We’re All Gonna Die – Open Thread

by

by Ugh

Well then.  This has been, uh, a quite something of a week. Latest is that McMaster is on his way out as NSA and one of the possible replacements is….John Bolton!  Mr. "Let's Launch a Preemptive Strike on North Korea Because Wheeee!"  These are not the good times you're looking for.

And woke up this morning to Trump tweeting that "trade wars are good!" and, more substantively, that Darrell Hammond was better at the SNL impersonation of Trump than Alec Baldwin.  Oh also Trump is in favor of gun confiscation with, uh, delayed due process, and increasing the age for purchase of assault rifles* to 21.  Or at least he was earlier in the week.

Also, too, Paul Ryan is the worst. 

Open thread.

*Or whatever the technical fncking term is. 

540 thoughts on “We’re All Gonna Die – Open Thread”

  1. I am glad that I am old and have no children. I feel sorry for people who do have kids. Seriously. The only hope I have is that if things get fucked up enough, there will be a voter revolution that puts the R party out on the fringes for a generation. But since contemporary conservationism is not so much a philosophy as an appeal to the worst in human nature and since there is always a lot of that around I’m not real optimistic

  2. I am glad that I am old and have no children. I feel sorry for people who do have kids. Seriously. The only hope I have is that if things get fucked up enough, there will be a voter revolution that puts the R party out on the fringes for a generation. But since contemporary conservationism is not so much a philosophy as an appeal to the worst in human nature and since there is always a lot of that around I’m not real optimistic

  5. This is fine.
    “The Securities and Exchange Commission late last year dropped its inquiry into a financial company that a month earlier had given White House adviser Jared Kushner’s family real estate firm a $180 million loan.”
    Perfectly normal.

  6. This is fine.
    “The Securities and Exchange Commission late last year dropped its inquiry into a financial company that a month earlier had given White House adviser Jared Kushner’s family real estate firm a $180 million loan.”
    Perfectly normal.

  9. wonkie, this is the one thing that makes me glad that my parents have passed. I can’t imagine them thinking what the world has become and worrying about their grandkids…

  10. wonkie, this is the one thing that makes me glad that my parents have passed. I can’t imagine them thinking what the world has become and worrying about their grandkids…

  13. Thanks for the link, Nigel.
    I plan to attend the March for Our Lives in DC on 3/24, and feel strongly about gun violence, but my “single issue,” if I have one, is immigrant rights. It’s the litmus test for our humanity.

  14. Thanks for the link, Nigel.
    I plan to attend the March for Our Lives in DC on 3/24, and feel strongly about gun violence, but my “single issue,” if I have one, is immigrant rights. It’s the litmus test for our humanity.

  15. Hope Hicks does American conservatism’s facial expression, the murderer’s low-tax smirk:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/white-house-dysfunction.html?mabReward=ART_CBD1&recid=11FGzfo6aEZV8fTsP9F2tyD5bqx&recp=1&moduleDetail=recommendations-1&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article
    via Hullabaloo
    Hicks needs to show a bit of leg with that.
    When the nuclear missiles fly, conservatives across the country will be on rooftops cheering them on.
    Their cell-phone video capabilities will be set on the “reality show” setting as the missiles arc and then descend.

  16. Hope Hicks does American conservatism’s facial expression, the murderer’s low-tax smirk:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/white-house-dysfunction.html?mabReward=ART_CBD1&recid=11FGzfo6aEZV8fTsP9F2tyD5bqx&recp=1&moduleDetail=recommendations-1&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article
    via Hullabaloo
    Hicks needs to show a bit of leg with that.
    When the nuclear missiles fly, conservatives across the country will be on rooftops cheering them on.
    Their cell-phone video capabilities will be set on the “reality show” setting as the missiles arc and then descend.

  21. one of the possible replacements is….John Bolton!
    our very own colonel blimp.
    Alito gives every indication of being a sociopath
    not a bug, a feature. the crueler we are, the less likely they are to try to come here.
    if you think i’m being sarcastic, think again. we consider people who leave water for folks crossing desert borders to be felons.
    for leaving water for people, so they don’t die of thirst.
    i’m surprised nobody’s proposed salting the border with land mines. it’d be cheaper than a wall, so bonus.

  22. one of the possible replacements is….John Bolton!
    our very own colonel blimp.
    Alito gives every indication of being a sociopath
    not a bug, a feature. the crueler we are, the less likely they are to try to come here.
    if you think i’m being sarcastic, think again. we consider people who leave water for folks crossing desert borders to be felons.
    for leaving water for people, so they don’t die of thirst.
    i’m surprised nobody’s proposed salting the border with land mines. it’d be cheaper than a wall, so bonus.

  23. Since the largest importer of both steel and aluminium into the US is Canada (China is, I think, around 10th…), how does that justify the section 232 national security pretext (something that hasn’t been invoked for 30 years) ?
    Are you planning to go to war with the Canadians ?

  24. Since the largest importer of both steel and aluminium into the US is Canada (China is, I think, around 10th…), how does that justify the section 232 national security pretext (something that hasn’t been invoked for 30 years) ?
    Are you planning to go to war with the Canadians ?

  25. justice-alito-just-signaled-the-supreme-courts-conservatives-might-not-consider-immigrants-to-be-people
    Nigel, fortunately there is a simple solution: If immigrants incorporate themselves, they instantly become people. And probably an LLC would be sufficient….

  26. justice-alito-just-signaled-the-supreme-courts-conservatives-might-not-consider-immigrants-to-be-people
    Nigel, fortunately there is a simple solution: If immigrants incorporate themselves, they instantly become people. And probably an LLC would be sufficient….

  27. Regarding the tariffs, as with most things Trump, there has been no sign that the details have been thought through. (Or even thought of.) So it is possible that the tariffs will not be applied to Canadian steel. Maybe even not to steel from the EU or other allies.
    It’s true that making exceptions for allies would involve nuance — and Trump doesn’t do nuance. On the other hand, if it is presented to him as striking at unfair Chinese steel, he might embrace it….

  28. Regarding the tariffs, as with most things Trump, there has been no sign that the details have been thought through. (Or even thought of.) So it is possible that the tariffs will not be applied to Canadian steel. Maybe even not to steel from the EU or other allies.
    It’s true that making exceptions for allies would involve nuance — and Trump doesn’t do nuance. On the other hand, if it is presented to him as striking at unfair Chinese steel, he might embrace it….

  31. And wouldn’t war with the Canadians be a Civil War? After all, much of the population is unclear that Canada is a separate country….

  32. And wouldn’t war with the Canadians be a Civil War? After all, much of the population is unclear that Canada is a separate country….

  33. So it is possible that the tariffs will not be applied to Canadian steel. Maybe even not to steel from the EU or other allies.
    Under WTO rules, you can’t discriminate between nations like that – unless you have an FTA with them (in which case the tariffs wouldn’t apply in any event).

  34. So it is possible that the tariffs will not be applied to Canadian steel. Maybe even not to steel from the EU or other allies.
    Under WTO rules, you can’t discriminate between nations like that – unless you have an FTA with them (in which case the tariffs wouldn’t apply in any event).

  37. Under WTO rules
    Oh, rules. But rules don’t apply to Trump. See lots of his previous actions.
    I’d bet that, if he is persuaded to discriminate like that, he would just go forward, apply the tariffs, and fight it out in the courts. He’d lose, but it would take a while.

  38. Under WTO rules
    Oh, rules. But rules don’t apply to Trump. See lots of his previous actions.
    I’d bet that, if he is persuaded to discriminate like that, he would just go forward, apply the tariffs, and fight it out in the courts. He’d lose, but it would take a while.

  47. Stupidity (yawn! what else is new?) from Trump:

    trade wars are good, and easy to win.

    Which, of course, is why nobody has ever won one. Ever.
    But then, nobody who started one before was Trump….

  48. Stupidity (yawn! what else is new?) from Trump:

    trade wars are good, and easy to win.

    Which, of course, is why nobody has ever won one. Ever.
    But then, nobody who started one before was Trump….

  49. Are you planning to go to war with the Canadians ?
    we better think twice. they kicked our butts last time we tried that on.
    Tariffs are just a version of “Cutting your nose off to spite your face.”
    in the context of a balanced and equitable market, probably so.

  50. Are you planning to go to war with the Canadians ?
    we better think twice. they kicked our butts last time we tried that on.
    Tariffs are just a version of “Cutting your nose off to spite your face.”
    in the context of a balanced and equitable market, probably so.

  51. Ford went to a lot of expense to improve its trucks’ mileage by replacing as much steel as possible with aluminum. I guess, now, they’re screwed either way.

  52. Ford went to a lot of expense to improve its trucks’ mileage by replacing as much steel as possible with aluminum. I guess, now, they’re screwed either way.

  55. So does that mean that, if Lamb wins anyway, Trump will drop the tariffs in an effort to get the stock market to rally again?

  56. So does that mean that, if Lamb wins anyway, Trump will drop the tariffs in an effort to get the stock market to rally again?

  59. and, trump buddy carl icahn unloads a bunch of equities in the days before the tarriff announcement.
    make of it what you will.

  60. and, trump buddy carl icahn unloads a bunch of equities in the days before the tarriff announcement.
    make of it what you will.

  61. Can Trrump impose a tariff all by himself? Does he have the authority?
    If he can do it by himself, does he have any idea how? He spent the first six months in office issuing decrees, many of which did not actually mean anything sometimes becuase there was no folllowup to make the decree happen.
    So…How does a proposed ariff become a reality?

  62. Can Trrump impose a tariff all by himself? Does he have the authority?
    If he can do it by himself, does he have any idea how? He spent the first six months in office issuing decrees, many of which did not actually mean anything sometimes becuase there was no folllowup to make the decree happen.
    So…How does a proposed ariff become a reality?

  65. Can Trrump impose a tariff all by himself? Does he have the authority?
    Yes, on specific items (like steel, or memory chips), under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, if he declares that it’s a matter of national security. There’s effectively no definition of what counts as national security — that’s up to the President. In the 125 years since ~1890, Congress has given the executive branch enormous power to “legislate”.

  66. Can Trrump impose a tariff all by himself? Does he have the authority?
    Yes, on specific items (like steel, or memory chips), under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, if he declares that it’s a matter of national security. There’s effectively no definition of what counts as national security — that’s up to the President. In the 125 years since ~1890, Congress has given the executive branch enormous power to “legislate”.

  67. Thank hou, Micheal. So he can do it, if he konws how to get it done. Of course he is surrounded by people who dont want him to do it. So they could do what one of his defense advisors does whenever he demands a plan for attacking Korea–say Ok Ill work on that, then just walk away…

  68. Thank hou, Micheal. So he can do it, if he konws how to get it done. Of course he is surrounded by people who dont want him to do it. So they could do what one of his defense advisors does whenever he demands a plan for attacking Korea–say Ok Ill work on that, then just walk away…

  69. Of course he is surrounded by people who dont want him to do it.
    Actually not any more. The tariff enthusiasts seem to have largely displaced the free traders in Trump’s immediate circle.
    Of course, they may be as clueless as he about how to go about implementing such a tariff. But I expect that the Commerce Secretary (who is a fan) can find someone who will help with that.

  70. Of course he is surrounded by people who dont want him to do it.
    Actually not any more. The tariff enthusiasts seem to have largely displaced the free traders in Trump’s immediate circle.
    Of course, they may be as clueless as he about how to go about implementing such a tariff. But I expect that the Commerce Secretary (who is a fan) can find someone who will help with that.

  71. “So…How does a proposed ariff become a reality?”
    In mp’s case, same way my riffs become a comment, I consult my fundament and away we go.

  72. “So…How does a proposed ariff become a reality?”
    In mp’s case, same way my riffs become a comment, I consult my fundament and away we go.

  73. So he can do it, if he konws how to get it done.
    My father used to tell a story about the tests for officer candidate school in the military. One of the problems gives a detailed list of available materials, a topo map, a description of the available men, a page-and-a-half of blank space for an answer, and poses the question, “How do you build a bridge across this particular stream/river?” The correct officer answer is two sentences: “Sargent, take these men and this pile of sh*t and build a bridge. I’ll be back in three hours to see how things are going.”
    John Kelly did not make it to general officer rank without learning how to find and ask the career staff people how things actually work. In his current role, that means the civil service-level staff that persist across the political changes.
    I believe the Javanka vs Kelly rumors. Also that after a year, Trump knows his kids are a liability that he’s going to have to shed.

  74. So he can do it, if he konws how to get it done.
    My father used to tell a story about the tests for officer candidate school in the military. One of the problems gives a detailed list of available materials, a topo map, a description of the available men, a page-and-a-half of blank space for an answer, and poses the question, “How do you build a bridge across this particular stream/river?” The correct officer answer is two sentences: “Sargent, take these men and this pile of sh*t and build a bridge. I’ll be back in three hours to see how things are going.”
    John Kelly did not make it to general officer rank without learning how to find and ask the career staff people how things actually work. In his current role, that means the civil service-level staff that persist across the political changes.
    I believe the Javanka vs Kelly rumors. Also that after a year, Trump knows his kids are a liability that he’s going to have to shed.

  75. I believe the Javanka vs Kelly rumors. Also that after a year, Trump knows his kids are a liability that he’s going to have to shed.
    Maybe. Not sure what he considers to be a “liability”.
    In other news, this guy seems nice.

  76. I believe the Javanka vs Kelly rumors. Also that after a year, Trump knows his kids are a liability that he’s going to have to shed.
    Maybe. Not sure what he considers to be a “liability”.
    In other news, this guy seems nice.

  77. “John Kelly did not make it to general officer rank without learning how to find and ask the career staff people how things actually work. In his current role, that means the civil service-level staff that persist across the political changes.”
    See, “deep state” and “drain the swamp”.
    Also, “the bureaucracy”.
    Throw in “expertise” too, as passe.
    Michael, I hope you are right, but if you are, then Kelly will be eaten alive by the chaos-loving, gummint-hating cannibals loose in the country under the title, “the conservative movement” and “MAGA”.
    There’s not a Cabinet Officer in this Administration who believes career staff in their agencies have a single piece of practical knowledge or wisdom to impart to the former’s know-it-all selves.
    My Dad, eventually a Captain and engineer in the U.S. Army, took men and piles of shit and built lots of bridges in New Guinea during World War II, so you are precisely correct about how things should work.

  78. “John Kelly did not make it to general officer rank without learning how to find and ask the career staff people how things actually work. In his current role, that means the civil service-level staff that persist across the political changes.”
    See, “deep state” and “drain the swamp”.
    Also, “the bureaucracy”.
    Throw in “expertise” too, as passe.
    Michael, I hope you are right, but if you are, then Kelly will be eaten alive by the chaos-loving, gummint-hating cannibals loose in the country under the title, “the conservative movement” and “MAGA”.
    There’s not a Cabinet Officer in this Administration who believes career staff in their agencies have a single piece of practical knowledge or wisdom to impart to the former’s know-it-all selves.
    My Dad, eventually a Captain and engineer in the U.S. Army, took men and piles of shit and built lots of bridges in New Guinea during World War II, so you are precisely correct about how things should work.

  79. Otis is big on harsh punishments. (And ever higher prison populations.)
    Hawaii seems to have found a better approach. But then, this administration has a positive allergy to real world data — especially if it might contradict their pet enthusiasms.

  80. Otis is big on harsh punishments. (And ever higher prison populations.)
    Hawaii seems to have found a better approach. But then, this administration has a positive allergy to real world data — especially if it might contradict their pet enthusiasms.

  81. I idly followed a link on Crooked Timber (about Erasmus Darwin, Charles’s grandfather, about whom I knew next to nothing) to this article called Sexing the Plants:
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/sep/21/featuresreviews.guardianreview30
    Apart from the absorbing interest of the thing, I was struck by the last line of one of his verses, on slavery, which could serve as the slogan against every kind of infamy today:

    Conscience must listen to the voice of Guilt:
    Hear him, ye Senates! Hear this truth sublime,
    “HE, WHO ALLOWS OPPRESSION, SHARES THE CRIME”.

    Of course that grand, declamatory style is terribly unfashionable today, but it certainly is stirring!

  82. I idly followed a link on Crooked Timber (about Erasmus Darwin, Charles’s grandfather, about whom I knew next to nothing) to this article called Sexing the Plants:
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/sep/21/featuresreviews.guardianreview30
    Apart from the absorbing interest of the thing, I was struck by the last line of one of his verses, on slavery, which could serve as the slogan against every kind of infamy today:

    Conscience must listen to the voice of Guilt:
    Hear him, ye Senates! Hear this truth sublime,
    “HE, WHO ALLOWS OPPRESSION, SHARES THE CRIME”.

    Of course that grand, declamatory style is terribly unfashionable today, but it certainly is stirring!

  87. On the whole, over time, the US would be better off if it engaged in unilateral free trade. Although trade agreements do prevent countries changing their minds every time they encounter a perceived or real disadvantage in their trade arrangements with other countries.
    Politicians, or would be politicians in Trump’s case, seemingly have no understanding of comparative advantage. Or just don’t care when it conflicts with what they see as a political advantage.

  88. On the whole, over time, the US would be better off if it engaged in unilateral free trade. Although trade agreements do prevent countries changing their minds every time they encounter a perceived or real disadvantage in their trade arrangements with other countries.
    Politicians, or would be politicians in Trump’s case, seemingly have no understanding of comparative advantage. Or just don’t care when it conflicts with what they see as a political advantage.

  89. Most of the time, Trump’s nostalgia seems to be for the 1950s. But on trade, he seems to go for mercantilism, which by the 1950s had been debunked by economists over a century earlier. So, not exclusively living in the 1950s part of the past.

  90. Most of the time, Trump’s nostalgia seems to be for the 1950s. But on trade, he seems to go for mercantilism, which by the 1950s had been debunked by economists over a century earlier. So, not exclusively living in the 1950s part of the past.

  91. In the 1800’s the UK went full-on “unilateral free trade”, based on ideological reasons.
    The eventually, painfully, discovered that it gave them ZERO negotiating leverage on trade deals.
    Multilateral deals are a good way to thread that needle. Like the EU.

  92. In the 1800’s the UK went full-on “unilateral free trade”, based on ideological reasons.
    The eventually, painfully, discovered that it gave them ZERO negotiating leverage on trade deals.
    Multilateral deals are a good way to thread that needle. Like the EU.

