by liberal japonicus
A slender reed on which to balance an OP, but I’ve been seeing articles like this popping up. It seems logical, but I’m wondering if impeachment isn’t going to keep minds and anger focussed. I don’t know about you, but any task dealt with after Biden is inaugurated would be super charged for me if I thought I was also flipping the bird at the orange waste of resources. On the other hand, the British SOE nixed plans to assassinate Hitler because he could be counted on for strategic blunders. So there is that.
Anyway, some thoughts on what the 1st 100 days might bring.
“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” —Thomas Sowell
“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” —Thomas Sowell
I impeachment is the constitutional remedy for Trump’s behaviour, so I don’t think there’s really an alternative unless anyone thinks it should now be politely ignored.
At least the incoming administration and its supporters in the legislature seem more attuned to political realities than was Obama’s. Or rather, they have perhaps learned from their mistakes.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/14/biden-federal-pandemic-response-expansion-459473
…despite the mounting health crisis and Biden’s overriding goal of crafting a bipartisan response, Democrats are bracing for his team to hit immediate resistance.
One senior Senate Democratic aide said while cobbling together 60 votes for the package isn’t “outside the realm of possibility,” Democrats “won’t have a ton of patience for political games” and are preparing now to use the budget reconciliation process to pass the bill with only Democratic votes if necessary.
“I think a lot of Democrats have etched in their brain the ‘Lucy and the football’ incident we had with the Affordable Care Act,” the aide said, referencing the months Democrats spent fruitlessly trying to win GOP votes for the bill in 2010….
I impeachment is the constitutional remedy for Trump’s behaviour, so I don’t think there’s really an alternative unless anyone thinks it should now be politely ignored.
At least the incoming administration and its supporters in the legislature seem more attuned to political realities than was Obama’s. Or rather, they have perhaps learned from their mistakes.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/14/biden-federal-pandemic-response-expansion-459473
…despite the mounting health crisis and Biden’s overriding goal of crafting a bipartisan response, Democrats are bracing for his team to hit immediate resistance.
One senior Senate Democratic aide said while cobbling together 60 votes for the package isn’t “outside the realm of possibility,” Democrats “won’t have a ton of patience for political games” and are preparing now to use the budget reconciliation process to pass the bill with only Democratic votes if necessary.
“I think a lot of Democrats have etched in their brain the ‘Lucy and the football’ incident we had with the Affordable Care Act,” the aide said, referencing the months Democrats spent fruitlessly trying to win GOP votes for the bill in 2010….
I have no strong views about this, for all I care they should put Trump before the ICC, but then a few others would have to turn up there as well, so that’s not going to happen.
But from a tactical point of view I’m not sure this was the right move:
Firstly, it’s hard to explain what holding an impeachment trial against a former president even means, because I always thought and correct me if I’m wrong please, that impeachment was designed to remove a sitting president from office.
Secondly, if Trump is anything, he’s a great showman, and won’t this give him a stage enabling to convince his followers that he’s still important, a martyr even.
Thirdly, it’s unlikely that he will actually be convicted, so that will be the second failed impeachment attempt, which doesn’t actually look very good. For all the gloating about “the first president to be impeached twice”, Trump can easily turn this around to “they went after me twice and didn’t succeed” and turn this into a narrative of persecution a la “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
I think it would have been better to take advantage of his loss of immunity and get him for tax evasion, embezzlement or whatever else they can come up with. This way he would end like a common criminal, not a martyr. Of course both options are not mutually exclusive but I fear that the impeachment will overshadow everything.
I have no strong views about this, for all I care they should put Trump before the ICC, but then a few others would have to turn up there as well, so that’s not going to happen.
But from a tactical point of view I’m not sure this was the right move:
Firstly, it’s hard to explain what holding an impeachment trial against a former president even means, because I always thought and correct me if I’m wrong please, that impeachment was designed to remove a sitting president from office.
Secondly, if Trump is anything, he’s a great showman, and won’t this give him a stage enabling to convince his followers that he’s still important, a martyr even.
Thirdly, it’s unlikely that he will actually be convicted, so that will be the second failed impeachment attempt, which doesn’t actually look very good. For all the gloating about “the first president to be impeached twice”, Trump can easily turn this around to “they went after me twice and didn’t succeed” and turn this into a narrative of persecution a la “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
I think it would have been better to take advantage of his loss of immunity and get him for tax evasion, embezzlement or whatever else they can come up with. This way he would end like a common criminal, not a martyr. Of course both options are not mutually exclusive but I fear that the impeachment will overshadow everything.
Regarding the legality of this impeachment opinions actually seem very divided:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/06/can-former-presidents-be-impeached/
Regarding the legality of this impeachment opinions actually seem very divided:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/06/can-former-presidents-be-impeached/
impeachment was designed to remove a sitting president from office.
Impeachment can, but does not have to, include disqualification from holding federal office in future. Which would rule out a Trump run in 2024.
Disqualification only requires a majority vote in the Senate, if I’m not mistaken. I don’t know if the Senate can vote for disqualification without first voting for removal.
impeachment was designed to remove a sitting president from office.
Impeachment can, but does not have to, include disqualification from holding federal office in future. Which would rule out a Trump run in 2024.
Disqualification only requires a majority vote in the Senate, if I’m not mistaken. I don’t know if the Senate can vote for disqualification without first voting for removal.
second failed impeachment attempt
Not failed.
Regarding the legality of this impeachment opinions actually seem very divided
Trump was already impeached for the second time. The action of the House was perfectly legal. He has not yet convicted by the Senate, which is what removes and disqualifies him under the impeachment clause. Also, there is Clause 3 of the 14th amendment:
“No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Either conviction for impeachment or Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment should be used against Trump, so that he isn’t entitled to a pension and other benefits, including national security briefings.
There is precedent for convicting a federal judge after having been impeached after holding office, although arguably a judgeship is different since the term is for life.
I agree that criminal prosecution is optimal, but whatever needs to be done to keep him away from any government benefit or classified information is also required.
second failed impeachment attempt
Not failed.
Regarding the legality of this impeachment opinions actually seem very divided
Trump was already impeached for the second time. The action of the House was perfectly legal. He has not yet convicted by the Senate, which is what removes and disqualifies him under the impeachment clause. Also, there is Clause 3 of the 14th amendment:
“No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Either conviction for impeachment or Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment should be used against Trump, so that he isn’t entitled to a pension and other benefits, including national security briefings.
There is precedent for convicting a federal judge after having been impeached after holding office, although arguably a judgeship is different since the term is for life.
I agree that criminal prosecution is optimal, but whatever needs to be done to keep him away from any government benefit or classified information is also required.
The prevention of taking office, loss of emoluents and Secret Service detail seem to be important to me.
I’m not really interested in discussions of tactics, because it is not like anyone here is going to have the least bit of influence on what steps are or are not taken. So I tend to look at this more like a machine that when you drop the ball in it, what is going to happen unfolds.
So in the case of impeachment, it is just too personal for Pelosi and others to step away from it and these op-eds about it jamming up Biden’s first 100 days seems to ignore that. Or pretend this is just business as usual and the Dem caucus is simply going to make calculations and decide. Imagine your at a company and 1/2 or even 1/3 of your workforce feels like something must be done concerning some thing the company deals with. You ignore that third at your peril.
And, as I said, it is going to give a sense of immediacy and urgency to everything. It’s hard to disentangle who is saying what, but I feel like a lot of these articles are getting off the record statements from people who either 1) have a hidden interest or 2)people who don’t want to get out in front of it, but will go along. That’s my take.
The prevention of taking office, loss of emoluents and Secret Service detail seem to be important to me.
I’m not really interested in discussions of tactics, because it is not like anyone here is going to have the least bit of influence on what steps are or are not taken. So I tend to look at this more like a machine that when you drop the ball in it, what is going to happen unfolds.
So in the case of impeachment, it is just too personal for Pelosi and others to step away from it and these op-eds about it jamming up Biden’s first 100 days seems to ignore that. Or pretend this is just business as usual and the Dem caucus is simply going to make calculations and decide. Imagine your at a company and 1/2 or even 1/3 of your workforce feels like something must be done concerning some thing the company deals with. You ignore that third at your peril.
And, as I said, it is going to give a sense of immediacy and urgency to everything. It’s hard to disentangle who is saying what, but I feel like a lot of these articles are getting off the record statements from people who either 1) have a hidden interest or 2)people who don’t want to get out in front of it, but will go along. That’s my take.
To prevent further semantic confusion: I, as many others, tend to imprecisely conflate impeachment with conviction. I don’t think anybody thinks that the House impeachment was illegal, or better unconstitutional in itself – what they are discussing is if the Senate trial and a possible conviction would be, as it would happen after Trump has left office.
I don’t think impeachment itself without conviction is a big political gain, especially in these highly partisan times, and as I said above, it might actually be turned against those who pursued it.
To prevent further semantic confusion: I, as many others, tend to imprecisely conflate impeachment with conviction. I don’t think anybody thinks that the House impeachment was illegal, or better unconstitutional in itself – what they are discussing is if the Senate trial and a possible conviction would be, as it would happen after Trump has left office.
I don’t think impeachment itself without conviction is a big political gain, especially in these highly partisan times, and as I said above, it might actually be turned against those who pursued it.
It would be good to remember that Clinton’s popularity was the highest after his impeachment trial.
It would be good to remember that Clinton’s popularity was the highest after his impeachment trial.
Well, Clinton thought it better not to put out a terrorist hit on Gingrich, Starr, Delay, and company.
Must have been clever triangulation on his part.
Keep your enemies, well, at least alive for comparison purposes.
It’s too soon to tell whether it was a wise strategy.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/capitol-maga-rioters-planned-to-capture-and-kill-lawmakers-federal-prosecutors-say?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition
Well, Clinton thought it better not to put out a terrorist hit on Gingrich, Starr, Delay, and company.
Must have been clever triangulation on his part.
Keep your enemies, well, at least alive for comparison purposes.
