system that is doomed. They can't cut mandatory spending. They are yoked by interest rates. And they'll never cut their last vestige of power, their discretionary spending.

[Lee Moore]

He doesn't need a Bill.

But introducing (or pretending to introduce) tariffs in a reconcilation Bill gives a plus to revenue in the equation :

Revenue effects + Spending effects = Zero (or positive)

Doing tariffs outside that formula wastes useful positive effects on revenue in the formula.

The idiocy is used because otherwise you have to get 60 votes in the Senate to do anything, or else push that nuclear option button. Which most Senators are scared of.

Which reminds me - it would be fun if the new GOP Senate majority proposed a rule change to end the legislative filibuster - just to enjoy the debate and see how many Ds would actually vote to end it under the new regime.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only positive effect of the revenue is the negative effect on the deficit. And if the tariffs were in a reconciliation bill the temptation to spend the extra revenue would be irresistible. We'd just end up with the same or larger deficit at a higher level of spending, and more crowding out effect on the private sector.

[Lee Moore]

I think you are missing the point. Which is - if Trump wishes to do tariffs - it is in his interests, and the GOP's interests, to do them as part of a reconcilation Bill. Precisely because he can then spend (or tax cut) the revenue raised.

Moreover, he can spend (or tax cut) phantom revenue from tariffs under a reconcilation Bill.

I appreciate that you disapprove of actions that increase the national debt, but that ship has sailed long ago. The debt has roughly quintupled over 20 years. No political party in power could survive the next election by taking the "responsible" actions required to bring it under control. The only way to do that in real life is the way forced on you by reality. A decade of inflation at 20% a year. Which would cut the debt by about 90%.

You should recall that the enormous debt incurred by Germany to finance WW1, and the additional enormous debt incurred by Germany in the five years after WW1 to finance the peacetime government without the trouble of collecting taxes, resulted in Germany having, at the end of 1923 - zero government debt !

It had all gone up in smoke.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I went to Books-a-Million today after lunch and asked the clerk if they had Donald Trump's new book on how to depart illegal aliens.

She looked at me, furious, "Get the fuck out of here and don't come back."

I said, "Yes, that's it! Do you have it in paperback?"

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! Good one.

[Frank Drackman]

Did you ask if they had Prince Albert in a can?

[Bwaaah]

LOL.

[F.D. Wolf]

Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia signed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, pledging their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. Every single one was carried by Kamala Harris. If they all follow through on their commitment, the electoral vote count will be 520 for Trump to 18 for Harris.

So, how many are we guessing will follow through on this sacred principle of honoring the winner of the national popular vote? Or was it just a partisan gimmick?

[loki13]

Why is this a thing? Is this, like, a meme spreading around the Trumposphere?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will not take effect until enough states have agreed to do it to have a majority of electoral college votes. Because, um, duh.

This is something that people should have already known, or if they thought about it for a second they would know, and even if those two basic mechanisms failed, they could easily look this up before copy-pasting this from wherever they got it from.

It’s tiring, because you correct the nonsense, but it doesn’t stop. And people don’t care that they are disseminating it, so they just keep doing it.

[Frank Drackman]

So it will take effect never.

[Lee Moore]

The NPV Compact explicitly kicks in only when enough States adopt it to form a majority in the Electoral College. Besides they haven't finished counting yet. California could still be counting the 2024 vote during the 2026 midterms.

The NPV is in any event fatally flawed. Wyoming could join and change its voting system to give each voter 1000 votes, which could be divided between different candidates as each voter pleases. Wyoming would therefore dominate the NPV, outvoting all the other Compact members put together.

In order to correct that flaw they'd have to rewrite it and go back to square one.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was going to point out the fatal flaw(s) in your commen, but, eh, never mind. It's too stupid to engage with.

[Lee Moore]

There’s nothing in the NPV text that suggests member states are required to limit their voters to one vote each, and there are plenty of precedents from around the world where each voter gets more than one vote.

Indeed the US itself used to have multiple votes per elector in the electoral college. Each elector got two votes.

The relevant text :

Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential slate.

refers explicitly to “the number of votes” – it says nothing about the number of voters casting them.

It may be a silly answer, but that simply reflects the fact that the NPV proposal has not been thought through.

[Kazinski]

I see where you are going now, the constitution does define the electoral votes for each state, but makes no attempt to define what the popular vote is.

For instance if a state decided to go with a proportional vote system where if there are 4 candidates on the ballot, each voters first choice would get 4 votes, 2nd choice 3 votes, 3rd votes etc.