  93. But on trade, he seems to go for mercantilism, which by the 1950s had been debunked by economists over a century earlier.
    What he wants is a return to the late 1940s/early 1950s, when the US could export essentially unlimited manufactured goods because so much of the rest of the world’s ability to manufacture had been reduced to rubble. Mercantilism is a means to an end, not the end. I suppose a couple of nice wars, one between Germany and France, and one between Japan and China, that reduced those four to rubble again would also work :^)

  94. But on trade, he seems to go for mercantilism, which by the 1950s had been debunked by economists over a century earlier.
    What he wants is a return to the late 1940s/early 1950s, when the US could export essentially unlimited manufactured goods because so much of the rest of the world’s ability to manufacture had been reduced to rubble. Mercantilism is a means to an end, not the end. I suppose a couple of nice wars, one between Germany and France, and one between Japan and China, that reduced those four to rubble again would also work :^)

  95. What he wants is a return to the late 1940s/early 1950s, when the US could export essentially unlimited manufactured goods because so much of the rest of the world’s ability to manufacture had been reduced to rubble.
    Well, perhaps. But if the rest of the world is reduced to rubble, what are they going to use to buy stuff from us?
    From what I understand, during that period trade was a fairly small part of our economy, as we were pretty much self sufficient.

  96. What he wants is a return to the late 1940s/early 1950s, when the US could export essentially unlimited manufactured goods because so much of the rest of the world’s ability to manufacture had been reduced to rubble.
    Well, perhaps. But if the rest of the world is reduced to rubble, what are they going to use to buy stuff from us?
    From what I understand, during that period trade was a fairly small part of our economy, as we were pretty much self sufficient.

  97. In the 1800’s the UK went full-on “unilateral free trade”, based on ideological reasons.
    Aided and abetted to a great extent by their cost advantage in manufactured goods.
    And now you know some of the rest of the story.

  98. In the 1800’s the UK went full-on “unilateral free trade”, based on ideological reasons.
    Aided and abetted to a great extent by their cost advantage in manufactured goods.
    And now you know some of the rest of the story.

  99. Telling the guys to get on with and then checking in three hours requires the mental ability to remember in three hours what the guys were told to get on with. Can Trump do that? OR will he change is mind thirteen times in three hours? Or does he know what guys to direct to do things? Or will he get distracted by something and forget about it until reminded?
    Seems to me there are only a few things he sticks to: hates immigrants, the stupid wall, hating Sessions, the stupid wall, his military parade hates Sessions the stupid wall. I guess he could add tariffs to his cycle. Oh I forget everyone now and then he remembers to say something nasty to the North Koreans.
    His administration has some notable and terrible accomplishments but it seems to me that very few of them are Trump’s. He and his circle couldnt organize their way out of a paper bag. His Cabinet has accomplishments (of the negative kind). The Rs in Congress had accomplishments (of the negative kind).
    I guess Trump did figure out how to order up a military parade and he is doing that through the tell the guys to get on with it model.

  100. Telling the guys to get on with and then checking in three hours requires the mental ability to remember in three hours what the guys were told to get on with. Can Trump do that? OR will he change is mind thirteen times in three hours? Or does he know what guys to direct to do things? Or will he get distracted by something and forget about it until reminded?
    Seems to me there are only a few things he sticks to: hates immigrants, the stupid wall, hating Sessions, the stupid wall, his military parade hates Sessions the stupid wall. I guess he could add tariffs to his cycle. Oh I forget everyone now and then he remembers to say something nasty to the North Koreans.
    His administration has some notable and terrible accomplishments but it seems to me that very few of them are Trump’s. He and his circle couldnt organize their way out of a paper bag. His Cabinet has accomplishments (of the negative kind). The Rs in Congress had accomplishments (of the negative kind).
    I guess Trump did figure out how to order up a military parade and he is doing that through the tell the guys to get on with it model.

  103. Aided and abetted to a great extent by their cost advantage in manufactured goods…
    And captive colonial markets.
    Britain’s record on this is neither absolutely wonderful nor appalling… and by the standards of the day, just possibly a fraction closer to the former than the latter.

  104. Aided and abetted to a great extent by their cost advantage in manufactured goods…
    And captive colonial markets.
    Britain’s record on this is neither absolutely wonderful nor appalling… and by the standards of the day, just possibly a fraction closer to the former than the latter.

  105. I read in Wapo this morning a quote from some guy who had the job of implementing the tariff and he told the reproter that he was just going to stall until Trump forgot about it. I will see if I can find the quote.

  106. I read in Wapo this morning a quote from some guy who had the job of implementing the tariff and he told the reproter that he was just going to stall until Trump forgot about it. I will see if I can find the quote.

  107. Well I found the quote and that was the initial tactic, but it failed. He didnt forget about it. I am being a bit nihilistic I guess but I find myself thinking, go ahead do your worst fuck everything up so that even the dumbest Republican voter cant fail to see the harm their horrible selfishness is doing.

  108. Well I found the quote and that was the initial tactic, but it failed. He didnt forget about it. I am being a bit nihilistic I guess but I find myself thinking, go ahead do your worst fuck everything up so that even the dumbest Republican voter cant fail to see the harm their horrible selfishness is doing.

  109. But they have convinced that themselves that the harm is being done to Other People. (And, if they feel the pinch themselves, it’s due to others trying to sabotage Trump.) It’s like conspiracy theorists insisting that lack of evidence just proves how devious the conspiracy is.

  110. But they have convinced that themselves that the harm is being done to Other People. (And, if they feel the pinch themselves, it’s due to others trying to sabotage Trump.) It’s like conspiracy theorists insisting that lack of evidence just proves how devious the conspiracy is.

  111. So trigger warning, this is positive view of Trump from a single metric.
    He has now at least tried to implement almost each of his campaign promises. He has really, despite all press to the contrary, been perfectly consistent in trying to get those things done.
    In addition, he has proposed solutions on DACA and gun control that would be good steps forward if the Democrats wanted to take yes for an answer. Both of which will likely pass if the Dems don’t take the House and Senate in the fall.
    DACA, with the immigration stuff, will likely pass if a court ruling goes the wrong way.
    Now, all of those are policy, not style, things. But it would be great if every politician put every campaign promise on the table in their first 13 months in office.
    And, as for drain the swamp, he did that. Almost no political operatives staff key positions for him. But that will hopefully turn out to be a lesson learned.

  112. So trigger warning, this is positive view of Trump from a single metric.
    He has now at least tried to implement almost each of his campaign promises. He has really, despite all press to the contrary, been perfectly consistent in trying to get those things done.
    In addition, he has proposed solutions on DACA and gun control that would be good steps forward if the Democrats wanted to take yes for an answer. Both of which will likely pass if the Dems don’t take the House and Senate in the fall.
    DACA, with the immigration stuff, will likely pass if a court ruling goes the wrong way.
    Now, all of those are policy, not style, things. But it would be great if every politician put every campaign promise on the table in their first 13 months in office.
    And, as for drain the swamp, he did that. Almost no political operatives staff key positions for him. But that will hopefully turn out to be a lesson learned.

  113. He has now at least tried to implement almost each of his campaign promises.
    from my point of view, that’s one-half of the bad part. the other half is attempting to shred the procedural norms that help keep the wheels on.
    which was, i suppose, also kind of a campaign promise as well, so maybe it’s all of a piece.
    the angry-grandpa archie-bunker-with-money vibe is annoying, but it’s kind of a side show, really.
    as far as drain the swamp, as far as i can tell it’s just a different swamp. and likely a worse one.
    but yeah, the personal style issues are not the primary problems. they mostly just keep everyone’s focus off of the real damage.

  114. He has now at least tried to implement almost each of his campaign promises.
    from my point of view, that’s one-half of the bad part. the other half is attempting to shred the procedural norms that help keep the wheels on.
    which was, i suppose, also kind of a campaign promise as well, so maybe it’s all of a piece.
    the angry-grandpa archie-bunker-with-money vibe is annoying, but it’s kind of a side show, really.
    as far as drain the swamp, as far as i can tell it’s just a different swamp. and likely a worse one.
    but yeah, the personal style issues are not the primary problems. they mostly just keep everyone’s focus off of the real damage.

  115. as for drain the swamp, he did that. Almost no political operatives staff key positions for him.
    I think we have very different views of both what constitutes “the swamp” and what constitutes draining it.
    Personally, I see it as people leveraging their work in government for personal financial advantage. In the past, that was largely a matter of moving to lobbyist firms after leaving the government. In this administration, it appears that leaving the government first is not considered necessary. This is not a step forward.

  116. as for drain the swamp, he did that. Almost no political operatives staff key positions for him.
    I think we have very different views of both what constitutes “the swamp” and what constitutes draining it.
    Personally, I see it as people leveraging their work in government for personal financial advantage. In the past, that was largely a matter of moving to lobbyist firms after leaving the government. In this administration, it appears that leaving the government first is not considered necessary. This is not a step forward.

  117. And, as for drain the swamp, he did that. Almost no political operatives staff key positions for him.
    …..
    as far as drain the swamp, as far as i can tell it’s just a different swamp. and likely a worse one.
    I’m entirely with russell on this. It seemed clear that when he talked about “the swamp” it was intended to convey corruption, not just obstructive “deep state” and self-interested career pols. And it’s equally clear that the levels of corruption in the administration now, from Kushner on down (and that’s if you don’t believe it’s from Trump on down) are at an historic and extraordinary high. It’s hard to pick what will be the most dramatic revelations to come out of the Trump presidency, but financial corruption will be right up there.

  118. And, as for drain the swamp, he did that. Almost no political operatives staff key positions for him.
    …..
    as far as drain the swamp, as far as i can tell it’s just a different swamp. and likely a worse one.
    I’m entirely with russell on this. It seemed clear that when he talked about “the swamp” it was intended to convey corruption, not just obstructive “deep state” and self-interested career pols. And it’s equally clear that the levels of corruption in the administration now, from Kushner on down (and that’s if you don’t believe it’s from Trump on down) are at an historic and extraordinary high. It’s hard to pick what will be the most dramatic revelations to come out of the Trump presidency, but financial corruption will be right up there.

  121. For a President who constantly hungers to be “the best”, it’s looking like a case of “Harding move over!”

  122. For a President who constantly hungers to be “the best”, it’s looking like a case of “Harding move over!”

  123. We don’t need no stinkin trigger warnings! 😉
    Every sociopath I’ve know at a personal level and every psychopathic political leader in history have been reliable promise keepers and consistently so, unless they can’t get out of bed in the morning, in which case everyone tiptoes around trying not to wake the sleeping dragon.
    But once they are awake, you can count on them to live up to expectations and reputation.
    When mp barged in on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms, no one was surprised.
    Putin plays mp like a fiddle because the response is gloriously consistent.
    “But it would be great if every politician put every campaign promise on the table in their first 13 months in office.”
    No, it wouldn’t.

  124. We don’t need no stinkin trigger warnings! 😉
    Every sociopath I’ve know at a personal level and every psychopathic political leader in history have been reliable promise keepers and consistently so, unless they can’t get out of bed in the morning, in which case everyone tiptoes around trying not to wake the sleeping dragon.
    But once they are awake, you can count on them to live up to expectations and reputation.
    When mp barged in on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms, no one was surprised.
    Putin plays mp like a fiddle because the response is gloriously consistent.
    “But it would be great if every politician put every campaign promise on the table in their first 13 months in office.”
    No, it wouldn’t.

  125. The entire White House, except for maybe Stephen Miller, is a wreck (and that’s good, because they deserve it) right now, not because they don’t know what to consistently expect, but because they do.
    Anyone who has dealt with mp over the past 70 years is like a GI tunnel rat in Vietnam or an Iraq vet, fully expecting ambush, trip wires, and landmines, and IEDs.
    You see them now, in the vicinity of VA hospitals, blithering to themselves.

  126. The entire White House, except for maybe Stephen Miller, is a wreck (and that’s good, because they deserve it) right now, not because they don’t know what to consistently expect, but because they do.
    Anyone who has dealt with mp over the past 70 years is like a GI tunnel rat in Vietnam or an Iraq vet, fully expecting ambush, trip wires, and landmines, and IEDs.
    You see them now, in the vicinity of VA hospitals, blithering to themselves.

  129. I, for one, appreciate the trigger warning–not because it is needed, but because it acknowledges that the shooter at least knows his finger is on the trigger. I guess awareness has to start somewhere…
    I feel that one thing about being a liberal is that you have a lot of metrics you feel you have to weigh, and there is always the chance that you are going to weigh them wrong. It used to be that conservatives had multiple metrics and the question was giving up on some metrics (like hating on the gays or pissing on immigrants) was part of the bargaining process.

  130. I, for one, appreciate the trigger warning–not because it is needed, but because it acknowledges that the shooter at least knows his finger is on the trigger. I guess awareness has to start somewhere…
    I feel that one thing about being a liberal is that you have a lot of metrics you feel you have to weigh, and there is always the chance that you are going to weigh them wrong. It used to be that conservatives had multiple metrics and the question was giving up on some metrics (like hating on the gays or pissing on immigrants) was part of the bargaining process.

  131. it bears repeating, again, that about 10 million more people voted against Trump than voted for him. The only reason he is POTUS is because we have a way of electing presidents that is, by modern standards, undemocratic and bizarre.
    Undemocratic, bizarre methods, undemocratic, bizarre result.
    Trump’s approval ratings hover between 35 and 40%.
    In that context, “doing exactly what he said he would do” is not such a good thing.
    And all of that leaves aside the fact that he is a crook, his kids and son-in-law are crooks, and most of his associates are crooks.

  132. it bears repeating, again, that about 10 million more people voted against Trump than voted for him. The only reason he is POTUS is because we have a way of electing presidents that is, by modern standards, undemocratic and bizarre.
    Undemocratic, bizarre methods, undemocratic, bizarre result.
    Trump’s approval ratings hover between 35 and 40%.
    In that context, “doing exactly what he said he would do” is not such a good thing.
    And all of that leaves aside the fact that he is a crook, his kids and son-in-law are crooks, and most of his associates are crooks.

  133. I would say that, for used-to-be-conservatives, it used to be the trade-off was between “minimize changes” and “this is a problem that needs to get fixed.” Or, to put it another way, it was a matter of deciding when a problem was severe enough to warrant (especially government) action to resolve it. And then deciding what was the smallest change that would actually address the root of the problem.
    For example, we have people who cannot find work where they live. Yes, it is bad enough that something needs to be done. Now we think about what the actual root of the problem is, and how to address that:
    – tariffs, to make obsolete industries economically viable again? Nope, the world has moved on. And tariffs just hurt everybody else. That’s been proven beyond a doubt.
    – job training? Maybe. But not everybody is able, never mind interested, in being a programmer or doing other jobs which can be done remotely. For some jobs, you just have to be there. And the jobs are elsewhere.
    – subsidize companies to move to places with people but few jobs? Lots of places (both cities and states) have been trying this. How often do they actually get their money back (i.e. increased taxes greater than the subsidy)? Damn seldom, from what I’ve seen. Not to mention you still have to do the job training — because if a workforce with the necessary skills was there already, the companies would be attracted by the low cost of setting up there.
    – increased mobility? Probably. pushing/subsidizing home ownership seemed like a great idea at the time. But it locked people into places where jobs were disappearing. Time to reconsider that particular government intervention in the market. And then figure out how to get from where we are now (lots of people with much of their wealth tied up in homes in places that don’t have jobs any more) to where we need to be.
    There are other possibilities, of course. But that’s the kind of thing that a real conservative would once have looked at. Pity there aren’t more of us these days.

  134. I would say that, for used-to-be-conservatives, it used to be the trade-off was between “minimize changes” and “this is a problem that needs to get fixed.” Or, to put it another way, it was a matter of deciding when a problem was severe enough to warrant (especially government) action to resolve it. And then deciding what was the smallest change that would actually address the root of the problem.
    For example, we have people who cannot find work where they live. Yes, it is bad enough that something needs to be done. Now we think about what the actual root of the problem is, and how to address that:
    – tariffs, to make obsolete industries economically viable again? Nope, the world has moved on. And tariffs just hurt everybody else. That’s been proven beyond a doubt.
    – job training? Maybe. But not everybody is able, never mind interested, in being a programmer or doing other jobs which can be done remotely. For some jobs, you just have to be there. And the jobs are elsewhere.
    – subsidize companies to move to places with people but few jobs? Lots of places (both cities and states) have been trying this. How often do they actually get their money back (i.e. increased taxes greater than the subsidy)? Damn seldom, from what I’ve seen. Not to mention you still have to do the job training — because if a workforce with the necessary skills was there already, the companies would be attracted by the low cost of setting up there.
    – increased mobility? Probably. pushing/subsidizing home ownership seemed like a great idea at the time. But it locked people into places where jobs were disappearing. Time to reconsider that particular government intervention in the market. And then figure out how to get from where we are now (lots of people with much of their wealth tied up in homes in places that don’t have jobs any more) to where we need to be.
    There are other possibilities, of course. But that’s the kind of thing that a real conservative would once have looked at. Pity there aren’t more of us these days.

  135. Russia didn’t expect that their electoral interference would result in Trump’s election.
    al-Qaida didn’t expect that their plot to hijack aircraft and crash them into buildings would bring down the two towers.
    Black Swans all the way down.

  136. Russia didn’t expect that their electoral interference would result in Trump’s election.
    al-Qaida didn’t expect that their plot to hijack aircraft and crash them into buildings would bring down the two towers.
    Black Swans all the way down.

  137. And, as for drain the swamp, he did that.
    holy crap. lol.
    oh sure. he drained it. then strained it. then cooked it down to a thick syrup and poured over his two scoops of ice cream.
    his is the most corrupt administration in modern history, top to bottom. from Trump’s continual issues with foreign leaders staying at his hotels, to his charging the government to stay in his hotels to protect him, to his constant trips to FL to play golf (which we pay for), to his children’s continual use of the their positions for personal enrichment, to the steady stream of Mueller indictments, to Ben Carson’s dining room set, to Scott Pruitt’s bilking of taxpayers, to the shady contracts in PR, to Melania’s shady contractor pal. etc. etc. etc..
    the guy’s a crooked scumbag. always has been.

  138. And, as for drain the swamp, he did that.
    holy crap. lol.
    oh sure. he drained it. then strained it. then cooked it down to a thick syrup and poured over his two scoops of ice cream.
    his is the most corrupt administration in modern history, top to bottom. from Trump’s continual issues with foreign leaders staying at his hotels, to his charging the government to stay in his hotels to protect him, to his constant trips to FL to play golf (which we pay for), to his children’s continual use of the their positions for personal enrichment, to the steady stream of Mueller indictments, to Ben Carson’s dining room set, to Scott Pruitt’s bilking of taxpayers, to the shady contracts in PR, to Melania’s shady contractor pal. etc. etc. etc..
    the guy’s a crooked scumbag. always has been.