It’s too soon to tell whether it was a wise strategy.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/capitol-maga-rioters-planned-to-capture-and-kill-lawmakers-federal-prosecutors-say?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition
I don’t see how you simply ignore such an assault on the constitution, though, and impeachment is the remedy which the constitution sets out.
As an aside, is Trump not constitutional barred form pardoning anyone involved in matters directly associated with his own impeachment ?
I don’t see how you simply ignore such an assault on the constitution, though, and impeachment is the remedy which the constitution sets out.
As an aside, is Trump not constitutional barred form pardoning anyone involved in matters directly associated with his own impeachment ?
it would have been better to take advantage of his loss of immunity and get him for tax evasion, embezzlement or whatever else they can come up with.
Impeachment doesn’t prevent that.
It’s not in Congress’ power to bring criminal or civil charges against Trump, AFAIK. Impeachment is what is available to them, and is appropriate.
I’m sure no few of them would like to take Trump out behind the woodshed and beat the living sh*t out of him.
Impeachment will do.
Trump can easily turn this around to “they went after me twice and didn’t succeed” and turn this into a narrative of persecution a la “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
That’s been the story of the last four years, and anyone open to that argument is already on board. Impeach / don’t impeach won’t make a difference.
Some things require a response. I’d say this qualifies.
it would have been better to take advantage of his loss of immunity and get him for tax evasion, embezzlement or whatever else they can come up with.
Impeachment doesn’t prevent that.
It’s not in Congress’ power to bring criminal or civil charges against Trump, AFAIK. Impeachment is what is available to them, and is appropriate.
I’m sure no few of them would like to take Trump out behind the woodshed and beat the living sh*t out of him.
Impeachment will do.
Trump can easily turn this around to “they went after me twice and didn’t succeed” and turn this into a narrative of persecution a la “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
That’s been the story of the last four years, and anyone open to that argument is already on board. Impeach / don’t impeach won’t make a difference.
Some things require a response. I’d say this qualifies.
And, FWIW, I agree with this take.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/trump-impeachment-senate.html
…More than that, the disqualification power is both the primary evidence of and the central reason the Constitution allows for the impeachment of former officers. Were it otherwise, an officer facing impeachment, or an officer who has already been impeached and is about to be removed, could also avoid disqualification simply by resigning. In 1876, disgraced Secretary of War William Belknap tried exactly that — resigning minutes before the House vote on his impeachment. The House impeached him anyway, concluding that his resignation did not defeat Congress’s impeachment power. And although some senators ultimately voted to acquit Belknap (who narrowly escaped a guilty verdict) because he was no longer in office, the Senate as a body first concluded that it had the power to try former officers, adopting a resolution that Belknap could be tried “for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office” before he was impeached.
The Belknap case cemented two precedents: Congress can impeach and remove former officers, but the fact that the defendant is no longer in office is one factor that senators may take into account in deciding whether to vote to convict. So, when President Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974 in an effort to forestall his seemingly inevitable impeachment and removal, that act did not deprive Congress of the constitutional power to still impeach, remove and disqualify him; it merely mitigated the perceived political expediency of doing so…
And, FWIW, I agree with this take.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/trump-impeachment-senate.html
…More than that, the disqualification power is both the primary evidence of and the central reason the Constitution allows for the impeachment of former officers. Were it otherwise, an officer facing impeachment, or an officer who has already been impeached and is about to be removed, could also avoid disqualification simply by resigning. In 1876, disgraced Secretary of War William Belknap tried exactly that — resigning minutes before the House vote on his impeachment. The House impeached him anyway, concluding that his resignation did not defeat Congress’s impeachment power. And although some senators ultimately voted to acquit Belknap (who narrowly escaped a guilty verdict) because he was no longer in office, the Senate as a body first concluded that it had the power to try former officers, adopting a resolution that Belknap could be tried “for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office” before he was impeached.
The Belknap case cemented two precedents: Congress can impeach and remove former officers, but the fact that the defendant is no longer in office is one factor that senators may take into account in deciding whether to vote to convict. So, when President Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974 in an effort to forestall his seemingly inevitable impeachment and removal, that act did not deprive Congress of the constitutional power to still impeach, remove and disqualify him; it merely mitigated the perceived political expediency of doing so…
It would be good to remember that Clinton’s popularity was the highest after his impeachment trial.
Which obviously indicates that Dems are most popular when they are fighting back. lol
It would be good to remember that Clinton’s popularity was the highest after his impeachment trial.
Which obviously indicates that Dems are most popular when they are fighting back. lol
What color was the blood of the many wonderful Americans inside the Capitol this terrorist republican wanted to shed?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gop-reps-staffer-stood-with-pro-trump-crowd-outside-capitol-during-insurrection
“to join with many, many thousands of wonderful red-blooded American patriots.”
Like the Manson family, Trump’s besotted killers seem to include lots of winsome, bloodthirsty women.
William Barr just executed a woman.
Perhaps he was setting precedent for the long queue of female conservative traitors who will be awaiting the gallows over the next decade.
What color was the blood of the many wonderful Americans inside the Capitol this terrorist republican wanted to shed?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gop-reps-staffer-stood-with-pro-trump-crowd-outside-capitol-during-insurrection
“to join with many, many thousands of wonderful red-blooded American patriots.”
Like the Manson family, Trump’s besotted killers seem to include lots of winsome, bloodthirsty women.
William Barr just executed a woman.
Perhaps he was setting precedent for the long queue of female conservative traitors who will be awaiting the gallows over the next decade.
Preventing DJT from running again and from continuing to receive intelligence briefings (especially the latter) seems extremely important, and has to be pursued for this reason if no other. I think it has to be assumed, given his financial troubles, that he will be even more vulnerable to blackmail by hostile powers than he has been, and although presumably he will be watched very carefully by US intelligence, they (the hostile powers) will still prove capable. He cannot be allowed to go on disseminating state secrets, any more than he may already have done.
Preventing DJT from running again and from continuing to receive intelligence briefings (especially the latter) seems extremely important, and has to be pursued for this reason if no other. I think it has to be assumed, given his financial troubles, that he will be even more vulnerable to blackmail by hostile powers than he has been, and although presumably he will be watched very carefully by US intelligence, they (the hostile powers) will still prove capable. He cannot be allowed to go on disseminating state secrets, any more than he may already have done.
Which obviously indicates that Dems are most popular when they are fighting back. lol
Bravo!
Which obviously indicates that Dems are most popular when they are fighting back. lol
Bravo!
Well, what can I say, everyone seems gung ho on impeachment – let’s hope for the best.
Well, what can I say, everyone seems gung ho on impeachment – let’s hope for the best.
It would be good to remember that Clinton’s popularity was the highest after his impeachment trial.
on one hand: a blow job, and Clinton had 60%-ish job approval at the start of the process
on the other: incitement of insurrection by a President who never reached 50% job approval.
It would be good to remember that Clinton’s popularity was the highest after his impeachment trial.
on one hand: a blow job, and Clinton had 60%-ish job approval at the start of the process
on the other: incitement of insurrection by a President who never reached 50% job approval.
via digby, John Tester, rancher, school teacher, Senator.
The country has been putting up with threats of this kind of violence for 30 or 40 years. And not infrequently, more than threats.
Trump legitimizes this kind of violence, through his embrace and encouragement of violent actors, and through his divisive and toxic rhetoric.
Impeachment in this case is about more than just removing one person from office, or preventing one person from holding office in the future.
It is a rejection of the kind of political venom that was the basis of Trump’s campaign, and of his tenure in office.
So I’m OK with it, even as a gesture. And if he’s convicted, it will be more than a gesture, it will prevent him returning to any federal office.
The (R) party needs to find something constructive to run on. All they are bringing right now is bile. Anger, resentment, hostility, and threats. That has a constituency, but it’s not a healthy one, and not one that anyone should want.
via digby, John Tester, rancher, school teacher, Senator.
The country has been putting up with threats of this kind of violence for 30 or 40 years. And not infrequently, more than threats.
Trump legitimizes this kind of violence, through his embrace and encouragement of violent actors, and through his divisive and toxic rhetoric.
Impeachment in this case is about more than just removing one person from office, or preventing one person from holding office in the future.
It is a rejection of the kind of political venom that was the basis of Trump’s campaign, and of his tenure in office.
So I’m OK with it, even as a gesture. And if he’s convicted, it will be more than a gesture, it will prevent him returning to any federal office.
The (R) party needs to find something constructive to run on. All they are bringing right now is bile. Anger, resentment, hostility, and threats. That has a constituency, but it’s not a healthy one, and not one that anyone should want.
Well, what can I say, everyone seems gung ho on impeachment
I just think it the least bad option.
Well, what can I say, everyone seems gung ho on impeachment
I just think it the least bad option.
I think it’s simply necessary.
I think it’s simply necessary.
Impeachment is a done deal.
But what is the hurry with conviction?
The evidence of collusion of him and others is only piling up.
I’d say it can wait to until next year.
Impeachment is a done deal.
But what is the hurry with conviction?
The evidence of collusion of him and others is only piling up.
I’d say it can wait to until next year.
I’d say it can wait to until next year.
I’m fine with that as long as they keep taxpayer money and national secrets away from him in the meantime.
I’d say it can wait to until next year.
I’m fine with that as long as they keep taxpayer money and national secrets away from him in the meantime.
But what is the hurry with conviction?
* he could start pardoning the traitors.
* impeaching a non-sitting President is new territory and maybe it would be nice to skip that.
* fuck him and his traitor followers
But what is the hurry with conviction?
* he could start pardoning the traitors.
* impeaching a non-sitting President is new territory and maybe it would be nice to skip that.
* fuck him and his traitor followers
I always thought and correct me if I’m wrong please, that impeachment was designed to remove a sitting president from office.
I know others have responded to this, but….
First, impeachment (and trial, etc.) is not limited to Presidents. So there are actually more precedents than just the two pre-Trump presidential impeachments.