Then the candidate with the largest number of votes wins. So in that system each voter would get 10 votes for that race. And that would be perfectly constitutional and up to state law.

If the national vote compact doesn't define what the popular vote is, then it would be up to each state to define it.

[Lee Moore]

Other ways of rigging it are :

(a) the old admin / procedure angle. For example Joe’s team missed the Ohio filing deadline this year. If the Ohio state government wanted to hardball, they could keep him off the ballot. Doesn’t matter in the current system as he wasn’t going to get anything out of Ohio anyway. But in a NPV system it matters

(b) the top two primary scheme. You can keep the general election a D v D or R v R affair, in a state with a strong partisan lean. So the enemy picks up zero votes. In California it’s already happened with Senate races.

[ThePublius]

As Kazinsky stated in the previous thread on this (look up!),

"Also its unconstitutional for states to join a compact unless Congress approves it.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … enter into Any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”"

[Martinned2]

As so often, it turns out the Constitution doesn't mean what people think it means. And it's anybody's guess what it might mean if/when the NPV interstate compact ever into force and if/when it inconveniences whatever form of Trumpism exists on that day.

In any case, they're working on getting Congressional consent.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.16#myth_9.16.5

[Don Nico]

"whatever form of Trumpism"
So-called Trumpism is a classic cult of personality.
Obamaism was close to it. As Mr Obama has showed, such cults do not swallow others in their penumbra as Ms. Clinton and Ms Harris have showed.

[Brett Bellmore]

It looks to me like Trump looked South to Milei, and liked what he saw. I'm surprised this didn't circulate much until he actually won. Or I guess maybe I'm not...

Check this out. That's quite a program, I hope he's got good private security, because I doubt the Secret Service is going to be much help after that speech.

[Don Nico]

By the way, Milei is a disaster for Argentina

[Mr. Bumble]

Got something to back that up?
I haven't seen much reporting on Argentina under Milei one way or the other.

[Brett Bellmore]

We'll see. I think that's like blaming the guy who took your bottle of vodka away for the hangover. Give it a couple years, and Argentina may be much better off for the temporary pain, if they can stick it out.

Our biggest problem politically, governmentally, is that we have been incapable of suffering short term pain to avoid much greater long term pain. Like the guy who won't cancel his credit card paid trip to Hawaii just because he's on track for bankruptcy, because what fun is that? We just keep getting deeper in the hole because it's the easiest thing to do at the moment.

Naturally, the further down that road you go, the more painful the trip back becomes, but at some point you ARE going to be forced to take that trip.

Anyway,

Argentina's Milei to meet with Trump, Musk next week in the US

[Brett Bellmore]

More detail on the free speech front. If he does a quarter of this, he's going to be the biggest defender of free speech in decades.

But don't worry, the ACLU is on the case to make sure none of it happens.

[David Nieporent]

Just a week ago he filed an utterly frivolous $10 billion (!) lawsuit against CBS because they aired something he didn't like.

[Mr. Bumble]

Watch this space for real estate listings of homes for sale of celebrities who have left the USA because Trump was elected.

[Michael P]

Someone should make a reference list of all the overblown promises about the election outcome that celebrities break in the months to come. (In the twin interests of brevity and levity, "I'll leave the country" is too minor to count as overblown.)

There was the horror author who promised to throw himself into a woodchipper. The auteur of bad movies who promised to set himself on fire. The singer decades past her prime who promised to drink drain cleaner. The mayor of an English city who promised to leave the UK. What else was there?

[Frank Drackman]

So I'm guessing Harriet Tubman WON'T replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 Bill???

[Brett Bellmore]

As long as it's this proposal, I'm behind it. Watching Democrats' heads explode would be fun.

[Michael P]

The important question here is whether Tucker Carlson has been tested for rabies, in case the unseen demon that mauled him was rabid.

Tucker: “In my bed, at night, and I got attacked while I was asleep with my wife and four dogs in the bed and mauled, physically mauled.”

Interviewer: “In a spiritual attack by a demon?”

Tucker: “Yeah, by a demon. Or by something unseen that left claw marks on my sides.”

[Brett Bellmore]

I have a more plausible theory for why somebody sleeping in a bed with four dogs would wake with claw marks on their sides...