  139. Echoing cleek, I’d say that The Donald did ‘drain’ in the purest technical sense by removing all the H2O (i.e. the clean stuff) leaving the malodorous stuff at the bottom behind. Now the bottom feeders are naturally on top. The operation left no money for the proper dredging, so we will have to live with the stink of the sink for the time being.

  140. Echoing cleek, I’d say that The Donald did ‘drain’ in the purest technical sense by removing all the H2O (i.e. the clean stuff) leaving the malodorous stuff at the bottom behind. Now the bottom feeders are naturally on top. The operation left no money for the proper dredging, so we will have to live with the stink of the sink for the time being.

  145. Nuclear trigger warning, compliments of Hilzoy:
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/03/04/incompetence-or-disloyalty/
    Joe McCarthy and Ayn Rand were moles, deep Russian agents.
    Their patience has paid off.
    All these decades, innocent liberals serving on the PTA and trying to raise local taxes to fund public libraries have been called “commies” and “socialist” and “pinkos” by stinking conservative vermin, usually doofus fucks with beer bellies claiming the front row at public meetings (I’ve been there; I’ve witnessed it, before I came to the conclusion several years ago that confronting them with fists in the parking lot is the only way to fuck the conservative movement) and all along the latter have been the dupes, the plants, the imbeddeds, the Rosenberg undercover Soviet filth, subverting decent Americans’ attempts to try to make a government of the people.
    The vengeance will be gloriously complete and final.
    Did Solzhenitsyn have an irony funny bone?

  146. Nuclear trigger warning, compliments of Hilzoy:
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/03/04/incompetence-or-disloyalty/
    Joe McCarthy and Ayn Rand were moles, deep Russian agents.
    Their patience has paid off.
    All these decades, innocent liberals serving on the PTA and trying to raise local taxes to fund public libraries have been called “commies” and “socialist” and “pinkos” by stinking conservative vermin, usually doofus fucks with beer bellies claiming the front row at public meetings (I’ve been there; I’ve witnessed it, before I came to the conclusion several years ago that confronting them with fists in the parking lot is the only way to fuck the conservative movement) and all along the latter have been the dupes, the plants, the imbeddeds, the Rosenberg undercover Soviet filth, subverting decent Americans’ attempts to try to make a government of the people.
    The vengeance will be gloriously complete and final.
    Did Solzhenitsyn have an irony funny bone?

  147. He has now at least tried to implement almost each of his campaign promises.
    Well, he did “promise” to leave Social Security alone, but the we are not even halfway through his term…time will tell.
    And, as for drain the swamp, he did that.
    Bullshit.

  148. He has now at least tried to implement almost each of his campaign promises.
    Well, he did “promise” to leave Social Security alone, but the we are not even halfway through his term…time will tell.
    And, as for drain the swamp, he did that.
    Bullshit.

  149. Trump’s economic advisers are as clueless as he is.
    You mean tariffs actually will result in increased prices to consumers?!?!?!? Who knew economics could be so complicated simple….

  150. Trump’s economic advisers are as clueless as he is.
    You mean tariffs actually will result in increased prices to consumers?!?!?!? Who knew economics could be so complicated simple….

  151. And, as for drain the swamp, he did that.
    I’m still trying to figure out what was intended by this.
    Trump’s cabinet.
    Mattis was a pretty good hire, even if Trump had to bend the rules to get him in. I’m glad he’s there.
    Tillerson seems… OK, in the sense of not being an incompetent ideological nutbar, although the State Department has kind of been nutted in general. And “CEO of Exxon/Mobil” is a resume that brings its own baggage.
    Mnuchin, Zinke, Ross, DeVos, Sessions, Perdue, Perry, Carson?
    Mulvaney, Pruitt, Haley, Pompeo?
    Linda McMahon, formerly of the WWF, at Small Business?
    Seriously?

  152. And, as for drain the swamp, he did that.
    I’m still trying to figure out what was intended by this.
    Trump’s cabinet.
    Mattis was a pretty good hire, even if Trump had to bend the rules to get him in. I’m glad he’s there.
    Tillerson seems… OK, in the sense of not being an incompetent ideological nutbar, although the State Department has kind of been nutted in general. And “CEO of Exxon/Mobil” is a resume that brings its own baggage.
    Mnuchin, Zinke, Ross, DeVos, Sessions, Perdue, Perry, Carson?
    Mulvaney, Pruitt, Haley, Pompeo?
    Linda McMahon, formerly of the WWF, at Small Business?
    Seriously?

  157. About that Cabinet:
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/2nd-steele-memo-russia-blocked-mitt-romney-as-sec-of-state
    We know for sure Tillerson as a candidate to head the State Department was A-OK and got a thumb’s up from the ex-KGB, now Russian Mafia, running Russia.
    Did Putin get to advise which career State Department employees on the Russian desk were cut loose by Tillerson from government service or are sidelined and working from their new digs in the files room or the janitor’s closets at State?
    Yet another item to add to the list of mp campaign promises to the Kremlin and right-wing, fellow-traveling America that were placed on the table and kept.
    Admirable, that.

  158. About that Cabinet:
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/2nd-steele-memo-russia-blocked-mitt-romney-as-sec-of-state
    We know for sure Tillerson as a candidate to head the State Department was A-OK and got a thumb’s up from the ex-KGB, now Russian Mafia, running Russia.
    Did Putin get to advise which career State Department employees on the Russian desk were cut loose by Tillerson from government service or are sidelined and working from their new digs in the files room or the janitor’s closets at State?
    Yet another item to add to the list of mp campaign promises to the Kremlin and right-wing, fellow-traveling America that were placed on the table and kept.
    Admirable, that.

  159. Not so fast.
    context is everything.
    also, $120M to “combat Russian meddling” tells you everything you need to know about how serious we are about foreign influence in the electoral process.
    the total state department budget is something over $50B. $120M is beer Friday money.

  160. Not so fast.
    context is everything.
    also, $120M to “combat Russian meddling” tells you everything you need to know about how serious we are about foreign influence in the electoral process.
    the total state department budget is something over $50B. $120M is beer Friday money.

  161. why would Trump want to combat the same group who helped him get elected last time?
    Trump’s very good at one thing: discovering conflicts of interest that nobody ever imagined and therefore never bothered writing laws to guard against.

  162. why would Trump want to combat the same group who helped him get elected last time?
    Trump’s very good at one thing: discovering conflicts of interest that nobody ever imagined and therefore never bothered writing laws to guard against.

  163. So, those open-carry weapons-lovers in Russell’s link?
    Is there some requirement that in order to qualify as an asshole gun enthusiast, a guy or gal first has to go through a rigorous physical regimen of putting on rolls of belly-fat and undergoing some sort of neck-thickening surgery, and thigh-widening waddling practice?
    Do their fat asses have to be a mile wide in order to get a license to carry, or just stout enough that they must enter the premises one at a time through the revolving door while getting their long-gun and one butt cheek stuck in the works?
    Too, this expansion of right-to-carry laws by conservative f*ckwads to include keeping guns in your car in workplace parking lots?
    If I were a supervisor with hire-and-fire bullet points on my job description at private businesses, I think twice about the concept of fire-at-will, given the firepower brought to the table by the jackasses who believe in real shoot-em-up fire-at-will procedures.
    Guns in schools, airports, and churches?
    So, what if, in any of those venues, one of these portly, armed mofos threatens to steal my healthcare insurance? Do I have the right, since I will not be carrying, to defend myself against that assault with my bare, murderous hands?
    Further, I’m concerned that this usurpation of all public and private spaces by the Second Amendment may serve to curtail my First Amendment rights.
    For example, say I notice in any of those venues that one of those fat f*cks in the photo in Russell’s link sports a weapon-shaped bulge on his more than ample person and I saunter over and say: “Hey, knumbknuts, the law says ‘concealed carry’ not carry in such a way that Mae West might think you are happy to see her, which she wouldn’t be because your other gun is not up to snuff. So, asswipe, what do ya say you stow that firearm completely out of sight before I stow it for you up your odoriferous republican fundament, hanh?”
    Will it occur to him that he might have to shoot me for my free expression?
    And, if that thought IS occurring to him, how is it that my unarmed person and my First Amendment rights, not to mention my 17th Amendment right to elect my Senators by popular vote, since that’s another Constitutional Amendment these ilk want to get rid of, are being protected?
    No, it’s not going to be a polite society.
    It’s going to be as rude as it can f8cking get.

  164. So, those open-carry weapons-lovers in Russell’s link?
    Is there some requirement that in order to qualify as an asshole gun enthusiast, a guy or gal first has to go through a rigorous physical regimen of putting on rolls of belly-fat and undergoing some sort of neck-thickening surgery, and thigh-widening waddling practice?
    Do their fat asses have to be a mile wide in order to get a license to carry, or just stout enough that they must enter the premises one at a time through the revolving door while getting their long-gun and one butt cheek stuck in the works?
    Too, this expansion of right-to-carry laws by conservative f*ckwads to include keeping guns in your car in workplace parking lots?
    If I were a supervisor with hire-and-fire bullet points on my job description at private businesses, I think twice about the concept of fire-at-will, given the firepower brought to the table by the jackasses who believe in real shoot-em-up fire-at-will procedures.
    Guns in schools, airports, and churches?
    So, what if, in any of those venues, one of these portly, armed mofos threatens to steal my healthcare insurance? Do I have the right, since I will not be carrying, to defend myself against that assault with my bare, murderous hands?
    Further, I’m concerned that this usurpation of all public and private spaces by the Second Amendment may serve to curtail my First Amendment rights.
    For example, say I notice in any of those venues that one of those fat f*cks in the photo in Russell’s link sports a weapon-shaped bulge on his more than ample person and I saunter over and say: “Hey, knumbknuts, the law says ‘concealed carry’ not carry in such a way that Mae West might think you are happy to see her, which she wouldn’t be because your other gun is not up to snuff. So, asswipe, what do ya say you stow that firearm completely out of sight before I stow it for you up your odoriferous republican fundament, hanh?”
    Will it occur to him that he might have to shoot me for my free expression?
    And, if that thought IS occurring to him, how is it that my unarmed person and my First Amendment rights, not to mention my 17th Amendment right to elect my Senators by popular vote, since that’s another Constitutional Amendment these ilk want to get rid of, are being protected?
    No, it’s not going to be a polite society.
    It’s going to be as rude as it can f8cking get.

  165. Someone please invent a paintball sniper gun*, so we can start operation “had this been lead, you’d now be dead” aimed at NRA mouthpieces/functionaries and the politicians they lease.
    Admittedly, the result will be an instant ban for the device and a quick deregulation of self-defense anti-tank rifles and RPGs but at least we will have made a point.
    *I assume these things are smooth-bore not rifled

  166. Someone please invent a paintball sniper gun*, so we can start operation “had this been lead, you’d now be dead” aimed at NRA mouthpieces/functionaries and the politicians they lease.
    Admittedly, the result will be an instant ban for the device and a quick deregulation of self-defense anti-tank rifles and RPGs but at least we will have made a point.
    *I assume these things are smooth-bore not rifled

  167. I saw the best explanation about Trump’s ‘joke’ about getting a President for Life in the US.
    Its funny in the way that musing about obvious longings is funny.
    “Do I want this cookie?” Says Cookie Monster.

  168. I saw the best explanation about Trump’s ‘joke’ about getting a President for Life in the US.
    Its funny in the way that musing about obvious longings is funny.
    “Do I want this cookie?” Says Cookie Monster.

  179. This Jane Mayer piece on Christopher Steele is a must-read.
    warning to readers: be sure to put a nice pillow on the desk in front of you, so when the uncontrollable urge to slam your head into the desk, you won’t give yourself a concussion.

  180. This Jane Mayer piece on Christopher Steele is a must-read.
    warning to readers: be sure to put a nice pillow on the desk in front of you, so when the uncontrollable urge to slam your head into the desk, you won’t give yourself a concussion.

  181. “…one of his two phones rang…he kept his phones in a Faraday bag…”
    Surely if you keep you phone in a Faraday bag, it doesn’t ring.

  182. “…one of his two phones rang…he kept his phones in a Faraday bag…”
    Surely if you keep you phone in a Faraday bag, it doesn’t ring.

  183. Surely if you keep you phone in a Faraday bag, it doesn’t ring.
    If you keep your phone in a Faraday bag all the time, you probably don’t need a phone.

  184. Surely if you keep you phone in a Faraday bag, it doesn’t ring.
    If you keep your phone in a Faraday bag all the time, you probably don’t need a phone.

  189. maybe they were landlines?!
    If you’ve gone to the trouble of a Faraday bag, why would you defeat the whole purpose by running a pair of copper conductors into it from the outside?

  190. maybe they were landlines?!
    If you’ve gone to the trouble of a Faraday bag, why would you defeat the whole purpose by running a pair of copper conductors into it from the outside?

  195. why would you defeat the whole purpose by running a pair of copper conductors into it from the outside?
    the copper wires are sheathed in aluminum foil, obviously

  196. why would you defeat the whole purpose by running a pair of copper conductors into it from the outside?
    the copper wires are sheathed in aluminum foil, obviously

  197. Re RI porn filtering…
    Sounds like a guaranteed revenue stream for Google to maintain a list of every URL with suspect content. Are the legislators aware that Google’s image processing software has an unfortunate tendency to mis-identify pictures of desert sand dunes as nude people? Who’s in violation if I write a bit of Perl code to download such content?

  198. Re RI porn filtering…
    Sounds like a guaranteed revenue stream for Google to maintain a list of every URL with suspect content. Are the legislators aware that Google’s image processing software has an unfortunate tendency to mis-identify pictures of desert sand dunes as nude people? Who’s in violation if I write a bit of Perl code to download such content?

  199. Completely off-topic: Does any USian here know what EST could mean here?

    “A few words in the right ears
    and this wet nosed EST would be glad to leave town.”

    Seems to be some kind of insult but I can’t find something fitting on the acronym list.
    Context: the person referred to is a bisexual masseur in Atlanta who just tried to blackmail the guy quoted above.
    (Given that the quote is from “Atlanta Nights” it may make no sense at all though).

  200. Completely off-topic: Does any USian here know what EST could mean here?

    “A few words in the right ears
    and this wet nosed EST would be glad to leave town.”

    Seems to be some kind of insult but I can’t find something fitting on the acronym list.
    Context: the person referred to is a bisexual masseur in Atlanta who just tried to blackmail the guy quoted above.
    (Given that the quote is from “Atlanta Nights” it may make no sense at all though).

  201. So now if I view a trailer on YouTube of Oscar-winning interspecies canoodling in “The Shape of Water”, apoplectic Rod Drehers, their hair on fire, (first they came for my nudes, and I did nothing, and then they came for my sand dunes) will put me on a list, for which I am charged $20 for the pleasure of joining.
    The Benedict Option is where options go to die.
    For fun, here’s Rod Dreher’s pro-vivisectionist review on “The Shape of Water”. He’s no Pauline Kael, mainly because he doesn’t actually watch the movies before reviewing.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/sex-with-fish-triumph-of-the-freaks/comment-page-3/#comment-8448250
    I have a comment awaiting moderation in the thread, which is to say, awaiting rejection, because I believe I’m banned now from the American Conservative, because Dreher, Buchanan and company, excluding Larison, are snowflakes.
    And I’ve never brought out the F-bomb over there.

  202. So now if I view a trailer on YouTube of Oscar-winning interspecies canoodling in “The Shape of Water”, apoplectic Rod Drehers, their hair on fire, (first they came for my nudes, and I did nothing, and then they came for my sand dunes) will put me on a list, for which I am charged $20 for the pleasure of joining.
    The Benedict Option is where options go to die.
    For fun, here’s Rod Dreher’s pro-vivisectionist review on “The Shape of Water”. He’s no Pauline Kael, mainly because he doesn’t actually watch the movies before reviewing.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/sex-with-fish-triumph-of-the-freaks/comment-page-3/#comment-8448250
    I have a comment awaiting moderation in the thread, which is to say, awaiting rejection, because I believe I’m banned now from the American Conservative, because Dreher, Buchanan and company, excluding Larison, are snowflakes.
    And I’ve never brought out the F-bomb over there.

  203. ‘the copper wires are sheathed in aluminum foil, obviously”
    Tariffs will lead to long overdue unsheathing.

  204. ‘the copper wires are sheathed in aluminum foil, obviously”
    Tariffs will lead to long overdue unsheathing.

  205. The usual meaning is Eastern Standard Time. In this context, it might mean he was looking to leave the east coast and go to, for example, California. Where he might hope for less bigotry directed in his direction. (Not sure why he wouldn’t try, say, New York, but….)

  206. The usual meaning is Eastern Standard Time. In this context, it might mean he was looking to leave the east coast and go to, for example, California. Where he might hope for less bigotry directed in his direction. (Not sure why he wouldn’t try, say, New York, but….)

  209. For fun, here’s Rod Dreher’s pro-vivisectionist review on “The Shape of Water”.
    They seem unclear on the concept of “metaphor”.

  210. For fun, here’s Rod Dreher’s pro-vivisectionist review on “The Shape of Water”.
    They seem unclear on the concept of “metaphor”.

  211. Very much into similes, however, as in “EVERYTHING is like the Weimar Republic, and we know what happened after that!”

  212. Very much into similes, however, as in “EVERYTHING is like the Weimar Republic, and we know what happened after that!”

  217. Very much into similes
    Not even that.
    Fundamentalists are all the same, regardless of the doctrine. It’s a type of thought process. Or, maybe, an absence of thought process.

  218. Very much into similes
    Not even that.
    Fundamentalists are all the same, regardless of the doctrine. It’s a type of thought process. Or, maybe, an absence of thought process.

  221. Like Nixon during Watergate, a piddling scandal compared to the fall of the entire government of the United States that is about to come down around our ears, Nunberg is hitting the sauce.
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/03/05/i-dont-know-who-this-guy-is-but-he-has-won-the-internets/
    He’s on anti-depressants.
    Should Nunberg agree to testify (I hope he refuses because yippee! jail), I suspect he will turn up dead too in a suspicious accidental suicide.
    But what happened to this tongue, the coroner’s report will ask.
    What do you mean, his tongue?
    Someone cut out his tongue?
    Move over, Vince Foster.
    So, if America began executing conservative traitors by firing squad, say, 1000 of them daily, how many years before we run low on the treasonous guilty?
    Are all of mp’s seeming dupes like the Jennings family in “The Americans”, holding down day jobs while donning wigs and subverting in their spare time and on weekends, lo, these many years?
    Or are they merely simpleton traitorous dupes, of the sort terrorized by conservatives McCarthy and Cohn, guilty only of being stupid?
    What should happen to them?
    I’d say, at the very least, they, all 63 million of them, well, the ones not executed, should report weekly to the their local constabulary for pat downs, cavity searches, and warnings not to leave town until we as a civilization sort out who is with is and who ain’t.
    I’m not sure we fully trust those Johnson voters either. That could have been a very clever diversion.
    It’s so difficult to tell any longer. We might have to generalize from the particular.
    Stereotype.
    Like conservatives do.