Second, removal is one of the penalties (after conviction, of course). But not the only possible one. In addition to potentially barring him from ever holding Federal office again, they could 1) revoke the travel allowance ex-Presidents normally get, 2) slash or even totally cancel his $200K pension, 3) remove his security detail, etc.
Third, since there are potential penalties beyond removal, there actually is a point to a Senate trial even after he’s out of office. While I have seen arguments that he can’t be tried after he leaves office, there are a couple of precedents where individual who had left office were still impeached and tried. (Ex-Sen. William Blount in 1797 and ex-Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876.)
I always thought and correct me if I’m wrong please, that impeachment was designed to remove a sitting president from office.
I know others have responded to this, but….
First, impeachment (and trial, etc.) is not limited to Presidents. So there are actually more precedents than just the two pre-Trump presidential impeachments.
Second, removal is one of the penalties (after conviction, of course). But not the only possible one. In addition to potentially barring him from ever holding Federal office again, they could 1) revoke the travel allowance ex-Presidents normally get, 2) slash or even totally cancel his $200K pension, 3) remove his security detail, etc.
Third, since there are potential penalties beyond removal, there actually is a point to a Senate trial even after he’s out of office. While I have seen arguments that he can’t be tried after he leaves office, there are a couple of precedents where individual who had left office were still impeached and tried. (Ex-Sen. William Blount in 1797 and ex-Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876.)
As an aside, is Trump not constitutional barred form pardoning anyone involved in matters directly associated with his own impeachment?
Sadly, no. He can pretty much pardon anybody he likes (except, arguably, himself), and for any or no reason. However he probably would have to pardon them by name, not just “anybody involved in storming the Capital.” Given that IDs are still in progress, he’d likely miss a bunch. Including the folks (outside his family and immediate circle) who planned it.
And, Ford’s pardon of Nixon notwithstanding, he would probably need to pardon them for specific offenses. Not just “any Federal criminal offenses.” A list that is also a work in progress. Be ironic if he pardoned a bunch of folks for the place-holder charges they are currently held on, but left them open for sedition and other serious charges still to come.
As an aside, is Trump not constitutional barred form pardoning anyone involved in matters directly associated with his own impeachment?
Sadly, no. He can pretty much pardon anybody he likes (except, arguably, himself), and for any or no reason. However he probably would have to pardon them by name, not just “anybody involved in storming the Capital.” Given that IDs are still in progress, he’d likely miss a bunch. Including the folks (outside his family and immediate circle) who planned it.
And, Ford’s pardon of Nixon notwithstanding, he would probably need to pardon them for specific offenses. Not just “any Federal criminal offenses.” A list that is also a work in progress. Be ironic if he pardoned a bunch of folks for the place-holder charges they are currently held on, but left them open for sedition and other serious charges still to come.
What color was the blood of the many wonderful Americans inside the Capitol this terrorist republican wanted to shed?
Blue, obviously. After all, everybody who opposes them is an elitist.
What color was the blood of the many wonderful Americans inside the Capitol this terrorist republican wanted to shed?
Blue, obviously. After all, everybody who opposes them is an elitist.
He can pretty much pardon anybody he likes (except, arguably, himself), and for any or no reason.
Well, not everyone agrees with that, including some people whose field it is to know about these things.
He can pretty much pardon anybody he likes (except, arguably, himself), and for any or no reason.
Well, not everyone agrees with that, including some people whose field it is to know about these things.
Fascinating article, Janie. Thanks!
Fascinating article, Janie. Thanks!
It would be interesting to see the pardon power litigated in court (although I hope it doesn’t happen because I hope that Trump doesn’t try it). It might play out that Trump would pardon insurrectionists, then they would be prosecuted anyway, then the pardon be used by the defendants as an absolute defense.
Since there’s no precedent, the result could go either way (although JanieM’s link is encouraging). It would be fun to see Trump, once again, slapped down by the courts. Still, I hope we’re able to skip it.
It would be interesting to see the pardon power litigated in court (although I hope it doesn’t happen because I hope that Trump doesn’t try it). It might play out that Trump would pardon insurrectionists, then they would be prosecuted anyway, then the pardon be used by the defendants as an absolute defense.
Since there’s no precedent, the result could go either way (although JanieM’s link is encouraging). It would be fun to see Trump, once again, slapped down by the courts. Still, I hope we’re able to skip it.
I hope it doesn’t happen because I hope that Trump doesn’t try it.
Well, since he’s currently stiffing Rudy on his legal fees (and on his expenses), perhaps his usual lack of loyalty will continue here as well. Especially in the cases of those insurectionists that he was complaining about at the time “because they looked low class.”
I hope it doesn’t happen because I hope that Trump doesn’t try it.
Well, since he’s currently stiffing Rudy on his legal fees (and on his expenses), perhaps his usual lack of loyalty will continue here as well. Especially in the cases of those insurectionists that he was complaining about at the time “because they looked low class.”
Pardons: With McConnell’s delaying tactic, Trump will be president until the Inauguration. The pardon power remains his until that time…one of those cookie crumbles things.
Campos argues for holding off on an immediate Senate trial.
Pardons: With McConnell’s delaying tactic, Trump will be president until the Inauguration. The pardon power remains his until that time…one of those cookie crumbles things.
Campos argues for holding off on an immediate Senate trial.
From bobbyp’s LGM link:
I have a very bad headache today, so maybe it’s impairing my reading ability. But his makes no sense to me, especially the first sentence. Is there a “not” (or the equivalent) missing somewhere?
Why would the dodge that you can’t try a former president not work as well three months after Jan 20 as well as it would work three days after Jan 20?
Can someone explain the logic?
From bobbyp’s LGM link:
I have a very bad headache today, so maybe it’s impairing my reading ability. But his makes no sense to me, especially the first sentence. Is there a “not” (or the equivalent) missing somewhere?
Why would the dodge that you can’t try a former president not work as well three months after Jan 20 as well as it would work three days after Jan 20?
Can someone explain the logic?
Can someone explain the logic?
co-signed: cleek.
Can someone explain the logic?
co-signed: cleek.
Put me in the missing-“not” camp.
Put me in the missing-“not” camp.
I guess the first sentence would make some kind of sense if it sayd “allow enough R senators TO REFUSE to even consider…”
But that doesn’t explain how/why the same argument wouldn’t hold a few months down the line.
Unless Campos thinks that so much evidence will come out that they’ll change their tune.
Even so, it isn’t one of his more coherent offerings.
I guess the first sentence would make some kind of sense if it sayd “allow enough R senators TO REFUSE to even consider…”
But that doesn’t explain how/why the same argument wouldn’t hold a few months down the line.
Unless Campos thinks that so much evidence will come out that they’ll change their tune.
Even so, it isn’t one of his more coherent offerings.
Yeah, I think it’s that we already know it’s not happening until tRump is out of office, so the question is whether to do it immediately thereafter or wait a bit. It took a couple readings for me to get there, but I think the politics of the procedural dodge would get worse as more dirt on tRump came out, so let more of it come out.
Yeah, I think it’s that we already know it’s not happening until tRump is out of office, so the question is whether to do it immediately thereafter or wait a bit. It took a couple readings for me to get there, but I think the politics of the procedural dodge would get worse as more dirt on tRump came out, so let more of it come out.
What hsh said.
At the rate further information is coming out, the Republicans might decide they’d rather go sooner than later. Just so they can later say, “Gosh, if we’d only known all this new stuff, we’d have voted differently.”
What hsh said.
At the rate further information is coming out, the Republicans might decide they’d rather go sooner than later. Just so they can later say, “Gosh, if we’d only known all this new stuff, we’d have voted differently.”
Late to the party, but I immediately assumed a missing “not”. And separately, what hsh said @03.20
Late to the party, but I immediately assumed a missing “not”. And separately, what hsh said @03.20
Some work is being done in the courts. (Just pointing to Zoe Tillman’s Twitter feed because she’s awesome, but start with this thread: https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1350217499166597120.)
Some work is being done in the courts. (Just pointing to Zoe Tillman’s Twitter feed because she’s awesome, but start with this thread: https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1350217499166597120.)
Hmmm. Thread link doesn’t work for whatever reason, but Zoe Tillman is worth following if you’re on Twitter. She liveblogs court proceedings in a very thorough way.
wj — Just fixed it. (You had the period and close paren as part of the link.)
Hmmm. Thread link doesn’t work for whatever reason, but Zoe Tillman is worth following if you’re on Twitter. She liveblogs court proceedings in a very thorough way.
wj — Just fixed it. (You had the period and close paren as part of the link.)
Thanks, wj!
Thanks, wj!
Think of a never ending Benghazi hearing…that actually produces something of import.
I waded into the comments to see how they thought on this matter (or maybe Campos copping to an oversight), but the conversation was dominated by feces fulminations regarding Jared and Ivanka’s potty obsession.
Think of a never ending Benghazi hearing…that actually produces something of import.
I waded into the comments to see how they thought on this matter (or maybe Campos copping to an oversight), but the conversation was dominated by feces fulminations regarding Jared and Ivanka’s potty obsession.
the conversation was dominated by feces fulminations regarding Jared and Ivanka’s potty obsession.
Which, in normal times, might be noteworthy.
the conversation was dominated by feces fulminations regarding Jared and Ivanka’s potty obsession.
Which, in normal times, might be noteworthy.
and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.
and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.
and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.
Once upon a time, whenever the country was shaken, all the loose nuts fell into California. Now, it seems to be Texas… 🙁
and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.
Once upon a time, whenever the country was shaken, all the loose nuts fell into California. Now, it seems to be Texas… 🙁
and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.
And lately their finances are in bad shape, too….
and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.
And lately their finances are in bad shape, too….
It’s not relevant to impeachment, but there’s a traditional perk for ex-Presidents that Trump definitely should not get.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sue-gordon-trump-intelligence-briefings-former-president/2021/01/15/94b15c72-5747-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html
One of the great blessings of his tenure has been his complete disinterest in his intelligence briefings. Lots of potentially damaging information is not at risk simply because he never bothered to be informed.