[Martinned2]

Francis Fukyama (thankfully still alive) has published an excellent and balanced essay in the FT just now: https://www.ft.com/content/f4dbc0df-ab0d-431e-9886-44acd4236922

Then again, I would like it, because some of the things he says echo points I made about trust above:

Prior to the election, critics including Kamala Harris accused Trump of being a fascist. This was misguided insofar as he was not about to implement a totalitarian regime in the US. Rather, there would be a gradual decay of liberal institutions, much as occurred in Hungary after Viktor Orbán's return to power in 2010.

This decay has already started, and Trump has done substantial damage. He has deepened an already substantial polarisation within society, and turned the US from a high-trust to a low-trust society; he has demonised the governmetn and weakened belief that it represents the collective interests of Americans; he has coarsened political rhetoric and given permission for overt expressions of bigotry and misogyny; and he has convinced a majority of Republicans that his predecessor was an illegitimate president who stole the 2020 election.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Fukyama is a WEF Globalist Malthusian.

Which makes him evil. The “liberal institutions” whose decay he laments are the globalist evil ones out to oppress humans in service of elites and their anti-human agenda.

Also, like most out of touch liberal elites, he has the cause & effect reversed. e.g.

“he has demonised the governmetn and weakened belief that it represents the collective interests of Americans”

Trump is the publics reaction to their belief that our government institutions no longer represent our interests. Not the cause.

Your conclusions will most likely be wrong when your premises are invalid.

[Don Nico]

“He has deepened an already substantial polarisation within society, and turned the US from a high-trust to a low-trust society; ”
I’m afraid that the Democrats have play a huge role in that process. Theirs has been a steady drumbeat to demonize the Supreme Court, the Electoral Collage, the “garbage” and “deplorables” who “cling to their guns and religion.”

"convinced a majority of Republicans that his predecessor was an illegitimate president ."
You have no evidence for the claim of "majority"

Please tell us another fairy tale.

[Martinned2]

Deeply ironic that you quoted the line about polarisation and then said that...

[Don Nico]

Ironic? I only quoted the heads of team D, But doing so is what is polarizing... wake up and have a coffee and some poffertjies.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don't you see Nico,

It's only divisive when you disagree with them.

[John F. Carr]

Back during episode 1 of Trump a podcaster I follow brought in a historian to talk about the fall of the Roman Republic. The episode was in response to Trump, not explicitly about Trump.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I wonder why the institutions have wielded their censorship power against all the Leftist election conspiracists and deniers that are spreading like wildfire re: the "missing" votes?

Why doesn't that harm our sacred Democracy like it allegedly did back in 2020?

[SRG2]

On another forum years ago after Obama was elected and anti-Obama voters were talking about all the terrible things that would happen, I asked them - and pro-Obama voters - to put down five objective quantitative criteria by which to judge whether he was a success or a failure. Unsurprisingly, few anti-Obama voters wanted to post such a hostage to fortune. (Those few who did were all wrong, but when two years later I brought up the thread again, they gave reasons why Obama was still a failure notwithstanding that he'd met their criteria for success.)

But let's play. Trump will be a success if 4 out of the 5 criteria are met:
1. GDP averages 3% or above during his admin
2. Unemployment averages 4% or below
3. Inflation averages 2% or below
3. The Federal deficit declines each year after his first year
4. Illegal immigration declines by more than 20% a year.

And will be a failure if 2 or fewer of these are met. Anything in between is neutral.

[Martinned2]

Interesting list.

- 3% average GDP growth is a challenge but not impossible
- Unemployment is at 4.1% now, so you'd definitely expect Trump to be able to more or less hold it steady for the next four years.
- 2% inflation is a difficult one to call. All that deficit spending (see the next bullet) and jacking up the import tariffs isn't great for inflation, but if he tanks the economy (see 1st bullet above) he might end up with low average inflation anyway.
- I'd expect him to have no hope of reducing the deficit. (I'm not even sure if anyone in his administration even cares about the deficit. Let's see who ends up as Secretary of the Treasury.)
- Illegal immigration is also difficult to call. It depends on the economic and security situation in Central and South America, which Trump may well make worse, and on how the US economy develops (see all previous bullets).

Of course, none of this really matters compared to the number 1 criterion: Is there going to be a meaningful election in 2028? I'm sure there will be some kind of election. Russia and Hungary have elections too. But there are a lot of things that Trumpists can do to stack the deck in favour of themselves. (As they already did in the last four years at state level and in the Supreme Court.)

[Martinned2]

Incidentally, the question of whether Obama was a good president when viewed ex post is an interesting one.