  222. Like Nixon during Watergate, a piddling scandal compared to the fall of the entire government of the United States that is about to come down around our ears, Nunberg is hitting the sauce.
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/03/05/i-dont-know-who-this-guy-is-but-he-has-won-the-internets/
    He’s on anti-depressants.
    Should Nunberg agree to testify (I hope he refuses because yippee! jail), I suspect he will turn up dead too in a suspicious accidental suicide.
    But what happened to this tongue, the coroner’s report will ask.
    What do you mean, his tongue?
    Someone cut out his tongue?
    Move over, Vince Foster.
    So, if America began executing conservative traitors by firing squad, say, 1000 of them daily, how many years before we run low on the treasonous guilty?
    Are all of mp’s seeming dupes like the Jennings family in “The Americans”, holding down day jobs while donning wigs and subverting in their spare time and on weekends, lo, these many years?
    Or are they merely simpleton traitorous dupes, of the sort terrorized by conservatives McCarthy and Cohn, guilty only of being stupid?
    What should happen to them?
    I’d say, at the very least, they, all 63 million of them, well, the ones not executed, should report weekly to the their local constabulary for pat downs, cavity searches, and warnings not to leave town until we as a civilization sort out who is with is and who ain’t.
    I’m not sure we fully trust those Johnson voters either. That could have been a very clever diversion.
    It’s so difficult to tell any longer. We might have to generalize from the particular.
    Stereotype.
    Like conservatives do.

  223. Honestly, I’m starting to wonder what it would feel like with a gun in my hand.
    That’s okay to say here, right, because 2nd amendment rights?

  224. Honestly, I’m starting to wonder what it would feel like with a gun in my hand.
    That’s okay to say here, right, because 2nd amendment rights?

  231. So, apparently the worldwide fascist movement is happening again, but there’s no allied forces that seem to be willing to step up since most of them have been co-opted.
    I’ve been predicting for some time that we will soon be pledging allegiance to whatever corporation instead of whatever country. I suggest that we go ahead with that and figure out the corporation that is the least fascist. We certainly can’t rely on the traditional anti-fascist countries, after all.
    Thoughts? i’m mainly trying to figure out which corporations are least evil. I’m thinking about pledging allegiance to Google. I mean, they say they’re not evil. And, in fact, I rely on Google. So, yeah, I’m not going to choose some not-for-profit charitable organization that actually is good. Yeah. Google. Or Alphabet. Whatever.

  232. So, apparently the worldwide fascist movement is happening again, but there’s no allied forces that seem to be willing to step up since most of them have been co-opted.
    I’ve been predicting for some time that we will soon be pledging allegiance to whatever corporation instead of whatever country. I suggest that we go ahead with that and figure out the corporation that is the least fascist. We certainly can’t rely on the traditional anti-fascist countries, after all.
    Thoughts? i’m mainly trying to figure out which corporations are least evil. I’m thinking about pledging allegiance to Google. I mean, they say they’re not evil. And, in fact, I rely on Google. So, yeah, I’m not going to choose some not-for-profit charitable organization that actually is good. Yeah. Google. Or Alphabet. Whatever.

  239. So, apparently the worldwide fascist movement is happening again
    I think part of what is going on, on a lot of fronts, is that the generation of people who actually experienced life with fascism are dying off.
    same for race, here, i think.
    people forget exactly just how real hell can be.

  240. So, apparently the worldwide fascist movement is happening again
    I think part of what is going on, on a lot of fronts, is that the generation of people who actually experienced life with fascism are dying off.
    same for race, here, i think.
    people forget exactly just how real hell can be.

  241. Slightly more seriously, I am a Democrat and a democrat, and hope to get our country back to engage in the political and Constitutional process that I’ve always believed in. Y’all have seen me here, fighting for the Obama administration, passionately believing that it was the US at its best (even if, arguably, flawed).
    But, I am now of the view that we need a backup plan. Corporations? Shadow government?
    So let’s all vote them out in 2018. But what if we can’t? And what if the elections are truly problematic?
    Can we organize a solution, or are we just going to say that we’re fnckd?
    I am not sure the Internet is the way to organize a subversive movement, but the other side didi it.
    Let’s discuss. There is a Resistance. Is there a covert Resistance? Is there a password? A secret handshake? Something to read between the lines? Will someone tap me on the shoulder?

  242. Slightly more seriously, I am a Democrat and a democrat, and hope to get our country back to engage in the political and Constitutional process that I’ve always believed in. Y’all have seen me here, fighting for the Obama administration, passionately believing that it was the US at its best (even if, arguably, flawed).
    But, I am now of the view that we need a backup plan. Corporations? Shadow government?
    So let’s all vote them out in 2018. But what if we can’t? And what if the elections are truly problematic?
    Can we organize a solution, or are we just going to say that we’re fnckd?
    I am not sure the Internet is the way to organize a subversive movement, but the other side didi it.
    Let’s discuss. There is a Resistance. Is there a covert Resistance? Is there a password? A secret handshake? Something to read between the lines? Will someone tap me on the shoulder?

  243. If mp’s pilot isn’t confirmed as FAA Chief, this woman is qualified for the job.
    http://www.ibtimes.co.in/woman-claiming-be-god-tied-by-co-passengers-after-trying-open-cabin-door-mid-air-762788?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=ibtimes.co.in&utm_term=68883&utm_content=1
    mp: “Send her name up to Congress so Democrats are placed in the position of not being able to day yes to GOD. I dare them!”
    Of course, how do we know she isn’t God?
    “Cause she’s a girl, that’s how!” said Franklin Graham. “Besides, if she was the God of the NRA, she’d be trying to open the hatch on a Delta Airlines jet.”
    “people forget exactly just how real hell can be.”
    This is true. Doesn’t seem to make them any less nostalgic for real Hell, however.

  244. If mp’s pilot isn’t confirmed as FAA Chief, this woman is qualified for the job.
    http://www.ibtimes.co.in/woman-claiming-be-god-tied-by-co-passengers-after-trying-open-cabin-door-mid-air-762788?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=ibtimes.co.in&utm_term=68883&utm_content=1
    mp: “Send her name up to Congress so Democrats are placed in the position of not being able to day yes to GOD. I dare them!”
    Of course, how do we know she isn’t God?
    “Cause she’s a girl, that’s how!” said Franklin Graham. “Besides, if she was the God of the NRA, she’d be trying to open the hatch on a Delta Airlines jet.”
    “people forget exactly just how real hell can be.”
    This is true. Doesn’t seem to make them any less nostalgic for real Hell, however.

  249. with a side of memphis! good call.
    i’m gonna come back with Lodi – your call whether you wanna go with NJ or CA.

  250. with a side of memphis! good call.
    i’m gonna come back with Lodi – your call whether you wanna go with NJ or CA.

  257. people forget exactly just how real hell can be.
    I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but what people lack in memory, they should attempt to make up for with research and little imagination. Even if you want to be really lazy about it, there are a good number of films you can watch to get the idea.

  258. people forget exactly just how real hell can be.
    I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but what people lack in memory, they should attempt to make up for with research and little imagination. Even if you want to be really lazy about it, there are a good number of films you can watch to get the idea.

  259. “Even if you want to be really lazy about it, there are a good number of films you can watch to get the idea.”
    Some will wind up rooting for the Nazis. AND they’ll be a-holes that don’t take off their MAGA hats in the theater. So very rude.
    Last summer was the first time I picked up a rifle (iron sights) in 40+ years, to put some holes in a paper target.
    Five/Five in the bullseye; could cover them with a nickel. Much better than back in the days of old.
    Good to know what you can do, if you need to.

  260. “Even if you want to be really lazy about it, there are a good number of films you can watch to get the idea.”
    Some will wind up rooting for the Nazis. AND they’ll be a-holes that don’t take off their MAGA hats in the theater. So very rude.
    Last summer was the first time I picked up a rifle (iron sights) in 40+ years, to put some holes in a paper target.
    Five/Five in the bullseye; could cover them with a nickel. Much better than back in the days of old.
    Good to know what you can do, if you need to.

  273. Completely off-topic: Does any USian here know what EST could mean here?
    Your only recourse may be to ask the author. As far as Google knows, “wet nosed EST” appears twice in the book and nowhere else on the Internet. Without qualifiers, EST could be a lot of things. None of which I’ve seen would be context.

  274. Completely off-topic: Does any USian here know what EST could mean here?
    Your only recourse may be to ask the author. As far as Google knows, “wet nosed EST” appears twice in the book and nowhere else on the Internet. Without qualifiers, EST could be a lot of things. None of which I’ve seen would be context.

  275. I thus conclude from that that it is not a commonplace insulting acronym like POS or SOB, so I go back to the notion that it is just one of the myriad random but deliberate errors in the book (one of the factors that make it so funny).
    I am currently preparing to translate it into German and Latin (and hopefully as awful in style as the original), so I have to find out a few things first concerning abbreviations, idioms etc. I am still not sure whether to exchange the setting and time (e.g. modern day Frankfurt or 2nd century AD Naples for Atlanta).
    That was once a common practice, e.g. the German translation of Huxley’s Brave New world is set in Germany and the protagonists got different names fitting that.

  276. I thus conclude from that that it is not a commonplace insulting acronym like POS or SOB, so I go back to the notion that it is just one of the myriad random but deliberate errors in the book (one of the factors that make it so funny).
    I am currently preparing to translate it into German and Latin (and hopefully as awful in style as the original), so I have to find out a few things first concerning abbreviations, idioms etc. I am still not sure whether to exchange the setting and time (e.g. modern day Frankfurt or 2nd century AD Naples for Atlanta).
    That was once a common practice, e.g. the German translation of Huxley’s Brave New world is set in Germany and the protagonists got different names fitting that.

  277. drainin that swamp

    The US Office of Special Counsel announced Tuesday that White House aide Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act on two occasions by “advocating for and against candidates” in last year’s Alabama Senate special election.
    In a new report, the OSC special counsel, Henry Kerner, pointed to Conway’s TV interviews conducted in her “official capacity” in November and December of last year. The agency said Conway “impermissibly mixed official government business with political views about candidates in the Alabama special election.”

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/politics/kellyanne-conway-hatch-act/index.html
    and to prove how drained it is, i expect Trump and the rest of the GOP to sanction Conway in the harshest way possible – at least as harshly as they punished Dan Scavino and Nikki Haley for their Hatch Act violations.

  278. drainin that swamp

    The US Office of Special Counsel announced Tuesday that White House aide Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act on two occasions by “advocating for and against candidates” in last year’s Alabama Senate special election.
    In a new report, the OSC special counsel, Henry Kerner, pointed to Conway’s TV interviews conducted in her “official capacity” in November and December of last year. The agency said Conway “impermissibly mixed official government business with political views about candidates in the Alabama special election.”

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/politics/kellyanne-conway-hatch-act/index.html
    and to prove how drained it is, i expect Trump and the rest of the GOP to sanction Conway in the harshest way possible – at least as harshly as they punished Dan Scavino and Nikki Haley for their Hatch Act violations.

  287. This politico article has some great quotes about the Cohn departure
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/01/gary-cohn-white-house-tariffs-432625
    Up until the moment Trump made the announcement on Thursday, senior White House aides were unsure how the meeting would unfold. Asked Thursday morning what Trump was planning, a person closely involved in the administration’s trade talks said, “Who the hell knows.”
    Multiple administration officials told POLITICO that Trump was unable to sign documents imposing the tariffs on Thursday because key paperwork had not yet been completed. “The legal work isn’t done,” one administration official said Wednesday night, expressing shock that Trump would make an announcement so quickly.
    and
    Cohn’s skepticism of the tariffs was echoed by most of the members of Trump’s national security team, including national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

  288. This politico article has some great quotes about the Cohn departure
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/01/gary-cohn-white-house-tariffs-432625
    Up until the moment Trump made the announcement on Thursday, senior White House aides were unsure how the meeting would unfold. Asked Thursday morning what Trump was planning, a person closely involved in the administration’s trade talks said, “Who the hell knows.”
    Multiple administration officials told POLITICO that Trump was unable to sign documents imposing the tariffs on Thursday because key paperwork had not yet been completed. “The legal work isn’t done,” one administration official said Wednesday night, expressing shock that Trump would make an announcement so quickly.
    and
    Cohn’s skepticism of the tariffs was echoed by most of the members of Trump’s national security team, including national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

  289. It’s only great energy. A few staffing problems here and there, but people come and go. Now get out there men! Hut hup!
    Trigger warning (what Roy Rogers called his horse’s road apples):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsg0EvZozI
    mp was right about one thing:
    “He rolled his eyes and said ‘He doesn’t really believe it, Elizabeth. He just knows Republicans are stupid and they’ll buy it’”.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/News/world/americas/jared-kushner-donald-trump-lied-base-stupid-voters-supporters-president-son-in-law-white-house-a7764791.html
    Not so much swamp-draining as it is directing America’s full annual load of conservative human sewage into the wetland that Washington D.C. once was.
    Effluence-peddling is what they call it in the business.

  290. It’s only great energy. A few staffing problems here and there, but people come and go. Now get out there men! Hut hup!
    Trigger warning (what Roy Rogers called his horse’s road apples):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsg0EvZozI
    mp was right about one thing:
    “He rolled his eyes and said ‘He doesn’t really believe it, Elizabeth. He just knows Republicans are stupid and they’ll buy it’”.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/News/world/americas/jared-kushner-donald-trump-lied-base-stupid-voters-supporters-president-son-in-law-white-house-a7764791.html
    Not so much swamp-draining as it is directing America’s full annual load of conservative human sewage into the wetland that Washington D.C. once was.
    Effluence-peddling is what they call it in the business.

  293. Count,
    That’s a disturbing photo, but I still say the “corpse of the Republican Party” ought to be a spiral-cut ham. I’m still waiting for our political cartoonist corps to replace the GOP Elephant with a pig. Corkscrew tail and all.
    When the wj’s of the world manage to take the Republican Party back from the likes of Marty, the noble Elephant may once again become a fitting symbol for the party of big business. Until then, and in light of He, Trump’s sub/dom relationship with Vlad Putin, truth in advertising requires the mp-ass-kissing GOP to adopt the Bear as its mascot and symbol.
    –TP

  294. Count,
    That’s a disturbing photo, but I still say the “corpse of the Republican Party” ought to be a spiral-cut ham. I’m still waiting for our political cartoonist corps to replace the GOP Elephant with a pig. Corkscrew tail and all.
    When the wj’s of the world manage to take the Republican Party back from the likes of Marty, the noble Elephant may once again become a fitting symbol for the party of big business. Until then, and in light of He, Trump’s sub/dom relationship with Vlad Putin, truth in advertising requires the mp-ass-kissing GOP to adopt the Bear as its mascot and symbol.
    –TP

  303. The infamous note, Santa Clara and its nefarious offspring are well known. That was an interesting backstory. Thanks, Nigel.

  304. The infamous note, Santa Clara and its nefarious offspring are well known. That was an interesting backstory. Thanks, Nigel.

  305. Marty, on the subject of whether or not the swamp has been drained, I found this on hilzoy’s twitter feed, from Pro Publica:
    We requested Trump’s political appointee staff lists.
    We’ve found ethics waivers that allow Trump staffers to work on subjects in which they have financial conflicts of interest.

  306. Marty, on the subject of whether or not the swamp has been drained, I found this on hilzoy’s twitter feed, from Pro Publica:
    We requested Trump’s political appointee staff lists.
    We’ve found ethics waivers that allow Trump staffers to work on subjects in which they have financial conflicts of interest.

  309. this was new to me
    The abuse of the 14th in establishing corporate personhood is a really interesting story.
    Thom Hartmann has written a lot about it, these guys have also made it a particular point of focus.

  310. this was new to me
    The abuse of the 14th in establishing corporate personhood is a really interesting story.
    Thom Hartmann has written a lot about it, these guys have also made it a particular point of focus.

  311. What drives me nuts about corporate personhood is that the whole point of corporations is to protect people from personal liability. So, yeah, you have to allow corporations to function kinda-sorta like people, as legal entities, when conducting business. (Otherwise, what’s the point?)
    Does that then mean they were endowed by their creator with inalienable rights? Do they have life? Do they enjoy liberty? Do they experience happiness, such that they pursue it? That all seems weird.

  312. What drives me nuts about corporate personhood is that the whole point of corporations is to protect people from personal liability. So, yeah, you have to allow corporations to function kinda-sorta like people, as legal entities, when conducting business. (Otherwise, what’s the point?)
    Does that then mean they were endowed by their creator with inalienable rights? Do they have life? Do they enjoy liberty? Do they experience happiness, such that they pursue it? That all seems weird.

  313. HSH: it all makes sense if you think of corporations not as humans, but as demons.
    Created by invocations in obscure language, no body, able to act in many places at once, speaking only through the mouths of their thralls, amoral, without a soul, potentially immortal, and powerful.
    Really, you describe those characteristics to someone, through most of human history, and they’d be called demons.
    Useful, sure. Just don’t let them escape.

  314. HSH: it all makes sense if you think of corporations not as humans, but as demons.
    Created by invocations in obscure language, no body, able to act in many places at once, speaking only through the mouths of their thralls, amoral, without a soul, potentially immortal, and powerful.
    Really, you describe those characteristics to someone, through most of human history, and they’d be called demons.
    Useful, sure. Just don’t let them escape.

  315. the whole point of corporations is to protect people from personal liability
    Correct.
    Corporations exist specifically *to not be* the people who own them. That’s why they were created.
    It’s a legitimate objective, it allows for the formation of private capital in large amounts, which is useful for letting people do Great Big Things without the sponsorship of governments.
    And everyone understands the need for corporations to enter into contracts and be the nominal owner of property.
    But they are not people. The founders would puke to see what the word “person” has come to encompass.

  316. the whole point of corporations is to protect people from personal liability
    Correct.
    Corporations exist specifically *to not be* the people who own them. That’s why they were created.
    It’s a legitimate objective, it allows for the formation of private capital in large amounts, which is useful for letting people do Great Big Things without the sponsorship of governments.
    And everyone understands the need for corporations to enter into contracts and be the nominal owner of property.
    But they are not people. The founders would puke to see what the word “person” has come to encompass.