It’s not relevant to impeachment, but there’s a traditional perk for ex-Presidents that Trump definitely should not get.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sue-gordon-trump-intelligence-briefings-former-president/2021/01/15/94b15c72-5747-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html
One of the great blessings of his tenure has been his complete disinterest in his intelligence briefings. Lots of potentially damaging information is not at risk simply because he never bothered to be informed.
He might not be interested in it, but he’ll know (and be willing to take advantage of) its market value…
He might not be interested in it, but he’ll know (and be willing to take advantage of) its market value…
It’s a pretty fair bet that whatever the timetable the Republicans will do whatever they think politically most advantageous, without regard to truth or justice or the best interests of their country.
So the Ds should just do what they think right. Perhaps the most important thing is to try to stop traitors (of course I mean Trump) having access to state secrets.
It’s a pretty fair bet that whatever the timetable the Republicans will do whatever they think politically most advantageous, without regard to truth or justice or the best interests of their country.
So the Ds should just do what they think right. Perhaps the most important thing is to try to stop traitors (of course I mean Trump) having access to state secrets.
If only there were a like button there would be so much less verbosity. Like!, Pro Bono.
If only there were a like button there would be so much less verbosity. Like!, Pro Bono.
Just heard on the news: “Operation Warp Speed appears to be moving in slow motion.”
But she works for the local NBC channel, so…MSM.
Still, it’s a great line.
Just heard on the news: “Operation Warp Speed appears to be moving in slow motion.”
But she works for the local NBC channel, so…MSM.
Still, it’s a great line.
I hate, hate, hate the “don’t make him a martyr” business.
First, from the POV of their opponents, the nice thing about martyrs is that they are dead.
More seriously, does anyone really imagine that Trump cultists will be more reasonable if he is not convicted than if he is? That strikes me as delusional.
I hate, hate, hate the “don’t make him a martyr” business.
First, from the POV of their opponents, the nice thing about martyrs is that they are dead.
More seriously, does anyone really imagine that Trump cultists will be more reasonable if he is not convicted than if he is? That strikes me as delusional.
does anyone really imagine that Trump cultists will be more reasonable if he is not convicted than if he is? That strikes me as delusional.
Consider only that he spent 4 years being a victim in the 2016 election that he won! Seems like a total red herring.
Actually, the “don’t make him a martyr” line seems like something his staff would push, in an effort to dodge accountability. And a Senate trial that they think (correctly or not) he might lose.
does anyone really imagine that Trump cultists will be more reasonable if he is not convicted than if he is? That strikes me as delusional.
Consider only that he spent 4 years being a victim in the 2016 election that he won! Seems like a total red herring.
Actually, the “don’t make him a martyr” line seems like something his staff would push, in an effort to dodge accountability. And a Senate trial that they think (correctly or not) he might lose.
Lincoln, Cooper Union speech, February 27, 1860:
Substitute Democratic for Republican, and here we are again.
SSDD, 160 years later.
There’s a reason these people run around with Lee’s battle flag.
Lincoln, Cooper Union speech, February 27, 1860:
Substitute Democratic for Republican, and here we are again.
SSDD, 160 years later.
There’s a reason these people run around with Lee’s battle flag.
sorry, I should really have included a link to the Cooper Union speech.
It’s not a short read, but it’s Lincoln.
sorry, I should really have included a link to the Cooper Union speech.
It’s not a short read, but it’s Lincoln.
Lincoln opposed breaking up the United States, because “we want different things”. Thanks, russell.
Lincoln opposed breaking up the United States, because “we want different things”. Thanks, russell.
“That is cool.”
I hadn’t realized anything was cool before 1960, much less, 1860…
“That is cool.”
I hadn’t realized anything was cool before 1960, much less, 1860…
I hadn’t realized anything was cool before 1960
Ah, youth!
“Cool”, meaning very good, has been used since the 1930s — although its use exploded in the 1950s and 1960s. (I personally remember it being used in the late 1950s. Definitely pre-1960.)
However, there is no obvious reason that it cannot be applied to something that dates to far earlier — as long as it is highly regarded since it acquired that meaning.
I hadn’t realized anything was cool before 1960
Ah, youth!
“Cool”, meaning very good, has been used since the 1930s — although its use exploded in the 1950s and 1960s. (I personally remember it being used in the late 1950s. Definitely pre-1960.)
However, there is no obvious reason that it cannot be applied to something that dates to far earlier — as long as it is highly regarded since it acquired that meaning.
Cool (OED) 2 d. Of a person, an action, or a person’s behaviour: assured and unabashed where diffidence and hesitation would be expected; composedly and deliberately audacious or impudent in making a proposal, demand, or assumption.
In common use during the period.
Cool (OED) 2 d. Of a person, an action, or a person’s behaviour: assured and unabashed where diffidence and hesitation would be expected; composedly and deliberately audacious or impudent in making a proposal, demand, or assumption.
In common use during the period.
“Cool” in the sense Lincoln used it is old (as in “a cool customer”, i.e. having a nerve). I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if there is a similar usage in Shakespeare, although I’m not going to search.
“Cool” in the sense Lincoln used it is old (as in “a cool customer”, i.e. having a nerve). I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if there is a similar usage in Shakespeare, although I’m not going to search.
Oops. Or what nous said.
Oops. Or what nous said.
and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.
This is a good case to look at exactly what the NRA has done. They have filed for Chapter 11 protection in federal bankruptcy court, asserting that they are not a going concern because of threats by the State of New York to (a) dissolve them and (b) seize their assets. The reorganization plan they have asked the court to approve is to let them reincorporate in Texas and transfer their assets to Texas where the State of New York can’t touch them.
IANAL, and in particular not a bankruptcy lawyer, so have no idea whether there’s any precedents for allowing a non-profit to do this.
and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.
This is a good case to look at exactly what the NRA has done. They have filed for Chapter 11 protection in federal bankruptcy court, asserting that they are not a going concern because of threats by the State of New York to (a) dissolve them and (b) seize their assets. The reorganization plan they have asked the court to approve is to let them reincorporate in Texas and transfer their assets to Texas where the State of New York can’t touch them.
IANAL, and in particular not a bankruptcy lawyer, so have no idea whether there’s any precedents for allowing a non-profit to do this.
Seems The Bard has ‘cool’ as a verb merely as here in the Scottish Play:
“The time has been my senses would have cooled / To hear a night-shriek”
https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/GlossaryHeadword.aspx?headwordId=3297
Otherwise there’s but the ‘cooling card’:
https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/GlossaryHeadword.aspx?headwordId=2972
As far as it concerneth our modern use, he doth prefer these terms:
https://www.shakespeareswords.com/public/thesaurus.aspx?phrase=cool
Seems The Bard has ‘cool’ as a verb merely as here in the Scottish Play:
“The time has been my senses would have cooled / To hear a night-shriek”
https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/GlossaryHeadword.aspx?headwordId=3297
Otherwise there’s but the ‘cooling card’:
https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/GlossaryHeadword.aspx?headwordId=2972
As far as it concerneth our modern use, he doth prefer these terms:
https://www.shakespeareswords.com/public/thesaurus.aspx?phrase=cool
The real question is: does anyone under, say, 25 still use “cool”?
I have subconsciously been trying to avoid the word for fear of outing myself as a child of he 80s.
The real question is: does anyone under, say, 25 still use “cool”?
I have subconsciously been trying to avoid the word for fear of outing myself as a child of he 80s.
I grabbed up my suitcase, and took off down the road / When I got there she was layin’ on a coolin’ board.
Son House
I grabbed up my suitcase, and took off down the road / When I got there she was layin’ on a coolin’ board.
Son House
Hartmut, I used the George Washington Shakespeare Concordance to look at every use of the word, and he didn’t use it in the sense we are discussing (although I have a stubborn half-memory of its being used around that time or maybe a bit later, so I guess by someone else). I imagine nous’s OED citation gives an earliest usage for this meaning, but I don’t have access.
Hartmut, I used the George Washington Shakespeare Concordance to look at every use of the word, and he didn’t use it in the sense we are discussing (although I have a stubborn half-memory of its being used around that time or maybe a bit later, so I guess by someone else). I imagine nous’s OED citation gives an earliest usage for this meaning, but I don’t have access.
The real question is: does anyone under, say, 25 still use “cool”?
All the millenials I work with use it, but you have to say it 2 or 3 times. Include the ‘l’ in written form, but when speaking, sort of leave the ‘l’ off, so you end up with something like ‘coo coo’.
I have subconsciously been trying to avoid the word for fear of outing myself as a child of he 80s.
Depending the circles you travel in, cool can mean almost anything. It’s one of those words, like ‘ok’, that function sort of like an ‘insert word here’ placeholder, and their specific meaning is inferred from context.
It transcends temporal context. Use it without fear.
The real question is: does anyone under, say, 25 still use “cool”?
All the millenials I work with use it, but you have to say it 2 or 3 times. Include the ‘l’ in written form, but when speaking, sort of leave the ‘l’ off, so you end up with something like ‘coo coo’.
I have subconsciously been trying to avoid the word for fear of outing myself as a child of he 80s.
Depending the circles you travel in, cool can mean almost anything. It’s one of those words, like ‘ok’, that function sort of like an ‘insert word here’ placeholder, and their specific meaning is inferred from context.
It transcends temporal context. Use it without fear.
Well, as long as you’re not using ‘kewl’, it’s cool.
Well, as long as you’re not using ‘kewl’, it’s cool.
I have subconsciously been trying to avoid the word for fear of outing myself as a child of he 80s.
Interesting, given that the word was in common use in my teen years in the 60s. 😉
Also, the older meaning survives in the phrase “cool as a cucumber,” of which a lesser authority than the OED says:
I wouldn’t be surprised if they got that factoid from the OED, but they don’t give any attribution.