- On the legislative side passing Obamacare is a bit of a dud, if that's supposed to be his singular achievement in eight years as president. And that's before you consider the wider political cost.
- His economic policies in the aftermath of the banking crisis were too cautious, but politically they may well have been as good as was feasible at the time. They were certainly better than what anyone in Europe managed.
- Internationally he accomplished essentially nothing except that he avoided, in his own words, doing dumb shit. All the wars he inherited were still there when he left office, and in the meantime Putin had invaded Ukraine and the Syrian civil war had broken out.

[David Nieporent]

Trump will be a success from whose perspective? It seems really weird to list 4 bullet points relating to the economy when Trump's actual campaign was on cultural, not economic, grounds.

[ThePublius]

That's not so. Trump's campaign was multi-faceted, and included economic, cultural, societal, legal, and other aspects. He talked a lot about inflation, food prices, energy costs, etc.

Why do you say what you say? Do you just hate Trump?

[SRG2]

The reason I excluded cultural grounds and similar is because they're unquantifiable. There's no "LGBT+" index that I can say, "will go down 20% under Trump", for example.

And Trump supporters certainly do claim that Trump will generate good economic outcomes

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

We could always create an index out of how many child drag stars there are and how many little children have gender mutilation surgery or are on irreversible puberty-blockers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Shouldn't a successful mass deportation be on the list? It's what Trump's fans think they want most.

[Frank Drackman]

Turns out the Revolting Reverends "Replacement" prediction was correct, he just had it backwards.

[Martinned2]

I'm glad that Brett and others above assured me that Musk would have no actual power in the Trump administration. That's making me feel so much better about the future of the human race.

Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Donald Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday included two surprises: Elon Musk was also on the line, and Zelensky was somewhat reassured by what he heard from the president-elect, two sources with knowledge of the call tell Axios.

Why it matters: The new details of the call underscore how influential Musk could be in the second Trump administration, and the uncertainty over how exactly Trump will approach Ukraine.

Between the lines: Trump's public messages throughout the election campaign — promising a quick resolution to the war, declining to say which side he wanted to win and criticizing the massive aid packages flowing from Washington — raised alarm bells in Kyiv and throughout Europe.

The Biden administration is now looking for ways to get as much military assistance as possible to Ukraine ahead of Jan. 20, when Trump could turn off the spigot.
But the private conversations Trump and his team have had with Zelensky and his advisers over the last two months — including on Wednesday — were somewhat more reassuring to the Ukrainians, the sources say.
Zelensky himself felt the fact that the call happened so soon after Trump was declared the winner was a positive sign, one of the sources told Axios. Trump has yet to speak with Vladimir Putin since the election, but the Russian president said he will pick up if Trump calls.
Behind the scenes: The call between Trump and Zelensky lasted around 25 minutes, according to the sources who were briefed on its details.

After Zelensky congratulated Trump, the president-elect said he will support Ukraine, but didn't go into details.
Three sources briefed on the call all told Axios that Zelensky felt the call went well and that it did not increase his anxiety about Trump's victory. One source said it "didn't leave Zelensky with a feeling of despair."
Musk also weighed in during the call to say he will continue supporting Ukraine through his Starlink satellites, the sources said. Musk did not respond to a request for comment.
Starlink has been crucial to Ukraine's war effort, though Musk has also mocked Zelensky's requests for U.S. aid, and Zelensky rebuked the billionaire for proposing a peace plan of his own in 2022.
Reality check: Much went unsaid, and much remains unknown. Trump and Zelensky did not delve into policies like Trump's purported plan to end the war, or the prospect of further U.S. aid, the sources said.

Flashback: Zelensky met Trump in September in New York, at which time they discussed the war with Russia and a possible diplomatic path for ending it.

According to three sources with knowledge of that meeting, Trump told Zelensky he would not abandon Ukraine, but wants to give diplomacy a chance.
"I promise you will be happy with me," Trump told Zelensky during that meeting, according to a source with knowledge. The Trump campaign declined to comment on Wednesday's call or the previous meeting.
In attendance at that meeting was former U.S. ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, a possible Trump pick for secretary of state or another senior post. Grenell is expected to play a leading role in any Ukraine diplomacy.
Since the meeting in New York, Zelensky's adviser have kept an open channel of communication with Trump's aides.
What they're saying:

"Nothing of what Zelensky and his aides heard from Trump and his team in private has been alarming or made us feel that Ukraine is going to be the one who pays the price."
— Source familiar with the conversations
"I had an excellent call with President Trump and congratulated him on his historic landslide victory — his tremendous campaign made this result possible," Zelensky wrote on X after the call on Wednesday.