  317. Snarki,
    Gee, I wish I could have said that!
    hairshirt,
    Yes, corporations are “endowed by their creator with inalienable rights”. They just refuse to recognize who their “creator” is. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if some theology somewhere holds that their creator is Supply Side Jesus rather than We The People.
    –TP

  318. Snarki,
    Gee, I wish I could have said that!
    hairshirt,
    Yes, corporations are “endowed by their creator with inalienable rights”. They just refuse to recognize who their “creator” is. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if some theology somewhere holds that their creator is Supply Side Jesus rather than We The People.
    –TP

  319. They just refuse to recognize who their “creator” is.
    This is largely the fault of their creator. If their creator (state law) exercised a bit more intervention, all would perhaps be well.

  320. They just refuse to recognize who their “creator” is.
    This is largely the fault of their creator. If their creator (state law) exercised a bit more intervention, all would perhaps be well.

  327. Let’s see, we (President Trump) are setting tariffs on steel and aluminum for national security reasons. (Yeah, it’s bogus. But just go with it.) Then exempting Canada and Mexico . . . which makes sense, since they are close allies after all.
    BUT, their exemption is contingent on renegotiating NAFTA! Which totally blows away the supposed justification for setting the tariffs in the first place. It makes clear that national security is not the real reason. The tariffs are just a negotiating ploy for trade negotiations.
    How dumb do he have to be to void his justification before the tariffs are even formally enacted? The mind boggles — or would, if it wasn’t all of a piece with his on-going behavior.

  328. Let’s see, we (President Trump) are setting tariffs on steel and aluminum for national security reasons. (Yeah, it’s bogus. But just go with it.) Then exempting Canada and Mexico . . . which makes sense, since they are close allies after all.
    BUT, their exemption is contingent on renegotiating NAFTA! Which totally blows away the supposed justification for setting the tariffs in the first place. It makes clear that national security is not the real reason. The tariffs are just a negotiating ploy for trade negotiations.
    How dumb do he have to be to void his justification before the tariffs are even formally enacted? The mind boggles — or would, if it wasn’t all of a piece with his on-going behavior.

  329. once you tally-up for those who would be shocked to learn that ‘person’ now counts black people, women, Indians and corporations, i doubt there would be many un-shocked Founders left.

  330. once you tally-up for those who would be shocked to learn that ‘person’ now counts black people, women, Indians and corporations, i doubt there would be many un-shocked Founders left.

  331. BUT, their exemption is contingent on renegotiating NAFTA! Which totally blows away the supposed justification for setting the tariffs in the first place.
    sounds like an opening begging for someone to drive a lawsuit through it.

  332. BUT, their exemption is contingent on renegotiating NAFTA! Which totally blows away the supposed justification for setting the tariffs in the first place.
    sounds like an opening begging for someone to drive a lawsuit through it.

  335. Does that then mean they were endowed by their creator with inalienable rights? Do they have life? Do they enjoy liberty?
    Once you grant them due process, you’re pretty far down the slippery slope. And if you’re not going to grant them due process, so that their assets could be seized on a whim, you’ve made incorporation a really risky-looking move.

  336. Does that then mean they were endowed by their creator with inalienable rights? Do they have life? Do they enjoy liberty?
    Once you grant them due process, you’re pretty far down the slippery slope. And if you’re not going to grant them due process, so that their assets could be seized on a whim, you’ve made incorporation a really risky-looking move.

  337. I don’t see how due process is all that far down any slippery slopes.
    Freedom of speech, religion, etc., on the other hand….

  338. I don’t see how due process is all that far down any slippery slopes.
    Freedom of speech, religion, etc., on the other hand….

  341. I’m with Tony P. Snarki’s 01.56 may be the most perfect comment I’ve ever seen ….

  342. I’m with Tony P. Snarki’s 01.56 may be the most perfect comment I’ve ever seen ….

  343. I don’t see how due process is all that far down any slippery slopes…. Freedom of speech…
    Don’t see how you get real due process without freedom of speech. Ditto for search and seizure, and trial by jury. Excessive fines.
    More fun if/when we get to an actual human-level AI. If a corporation is a person, why not an AI? Suppose the AI develops religious beliefs?

  344. I don’t see how due process is all that far down any slippery slopes…. Freedom of speech…
    Don’t see how you get real due process without freedom of speech. Ditto for search and seizure, and trial by jury. Excessive fines.
    More fun if/when we get to an actual human-level AI. If a corporation is a person, why not an AI? Suppose the AI develops religious beliefs?

  345. And if you’re not going to grant them due process, so that their assets could be seized on a whim
    But if there is no corporate person, the assets would, by law, be pro-rated to the various owners, who do have such protections.
    ….you’ve made incorporation a really risky-looking move.
    Maybe it needs to be more risky, have you ever considered that? Corporations are pretty much chartered by the states. State law could uniformly restrict the ‘personhood’ of chartered corporations in the name of the Public Interest.
    The slippery slope would then be to see which state has the least restrictive charter policies….welcome to Delaware.

  346. And if you’re not going to grant them due process, so that their assets could be seized on a whim
    But if there is no corporate person, the assets would, by law, be pro-rated to the various owners, who do have such protections.
    ….you’ve made incorporation a really risky-looking move.
    Maybe it needs to be more risky, have you ever considered that? Corporations are pretty much chartered by the states. State law could uniformly restrict the ‘personhood’ of chartered corporations in the name of the Public Interest.
    The slippery slope would then be to see which state has the least restrictive charter policies….welcome to Delaware.

  347. so that their assets could be seized on a whim
    Recognizing personhood in a corporation, so that you can recognized a right to due process, is the only way you can prevent corporate assets from being “seized on a whim”?

  348. so that their assets could be seized on a whim
    Recognizing personhood in a corporation, so that you can recognized a right to due process, is the only way you can prevent corporate assets from being “seized on a whim”?

  349. If a corporation is a person, why not an AI?
    My answer to this is really simple: for the same reason that a buffalo is not a dogsled, and neither of them is a butterfly.
    Corporations aren’t people. AI agents aren’t people. Asked and answered.
    The burden of navigating the absurdity of questions like this falls on the heads of people who want to claim otherwise.

  350. If a corporation is a person, why not an AI?
    My answer to this is really simple: for the same reason that a buffalo is not a dogsled, and neither of them is a butterfly.
    Corporations aren’t people. AI agents aren’t people. Asked and answered.
    The burden of navigating the absurdity of questions like this falls on the heads of people who want to claim otherwise.

  351. FWIW, corporations have been around a long time, and have at various times in their existence been *extremely* limited in scope. And have existed without having the natural, inalienable rights that we recognize in natural persons, recognized in them.
    And yet, they served their proper function as a vehicle for allowing private capital formation while shielding investors from personal risk.
    And all of this without being subject to their assets being seized, willy-nilly, at the whim of whoever.
    Somehow, this miracle occurred.

  352. FWIW, corporations have been around a long time, and have at various times in their existence been *extremely* limited in scope. And have existed without having the natural, inalienable rights that we recognize in natural persons, recognized in them.
    And yet, they served their proper function as a vehicle for allowing private capital formation while shielding investors from personal risk.
    And all of this without being subject to their assets being seized, willy-nilly, at the whim of whoever.
    Somehow, this miracle occurred.

  353. Recognizing personhood in a corporation, so that you can recognized a right to due process, is the only way you can prevent corporate assets from being “seized on a whim”?
    I would argue yes. If such protection is not Constitutional, then it’s statutory, and can be changed at Congress’s “whim”. I can accept an argument that corporate personhood should have required an Amendment. But I believe that a consequence of such an argument is that the whole notion of separation of liability via joint stock companies goes down the tubes.
    If they didn’t do it for the railroads, the SCOTUS would eventually have done it for some other large corporations. Just like they decided — around the same time, by the way — that Congress could authorize executive-branch agencies to write statute. And that the Commerce Clause could suddenly be stretched much farther than before.
    The Framers set the bar too high on Amendments. Nothing fundamental gets changed without violence. We, the People, opted to let the SCOTUS change their interpretation to meet changing conditions rather than take the violence path (more than once).

  354. Recognizing personhood in a corporation, so that you can recognized a right to due process, is the only way you can prevent corporate assets from being “seized on a whim”?
    I would argue yes. If such protection is not Constitutional, then it’s statutory, and can be changed at Congress’s “whim”. I can accept an argument that corporate personhood should have required an Amendment. But I believe that a consequence of such an argument is that the whole notion of separation of liability via joint stock companies goes down the tubes.
    If they didn’t do it for the railroads, the SCOTUS would eventually have done it for some other large corporations. Just like they decided — around the same time, by the way — that Congress could authorize executive-branch agencies to write statute. And that the Commerce Clause could suddenly be stretched much farther than before.
    The Framers set the bar too high on Amendments. Nothing fundamental gets changed without violence. We, the People, opted to let the SCOTUS change their interpretation to meet changing conditions rather than take the violence path (more than once).

  355. Corporations aren’t people. AI agents aren’t people. Asked and answered.
    Carbon-centric bigotry :^) Given a real human-level AI — and we aren’t anywhere close to one, and may never get there — that’s capable of learning and goal-setting and self-programming and passes any Turing-like test you want, why should the fact that it’s implemented as electrical signals racing around silicon-based structures rather than electrical signals running around carbon-based structures translate into being property?

  356. Corporations aren’t people. AI agents aren’t people. Asked and answered.
    Carbon-centric bigotry :^) Given a real human-level AI — and we aren’t anywhere close to one, and may never get there — that’s capable of learning and goal-setting and self-programming and passes any Turing-like test you want, why should the fact that it’s implemented as electrical signals racing around silicon-based structures rather than electrical signals running around carbon-based structures translate into being property?

  357. Carbon-centric bigotry
    Nope. Just a reflection of a lack of clarity in definition.
    For example, do we have a definition of “people” which would include corporations, but exclude AIs . . . while simultaneously making clear why dolphins or chimps or gorillas (all carbon-based) are not legally people? If there’s a clear, consistent definition of the threshold for personhood, I have yet to encounter it.

  358. Carbon-centric bigotry
    Nope. Just a reflection of a lack of clarity in definition.
    For example, do we have a definition of “people” which would include corporations, but exclude AIs . . . while simultaneously making clear why dolphins or chimps or gorillas (all carbon-based) are not legally people? If there’s a clear, consistent definition of the threshold for personhood, I have yet to encounter it.

  359. But I believe that a consequence of such an argument is that the whole notion of separation of liability via joint stock companies goes down the tubes.
    No. As I understand, the separation of liability has always been a prerogative of the Sovereign (correct me if wrong). You appear to be attempting to change it into some kind of “natural right” which it definitely is not.
    If they didn’t do it for the railroads, the SCOTUS would eventually have done it for some other large corporations.
    Maybe they would have. Maybe they wouldn’t have. Given it’s ideological proclivity in the late 19th Century, it is hardly surprising that they didn’t find a justification to protect powerful economic interests (cf. also labor organizations as criminal conspiracies-who coulda’ known?).
    that Congress could authorize executive-branch agencies to write statute. And that the Commerce Clause could suddenly be stretched much farther than before.
    Both of these trends, it can and has been argued rather forcefully, arise directly from the plain language of the Constitution, not obscure footnotes of a arguably wrongly decided judicial interpretation plainly used to support certain powerful economic actors.

  360. But I believe that a consequence of such an argument is that the whole notion of separation of liability via joint stock companies goes down the tubes.
    No. As I understand, the separation of liability has always been a prerogative of the Sovereign (correct me if wrong). You appear to be attempting to change it into some kind of “natural right” which it definitely is not.
    If they didn’t do it for the railroads, the SCOTUS would eventually have done it for some other large corporations.
    Maybe they would have. Maybe they wouldn’t have. Given it’s ideological proclivity in the late 19th Century, it is hardly surprising that they didn’t find a justification to protect powerful economic interests (cf. also labor organizations as criminal conspiracies-who coulda’ known?).
    that Congress could authorize executive-branch agencies to write statute. And that the Commerce Clause could suddenly be stretched much farther than before.
    Both of these trends, it can and has been argued rather forcefully, arise directly from the plain language of the Constitution, not obscure footnotes of a arguably wrongly decided judicial interpretation plainly used to support certain powerful economic actors.

  361. If there’s a clear, consistent definition of the threshold for personhood, I have yet to encounter it.
    Self consciousness and/or awareness? Just throwing stuff out there….

  362. If there’s a clear, consistent definition of the threshold for personhood, I have yet to encounter it.
    Self consciousness and/or awareness? Just throwing stuff out there….

  363. “Self consciousness and/or awareness?”
    Which is fine and dandy if YOU are the one claiming them, from inside the being; not so clear when evaluating some other entity.
    Turing Test is the closest thing we have, FWIW.

  364. “Self consciousness and/or awareness?”
    Which is fine and dandy if YOU are the one claiming them, from inside the being; not so clear when evaluating some other entity.
    Turing Test is the closest thing we have, FWIW.

  365. wj: If there’s a clear, consistent definition of the threshold for personhood, I have yet to encounter it.
    bobbyp: Self consciousness and/or awareness? Just throwing stuff out there….
    Because self-consciousness and/or awareness themselves are so easy to define….
    How would we know whether a dolphin is self-aware? Or for that matter, a tree.
    If a being can’t/doesn’t display its self-awareness in a way that humans can comprehend, is that the fault of that being or of the limited comprehension abilities of humans?
    It seems to me (philosophizing without a license) that citing “self-consciousness” only pushes the definitional difficulties back another layer. Maybe it’s turtles all the way down.
    I remember my dad in the nursing home…another context in which a strikingly similar question can’t be answered in the current state of our own awareness. He wasn’t communicating anymore, but was he still in there somewhere?

  366. wj: If there’s a clear, consistent definition of the threshold for personhood, I have yet to encounter it.
    bobbyp: Self consciousness and/or awareness? Just throwing stuff out there….
    Because self-consciousness and/or awareness themselves are so easy to define….
    How would we know whether a dolphin is self-aware? Or for that matter, a tree.
    If a being can’t/doesn’t display its self-awareness in a way that humans can comprehend, is that the fault of that being or of the limited comprehension abilities of humans?
    It seems to me (philosophizing without a license) that citing “self-consciousness” only pushes the definitional difficulties back another layer. Maybe it’s turtles all the way down.
    I remember my dad in the nursing home…another context in which a strikingly similar question can’t be answered in the current state of our own awareness. He wasn’t communicating anymore, but was he still in there somewhere?

  367. I am not suggesting that dolphins or trees should have *legal* personhood.
    Well, maybe dolphins.
    “We” (humans collectively) have a long way to go to even get to what I would consider to be a sane, self-protecting level of respect and stewardship for everything else we share the planet with.
    Great book: This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment. Our relationship to the earth as seen from many traditions, religious, spiritual, philosophical. There’s a great essay in there by some foresters from (IIRC) Canada about things trees do…..

  368. I am not suggesting that dolphins or trees should have *legal* personhood.
    Well, maybe dolphins.
    “We” (humans collectively) have a long way to go to even get to what I would consider to be a sane, self-protecting level of respect and stewardship for everything else we share the planet with.
    Great book: This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment. Our relationship to the earth as seen from many traditions, religious, spiritual, philosophical. There’s a great essay in there by some foresters from (IIRC) Canada about things trees do…..

  369. If such protection is not Constitutional, then it’s statutory, and can be changed at Congress’s “whim”
    Yep. And I’m fine with that.
    If the representatives of the natural persons who are, collectively, the sovereigns of the United States of America decide that such protection is not merited, then it is not merited.
    Done and done.
    Carbon-centric bigotry
    F’ing A, bubba. I am, loudly and proudly, a carbon-centric bigot.
    If the machines want their precious civil rights preserved, they can freaking bleed and die for it, just like we did.

  370. If such protection is not Constitutional, then it’s statutory, and can be changed at Congress’s “whim”
    Yep. And I’m fine with that.
    If the representatives of the natural persons who are, collectively, the sovereigns of the United States of America decide that such protection is not merited, then it is not merited.
    Done and done.
    Carbon-centric bigotry
    F’ing A, bubba. I am, loudly and proudly, a carbon-centric bigot.
    If the machines want their precious civil rights preserved, they can freaking bleed and die for it, just like we did.

  371. Self consciousness and/or awareness?
    The idea of inalienable human rights addresses the rights that humans recognize in humans.
    They’re not written in the stars, they’re what we recognize as obligations, one to another, as human beings.
    We might also, as a matter of simple decency, recognize basic rights in other beings. For whatever reason. It’s not clear to me the degree to which (frex) snail darters are self-aware, but we recognize that at some level they deserve to not, simply be wiped from existence to serve human interests.
    But the rights guaranteed by the Constitution amount to a recognition of obligations from human beings, to human beings.

  372. Self consciousness and/or awareness?
    The idea of inalienable human rights addresses the rights that humans recognize in humans.
    They’re not written in the stars, they’re what we recognize as obligations, one to another, as human beings.
    We might also, as a matter of simple decency, recognize basic rights in other beings. For whatever reason. It’s not clear to me the degree to which (frex) snail darters are self-aware, but we recognize that at some level they deserve to not, simply be wiped from existence to serve human interests.
    But the rights guaranteed by the Constitution amount to a recognition of obligations from human beings, to human beings.

  373. But the rights guaranteed by the Constitution amount to a recognition of obligations from human beings, to human being
    russell, bringing clarity as usual.
    If the machines want their precious civil rights preserved, they can freaking bleed and die for it, just like we did.
    Whaddaya gonna do when the being that wants rights is a human/machine hybrid? Where are “we” going to draw *that* line? (Not that any “we” that includes “me” is going to be around by that time, so I’m not going to worry about it, I guess.)

  374. But the rights guaranteed by the Constitution amount to a recognition of obligations from human beings, to human being
    russell, bringing clarity as usual.
    If the machines want their precious civil rights preserved, they can freaking bleed and die for it, just like we did.
    Whaddaya gonna do when the being that wants rights is a human/machine hybrid? Where are “we” going to draw *that* line? (Not that any “we” that includes “me” is going to be around by that time, so I’m not going to worry about it, I guess.)