I have subconsciously been trying to avoid the word for fear of outing myself as a child of he 80s.
Interesting, given that the word was in common use in my teen years in the 60s. 😉
Also, the older meaning survives in the phrase “cool as a cucumber,” of which a lesser authority than the OED says:
I wouldn’t be surprised if they got that factoid from the OED, but they don’t give any attribution.
“From Old English to the ages of Chaucer and Shakespeare all the way to the present, cool has been able to mean “dispassionate, calm, self-composed.” Some of our latter-day cool expressions — “stay cool,” “play it cool,” “cool as a cucumber,” “cool customer” — play off this ancient connotation of implacability.”
On Language: Cool
“From Old English to the ages of Chaucer and Shakespeare all the way to the present, cool has been able to mean “dispassionate, calm, self-composed.” Some of our latter-day cool expressions — “stay cool,” “play it cool,” “cool as a cucumber,” “cool customer” — play off this ancient connotation of implacability.”
On Language: Cool
Now you guys need to figure out “jawn.”
Now you guys need to figure out “jawn.”
“jawn”??? Never encounteted that one before. Possibly because I’m 3000 miles from where it’s current.
ObWi — a constant source of education, on an amazing variety of topics.
“jawn”??? Never encounteted that one before. Possibly because I’m 3000 miles from where it’s current.
ObWi — a constant source of education, on an amazing variety of topics.
Meanwhile, in California, our Governor seems determined to demonstrate that
1) A Democrat can make a mess of the vaccine rollout just as well as the Trump administration, and
2) The folks pushing for his recall definitely have a point.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/01/15/covid-19-chaos-and-logjams-in-california-as-vaccine-supply-promises-fall-through/
Meanwhile, in California, our Governor seems determined to demonstrate that
1) A Democrat can make a mess of the vaccine rollout just as well as the Trump administration, and
2) The folks pushing for his recall definitely have a point.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/01/15/covid-19-chaos-and-logjams-in-california-as-vaccine-supply-promises-fall-through/
Just listened to a couple of youtube Cooper Union Speech readings. Unbelievably perfect for this moment. Thanks again.
Just listened to a couple of youtube Cooper Union Speech readings. Unbelievably perfect for this moment. Thanks again.
On first glance, “jawn” looks like what the Irish call a “yoke”.
On first glance, “jawn” looks like what the Irish call a “yoke”.
On first glance, “jawn” looks like what the Irish call a “yoke”.
But only in Philly.
On first glance, “jawn” looks like what the Irish call a “yoke”.
But only in Philly.
A Democrat can make a mess of the vaccine rollout just as well as the Trump administration, …
Being hotly contested by Andrew Cuomo.
A Democrat can make a mess of the vaccine rollout just as well as the Trump administration, …
Being hotly contested by Andrew Cuomo.
FWIW, and if anybody is still interested, “Cool as a cucumber” seems to me to convey imperturbability. Cool in the Lincoln usage conveys a lot of calculated nerve, almost chutzpah (although without chutzpah’s normal verve), which seems to me different.
FWIW, and if anybody is still interested, “Cool as a cucumber” seems to me to convey imperturbability. Cool in the Lincoln usage conveys a lot of calculated nerve, almost chutzpah (although without chutzpah’s normal verve), which seems to me different.
FWIW, and if anybody is still interested, “Cool as a cucumber” seems to me to convey imperturbability. Cool in the Lincoln usage conveys a lot of calculated nerve, almost chutzpah (although without chutzpah’s normal verve), which seems to me different.
Yes, which is why OED definition 2d above rather than 2a – “Of a person or a personal attribute, quality, etc.: not affected by passion or emotion, dispassionate; controlled, deliberate, not hasty; calm, composed.
Cool as a cucumber”
2a. is the older and more continuous usage, dating back at least as far as Chaucer. 2d. and the sense of audaciousness begins in the 1730s.
The one abiding perq of my institutional access to information may be that I get unrestrictced access to the OED. Which is also, not coincidentally, the reason why I get less institutional work done whenever I have to consult a dictionary.
FWIW, and if anybody is still interested, “Cool as a cucumber” seems to me to convey imperturbability. Cool in the Lincoln usage conveys a lot of calculated nerve, almost chutzpah (although without chutzpah’s normal verve), which seems to me different.
Yes, which is why OED definition 2d above rather than 2a – “Of a person or a personal attribute, quality, etc.: not affected by passion or emotion, dispassionate; controlled, deliberate, not hasty; calm, composed.
Cool as a cucumber”
2a. is the older and more continuous usage, dating back at least as far as Chaucer. 2d. and the sense of audaciousness begins in the 1730s.
The one abiding perq of my institutional access to information may be that I get unrestrictced access to the OED. Which is also, not coincidentally, the reason why I get less institutional work done whenever I have to consult a dictionary.
Ah, I tried the Chaucer concordance. But the sense of audaciousness beginning in the 1730s makes sense, although I was out by well over a 100 years. I envy you your OED access, nous!
Ah, I tried the Chaucer concordance. But the sense of audaciousness beginning in the 1730s makes sense, although I was out by well over a 100 years. I envy you your OED access, nous!
I think Newsom is a bit of a douche-y blockhead sometimes, but I don’t blame him for CA vaccine woes. It’s hard to set up and maintain a system this large, especially when the management of the supply is being botched and lied about so thoroughly at the federal level. Newsom’s mistakes and personal hypocrisies seem to warrant something less than a recall vote in my mind. Can’t we just make him get back together with Guilfoyle as punishment for both of them?
I’m theoretically somewhere late in the first tier for the CA plan, but I expect I’ll be getting my vaccine later than many in smaller states just because of the scale we have deal with in Southern California. Size creates its own challenges.
I think Newsom is a bit of a douche-y blockhead sometimes, but I don’t blame him for CA vaccine woes. It’s hard to set up and maintain a system this large, especially when the management of the supply is being botched and lied about so thoroughly at the federal level. Newsom’s mistakes and personal hypocrisies seem to warrant something less than a recall vote in my mind. Can’t we just make him get back together with Guilfoyle as punishment for both of them?
I’m theoretically somewhere late in the first tier for the CA plan, but I expect I’ll be getting my vaccine later than many in smaller states just because of the scale we have deal with in Southern California. Size creates its own challenges.
“West Virginia has distributed nearly 90% of its supply of the first vaccine shot and is expected to be done inoculating nursing care residents with two doses by the end of January. Firefighters, police, and EMTs in the state — one of the poorest in the country — are also getting close to fully vaccinated.
Many other states are struggling to get their vaccination efforts off the ground. In all, less than a third of all doses that have been distributed across the country (and to U.S. territories), or 10.3 million out of nearly 30 million, have been given to people.”
These states have done best — and worst — at vaccinating their residents against COVID-19
“West Virginia has distributed nearly 90% of its supply of the first vaccine shot and is expected to be done inoculating nursing care residents with two doses by the end of January. Firefighters, police, and EMTs in the state — one of the poorest in the country — are also getting close to fully vaccinated.
Many other states are struggling to get their vaccination efforts off the ground. In all, less than a third of all doses that have been distributed across the country (and to U.S. territories), or 10.3 million out of nearly 30 million, have been given to people.”
These states have done best — and worst — at vaccinating their residents against COVID-19
Another form of cool, successfully bluffing in poker with a worthless hand. As in Cool Hand Luke.
Another form of cool, successfully bluffing in poker with a worthless hand. As in Cool Hand Luke.
“West Virginia has distributed nearly 90% of its supply”
ok. how does ‘supply’ vary from state to state?
because if i’m looking for a model of public health, i’m not sure WV is near the top of the list
“West Virginia has distributed nearly 90% of its supply”
ok. how does ‘supply’ vary from state to state?
because if i’m looking for a model of public health, i’m not sure WV is near the top of the list
here’s a great new phrase: Hegemonic Masculinity !
does it correlate to Trump voters?
of course it does!
here’s a great new phrase: Hegemonic Masculinity !
does it correlate to Trump voters?
of course it does!
I think any state’s rating on how well they’ve rolled out the vaccines should take into account the Trump Admin’s monumental corruption and incompetence.
That reserve that no longer exists? Unless it’s a bookkeeping error (which is possible: cf incompetence), my money would be on the corruption angle.
That is, the “reserve” dosages were diverted/sold to Trump and GOP cronies (cf the galactic-level of corruption that went into purchase and distribution of PPEs way back when).
I’m not rushing to judge Newsom, in other words.
I think any state’s rating on how well they’ve rolled out the vaccines should take into account the Trump Admin’s monumental corruption and incompetence.
That reserve that no longer exists? Unless it’s a bookkeeping error (which is possible: cf incompetence), my money would be on the corruption angle.
That is, the “reserve” dosages were diverted/sold to Trump and GOP cronies (cf the galactic-level of corruption that went into purchase and distribution of PPEs way back when).
I’m not rushing to judge Newsom, in other words.
I think Newsom is a bit of a douche-y blockhead sometimes, but I don’t blame him for CA vaccine woes.
Certainly Newsom isn’t solely responsible for California’s vaccine woes. The Federal government contributed — not least in announcing it was “releasing a reserve supply” which did not, in fact, exist. As did the fact that California had built (long before Newsom) a very lean hospital system — that is, one with minimal spare capacity to handle emergencies.
Still, I think it’s fair to say that he has made things unnecessarily worse. Even just realizing that the Trump administration reflexively lies, and therefore not announcing a revision the rollout plans until you see the reality, would have been a minimally intelligent thing to do.
I think I’m supposed to be in the tier that is getting rolled out either now or very shortly. But I figure to hold off for a while. Let the limited supply go to those whose need is greater. I may be old enough to get priority, but I’m a) healthy, and b) have a job that doesn’t need me to go out and interact with others.
I think Newsom is a bit of a douche-y blockhead sometimes, but I don’t blame him for CA vaccine woes.