"Strong and unwavering U.S. leadership is vital for the world and for a just peace," Zelensky said, adding that he and Trump agreed to maintain close dialogue.
Yes, but: In a speech in Budapest on Thursday, Zelensky made clear that despite his positive call with Trump, he "cannot yet know what his actions will be."
The big picture: During the campaign, Trump repeatedly said he would immediately push for Ukraine-Russia peace talks if elected, and even claimed he could get a deal within 24 hours.

On Thursday in Budapest, Zelensky acknowledged that Trump wants to end the war quickly but stressed they did not discuss that in detail during the call.
"If it's just fast, it means losses for Ukraine. I just don't yet understand how this could be in any other way. Maybe we do not know something, do not see," Zelensky said.
He stressed Ukraine wants "a fair end to the war" that includes security guarantees.
What to watch: Even though they're wary of potential peace talks, the Ukrainians see some upside in breaking with the current "negative status-quo," one source briefed on government deliberations said.

Three sources with knowledge of Ukrainian government assessments said that Kyiv expects that if peace talks do take place, they will agree to participate but Putin will either reject the talks or take steps that doom them to failure.

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/08/musk-trump-zelensky-ukraine-call

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I hope he has enormous influence. His Department of Government Efficiency is an amazing idea.

Watch how many Democrats and establishment Republicans come out against government efficiency.

[Bwaaah]

"I’m glad that Brett and others above assured me that Musk would have no actual power in the Trump administration."

No, I don't believe anybody gave you any such assurance. But that mischaracterization helps you to tee up your story nicely.

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect that he will have the power to make suggestions, and that those suggestions will be taken very seriously.

[Kazinski]

Who said Elon wouldn't have any power?

I took it for granted Trump would name Elon his EU Viceroy with plenipotentiary power. Well other than if any of Elon's edicts that might affect Trumps European business interests would be subject to Don Jr's veto.

[Don Nico]

Thank you for providing that detailed summary.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Jack Smith has moved to drop the cases against Trump.

1.) I hope "not guilty" recovers
2.) I wonder if he's going to delete his records like the J6 committee did?

[M L]

Remember when the entire Mueller team accidentally wiped their phones? Wonder if Jack Smith's team will suffer the same mishap.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure, and they'll blame Russia, Russia, Russia.

[not guilty]

"Jack Smith has moved to drop the cases against Trump."

That is a flat out lie, JHBHBE. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=3

The government's motion recites in full:

As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant is expected to be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and inaugurated on January 20, 2025. The Government respectfully requests that the Court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy. By December 2, 2024, the Government will file a status report or otherwise inform the Court of the result of its deliberations. The Government has consulted with defense counsel, who do not object to this request.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.278.0_7.pdf

Judge Chutkan entered the following order:

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Government's 278 Unopposed Motion to Vacate Briefing Schedule is hereby GRANTED. All remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule are VACATED. By December 2, 2024, the Government shall file a status report indicating its proposed course for this case going forward. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/8/2024. (zcll)

Is it difficult to post comments with pants on fire, JHBHBE?

[Frank Drackman]

those hard drives will be blanker than Parkinsonian Joe's facial expression.

[Martinned2]

Following Fukuyama (above), here is the newly minted Nobel Prize winner Acemoglu weighing in, on Twitter:

I feel anxious and saddened by Trump’s election. Years of turmoil and uncertainty await us. I have also come to believe that this is not Trump’s win. It is the Democrats who have lost this election.
This is not because Biden stayed on as a candidate despite his age. It is not because Kamala Harris is not qualified (I believe she’s amply qualified). It is because of Democrats’ campaign. Dems have been losing the American workers and did nothing to regain them in this election.
Dems have ceased to be the workers’ party long ago, owing to their support for digital disruption, globalization, large immigrant flows, and “woke” ideas.
The transformation is really striking, as I have argued before: now it is the highly educated, not manual workers that vote for Democrats, and if the center-left does not become more pro-worker, it and democracy will suffer: https://project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-2024-democrats-must-return-to-working-class-priorities-policies-by-daron-acemoglu-2023-11
For a while it looked like Dems could still win elections with support from Silicon Valley, minorities, some portions of organized labor and the professional class in large cities. But this was never a healthy coalition, and even organized labor wasn’t going to remain faithful for long.
This coalition made Dems increasingly alienated from workers and the middle class in much of the country, especially in smaller cities and the South.
The message was loud and clear in 2016, and all of the soul-searching that followed was healthy. It was part of the reason why Biden adopted a pro-worker industrial strategy.
Biden’s economy delivered for the working class in terms of jobs and strengthening the industrial base of the country. Wages at the bottom rose rapidly. Policy started moving towards the views of the American workers on immigration, protectionism, support for unions and public investment.
And yet, I fear that Dem activists and the establishment never fully internalized the woes of the workers and never made enough of an effort to bring them back to the fold. They sounded distant and detached.
My test is the following: if stranded in an unknown city, would a Dem elite (typically a professional or bureaucrat from a coastal city, with postgraduate education) prefer to spend the next four hours talking to an American worker with a high school degree from the Midwest?
Or would he or she prefer to spend it with a professional with postgraduate education from Mexico, China or Indonesia? Or name your country? I asked this question to colleagues and friends, they all think is the latter --- as do I. Most Dem elites are now alienated from American workers.
It seemed at first that Harris-Walz may try to change that, emphasizing bolstering up the middle class and patriotism, in an effort to appeal to the working class deserting the party. A true effort in that direction would have been commendable, and if credible, perhaps win the election.
But at the end, the campaign focused on abortion and other issues appealing to the base. The main effort to broaden the base came from using Liz Cheney to appeal to suburban women ­--- on abortion.
Of course, abortion is a critical issue. But focusing on it was never going to win the working class, and certainly not the working-class men.
On the economy, Dems can talk about opportunity and jobs (which they need to do). But they never distanced themselves from the Silicon Valley and the global business elite (but ironically, Silicon Valley started leaving them!)
I fear that, now, Trump and Vance’s Republican Party will be the main home for workers, especially manufacturing workers and those in smaller cities.
I am saddened and fearful for the United States, and I am deeply saddened about the Democratic Party --- unless this time it gets the message can truly change.
This is not just essential for the Democratic Party but for US democracy, which needs to refocus more on egalitarianism and voice for everybody, as I have argued recently: https://project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-eu-democracy-challenges-reflect-disappointing-economic-growth-and-wage-trends-by-daron-acemoglu-2024-06 and https://nytimes.com/2024/07/19/opinion/inequality-democracy-trump-solutions.html
What is tragic is that Biden’s agenda had started paying off for workers already (and also proving that it was possible to adopt policies that would help workers and disproving the claim that globalization and inequality were acts of nature that could not be influenced).
What is even more tragic is that the Trump-Vance policies are likely going to be for the plutocrats and not for the American workers.
I will write separately on my views of what to expect from Trump’s policies in the next thread and follow that up with another one on what this presidency might mean for the world.

[SRG2]

What is even more tragic is that the Trump-Vance policies are likely going to be for the plutocrats and not for the American workers.

If this happens it will not be tragic. It will be deserved.

[Michael P]

Your blog sucks. Especially because you're fouling up somebody else's blog with your effluvia.

[Bored Lawyer]

Last night, a pogrom occurred in the Netherlands by Islamo-Nazis. The police stood by and did little (as always happens when there is a pogrom). Today, many Netherlanders cheered on this blatant Jew-hating attack.

So frankly, Martinned2, your carping about Trump is so much horse manure. The "Nazi rally" in Madison Square Garden included hundreds of Orthodox Jews wearing yarmulkas. No one even called them names, and they were welcomed as part of the Trump coalition.

My tolerance for your BS is at an end. Your country is an anti-semitic cesspool we have not seen since the 1940s. So you and all the smug European elites can go f---- yourself. And use a crowbar, that's more painful.

[SRG2]

I am not the first to notice the glee with which many on the American right could say, "look, there are anti-Semites on the left!"

[Bored Lawyer]

Another piece of garbage commenter. I guess yours is a variation on "Republicans Pounce." Pogrom in one place? Attack the right-wing for noticing it.

I have no glee in hearing that my co-religionists were beaten in another country. And that the authorities there sat back and did little. My emotion is raw anger, not glee.

Fact: it's safer for a Jew, especially an obvious Jew, to walk in Birmingham, Alabama than in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Or New York City, for that matter. So the residents of the latter should stop looking down their nose at the former.