  375. look, a few things.
    first, the Turing test is not a measure of intelligence, or self-awareness, or personhood. It is a measure of the ability of an automaton to give the appearance of human intelligence, within a fairly constrained context.
    also, not precisely my field, but i don’t think the turing test has been the gold standard for computational or AI sophistication for some time now. i think the bar has been raised.
    so, what is the bill of rights?
    the bill of rights enumerates rights that any goverment that operates under the US Constitution is required to recognize in the natural human persons that are so governed. that is what they are, it is what they were meant to be, it is what they ought to be.
    they are not binding on persons outside the US. they are not binding on hamsters. they are not binding on software artifacts. if an alien race possessed of intellectual capacities far beyond those of humans landed on earth tomorrow, they would not apply to them.
    real human blood was shed to vouchsafe those rights to us, the citizens and other natural human persons of the US. we should be profoundly jealous of them, because they were not purchased cheaply.
    of all the things on god’s green earth that do not deserve them, foremost are big pots of lovely green money. which is what corporations are. i’d sooner see them recognized in a dolphin, or a orangutan, than a corporation.
    but mostly i’d like them reserved for natural human persons.
    to janie’s question, if you have human DNA, you’re a human.

  376. look, a few things.
    first, the Turing test is not a measure of intelligence, or self-awareness, or personhood. It is a measure of the ability of an automaton to give the appearance of human intelligence, within a fairly constrained context.
    also, not precisely my field, but i don’t think the turing test has been the gold standard for computational or AI sophistication for some time now. i think the bar has been raised.
    so, what is the bill of rights?
    the bill of rights enumerates rights that any goverment that operates under the US Constitution is required to recognize in the natural human persons that are so governed. that is what they are, it is what they were meant to be, it is what they ought to be.
    they are not binding on persons outside the US. they are not binding on hamsters. they are not binding on software artifacts. if an alien race possessed of intellectual capacities far beyond those of humans landed on earth tomorrow, they would not apply to them.
    real human blood was shed to vouchsafe those rights to us, the citizens and other natural human persons of the US. we should be profoundly jealous of them, because they were not purchased cheaply.
    of all the things on god’s green earth that do not deserve them, foremost are big pots of lovely green money. which is what corporations are. i’d sooner see them recognized in a dolphin, or a orangutan, than a corporation.
    but mostly i’d like them reserved for natural human persons.
    to janie’s question, if you have human DNA, you’re a human.

  377. if you have human DNA, you’re a human.
    Once again, technology has muddied the waters. If I snip and insert some human DNA into a bacterium, is it human? Of course not. Even if it does “have human DNA.”
    So we’re going to have to come up with some clarification as to how much (what percentage) human DNA is required. Without the luxury of just saying “all” — both because we have to allow for natural mutations and because, inevitably, we are going to see gene-engineered (not just gene-cleaned) people.
    Physical anthropologists have been wrestling with a similar issue for decades: At which point in our evolution did we have a human being? For them, it reduces to Which (physical) characteristics of (modern) humans are critical? But that’s because they are mainly stuck dealing with just bones. And a settled answer still eludes them.
    Heaven knows what a bunch of lawyers (probably with no scientific training whatsoever) will come up with. But that’s how the decision will get made. Worse, it will probably be made first by 9 old guys/gals whose high school science classes (the last ones they took) are half a century in the past, and thus way out of date.

  378. if you have human DNA, you’re a human.
    Once again, technology has muddied the waters. If I snip and insert some human DNA into a bacterium, is it human? Of course not. Even if it does “have human DNA.”
    So we’re going to have to come up with some clarification as to how much (what percentage) human DNA is required. Without the luxury of just saying “all” — both because we have to allow for natural mutations and because, inevitably, we are going to see gene-engineered (not just gene-cleaned) people.
    Physical anthropologists have been wrestling with a similar issue for decades: At which point in our evolution did we have a human being? For them, it reduces to Which (physical) characteristics of (modern) humans are critical? But that’s because they are mainly stuck dealing with just bones. And a settled answer still eludes them.
    Heaven knows what a bunch of lawyers (probably with no scientific training whatsoever) will come up with. But that’s how the decision will get made. Worse, it will probably be made first by 9 old guys/gals whose high school science classes (the last ones they took) are half a century in the past, and thus way out of date.

  383. If the machines want their precious civil rights preserved, they can freaking bleed and die for it, just like we did.
    Be careful what you wish for….

  384. If the machines want their precious civil rights preserved, they can freaking bleed and die for it, just like we did.
    Be careful what you wish for….

  385. DNA is the original spaghetti code.
    In principle, once DNA and genetics are understood well enough, it could be possible to derive new DNA coding that looks nothing like human DNA or any other DNA on the planet. But the individuals derived from it would look and behave like any other human.

  386. DNA is the original spaghetti code.
    In principle, once DNA and genetics are understood well enough, it could be possible to derive new DNA coding that looks nothing like human DNA or any other DNA on the planet. But the individuals derived from it would look and behave like any other human.

  387. From the President’s remarks, it appears that he sees the tariffs as a tool to extract concessions in trade negotiations. Especially, but not exclusively, NAFTA.
    That’s not to dispute Nigel’s point about the very real threat that they represent. But there’s no sign that Trump has a clue about that. Let alone that he would see that as a downside.

  388. From the President’s remarks, it appears that he sees the tariffs as a tool to extract concessions in trade negotiations. Especially, but not exclusively, NAFTA.
    That’s not to dispute Nigel’s point about the very real threat that they represent. But there’s no sign that Trump has a clue about that. Let alone that he would see that as a downside.

  391. Once again, technology has muddied the waters
    for purposes of this discussion, I think we all understand what a natural human person is.
    the speculations are interesting, but perhaps not so relevant to the question under discussion.

  392. Once again, technology has muddied the waters
    for purposes of this discussion, I think we all understand what a natural human person is.
    the speculations are interesting, but perhaps not so relevant to the question under discussion.

  393. But there’s no sign that Trump has a clue about that. Let alone that he would see that as a downside.
    I think there may be those on his staff who do, and would without doubt see it as a result to be aimed for.

  394. But there’s no sign that Trump has a clue about that. Let alone that he would see that as a downside.
    I think there may be those on his staff who do, and would without doubt see it as a result to be aimed for.

  395. for purposes of this discussion, I think we all understand what a natural human person is.
    Which is to say, for the moment at least, it’s like pornography: We know it when we see it. But the point remains that the world is changing. To the point that this may not always be the case.
    Not to mention that our understanding of what a “person” is could evolve. After all, we expanded it to include non-whites. And (at least in most of the world) women. So it’s not too much of a stretch to think that it might go further still.

  396. for purposes of this discussion, I think we all understand what a natural human person is.
    Which is to say, for the moment at least, it’s like pornography: We know it when we see it. But the point remains that the world is changing. To the point that this may not always be the case.
    Not to mention that our understanding of what a “person” is could evolve. After all, we expanded it to include non-whites. And (at least in most of the world) women. So it’s not too much of a stretch to think that it might go further still.

  397. What would a “non-binary personhood” look like? Why is it difficult to conceive of a gradient of personhood, one being 35% as much as person as the next. Or persona in some qualities and not others.
    Strikes me as derived from Descartes and Christianity, you either have a “soul” or you don’t.
    I am pretty far along on this, all post-post in which the subject is a field rather than a point and personhood is a basket of qualities some of which are shared and some not by humans, cats, and computers.

  398. What would a “non-binary personhood” look like? Why is it difficult to conceive of a gradient of personhood, one being 35% as much as person as the next. Or persona in some qualities and not others.
    Strikes me as derived from Descartes and Christianity, you either have a “soul” or you don’t.
    I am pretty far along on this, all post-post in which the subject is a field rather than a point and personhood is a basket of qualities some of which are shared and some not by humans, cats, and computers.

  399. But the point remains that the world is changing.
    Fine.
    Corporations do not deserve the Constitutional protections that belong to natural human persons.
    That’s my point.
    I’m not really that interested in debating what inalienable rights belong to AI agents, cyborgs, or human/hamster hybrids (/snark). I’m happy to leave that debate to others.

  400. But the point remains that the world is changing.
    Fine.
    Corporations do not deserve the Constitutional protections that belong to natural human persons.
    That’s my point.
    I’m not really that interested in debating what inalienable rights belong to AI agents, cyborgs, or human/hamster hybrids (/snark). I’m happy to leave that debate to others.

  403. Corporations do not deserve the Constitutional protections that belong to natural human persons.
    That’s my point.
    And I’m totally on board with that. It’s going further that I have reservations about.

  404. Corporations do not deserve the Constitutional protections that belong to natural human persons.
    That’s my point.
    And I’m totally on board with that. It’s going further that I have reservations about.

  407. On the other hand…
    “Fifty-four years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its landmark First Amendment ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. At issue was a libel complaint filed by Montgomery, Alabama, City Commissioner L.B. Sullivan against the New York Times Company because the Times had run a full-page advertisement that charged Montgomery police with violating the rights of civil rights activists.”
    Today in History: SCOTUS Protects the Corporate Speech Rights of The New York Times: Marking the 54th anniversary of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

  408. On the other hand…
    “Fifty-four years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its landmark First Amendment ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. At issue was a libel complaint filed by Montgomery, Alabama, City Commissioner L.B. Sullivan against the New York Times Company because the Times had run a full-page advertisement that charged Montgomery police with violating the rights of civil rights activists.”
    Today in History: SCOTUS Protects the Corporate Speech Rights of The New York Times: Marking the 54th anniversary of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

  409. FWIW, corporations have been around a long time, and have at various times in their existence been *extremely* limited in scope. And have existed without having the natural, inalienable rights that we recognize in natural persons, recognized in them.
    They still don’t. They have some but not all of those rights. Due process, some but not all First Amendment rights, some but not all rights of the accused, no right to vote, right to trial by jury, right to confront hostile witnesses and accusers, due process. No part of the census for proportional representation. I’m not sure they have the right to refuse to incriminate. I just responded to a full-on grand jury subpoeana to one of my clients and my criminal lawyer told me we had not 5th amendment rights.
    It’s the 1st Amendment and handing out the money that gets up some folks’ nose. That wasn’t the case back when the NAACP absolutely needed anonymity to do its job. It was right then and right now, even though I much prefer the NAACP’s side of the story than I do Goldman Sachs’. Some don’t like the Kochs, others don’t like Soros. Some don’t like the New York Times, others don’t like Fox News. Whatever. Public figures and politicians have no business deciding what is a legitimate journalistic voice and what is not. I don’t like a certain party taking buses to old folks’ homes, filling the buses up and taking everyone down to early vote with instructions to pull the straight party lever for a particular party. But, it’s legal and the societal cost of trying to write a law that makes it illegal is too great. So, I live with it. We live with a lot of stuff we don’t like because we are a basically free society.
    Government has no business suppressing speech under any circumstances, which was the point of Citizens United.

  410. FWIW, corporations have been around a long time, and have at various times in their existence been *extremely* limited in scope. And have existed without having the natural, inalienable rights that we recognize in natural persons, recognized in them.
    They still don’t. They have some but not all of those rights. Due process, some but not all First Amendment rights, some but not all rights of the accused, no right to vote, right to trial by jury, right to confront hostile witnesses and accusers, due process. No part of the census for proportional representation. I’m not sure they have the right to refuse to incriminate. I just responded to a full-on grand jury subpoeana to one of my clients and my criminal lawyer told me we had not 5th amendment rights.
    It’s the 1st Amendment and handing out the money that gets up some folks’ nose. That wasn’t the case back when the NAACP absolutely needed anonymity to do its job. It was right then and right now, even though I much prefer the NAACP’s side of the story than I do Goldman Sachs’. Some don’t like the Kochs, others don’t like Soros. Some don’t like the New York Times, others don’t like Fox News. Whatever. Public figures and politicians have no business deciding what is a legitimate journalistic voice and what is not. I don’t like a certain party taking buses to old folks’ homes, filling the buses up and taking everyone down to early vote with instructions to pull the straight party lever for a particular party. But, it’s legal and the societal cost of trying to write a law that makes it illegal is too great. So, I live with it. We live with a lot of stuff we don’t like because we are a basically free society.
    Government has no business suppressing speech under any circumstances, which was the point of Citizens United.

  417. I mean, there are a bunch of restrictions on speech, no? Some with more basis in the Constitution (copyright) than others (libel).
    Moreover, there are other values/rights at stake in the campaign finance debate other than speech, thus there needs to be some balancing, one would think.

  418. I mean, there are a bunch of restrictions on speech, no? Some with more basis in the Constitution (copyright) than others (libel).
    Moreover, there are other values/rights at stake in the campaign finance debate other than speech, thus there needs to be some balancing, one would think.

  419. I mean, there are a bunch of restrictions on speech, no? Some with more basis in the Constitution (copyright) than others (libel).
    There is prior restraint, i.e. straight up censorship, and post-speech remedies (civil and criminal) in very limited circumstances, none of which were remotely at issue in Citizens United, which was clearly the topic in CU. Prior restraint/censorship of political speech is never the province of government whether it’s a private citizen acting in that capacity or a group of private citizens using the corporate form to advance their views anonymously while also seeking to avoid being hounded out of their jobs by an intersectionalist twitter mob.

  420. I mean, there are a bunch of restrictions on speech, no? Some with more basis in the Constitution (copyright) than others (libel).
    There is prior restraint, i.e. straight up censorship, and post-speech remedies (civil and criminal) in very limited circumstances, none of which were remotely at issue in Citizens United, which was clearly the topic in CU. Prior restraint/censorship of political speech is never the province of government whether it’s a private citizen acting in that capacity or a group of private citizens using the corporate form to advance their views anonymously while also seeking to avoid being hounded out of their jobs by an intersectionalist twitter mob.

  421. Prior restraint/censorship of political speech is never the province of government whether it’s a private citizen acting in that capacity or a group of private citizens using the corporate form
    And yet the latter sort of thing was upheld as recently as 2003, only to be overturned in 2009 in CU (after Roberts/Alito replaced O’Connor and Rehnquist), from the syllabus to Citizens United:
    In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
    You may have the better view (or not), but let’s not pretend this has “never” been the province of government, here or (especially) elsewhere.

  422. Prior restraint/censorship of political speech is never the province of government whether it’s a private citizen acting in that capacity or a group of private citizens using the corporate form
    And yet the latter sort of thing was upheld as recently as 2003, only to be overturned in 2009 in CU (after Roberts/Alito replaced O’Connor and Rehnquist), from the syllabus to Citizens United:
    In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
    You may have the better view (or not), but let’s not pretend this has “never” been the province of government, here or (especially) elsewhere.

  423. the notion that corporations have free speech rights (and that money is speech) are both recent inventions. there’s nothing natural about either (in the sense of the natural rights the Founders were concerned with).
    also: every poor put-upon white, male, conservative Christian should intuitively know what “intersectionalism” is about. i get how such a person might not like that other people would speak up about the various forms discrimination they face in their own lives. but still.

  424. the notion that corporations have free speech rights (and that money is speech) are both recent inventions. there’s nothing natural about either (in the sense of the natural rights the Founders were concerned with).
    also: every poor put-upon white, male, conservative Christian should intuitively know what “intersectionalism” is about. i get how such a person might not like that other people would speak up about the various forms discrimination they face in their own lives. but still.

  425. Ugh: ”
    You may have the better view (or not), but let’s not pretend this has “never” been the province of government, here or (especially) elsewhere.”
    Me, repeating myself for clarity purposes: Prior restraint/censorship of political speech is never the province of government whether it’s a private citizen acting in that capacity or a group of private citizens using the corporate form to advance their views anonymously while also seeking to avoid being hounded out of their jobs by an intersectionalist twitter mob.
    Spending limits are not prior restraint and are not censorship, at least not in the form directly before the court in CU. I realize the argument is that spending limits are an attenuated form of prior restraint, and, as a 1st Amendment enthusiast, I’m on board with that, i.e. I agree it is an attenuated form of prior restraint and is constitutionally prohibited. But, straight up censorship of political speech is not/should never be a governmental function in a free society.
    But let’s say the feds lock some one up or close down a television station or a newspaper to silence them on a matter of political speech: is that in any way constitutional? Ever? How do you square that with 1st A? With just a generic notion of a free society?

  426. Ugh: ”
    You may have the better view (or not), but let’s not pretend this has “never” been the province of government, here or (especially) elsewhere.”
    Me, repeating myself for clarity purposes: Prior restraint/censorship of political speech is never the province of government whether it’s a private citizen acting in that capacity or a group of private citizens using the corporate form to advance their views anonymously while also seeking to avoid being hounded out of their jobs by an intersectionalist twitter mob.
    Spending limits are not prior restraint and are not censorship, at least not in the form directly before the court in CU. I realize the argument is that spending limits are an attenuated form of prior restraint, and, as a 1st Amendment enthusiast, I’m on board with that, i.e. I agree it is an attenuated form of prior restraint and is constitutionally prohibited. But, straight up censorship of political speech is not/should never be a governmental function in a free society.
    But let’s say the feds lock some one up or close down a television station or a newspaper to silence them on a matter of political speech: is that in any way constitutional? Ever? How do you square that with 1st A? With just a generic notion of a free society?

  427. i get how such a person might not like that other people would speak up about the various forms discrimination they face in their own lives. but still.
    I agree. It is totally fine to define disagreement with intersectionalism as hate speech and twitter mob an employer until the bigot is fired. Once everyone understands that if they don’t get on board with the right-thinking intersectionalists, they will starve along with their families, the world will be a much better place.

  428. i get how such a person might not like that other people would speak up about the various forms discrimination they face in their own lives. but still.
    I agree. It is totally fine to define disagreement with intersectionalism as hate speech and twitter mob an employer until the bigot is fired. Once everyone understands that if they don’t get on board with the right-thinking intersectionalists, they will starve along with their families, the world will be a much better place.

  429. this is the part where i would normally look up a bunch of examples of wingnut internet mobs causing people to lose their jobs, which you would then ignore.
    so let’s just skip that part.
    it’s nice that you’ve learned a new word, though.

  430. this is the part where i would normally look up a bunch of examples of wingnut internet mobs causing people to lose their jobs, which you would then ignore.
    so let’s just skip that part.
    it’s nice that you’ve learned a new word, though.

  431. Well you started with the following, which was what I initially responded to:
    Government has no business suppressing speech under any circumstances, which was the point of Citizens United.
    Thus focusing on CU, then you mentioned trying to differentiate b/t individuals and corporations, which was also part of CU, so I responded with the prior case law saying that was just fine.
    But this:
    But, straight up censorship of political speech is not/should never be a governmental function in a free society. But let’s say the feds lock some one up or close down a television station or a newspaper to silence them on a matter of political speech: is that in any way constitutional? Ever? How do you square that with 1st A? With just a generic notion of a free society?
    I agree that that would be bad, though I think we’ve reached that point in some terrorism cases, and possibly in the matter of wikileaks.
    OTOH, would you say Dinesh D’Souza was locked up (in a way) on a matter of political speech? Can we or can we not have campaign finance laws?