Certainly Newsom isn’t solely responsible for California’s vaccine woes. The Federal government contributed — not least in announcing it was “releasing a reserve supply” which did not, in fact, exist. As did the fact that California had built (long before Newsom) a very lean hospital system — that is, one with minimal spare capacity to handle emergencies.
Still, I think it’s fair to say that he has made things unnecessarily worse. Even just realizing that the Trump administration reflexively lies, and therefore not announcing a revision the rollout plans until you see the reality, would have been a minimally intelligent thing to do.
I think I’m supposed to be in the tier that is getting rolled out either now or very shortly. But I figure to hold off for a while. Let the limited supply go to those whose need is greater. I may be old enough to get priority, but I’m a) healthy, and b) have a job that doesn’t need me to go out and interact with others.
ok. how does ‘supply’ vary from state to state?
Distribution from the manufacturers is controlled by the federal government and is allocated to states in proportion to the number of adults living there.
ok. how does ‘supply’ vary from state to state?
Distribution from the manufacturers is controlled by the federal government and is allocated to states in proportion to the number of adults living there.
because if i’m looking for a model of public health, i’m not sure WV is near the top of the list
There doesn’t seem to be any kind of correlation between the vaccination percentages in the article I linked and the health ratings in the article you linked.
because if i’m looking for a model of public health, i’m not sure WV is near the top of the list
There doesn’t seem to be any kind of correlation between the vaccination percentages in the article I linked and the health ratings in the article you linked.
WV is ahead on vaccine distribution in part because it has relied on local pharmacies rather than chains.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/07/954409347/why-west-virginias-winning-the-race-to-get-covid-19-vaccine-into-arms
Many long-term care sites in the state already use local pharmacies for other vaccines and medicines as well as twice-weekly coronavirus testing of residents and staff. The state decided to piggyback off those existing relationships. Because those pharmacies already had data on many patients, it was easier to begin scheduling appointments in early December, securing consent forms and matching doses to eligible patients — logistics that are confounding efforts in many other states.
WV is ahead on vaccine distribution in part because it has relied on local pharmacies rather than chains.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/07/954409347/why-west-virginias-winning-the-race-to-get-covid-19-vaccine-into-arms
Many long-term care sites in the state already use local pharmacies for other vaccines and medicines as well as twice-weekly coronavirus testing of residents and staff. The state decided to piggyback off those existing relationships. Because those pharmacies already had data on many patients, it was easier to begin scheduling appointments in early December, securing consent forms and matching doses to eligible patients — logistics that are confounding efforts in many other states.
I think I’m supposed to be in the tier that is getting rolled out either now or very shortly.
Perhaps for the first time in over a half-century that I’m being told that I’m too young…
I think I’m supposed to be in the tier that is getting rolled out either now or very shortly.
Perhaps for the first time in over a half-century that I’m being told that I’m too young…
Never let it be said that gummint has never paid you a compliment.
Never let it be said that gummint has never paid you a compliment.
How are those “local pharmacies” handling the rather extreme refrigeration requirements?
How are those “local pharmacies” handling the rather extreme refrigeration requirements?
On first glance, “jawn” looks like what the Irish call a “yoke”.
Sort of, except a jawn is usually something cool. ;^)
But only in Philly.
That’s my jawn, yo! (variant usage of “yo”)
On first glance, “jawn” looks like what the Irish call a “yoke”.
Sort of, except a jawn is usually something cool. ;^)
But only in Philly.
That’s my jawn, yo! (variant usage of “yo”)
on the topic of Philly:
I’ve been trying to explain the appeal of Gritty, who has become more or less my spirit animal, to my wife.
She’s not getting it.
on the topic of Philly:
I’ve been trying to explain the appeal of Gritty, who has become more or less my spirit animal, to my wife.
She’s not getting it.
A lot of Marxists in Philly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZymSrDfLhW8
Long, but good story.
A lot of Marxists in Philly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZymSrDfLhW8
Long, but good story.
Staggering stat: The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates every day the vaccine can be accelerated is worth ~$10 billion to society.
https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1350426959172562944
—
There doesn’t seem to be any kind of correlation between the vaccination percentages in the article I linked and the health ratings in the article you linked.
that’s why i asked the question. WV is not a model of good public health service. so something else must be going on.
Staggering stat: The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates every day the vaccine can be accelerated is worth ~$10 billion to society.
https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1350426959172562944
—
There doesn’t seem to be any kind of correlation between the vaccination percentages in the article I linked and the health ratings in the article you linked.
that’s why i asked the question. WV is not a model of good public health service. so something else must be going on.
donald trump sez goodbye and so does deplorable we:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su3qmvCkvtE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9dK1JQBmwE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfNO1FFtoUI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yUjmqR7Usc
‘cept instead of one last blast from the laugh track machine, real lonesome American gonna set bombs off.
donald trump sez goodbye and so does deplorable we:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su3qmvCkvtE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9dK1JQBmwE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfNO1FFtoUI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yUjmqR7Usc
‘cept instead of one last blast from the laugh track machine, real lonesome American gonna set bombs off.
WV is not a model of good public health service. so something else must be going on.
Purely speculation, but WV has a relatively high percentage of people in some of the first wave categories: elderly, diabetic, compromised respiratory system, etc. It may be easier to find qualified arms to inject.
One of the providers here has been running, at least as I understand it, a small lottery on the side. People who would be in the second wave who can get to a vaccination site on short notice sign up. If the provider hits a point where there’s a half-dozen doses left near the end of the day that will expire overnight, and no first wave arms available, they call the lottery people.
WV is not a model of good public health service. so something else must be going on.
Purely speculation, but WV has a relatively high percentage of people in some of the first wave categories: elderly, diabetic, compromised respiratory system, etc. It may be easier to find qualified arms to inject.
One of the providers here has been running, at least as I understand it, a small lottery on the side. People who would be in the second wave who can get to a vaccination site on short notice sign up. If the provider hits a point where there’s a half-dozen doses left near the end of the day that will expire overnight, and no first wave arms available, they call the lottery people.
Rudy is saying that Trump’s impeachment trial defense will be . . . that there was election fraud.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-working-trumps-impeachment-defense-argue-voter-fraud/story?id=75302032
Even though the courts have repeatedly ruled otherwise.
This
https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1350815512926842881
Rudy is saying that Trump’s impeachment trial defense will be . . . that there was election fraud.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-working-trumps-impeachment-defense-argue-voter-fraud/story?id=75302032
Even though the courts have repeatedly ruled otherwise.
This
https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1350815512926842881
I’d thought we were through with the “cool” discussion, but lo and behold:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday expressed outrage over the deadly Capitol riot, pointing a finger at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for not doing more to secure the building instead of at President Donald Trump, whose rhetoric inspired the violence.
If this isn’t some cool fucking nerve, I don’t know what is.
I’d thought we were through with the “cool” discussion, but lo and behold:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday expressed outrage over the deadly Capitol riot, pointing a finger at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for not doing more to secure the building instead of at President Donald Trump, whose rhetoric inspired the violence.
If this isn’t some cool fucking nerve, I don’t know what is.
Graham is a toady’s toady. we might not be impressed by his game, but other sycophants look to him in awe.
i assume.
Graham is a toady’s toady. we might not be impressed by his game, but other sycophants look to him in awe.
i assume.
sun’s going down here on the East coast, looks like we may get through the day without anybody else getting shot or killed.
yay us!
on to Wednesday.
sun’s going down here on the East coast, looks like we may get through the day without anybody else getting shot or killed.
yay us!
on to Wednesday.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1/17/2009906/-Trump-s-allies-have-been-marketing-themselves-to-wealthy-felons-seeking-last-minute-pardons
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1/17/2009906/-Trump-s-allies-have-been-marketing-themselves-to-wealthy-felons-seeking-last-minute-pardons
Trump wants $2 billion for his Presidential Library.
Also, from this in the WaPo:
Ya think?
The ultimate grift.
Trump wants $2 billion for his Presidential Library.
Also, from this in the WaPo:
Ya think?
The ultimate grift.
Re the Presidential Library… My guess is that Trump will withhold on the order of a million pages of presidential records for this library and the National Archives won’t be allowed anywhere close to it. Which leads to the question, how much of the Presidential Records Act will this SCOTUS overturn when the lawsuit gets to that point?
Re the Presidential Library… My guess is that Trump will withhold on the order of a million pages of presidential records for this library and the National Archives won’t be allowed anywhere close to it. Which leads to the question, how much of the Presidential Records Act will this SCOTUS overturn when the lawsuit gets to that point?
I can’t vouch for this report on MyPillow promo codes but it does raise an issue that’s been on my mind for years.
Would YOU buy so much as a pillow from Mike Lindell?
Or would you stick to the separation of “real life” from “politics”?
–TP
I can’t vouch for this report on MyPillow promo codes but it does raise an issue that’s been on my mind for years.
Would YOU buy so much as a pillow from Mike Lindell?
Or would you stick to the separation of “real life” from “politics”?
–TP
Trump wants $2 billion for his Presidential Library.
Makes an interesting image. A grandiose (and utterly tasteless, not even counting the enormous, gold-plated TRUMP splashed across the front) building. Holding nothing, except a couple dozen 1 page intelligence briefs — all just 3 bullet points and a couple pictures. But otherwise? A vast, echoing, emptiness.
Trump wants $2 billion for his Presidential Library.
Makes an interesting image. A grandiose (and utterly tasteless, not even counting the enormous, gold-plated TRUMP splashed across the front) building. Holding nothing, except a couple dozen 1 page intelligence briefs — all just 3 bullet points and a couple pictures. But otherwise? A vast, echoing, emptiness.
Or would you stick to the separation of “real life” from “politics”?
Well, no, I wouldn’t buy a pillow from him, but not because of politics. 30-odd years ago I was waking up in the mornings with my neck killing me. I tried more kinds of pillows than I even knew existed. Finally I got a Japanese-style buckwheat-husk pillow. It weighed a ton. It felt absolutely unyielding. The first night I tried it I wiggled my head around so it conformed to my shape, and got as far as thinking, “Yeah, this is so hard that…” before I fell asleep. I’m still sleeping on a buckwheat-husk pillow. My neck never bothers me when I wake up.