Or to quote a well-known Jew: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

[SRG2]

It is nonetheless a fact that this is how some Republicans reacted. Am I supposed not to notice? I agree that at present Birmingham Alabama is safer for Jews than Amsterdam or NY - though this is not historically true nor a future certainty. But that does not address the glee part. And perhaps you could have displayed a modicum of integrity and condemned such glee. But you did not do so.

Do you think that, should now-empowered white supremacists conduct violence against Jews - more synagogues being shot up, for example, they are going to go easier on you than on me because you voted for Trump? Jews have made that mistake before.

[Michael P]

Until you spend time "noticing" the antisemitism on your side, rather than just the reaction to it, nobody should care what you think or say.

[SRG2]

I am on neither side. unless you're stupid enough to think that someone who is opposed to Trump must be a left-winger or some such. (According to the Political Compass I'm centre-right on economics, and very libertarian socially.) There is anti-Semitism on the left as there is on the right, and there has always been.

But it is telling that neither you nor BoredLawyer can condemn the glee which neither of you denies.

[Don Nico]

SRG,
You have made up the “glee” issue (or more accurately provided no on-point evidence to criticize BL and to sidestep that extensive evidence that in recent times the worst ant-semitism (especially in the US) has been on the left.

But I do accept your word of caution to assume nothing and trust no one.

[Frank Drackman]

Wasn't "Glee" a great show?? (no Homo)
yeah, right, I'm the only "Conspirator" who watched it, 10 million watched the "Pilot" (I know, "Pilot? what's a Pilot?") and it ran Prime Time for 6 years, that's a Storybook! (Man)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Jokers to the right, here I am.....

[Mr. Bumble]

Matinned2 called it "hooliganism" up-thread.
Nice usage of a favorite word from Communists.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good old false consciousness, though at least he blames the Democrats for inducing it.

[M L]

This Matt Yglesias guy seems to be a liberal with Vox or whatever, but he’s actually a foul nativist, according to Sarcastro.

“American government can and should prioritize the interests of American citizens”
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1854334397157384421

[David Nieporent]

Matt doesn't believe it's zero sum the way the Trumpkins do.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's a stupid statement.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, the monolithic "Trumpkins." Do speak on what what they believe, David.

The Chinese take-out restaurant owner down my street here voted for Trump. So did the employee who works his counter. Are they Trumpkins, David? Do they believe in zero sum, David?

Are you that lazy, David?

[Mr. Bumble]

Qatar gives Hamas leaders an eviction notice; and Trump has only been President elect for 3 days.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1854903700227031294?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[John F. Carr]

Judge Chutkan has suspended trial proceedings in response to this motion by Jack Smith:

As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant is expected to be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and inaugurated on January 20, 2025. The Government respectfully requests that the Court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy. By December 2, 2024, the Government will file a status report or otherwise inform the Court of the result of its deliberations. The Government has consulted with defense counsel, who do not object to this request.

[loki13]

Yep. All federal cases are over.

It's a somewhat interesting question about the state case. But whatever.

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor NG. All those months of analysis and electronic ink on why Smith and Judge Shitcan would be putting Trump behind bars blown up like a Hamas pager!

[John F. Carr]

There is nothing similar in the 11th Circuit appeal. I see a lot of amicus briefs in support of Trump filed this month. Among the recognizable names are Citizens United and Alex Kozinski. Amicus briefs in support of Jack Smith were due earlier.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68955302/united-states-v-donald-trump/

[Frank Drackman]

Because of "Changing Demographics" we may never see another DemoKKKratic President this Century!!!! (I'll settle for this decade)

Frank

[Bwaaah]

And hopefully, by the time they come back, they’ll have changed a bunch of their tunes. I especially dislike them all talking in unison, sounding like Frank Drackman as if he just came out of finishing school. They’ll never do it like you, Frank, no matter how much they feel it inside.

[Bwaaah]

[ThePublius]

Let the deportations begin....

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I look forward to you bitching about how everything you relied upon immigrants for and were too fucking ignorant and stupid to be aware of, suddenly spikes in pricing and drops in availability.

We should start with shitheads like you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Jason Cavanaugh [cocksucking motherfucker] working hard to honor George Carlin.
The words, in the order Carlin listed them, are: "shit", "piss", "fuck", "cunt", "cocksucker", "motherfucker", and "tits".[1][2]

[Bwaaah]

I think you’re mistaken about who will be deported and under what strategy. But more significantly, I think you’re an uninsightful, nasty, humorless, not-really-getting-the-zeitgeist douchebag. And it pleasures me to see Trump living rent-free in your hateful head. You deserve that kind of companionship.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I don't give a fuck what you think.