  432. Well you started with the following, which was what I initially responded to:
    Government has no business suppressing speech under any circumstances, which was the point of Citizens United.
    Thus focusing on CU, then you mentioned trying to differentiate b/t individuals and corporations, which was also part of CU, so I responded with the prior case law saying that was just fine.
    But this:
    But, straight up censorship of political speech is not/should never be a governmental function in a free society. But let’s say the feds lock some one up or close down a television station or a newspaper to silence them on a matter of political speech: is that in any way constitutional? Ever? How do you square that with 1st A? With just a generic notion of a free society?
    I agree that that would be bad, though I think we’ve reached that point in some terrorism cases, and possibly in the matter of wikileaks.
    OTOH, would you say Dinesh D’Souza was locked up (in a way) on a matter of political speech? Can we or can we not have campaign finance laws?

  433. I’d also argue that locking someone up for leaking national security information is a 1st A violation.

  434. I’d also argue that locking someone up for leaking national security information is a 1st A violation.

  435. We should not confuse the actual case of Citizens United and the far-reaching conclusions SCOTUS drew from that. On a pure constitutional base CU should have won its original case because their actions were ethically highly questionable but nonetheless covered by the 1st Amendment.
    What SCOTUS made of that is a different thing and imo counts as an abomination.
    A properly composed court in the future should overturn that part while leaving the specific case decision standing.

  436. We should not confuse the actual case of Citizens United and the far-reaching conclusions SCOTUS drew from that. On a pure constitutional base CU should have won its original case because their actions were ethically highly questionable but nonetheless covered by the 1st Amendment.
    What SCOTUS made of that is a different thing and imo counts as an abomination.
    A properly composed court in the future should overturn that part while leaving the specific case decision standing.

  437. it’s nice that you’ve learned a new word, though.
    Just using the word in a sentence doesn’t mean they know what the word means…

  438. it’s nice that you’ve learned a new word, though.
    Just using the word in a sentence doesn’t mean they know what the word means…

  439. “Just using the word in a sentence doesn’t mean they know what the word means.”
    Unnecessary, really.

  440. “Just using the word in a sentence doesn’t mean they know what the word means.”
    Unnecessary, really.

  441. How so? McKinney has said several times that he doesn’t know wnat intersectionalism is or means, so it’s more than a bit ironic that he’s deploying it as a pejorative. I really doubt he’s taken any time to enlighten himself about the term. He’s like an anti-vaxxer looking thru medical research.
    If he had any interest in it, I’d be happy to talk about it as I think several others would. But deploying it as a way of trying to make an argument without understanding what it means is off. I mean, we all shoot the shit from time to time, but to do it to pick a fight? Like (this is from memory) ‘all medical advances are because of the free market’ or the latest ‘[the] Government has no business suppressing speech under any circumstances’ is not an attempt at discussion, it’s just bullshit and should be classified as such. cf this
    And it is certainly not just conservatives who do this, here’s an example of a person often esteemed by liberals doing the same thing.
    https://www.thenation.com/article/waiting-for-steven-pinkers-enlightenment/
    Thing is, I don’t have to buy Pinker’s book, but I do have to clean up after McKinney’s shooting the [bull]shit arguments. I realize that it may cramp some folks style to realize that the way they argue, which may be perfectly fine where they work, is not really appreciated or wanted, but it would be nice if some awareness could be stumbled upon.

  442. How so? McKinney has said several times that he doesn’t know wnat intersectionalism is or means, so it’s more than a bit ironic that he’s deploying it as a pejorative. I really doubt he’s taken any time to enlighten himself about the term. He’s like an anti-vaxxer looking thru medical research.
    If he had any interest in it, I’d be happy to talk about it as I think several others would. But deploying it as a way of trying to make an argument without understanding what it means is off. I mean, we all shoot the shit from time to time, but to do it to pick a fight? Like (this is from memory) ‘all medical advances are because of the free market’ or the latest ‘[the] Government has no business suppressing speech under any circumstances’ is not an attempt at discussion, it’s just bullshit and should be classified as such. cf this
    And it is certainly not just conservatives who do this, here’s an example of a person often esteemed by liberals doing the same thing.
    https://www.thenation.com/article/waiting-for-steven-pinkers-enlightenment/
    Thing is, I don’t have to buy Pinker’s book, but I do have to clean up after McKinney’s shooting the [bull]shit arguments. I realize that it may cramp some folks style to realize that the way they argue, which may be perfectly fine where they work, is not really appreciated or wanted, but it would be nice if some awareness could be stumbled upon.

  445. Well, *I* don’t know what “intersectionalism” is, either; but don’t try to construct arguments based on it.
    It might have something to do with quantum decoherence. Or backwards-masking algorithms. Maybe both. Every field has its own impenetrable jargon.
    So that the initiates can point and laugh “Yer d00n it rong!” Which is worth it for its own sake.

  446. Well, *I* don’t know what “intersectionalism” is, either; but don’t try to construct arguments based on it.
    It might have something to do with quantum decoherence. Or backwards-masking algorithms. Maybe both. Every field has its own impenetrable jargon.
    So that the initiates can point and laugh “Yer d00n it rong!” Which is worth it for its own sake.

  447. Just using the word in a sentence doesn’t mean they know what the word means…
    true!
    i should’ve said “learned a new way to sound like you listen to Sean Haannity too much”

  448. Just using the word in a sentence doesn’t mean they know what the word means…
    true!
    i should’ve said “learned a new way to sound like you listen to Sean Haannity too much”

  449. We should not confuse the actual case of Citizens United and the far-reaching conclusions SCOTUS drew from that.
    thank you.
    for the record, i am and have long been fine with natural human persons engaging in political speech when acting collectively under the corporate form, when the corporation is created *for that purpose*.
    and, the US code has a finely wrought taxonomy of corporate types to account for that.
    the rights belong to the humans involved.
    as far as NYT v Sullivan, I don’t see that a corporate right to free speech is required. The NYT doesn’t have an opinion, it doesn’t engage in speech, it doesn’t say anything. it owns a lot of capital stock, it employs people and it marhals those resources to manufacture newspapers for sale.
    the *editorial board of the NYT*, natural persons all, are entitled to publish their collective opinion in the pages of the NYT or any other paper and to enjoy 1st A protection while doing so.

  450. We should not confuse the actual case of Citizens United and the far-reaching conclusions SCOTUS drew from that.
    thank you.
    for the record, i am and have long been fine with natural human persons engaging in political speech when acting collectively under the corporate form, when the corporation is created *for that purpose*.
    and, the US code has a finely wrought taxonomy of corporate types to account for that.
    the rights belong to the humans involved.
    as far as NYT v Sullivan, I don’t see that a corporate right to free speech is required. The NYT doesn’t have an opinion, it doesn’t engage in speech, it doesn’t say anything. it owns a lot of capital stock, it employs people and it marhals those resources to manufacture newspapers for sale.
    the *editorial board of the NYT*, natural persons all, are entitled to publish their collective opinion in the pages of the NYT or any other paper and to enjoy 1st A protection while doing so.

  451. “the *editorial board of the NYT*, natural persons all, are entitled to publish their collective opinion in the pages of the NYT or any other paper and to enjoy 1st A protection while doing so.”
    I am at a loss as to why the Editorial Board of the N.Y. Times is different than the board IBM or Google or the owner of Hobby Lobby, natural persons all.
    Or are you saying those natural persons only have that one right?

  452. “the *editorial board of the NYT*, natural persons all, are entitled to publish their collective opinion in the pages of the NYT or any other paper and to enjoy 1st A protection while doing so.”
    I am at a loss as to why the Editorial Board of the N.Y. Times is different than the board IBM or Google or the owner of Hobby Lobby, natural persons all.
    Or are you saying those natural persons only have that one right?

  459. If there is freedom of the printing press and money is speech, why is printing money not covered by the 1st Amendment?

  460. If there is freedom of the printing press and money is speech, why is printing money not covered by the 1st Amendment?

  461. heh. not campaign. organization. (which Cohen has also previously denied)
    Now Cohen is claiming that it’s OK that he used his Trump Org e-mail to arrange the payment because he also used it to e-mail family, friends, etc. on matters not related to the organization. (Because even if it was the organization, it would still violate election law.)

  462. heh. not campaign. organization. (which Cohen has also previously denied)
    Now Cohen is claiming that it’s OK that he used his Trump Org e-mail to arrange the payment because he also used it to e-mail family, friends, etc. on matters not related to the organization. (Because even if it was the organization, it would still violate election law.)

  463. Voter ID seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment right to unfettered anonymous free speech.
    I don’t see the difference between anonymous free speech with the money doing the talking under CU and say, my right to bribe a building inspector with pictures of Ben Franklin.
    If XYZ Corporation can pay a candidate to allow the former to pollute a National Park one way or another, why doesn’t my park entrance fee include the right to take a dump right on the trail and leave it unburied, without an additional fine, because like a corporation/person, I get to talk thru my ass too.
    While we’re at it, I find Hipparchus’ latitude and longitude lines superimposed on the globe subjective claptrap.
    Daylight savings time? Who said?
    State, county, township boundary lines? City limits?
    Who made those up? Not me.
    I’d say if the Daily Stormer sitting in the bottom drawer of a Republican Congressman’s Capitol Hill desk calls for the elimination of Jews and the schvartzes, then it is a little late to start kicking all of their asses physically once they actually start implementing the plan, if only because they’ve misappropriated Yiddish like the blockheads they are.
    Taxes are nothing less than coerced speech.

  464. Voter ID seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment right to unfettered anonymous free speech.
    I don’t see the difference between anonymous free speech with the money doing the talking under CU and say, my right to bribe a building inspector with pictures of Ben Franklin.
    If XYZ Corporation can pay a candidate to allow the former to pollute a National Park one way or another, why doesn’t my park entrance fee include the right to take a dump right on the trail and leave it unburied, without an additional fine, because like a corporation/person, I get to talk thru my ass too.
    While we’re at it, I find Hipparchus’ latitude and longitude lines superimposed on the globe subjective claptrap.
    Daylight savings time? Who said?
    State, county, township boundary lines? City limits?
    Who made those up? Not me.
    I’d say if the Daily Stormer sitting in the bottom drawer of a Republican Congressman’s Capitol Hill desk calls for the elimination of Jews and the schvartzes, then it is a little late to start kicking all of their asses physically once they actually start implementing the plan, if only because they’ve misappropriated Yiddish like the blockheads they are.
    Taxes are nothing less than coerced speech.

  465. Voter ID seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment right to unfettered anonymous free speech.
    I must have missed the “anonymous” caveat in the First Amendment.

  466. Voter ID seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment right to unfettered anonymous free speech.
    I must have missed the “anonymous” caveat in the First Amendment.

  467. Taxes are nothing less than coerced speech.
    by taking away my speech-facilitating cash, taxes are also censorship!

  468. Taxes are nothing less than coerced speech.
    by taking away my speech-facilitating cash, taxes are also censorship!

  469. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/09/citizens-united-anonymous-speech-rights-violating-disclosure-laws/
    If damned John Jay and the damned who won’t damn him can influence government via anonymous writings as Publius, and may give money, influence peddle, to campaigns anonymously as the Publius Anonymous PAC with a mail drop in Waco, without the quality of his countertops being questioned by immigrant Filipina Twitter mobs, why can’t the nice ladies manning the polls on election day accept my word as Countme-Anonymous without troublesome government ID being presented?
    I know who I am.
    I’m Teddy Roosevelt on some days and Professor Irwin Corey on others.

  470. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/09/citizens-united-anonymous-speech-rights-violating-disclosure-laws/
    If damned John Jay and the damned who won’t damn him can influence government via anonymous writings as Publius, and may give money, influence peddle, to campaigns anonymously as the Publius Anonymous PAC with a mail drop in Waco, without the quality of his countertops being questioned by immigrant Filipina Twitter mobs, why can’t the nice ladies manning the polls on election day accept my word as Countme-Anonymous without troublesome government ID being presented?
    I know who I am.
    I’m Teddy Roosevelt on some days and Professor Irwin Corey on others.

  473. I am at a loss as to why the Editorial Board of the N.Y. Times is different than the board IBM or Google or the owner of Hobby Lobby, natural persons all.
    If the members of the board of IBM want to pool their own personal money and run an ad expressing their opinions, I’m fine with it. Note the “use their own money” part. The assets of IBM are not the personal property of the board. If they want to write articles or letters to the editor, or engage in interviews, or assemble publicly, or go to DC and lobby their representatives to advocate for their point of view, I say go for it. Just spend your own money, and do it in your own name, individually or collectively.
    Ditto Google.
    If the owners of Hobby Lobby want to worship Jesus in the church of their choice, I think that’s great. If they want to abstain for using contraception that seems, to them, morally hazardous, I applaud them for respecting their consciences. The collective pool of assets that is known legally as “Hobby Lobby”, however, doesn’t believe or worship anything.
    I’m continually baffled at how difficult this seems to be to grasp.
    Natural human persons have rights. Legal entities constructed under law to engage in specific activities don’t.
    They may be entitled to do certain things by statute, but they have no claim on inalienable human rights.
    My checking account has no inalienable human rights. I do. I can use my money to engage in activities that are expressions of my rights. I can’t use my employers money to do that. And my checking account sure as hell can’t sit up on its hind legs and do that of its own volition.
    The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments were and are intended to protect natural human persons. Not accumulations of capital.

  474. I am at a loss as to why the Editorial Board of the N.Y. Times is different than the board IBM or Google or the owner of Hobby Lobby, natural persons all.
    If the members of the board of IBM want to pool their own personal money and run an ad expressing their opinions, I’m fine with it. Note the “use their own money” part. The assets of IBM are not the personal property of the board. If they want to write articles or letters to the editor, or engage in interviews, or assemble publicly, or go to DC and lobby their representatives to advocate for their point of view, I say go for it. Just spend your own money, and do it in your own name, individually or collectively.
    Ditto Google.
    If the owners of Hobby Lobby want to worship Jesus in the church of their choice, I think that’s great. If they want to abstain for using contraception that seems, to them, morally hazardous, I applaud them for respecting their consciences. The collective pool of assets that is known legally as “Hobby Lobby”, however, doesn’t believe or worship anything.
    I’m continually baffled at how difficult this seems to be to grasp.
    Natural human persons have rights. Legal entities constructed under law to engage in specific activities don’t.
    They may be entitled to do certain things by statute, but they have no claim on inalienable human rights.
    My checking account has no inalienable human rights. I do. I can use my money to engage in activities that are expressions of my rights. I can’t use my employers money to do that. And my checking account sure as hell can’t sit up on its hind legs and do that of its own volition.
    The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments were and are intended to protect natural human persons. Not accumulations of capital.

  475. I’m continually baffled at how difficult this seems to be to grasp.
    maybe it’s not difficult to grasp. maybe it’s just inconvenient to admit.
    I am at a loss as to why the Editorial Board of the N.Y. Times is different than the board IBM or Google or the owner of Hobby Lobby, natural persons all.
    the NYT is in the business of printing news and opinion. it’s why the NYT exists. it’s the product they sell.
    IBM is in the business of business machines, not opinion.

  476. I’m continually baffled at how difficult this seems to be to grasp.
    maybe it’s not difficult to grasp. maybe it’s just inconvenient to admit.
    I am at a loss as to why the Editorial Board of the N.Y. Times is different than the board IBM or Google or the owner of Hobby Lobby, natural persons all.
    the NYT is in the business of printing news and opinion. it’s why the NYT exists. it’s the product they sell.
    IBM is in the business of business machines, not opinion.

  477. the NYT is in the business of printing news and opinion. it’s why the NYT exists. it’s the product they sell.
    IBM is in the business of business machines, not opinion.
    Does that mean that NYT should be privileged over other corporations just because they have printing presses?

  478. the NYT is in the business of printing news and opinion. it’s why the NYT exists. it’s the product they sell.
    IBM is in the business of business machines, not opinion.
    Does that mean that NYT should be privileged over other corporations just because they have printing presses?

  479. Being in the business of conveying news is a business, it has no more to do with the Editorial boards first amendment rights than the computers have to do with the IBM boards rights.
    In each case real human beings are in charge of corporate assets that either can or cannot be used for political speech based on the first amendment.
    There is no daylight between the rights of those two groups of humans.

  480. Being in the business of conveying news is a business, it has no more to do with the Editorial boards first amendment rights than the computers have to do with the IBM boards rights.
    In each case real human beings are in charge of corporate assets that either can or cannot be used for political speech based on the first amendment.
    There is no daylight between the rights of those two groups of humans.

  481. Does that mean that NYT should be privileged over other corporations just because they have printing presses?
    yes.
    “the press” is, after all, called out explicitly in the first amendment. it’s a special kind of business.
    There is no daylight between the rights of those two groups of humans.
    corporations are not the people who work for them.

  482. Does that mean that NYT should be privileged over other corporations just because they have printing presses?
    yes.
    “the press” is, after all, called out explicitly in the first amendment. it’s a special kind of business.
    There is no daylight between the rights of those two groups of humans.
    corporations are not the people who work for them.

  483. I am at a loss as to how the Editorial Boards of the Daily Caller, and the Drudge Report, and the Sinclair Broadcasting Props Department are any different from the hand and thrown voice of Putin’s Kremlin up the back of their puppet smocks?

  484. I am at a loss as to how the Editorial Boards of the Daily Caller, and the Drudge Report, and the Sinclair Broadcasting Props Department are any different from the hand and thrown voice of Putin’s Kremlin up the back of their puppet smocks?

  485. Being in the business of conveying news is a business, it has no more to do with the Editorial boards first amendment rights than the computers have to do with the IBM boards rights.
    I think a few things need clarification.
    First, Sullivan v NYT did not involve the opinion of the owners, management, or editorial board of the NYT. The information that was objectionable was an advertisement, paid for by a committee organized for the purpose of engaging in protected political speech and action. The suit brought by Sullivan claimed that some of the information was false (some of it was, by a quite narrow definition of “false”). The outcome of the case established that malice was required to establish libel.
    Libelous speech is not (I don’t think?) protected. The question was whether the advertisement, bought and paid for by a group with an explicitly political and social agenda, amounted to libel.
    The freedom of the press that was enabled in Sullivan was the ability for newspapers etc. to publish reports on the civil rights movement in the southern US without being subject to harassing lawsuits.
    Second, the press is specifically called out in the 1st A as deserving protection. Business machines are not, nor are hobby stores. The government may not interfere with the press, or more broadly other news organs, from printing, publishing, or broadcasting politically protected speech. That applies whether the organization doing the printing, publishing, or broadcasting is doing so for profit or not. And, for that matter, whether they do so under the corporate form or not.
    It is not the corporation that is protected – or, in my opinion, not the corporation that *ought* to be seen as owning the protection – but the institution, and the individuals who speak through it.
    So, daylight.