Or would you stick to the separation of “real life” from “politics”?
Well, no, I wouldn’t buy a pillow from him, but not because of politics. 30-odd years ago I was waking up in the mornings with my neck killing me. I tried more kinds of pillows than I even knew existed. Finally I got a Japanese-style buckwheat-husk pillow. It weighed a ton. It felt absolutely unyielding. The first night I tried it I wiggled my head around so it conformed to my shape, and got as far as thinking, “Yeah, this is so hard that…” before I fell asleep. I’m still sleeping on a buckwheat-husk pillow. My neck never bothers me when I wake up.
I see that “despite fears of a repeat of the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, protests in America yesterday were more muted than expected. Just a smattering of armed demonstrators showed up in state capitals.”
So now we know how to keep protests small: flood the crazies’ preferred social media with warnings that the proposed rallies/riots are a trap. That infiltrators will start trouble in order to discredit them.
It would be better, of course, to reconnect these folks to the real world. But until and unless an effective way is found to do that, using their extreme paranoia, and their belief in conspiracies everywhere, against them seems like a viable workaround.
I see that “despite fears of a repeat of the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, protests in America yesterday were more muted than expected. Just a smattering of armed demonstrators showed up in state capitals.”
So now we know how to keep protests small: flood the crazies’ preferred social media with warnings that the proposed rallies/riots are a trap. That infiltrators will start trouble in order to discredit them.
It would be better, of course, to reconnect these folks to the real world. But until and unless an effective way is found to do that, using their extreme paranoia, and their belief in conspiracies everywhere, against them seems like a viable workaround.
That infiltrators will start trouble in order to discredit them.
The perfidy of the Deep State knows no bounds. Only through the ceaseless struggle of the freedom loving masses can we lift this veil of secrecy.
That infiltrators will start trouble in order to discredit them.
The perfidy of the Deep State knows no bounds. Only through the ceaseless struggle of the freedom loving masses can we lift this veil of secrecy.
Although if the required report doesn’t show what readers already believe (without credible evidence), that will just prove how powerful the Deep State is.
Although if the required report doesn’t show what readers already believe (without credible evidence), that will just prove how powerful the Deep State is.
that will just prove how powerful the Deep State is.
Indeed. Therefore, giving it even more power does not appear warranted.
that will just prove how powerful the Deep State is.
Indeed. Therefore, giving it even more power does not appear warranted.
It’s awfully late to be posting on this, and I haven’t saved the references, but still – It seems the the decision to extend distribution of secret stuff to ex-presidents is not in any statute, but is purely a courtesy matter decided by the actual President. Mr Biden has a long list of first-day actions, but this should be given precedence. Or maybe closing access would be the default in case of inaction.
It’s awfully late to be posting on this, and I haven’t saved the references, but still – It seems the the decision to extend distribution of secret stuff to ex-presidents is not in any statute, but is purely a courtesy matter decided by the actual President. Mr Biden has a long list of first-day actions, but this should be given precedence. Or maybe closing access would be the default in case of inaction.
It seems the the decision to extend distribution of secret stuff to ex-presidents is not in any statute, but is purely a courtesy matter decided by the actual President.
My understanding is that the same courtesy is extended to many of the top people in the former administration. The usual reason given is that, eg, the new Secretary of Energy may want to bounce ideas about a classified topic off someone who knows the background but before the new Secretary’s team is really on board. Letting the previous Secretary retain their clearance for a few months makes it legal for the new Secretary to share classified information for that purpose.
I suspect there won’t be many occasions where Biden’s people want to talk to Trump’s people about anything.
It seems the the decision to extend distribution of secret stuff to ex-presidents is not in any statute, but is purely a courtesy matter decided by the actual President.
My understanding is that the same courtesy is extended to many of the top people in the former administration. The usual reason given is that, eg, the new Secretary of Energy may want to bounce ideas about a classified topic off someone who knows the background but before the new Secretary’s team is really on board. Letting the previous Secretary retain their clearance for a few months makes it legal for the new Secretary to share classified information for that purpose.
I suspect there won’t be many occasions where Biden’s people want to talk to Trump’s people about anything.
I suspect there won’t be many occasions where Biden’s people want to talk to Trump’s people about anything.
There’s no perceptible benefit to “bouncing ideas off” of someone who was, after all, merely an incompetent toady for an incompetent President.
I suspect there won’t be many occasions where Biden’s people want to talk to Trump’s people about anything.
There’s no perceptible benefit to “bouncing ideas off” of someone who was, after all, merely an incompetent toady for an incompetent President.
I have a suggestion for the War on Error. Sure, let the FBI and whatever other alphabet agencies continue to monitor traffic and gather intel to keep people safe. But whenever you discover a cluster of people involved in paranoia and disinformation, don’t send in the troops or federal law enforcement, send in the librarians armed with media literacy and critical questions.
I have a suggestion for the War on Error. Sure, let the FBI and whatever other alphabet agencies continue to monitor traffic and gather intel to keep people safe. But whenever you discover a cluster of people involved in paranoia and disinformation, don’t send in the troops or federal law enforcement, send in the librarians armed with media literacy and critical questions.
There’s no perceptible benefit to “bouncing ideas off” of someone who was, after all, merely an incompetent toady for an incompetent President.
I’m cool with that.
There’s no perceptible benefit to “bouncing ideas off” of someone who was, after all, merely an incompetent toady for an incompetent President.
I’m cool with that.
send in the librarians armed with media literacy and critical questions.
But, but…. Librarians are, almost by definition, elitists! And so must be ignored.
/sarcasm (even though I expect it will be seriously said by the recipients)
send in the librarians armed with media literacy and critical questions.
But, but…. Librarians are, almost by definition, elitists! And so must be ignored.
/sarcasm (even though I expect it will be seriously said by the recipients)
It seems the the decision to extend distribution of secret stuff to ex-presidents is not in any statute, but is purely a courtesy matter decided by the actual President.
Sending disinformation that that CIA wants routed to Putin? Put Trump on the distribution list!
It seems the the decision to extend distribution of secret stuff to ex-presidents is not in any statute, but is purely a courtesy matter decided by the actual President.
Sending disinformation that that CIA wants routed to Putin? Put Trump on the distribution list!
I have a suggestion for the War on Error. Sure, let the FBI and whatever other alphabet agencies continue to monitor traffic and gather intel to keep people safe. But whenever you discover a cluster of people involved in paranoia and disinformation, don’t send in the troops or federal law enforcement, send in the librarians armed with media literacy and critical questions.
I hope we give this a lot of thought. On MLK Day, it’s good to remember that domestic surveillance has a checkered past. It’s also good to keep in mind that defining “people involved in paranoia and disinformation” can be problematic too. Muslim extremists, Black Nationalists, Republicans? Which of these does or does not belong on the PIPD list? Antifa? No one to the left is PIPD?
Some suggestions:
1. No open carry within 500 yards of any Federal facility (effective range for most higher end rifles), specifically including Post Offices. Since the right to bear is in the US Constitution, reasonable limits of time, manner and place may be applied.
2. Encourage Twitter et al not to deplatform extremist rhetoric.
3. Monitor extremist rhetoric carefully. With probable cause, wiretap and surveil. Arrest when a prosecutable crime has been committed.
4. Bend over backward to avoid the appearance of criminalizing political disagreement. If you want to turn a moderate into an exremist, threaten him/her with jail for disagreeing with you.
I have a suggestion for the War on Error. Sure, let the FBI and whatever other alphabet agencies continue to monitor traffic and gather intel to keep people safe. But whenever you discover a cluster of people involved in paranoia and disinformation, don’t send in the troops or federal law enforcement, send in the librarians armed with media literacy and critical questions.
I hope we give this a lot of thought. On MLK Day, it’s good to remember that domestic surveillance has a checkered past. It’s also good to keep in mind that defining “people involved in paranoia and disinformation” can be problematic too. Muslim extremists, Black Nationalists, Republicans? Which of these does or does not belong on the PIPD list? Antifa? No one to the left is PIPD?
Some suggestions:
1. No open carry within 500 yards of any Federal facility (effective range for most higher end rifles), specifically including Post Offices. Since the right to bear is in the US Constitution, reasonable limits of time, manner and place may be applied.
2. Encourage Twitter et al not to deplatform extremist rhetoric.
3. Monitor extremist rhetoric carefully. With probable cause, wiretap and surveil. Arrest when a prosecutable crime has been committed.
4. Bend over backward to avoid the appearance of criminalizing political disagreement. If you want to turn a moderate into an exremist, threaten him/her with jail for disagreeing with you.
Clarifying/probing question: in what way is Twitter not hosting Trump’s noxious speech fundamentally different from a bakery refusing to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?
Is the Supreme Court’s justification compromised if it decides for the baker but not for Twitter?
Clarifying/probing question: in what way is Twitter not hosting Trump’s noxious speech fundamentally different from a bakery refusing to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?
Is the Supreme Court’s justification compromised if it decides for the baker but not for Twitter?
nous, that’s just icing on the big ‘ol hypocrisy cake.
nous, that’s just icing on the big ‘ol hypocrisy cake.
Clarifying/probing question: in what way is Twitter not hosting Trump’s noxious speech fundamentally different from a bakery refusing to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?
Is the Supreme Court’s justification compromised if it decides for the baker but not for Twitter?
Fair question. There are a lot of distinctions, and they go both ways. Legally, I think both have the right–for different reasons–to refuse service. But that isn’t my point. I think, as a matter of public safety, letting extremists out themselves, identify themselves, etc. makes it a lot easier to keep track of them. Driving them underground and feeding their sense of grievance seems counterproductive to me. Also, I used the word “suggestions” with its specific meaning.
Clarifying/probing question: in what way is Twitter not hosting Trump’s noxious speech fundamentally different from a bakery refusing to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?