"I think you’re an uninsightful, nasty, humorless, not-really-getting-the-zeitgeist douchebag. And it pleasures me to see Trump living rent-free in your hateful head. You deserve that kind of companionship."

The self-owning irony of your statement is amusing. I called you out as a piece of shit when you first arrived here, and you've done nothing but prove me right ever since.

[Bwaaah]

"I called you out as a piece of shit when you first arrived here, and you’ve done nothing but prove me right ever since."

Wait...lemme guess...I used a word that offended you, and you expressed your offense...was that you "calling me out?" Otherwise, please do tell what it is that you "called me out" on.

I don't recall you ever having made a substantive remark about anything I've said. I vaguely recall one general thread in which somebody of your ilk wrote with a conciliatory tone, but I think it may have been some other resentful commenter. (And he was being conciliatory about the topic, not me.)

I think I've never known you to know me as anything but a piece of shit. Is that wrong?

[ThePublius]

I am happy to pay higher prices and experience less availability; there's an enormous cost to support all of these illegal immigrants, particularly in Massachusetts. In the end it will cost me less. And, we won't have these unvetted lawbreakers in our midst, unvetted for criminality, disease, and so forth. Let's have at least the border protection that Mexico has, not to mention Canada and all of the nations of Europe.

[David Nieporent]

Let’s have at least the border protection that Mexico has, not to mention Canada and all of the nations of Europe.

"Let's be more like Europe," said MAGA.

[David Nieporent]

"Inflation is too high. Let's do stuff to raise prices," said MAGA.

[Bwaaah]

What did the Democrats do wrong in the 2024 Presidential election?

I’ll give you the top three reasons they lost:

1) Inflation makes wage earners, people who typically live paycheck to paycheck, poorer, week by week. (An overwhelming majority of people fit this description.) The pinch gets tighter every time they go to a cash register, every time they go to a gas pump. The Democrats’ answer to inflation was the “Inflation Reduction Act,” a one trillion dollar government spending program. (seriously)

2) The wage/labor market is extremely competitive. Increased availability of low wage labor puts downward pressure on wages in the markets in which those laborers compete. The Democrats’ answer to the huge influx of people at the border, of low wage labor, was to not answer; to look aside, and to help them in. (seriously)

3) Donald Trump is a person. He presents as a person, albeit a very flawed one. Kamala Harris is a presenter….a construction of the Democratic Party…a messenger of the moment’s DNC positions on everything. This election wasn’t a referendum on Trump against Harris; it was referendum on him, a person, against them, a political machine.

I’d distill the Democrats’ problem down to this: they couldn’t hear the cries of the people they were trying to help because they were filled with belief in the great plans they hold for those people. They, the college educated Democratic political class, were somehow able to stay focused on a better tomorrow while the people they were trying to help moved backward, in the present.

“Stop your crying. We know what’s best for you. Shut up about the problems. We’ve got this.”

Not.

[David Nieporent]

1) Inflation makes wage earners, people who typically live paycheck to paycheck, poorer, week by week. (An overwhelming majority of people fit this description.) The pinch gets tighter every time they go to a cash register, every time they go to a gas pump. The Democrats’ answer to inflation was the “Inflation Reduction Act,” a one trillion dollar government spending program. (seriously)

The IRA was not about reducing inflation, despite its name. Nevertheless, inflation went way down after it was passed. And in fact wages have been growing faster than prices for a couple of years now, especially for the people in the lower income percentiles.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not a fact in a carload.

[Bwaaah]

All correct.

I emphasize, though, that saying "inflation went way down" doesn't quite capture the dynamic, emotionally or quantitatively, of what inflation does to one's wealth. Inflation is now pushing people backward at a much slower rate than the peak of around 8.5% in mid 2022. But it is still pushing people backward more quickly than it was before 2021 (when the typical inflation rate was around 2% or lower). This is to say that when inflation goes down, people don't go up. They just go down more slowly. That is it's effect.

Inflation is a very erosive force, especially for wage earners and people living on fixed incomes.

[ThePublius]

"The day after Hillary Clinton was nominated by the Democratic National Committee in 2016, Yale Law School congratulated Clinton, class of 1973, "on her historic nomination for President of the United States." Eight years later, it is refusing to congratulate J.D. Vance on his actual election."

https://freebeacon.com/campus/j-d-vance-was-a-poster-boy-for-yale-law-school-the-school-wont-congratulate-him-on-his-victory/