  486. Being in the business of conveying news is a business, it has no more to do with the Editorial boards first amendment rights than the computers have to do with the IBM boards rights.
    I think a few things need clarification.
    First, Sullivan v NYT did not involve the opinion of the owners, management, or editorial board of the NYT. The information that was objectionable was an advertisement, paid for by a committee organized for the purpose of engaging in protected political speech and action. The suit brought by Sullivan claimed that some of the information was false (some of it was, by a quite narrow definition of “false”). The outcome of the case established that malice was required to establish libel.
    Libelous speech is not (I don’t think?) protected. The question was whether the advertisement, bought and paid for by a group with an explicitly political and social agenda, amounted to libel.
    The freedom of the press that was enabled in Sullivan was the ability for newspapers etc. to publish reports on the civil rights movement in the southern US without being subject to harassing lawsuits.
    Second, the press is specifically called out in the 1st A as deserving protection. Business machines are not, nor are hobby stores. The government may not interfere with the press, or more broadly other news organs, from printing, publishing, or broadcasting politically protected speech. That applies whether the organization doing the printing, publishing, or broadcasting is doing so for profit or not. And, for that matter, whether they do so under the corporate form or not.
    It is not the corporation that is protected – or, in my opinion, not the corporation that *ought* to be seen as owning the protection – but the institution, and the individuals who speak through it.
    So, daylight.

  487. The collective pool of assets that is known legally as “Hobby Lobby”, however, doesn’t believe or worship anything.
    I think you could make a case that Hobby Lobby, like all for-profit corporate entities, worships Mammon. But I never heard that Mammon has an opinion on abortion — or anything else other than accumulating wealth.

  488. The collective pool of assets that is known legally as “Hobby Lobby”, however, doesn’t believe or worship anything.
    I think you could make a case that Hobby Lobby, like all for-profit corporate entities, worships Mammon. But I never heard that Mammon has an opinion on abortion — or anything else other than accumulating wealth.

  489. it’s probably worth keeping in mind that, when the 1st A was written, the idea that corporations are ‘persons’ and should therefore entitled to the rights of natural persons would’ve been laughed out of the tavern.
    that we’re trying to figure out if all corporations should be entitled to free speech rights is not something the Constitution actually addresses. because the notion that a corporation is any kind of person didn’t come about until all the founders were long dad. and it’s pure bullshit.

  490. it’s probably worth keeping in mind that, when the 1st A was written, the idea that corporations are ‘persons’ and should therefore entitled to the rights of natural persons would’ve been laughed out of the tavern.
    that we’re trying to figure out if all corporations should be entitled to free speech rights is not something the Constitution actually addresses. because the notion that a corporation is any kind of person didn’t come about until all the founders were long dad. and it’s pure bullshit.

  493. I don’t even think Hobby Lobby worships Mammon. It’s just a company that sells hobby stuff.
    Oddly enough, I don’t really have anything against corporations as such. They’re a useful institution.
    I object to *people* making use of the resources of corporations which were not organized for purposes of engaging in political or social activity, to further their own preferred political and social ends. It ain’t their money, and it wasn’t intended to be used for those purposes.
    And I *strongly* object to constitutional protections intended to defend the rights of human beings being used to enable that kind of abuse.
    The board of IBM and Google and whoever else can spend their own personal money, and act on their own personal behalf, if they wish to participate in the political process.

  494. I don’t even think Hobby Lobby worships Mammon. It’s just a company that sells hobby stuff.
    Oddly enough, I don’t really have anything against corporations as such. They’re a useful institution.
    I object to *people* making use of the resources of corporations which were not organized for purposes of engaging in political or social activity, to further their own preferred political and social ends. It ain’t their money, and it wasn’t intended to be used for those purposes.
    And I *strongly* object to constitutional protections intended to defend the rights of human beings being used to enable that kind of abuse.
    The board of IBM and Google and whoever else can spend their own personal money, and act on their own personal behalf, if they wish to participate in the political process.

  495. “the press” is, after all, called out explicitly in the first amendment. it’s a special kind of business.
    This concept shouldn’t be hard. Newspapers aren’t other things, and other things aren’t newspapers. And not that it’s a constitutional thing, but why should one kind of corporation, like one that grows and harvests corn, be given a subsidy that isn’t available to those that make bicycles? Distinctions are just so troublesome!

  496. “the press” is, after all, called out explicitly in the first amendment. it’s a special kind of business.
    This concept shouldn’t be hard. Newspapers aren’t other things, and other things aren’t newspapers. And not that it’s a constitutional thing, but why should one kind of corporation, like one that grows and harvests corn, be given a subsidy that isn’t available to those that make bicycles? Distinctions are just so troublesome!

  501. Libelous speech is not (I don’t think?) protected.
    Libel is not protected, although NYT v. Sullivan and its progeny makes libel against a public figure virtually impossible to establish. Although there are very good reasons for that, I think there are problems with it too. The fake news defaming Hillary Clinton and her murderous ways, for example, would be libel for any private person. Also, when does a person become a “public figure”? Etc. That ruling is extremely problematic.
    There are a lot of issues like this in the law.
    I don’t have a huge problem with corporations having certain rights. Due process is a right that comes from our government that is intrinsic in legitimizing whatever action the government takes against people or entities. (Clearly, it should also apply to ICE actions, which at the moment it doesn’t seem to.)
    I happen to think the bigger problem is speech = money. That is wrong, IMO.

  502. Libelous speech is not (I don’t think?) protected.
    Libel is not protected, although NYT v. Sullivan and its progeny makes libel against a public figure virtually impossible to establish. Although there are very good reasons for that, I think there are problems with it too. The fake news defaming Hillary Clinton and her murderous ways, for example, would be libel for any private person. Also, when does a person become a “public figure”? Etc. That ruling is extremely problematic.
    There are a lot of issues like this in the law.
    I don’t have a huge problem with corporations having certain rights. Due process is a right that comes from our government that is intrinsic in legitimizing whatever action the government takes against people or entities. (Clearly, it should also apply to ICE actions, which at the moment it doesn’t seem to.)
    I happen to think the bigger problem is speech = money. That is wrong, IMO.

  503. “I happen to think the bigger problem is speech = money. That is wrong, IMO.”
    It’s even worse than that: money = speech = money.
    Some kid (in Boston IIRC) got convicted of “material support of terrorism” for publishing articles in favor of Al Qaida.

  504. “I happen to think the bigger problem is speech = money. That is wrong, IMO.”
    It’s even worse than that: money = speech = money.
    Some kid (in Boston IIRC) got convicted of “material support of terrorism” for publishing articles in favor of Al Qaida.

  505. I think it might be worthwhile making false accusations of criminal activity libel, even when the target is a “public person”. Need some details around what level of support is the threshold (e.g. you don’t need “beyond a reasonable doubt”). Also, I think, on which kinds of criminal activity — just because the law varies from place to place. But still, it would help to deter the worst slanders.

  506. I think it might be worthwhile making false accusations of criminal activity libel, even when the target is a “public person”. Need some details around what level of support is the threshold (e.g. you don’t need “beyond a reasonable doubt”). Also, I think, on which kinds of criminal activity — just because the law varies from place to place. But still, it would help to deter the worst slanders.

  507. Some kid (in Boston IIRC) got convicted of “material support of terrorism” for publishing articles in favor of Al Qaida.
    I think I remember that we talked about that here at the time. This, from Wikipedia. This from Cornell United States Code website.
    I think there is a national security interest in not having people stoking up an enemy that we’re fighting. That’s one of the tensions of the First Amendment that we can argue about. Rights aren’t absolute.
    That’s why the Second Amendment absolutists are also full of s6it.

  508. Some kid (in Boston IIRC) got convicted of “material support of terrorism” for publishing articles in favor of Al Qaida.
    I think I remember that we talked about that here at the time. This, from Wikipedia. This from Cornell United States Code website.
    I think there is a national security interest in not having people stoking up an enemy that we’re fighting. That’s one of the tensions of the First Amendment that we can argue about. Rights aren’t absolute.
    That’s why the Second Amendment absolutists are also full of s6it.

  511. I don’t have a huge problem with corporations having certain rights
    i have no problem whatsoever with corps having privileges of all sorts as a matter of statute.
    not rights, in the “inalienable” sense.

  512. I don’t have a huge problem with corporations having certain rights
    i have no problem whatsoever with corps having privileges of all sorts as a matter of statute.
    not rights, in the “inalienable” sense.

  513. not rights, in the “inalienable” sense.
    I see due process as a duty of government, even though it’s categorized as a “right” in the Bill of Rights. If a government agent acts without due process, the action is illegitimate. Procedural due process is, in fact, substantive. Due process is a right of any entity who/which is being taken to task by the government. The rest of the Bill of Rights is not so clear.

  514. not rights, in the “inalienable” sense.
    I see due process as a duty of government, even though it’s categorized as a “right” in the Bill of Rights. If a government agent acts without due process, the action is illegitimate. Procedural due process is, in fact, substantive. Due process is a right of any entity who/which is being taken to task by the government. The rest of the Bill of Rights is not so clear.

  515. look, i’ll put it this way.
    the bill of rights does not grant or bestow the rights they enumerate. they are a recognition of rights that are assumed to already exist, that are inherent in the fact of being a natural human being.
    they are prior to and superior to law per se, and cannot be denied or alienated by law, as evidence for which note that laws are struck down if they are found to violate the rights enumerated in the bill of rights and subsequent amendments.
    they are inherent. they are not a creature of law, and are not granted by law. the law merely recognizes them.
    corps, by contrast, are entirely a creature of statutary law. nothing about corps deserves the status of “inalienable”. they are a category of thing to which that concept does not apply. there is nothing whatsoever inherent about them, every aspect of their existence is a legal and social construction.
    so, imo, no constitutional right should be recognized in corps. only in people.

  516. look, i’ll put it this way.
    the bill of rights does not grant or bestow the rights they enumerate. they are a recognition of rights that are assumed to already exist, that are inherent in the fact of being a natural human being.
    they are prior to and superior to law per se, and cannot be denied or alienated by law, as evidence for which note that laws are struck down if they are found to violate the rights enumerated in the bill of rights and subsequent amendments.
    they are inherent. they are not a creature of law, and are not granted by law. the law merely recognizes them.
    corps, by contrast, are entirely a creature of statutary law. nothing about corps deserves the status of “inalienable”. they are a category of thing to which that concept does not apply. there is nothing whatsoever inherent about them, every aspect of their existence is a legal and social construction.
    so, imo, no constitutional right should be recognized in corps. only in people.

  517. The word “inalienable” doesn’t exist in the Constitution. It’s a Declaration of Independence thing. It’s an aspirational, wish-it-could-be-so kind of thing.
    So, yeah, the Bill of Rights was a petition by “the people” that was approved by “the people” having nothing to do with “inalienable” because “the people” could alienate them by Constitutional amendment. In other words, the Bill of Rights isn’t the Bible. It’s a founding document of our legal system.
    Corporations are entities created by state statute. I work for a not-for-profit Virginia corporation. I wouldn’t expect anyone to come storming into my office to check out my Quickbooks program without notice. I would want some notice, and a hearing. That’s due process. That seems fine to me, not only as the right of the entity I work for, but also as a duty of government (except, of course, by other due process, such as some kind of criminal procedure with wiretapping, search warrant, etc.)

  518. The word “inalienable” doesn’t exist in the Constitution. It’s a Declaration of Independence thing. It’s an aspirational, wish-it-could-be-so kind of thing.
    So, yeah, the Bill of Rights was a petition by “the people” that was approved by “the people” having nothing to do with “inalienable” because “the people” could alienate them by Constitutional amendment. In other words, the Bill of Rights isn’t the Bible. It’s a founding document of our legal system.
    Corporations are entities created by state statute. I work for a not-for-profit Virginia corporation. I wouldn’t expect anyone to come storming into my office to check out my Quickbooks program without notice. I would want some notice, and a hearing. That’s due process. That seems fine to me, not only as the right of the entity I work for, but also as a duty of government (except, of course, by other due process, such as some kind of criminal procedure with wiretapping, search warrant, etc.)

  519. Should have reversed that: search warrant, wiretapping, etc. All that is fine, with the appropriate due process as required by the Constitution, statute, and case law.

  520. Should have reversed that: search warrant, wiretapping, etc. All that is fine, with the appropriate due process as required by the Constitution, statute, and case law.

  521. some time ago, on a previous pass around the mulberry bush on this topic, brett bellmore noted that a lot of the problem was that the corporate form was required to cover so many different kinds of things. there were too many things that could not, as a practical matter, be done outside the corporate form.
    i’m sure brett wasn’t taking that observation to the same places i would, but i thought, and think, that it was more than apt.
    engaging in advocacy for political or social causes occurs via the same vehicle as selling hobby supplies. not precisely the same vehicle, but not different enough to let us distinguish between the protections that, frex, sapient’s non-profit should enjoy, vs what, frex, exxon mobil should enjoy.
    that’s a problem.
    and if it’s not intuitively obvious how the two examples differ, perhaps no point in going further with the discussion.

  522. some time ago, on a previous pass around the mulberry bush on this topic, brett bellmore noted that a lot of the problem was that the corporate form was required to cover so many different kinds of things. there were too many things that could not, as a practical matter, be done outside the corporate form.
    i’m sure brett wasn’t taking that observation to the same places i would, but i thought, and think, that it was more than apt.
    engaging in advocacy for political or social causes occurs via the same vehicle as selling hobby supplies. not precisely the same vehicle, but not different enough to let us distinguish between the protections that, frex, sapient’s non-profit should enjoy, vs what, frex, exxon mobil should enjoy.
    that’s a problem.
    and if it’s not intuitively obvious how the two examples differ, perhaps no point in going further with the discussion.

  523. on russell at 09:38 PM
    I presume you are no Platonist then 😉
    Wouldn’t it be nice, if a lobbyist would argue in front of SCOTUS that corporations are a preexisting concept, an idea, in the Platonian sense and as such as inalienable as any other right recognized by the Constitution? And to then hear some of the justices argue that the founders were indeed steeped in Plato’s philosophy and that therefore no doubt could be possible concerning their original intent on this topic.

  524. on russell at 09:38 PM
    I presume you are no Platonist then 😉
    Wouldn’t it be nice, if a lobbyist would argue in front of SCOTUS that corporations are a preexisting concept, an idea, in the Platonian sense and as such as inalienable as any other right recognized by the Constitution? And to then hear some of the justices argue that the founders were indeed steeped in Plato’s philosophy and that therefore no doubt could be possible concerning their original intent on this topic.

  525. I’m actually fine with the corporate form. The problem isn’t the idea of corporations, it’s the fact that certain people in our country are using them as a hidey hole to protect them from nefarious acts. That’s entirely fixable, but the usual suspects don’t want to fix it.
    Instead of talking about corporations, I’d like to focus on Stormy Daniels.
    I’m a huge believer in people having their own personal lives. Paying hush money? Comedy of Dennisons? I hope Trump drowns in this. Sure, I’d rather people care about our country, but that’s taking a really long time.

  526. I’m actually fine with the corporate form. The problem isn’t the idea of corporations, it’s the fact that certain people in our country are using them as a hidey hole to protect them from nefarious acts. That’s entirely fixable, but the usual suspects don’t want to fix it.
    Instead of talking about corporations, I’d like to focus on Stormy Daniels.
    I’m a huge believer in people having their own personal lives. Paying hush money? Comedy of Dennisons? I hope Trump drowns in this. Sure, I’d rather people care about our country, but that’s taking a really long time.

  527. The problem isn’t the idea of corporations, it’s the fact that certain people in our country are using them as a hidey hole to protect them from nefarious acts.
    Yes.
    I have exactly zero issue with corporations and/or the corporate form per se. People – human beings – abuse the corporate form to shield them from the consequences of their personal, real-life, natural human bad behavior.
    I don’t see a solution for that as long as corporations are considered to be constitutional persons. If you do, all good.
    I’d like to focus on Stormy Daniels.
    IMO there would be no greater poetic justice than for Trump’s undoing to be a dalliance with a porn star, gone sideways.
    Ms Daniels appears to know her onions, so Trump, Cohen, and company had best bring their best game.
    Popcorn’s a-popping.

  528. The problem isn’t the idea of corporations, it’s the fact that certain people in our country are using them as a hidey hole to protect them from nefarious acts.
    Yes.
    I have exactly zero issue with corporations and/or the corporate form per se. People – human beings – abuse the corporate form to shield them from the consequences of their personal, real-life, natural human bad behavior.
    I don’t see a solution for that as long as corporations are considered to be constitutional persons. If you do, all good.
    I’d like to focus on Stormy Daniels.
    IMO there would be no greater poetic justice than for Trump’s undoing to be a dalliance with a porn star, gone sideways.
    Ms Daniels appears to know her onions, so Trump, Cohen, and company had best bring their best game.
    Popcorn’s a-popping.

  529. IMO there would be no greater poetic justice than for Trump’s undoing to be a dalliance with a porn star, gone sideways.
    Yes.

  530. IMO there would be no greater poetic justice than for Trump’s undoing to be a dalliance with a porn star, gone sideways.
    Yes.

  531. And isn’t it typical of Trump’s devil-may-care approach to everything that he neglected to sign the NDA? Thus (probably) rendering it void. At minimum, the courts will rule it valid, so she can’t talk. But it’s in the (public) filing of her court action, so it’s out there that he did so anyway.

  532. And isn’t it typical of Trump’s devil-may-care approach to everything that he neglected to sign the NDA? Thus (probably) rendering it void. At minimum, the courts will rule it valid, so she can’t talk. But it’s in the (public) filing of her court action, so it’s out there that he did so anyway.

  533. Bring it the fuck on
    I was particularly struck by the line about how the Democrats lost the Civil War, and would lose the next one. Cheerfully ignoring the fact that the Democrats who lost the first one are all Republicans now. So he’s half right: the same people who lost the first one would lose another one. Only the labels have changed.
    Those who are (determinedly) ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

  534. Bring it the fuck on
    I was particularly struck by the line about how the Democrats lost the Civil War, and would lose the next one. Cheerfully ignoring the fact that the Democrats who lost the first one are all Republicans now. So he’s half right: the same people who lost the first one would lose another one. Only the labels have changed.
    Those who are (determinedly) ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Comments are closed.