Is the Supreme Court’s justification compromised if it decides for the baker but not for Twitter?
Fair question. There are a lot of distinctions, and they go both ways. Legally, I think both have the right–for different reasons–to refuse service. But that isn’t my point. I think, as a matter of public safety, letting extremists out themselves, identify themselves, etc. makes it a lot easier to keep track of them. Driving them underground and feeding their sense of grievance seems counterproductive to me. Also, I used the word “suggestions” with its specific meaning.
I think, as a matter of public safety, letting extremists out themselves, identify themselves, etc. makes it a lot easier to keep track of them. Driving them underground and feeding their sense of grievance seems counterproductive to me.
I totally get this, and half believe it myself. But on the other hand, the untrammelled dissemination of this stuff, and the concomitant growth and spread of conspiracy theories (QAnon etc) throughout the population at large, gives me serious pause. It begins to seem more like a public health crisis, a viral spread if you like, and there’s an argument for limiting that spread. Was it hsh, cleek or nous who recently linked that game designer’s analysis of how some of this has worked on people, like an immersive game that is actually changing people? It is possible that we are dealing with a phenomenon so different from anything before, in speed and effectiveness of spread, that we need to consider new ways to deal with it.
I think, as a matter of public safety, letting extremists out themselves, identify themselves, etc. makes it a lot easier to keep track of them. Driving them underground and feeding their sense of grievance seems counterproductive to me.
I totally get this, and half believe it myself. But on the other hand, the untrammelled dissemination of this stuff, and the concomitant growth and spread of conspiracy theories (QAnon etc) throughout the population at large, gives me serious pause. It begins to seem more like a public health crisis, a viral spread if you like, and there’s an argument for limiting that spread. Was it hsh, cleek or nous who recently linked that game designer’s analysis of how some of this has worked on people, like an immersive game that is actually changing people? It is possible that we are dealing with a phenomenon so different from anything before, in speed and effectiveness of spread, that we need to consider new ways to deal with it.
Is the Supreme Court’s justification compromised if it decides for the baker but not for Twitter?
Not unless Twitter argues that its terms of service are based on their religion. The Hobby Lobby decision said corporations could have religious beliefs, but only if the corporate ownership was tightly held, eg, Hobby Lobby is a privately owned company.
IANAL, but if I were making up legal theories to force Twitter to carry my noxious tweets regardless, I would approach it from the point of view that their business model depends on the Section 230 protections provided by the government, so this is a 1st Amendment case.
Is the Supreme Court’s justification compromised if it decides for the baker but not for Twitter?
Not unless Twitter argues that its terms of service are based on their religion. The Hobby Lobby decision said corporations could have religious beliefs, but only if the corporate ownership was tightly held, eg, Hobby Lobby is a privately owned company.
IANAL, but if I were making up legal theories to force Twitter to carry my noxious tweets regardless, I would approach it from the point of view that their business model depends on the Section 230 protections provided by the government, so this is a 1st Amendment case.
Was it hsh, cleek or nous who recently linked that game designer’s analysis of how some of this has worked on people, like an immersive game that is actually changing people?
I missed the link, but it makes sense to me that gaming beyond a certain point may affect an individual’s connection with reality (reality itself being subjective in any number of ways), including in some instances causing an individual to stop seeing others as human. But, I think that’s true for porn and other sensory overload phenomena, but you’ll get a lot of pushback from various quarters on that notion.
It is possible that we are dealing with a phenomenon so different from anything before, in speed and effectiveness of spread, that we need to consider new ways to deal with it.
Maybe. Depending on viewpoint, the same could/can be said about Christianity, Islam, communism, national socialism, states rights, libertarianism and so on. So, who has the objective evaluative chops to draw the fine line between your discomfort zone and mine? I’m not a big fan of thought policing. I’d say that if our government ever gets in that business, a lot of people like me are not going along peacefully with that bit of dictatorship. Believe what you want, act in accordance with the law. And keep an eye on the fringes. In a free society, that’s about the best you can do. Heavy emphasis on “free”, as in traditional constitutional liberties including freedom of speech, thought, conscience etc. Take away the ‘free’ piece of it, and all bets are off. I would think that goes without saying, but who knows these days?
Was it hsh, cleek or nous who recently linked that game designer’s analysis of how some of this has worked on people, like an immersive game that is actually changing people?
I missed the link, but it makes sense to me that gaming beyond a certain point may affect an individual’s connection with reality (reality itself being subjective in any number of ways), including in some instances causing an individual to stop seeing others as human. But, I think that’s true for porn and other sensory overload phenomena, but you’ll get a lot of pushback from various quarters on that notion.
It is possible that we are dealing with a phenomenon so different from anything before, in speed and effectiveness of spread, that we need to consider new ways to deal with it.
Maybe. Depending on viewpoint, the same could/can be said about Christianity, Islam, communism, national socialism, states rights, libertarianism and so on. So, who has the objective evaluative chops to draw the fine line between your discomfort zone and mine? I’m not a big fan of thought policing. I’d say that if our government ever gets in that business, a lot of people like me are not going along peacefully with that bit of dictatorship. Believe what you want, act in accordance with the law. And keep an eye on the fringes. In a free society, that’s about the best you can do. Heavy emphasis on “free”, as in traditional constitutional liberties including freedom of speech, thought, conscience etc. Take away the ‘free’ piece of it, and all bets are off. I would think that goes without saying, but who knows these days?
The QAnon Game Design article in question: https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5
The QAnon Game Design article in question: https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5
IANAL, but if I were making up legal theories to force Twitter to carry my noxious tweets regardless, I would approach it from the point of view that their business model depends on the Section 230 protections provided by the government, so this is a 1st Amendment case.
Interesting point. I’m pig ignorant of “internet law.” Torts, contracts and reasonable extensions thereof are my comfort zone; however, I can follow the logic up to a point. A lot of businesses depend on federal or state protections of some kind (rule of law, ordered liberties and so on). I’m not of the school that thinks benefiting by some gov’t involvement waives the right to object to further gov’t involvement.
It’s thorny stuff, sorting out the lines and what /whether private interests can become so ubiquitous, they then assume certain obligations/limitations of the state.
IANAL, but if I were making up legal theories to force Twitter to carry my noxious tweets regardless, I would approach it from the point of view that their business model depends on the Section 230 protections provided by the government, so this is a 1st Amendment case.
Interesting point. I’m pig ignorant of “internet law.” Torts, contracts and reasonable extensions thereof are my comfort zone; however, I can follow the logic up to a point. A lot of businesses depend on federal or state protections of some kind (rule of law, ordered liberties and so on). I’m not of the school that thinks benefiting by some gov’t involvement waives the right to object to further gov’t involvement.
It’s thorny stuff, sorting out the lines and what /whether private interests can become so ubiquitous, they then assume certain obligations/limitations of the state.
Depending on viewpoint, the same could/can be said about Christianity, Islam, communism, national socialism, states rights, libertarianism and so on.
I’m also very uncomfortable with censorship, or thought control. But you can hardly say that any of these have been similar in speed and effectiveness of spread. It seems to me likely that, however you decide to cope with it, the phenomenon we are dealing with is different qualitatively and quantitatively from what has gone before.
Depending on viewpoint, the same could/can be said about Christianity, Islam, communism, national socialism, states rights, libertarianism and so on.
I’m also very uncomfortable with censorship, or thought control. But you can hardly say that any of these have been similar in speed and effectiveness of spread. It seems to me likely that, however you decide to cope with it, the phenomenon we are dealing with is different qualitatively and quantitatively from what has gone before.
the phenomenon we are dealing with is different qualitatively and quantitatively from what has gone before.
How so? Christianity v Islam, The Russian Revolution, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War. I’m going to say that the secessionists who invaded the capital do not appear to be of like kind and quality.
the phenomenon we are dealing with is different qualitatively and quantitatively from what has gone before.
How so? Christianity v Islam, The Russian Revolution, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War. I’m going to say that the secessionists who invaded the capital do not appear to be of like kind and quality.
A previous advent of technology created a great deal of upheaval and its impact continues to this day. The printing press.
A previous advent of technology created a great deal of upheaval and its impact continues to this day. The printing press.
How so?
Precisely, in speed and effectiveness of spread. I’m not talking about the content, I’m talking about how the Internet and social media’s instant, mass transmission of these ideas, and their subsequent spread and mutation, renders their effect quantitatively and qualitatively different.
How so?
Precisely, in speed and effectiveness of spread. I’m not talking about the content, I’m talking about how the Internet and social media’s instant, mass transmission of these ideas, and their subsequent spread and mutation, renders their effect quantitatively and qualitatively different.
I think there’s a difference between baselessly accusing a large group of people of being Satan-worshipping pedophiles worthy of violent attack and simply disagreeing those people.
I think there’s a difference between baselessly accusing a large group of people of being Satan-worshipping pedophiles worthy of violent attack and simply disagreeing those people.
Qualitatively different because so enormously quantitatively different.
Qualitatively different because so enormously quantitatively different.
At what point should Radio Rwanda be drone-struck?
I’m on the record being in favor of nuking Twit/Face from orbit, but that’s me.
At what point should Radio Rwanda be drone-struck?
I’m on the record being in favor of nuking Twit/Face from orbit, but that’s me.
If a company can be held accountable for the stuff it carries, then it must also have the right to refuse to carry.
So, if Republicans want to strip Twitter & Co. of immunity, they can’t reasonably complain when said companies ban users whose postings could be used to go after the companies.
And I see no inherent difference between propganda for/from Muslim extremism, certain Kristian(TM) hate groups, neonazis calling for finishing Hitler’s work or other groups calling for a civil war with the intent to murder about half the country (or at least public officials and their supporters on the other side of the aisle).
Certain media personalities and politicians (elected or hoping to become so) are A-OK with all but the first (and define that so widely that anything but constant outright condemnation of Islam or what they mistake for it should be criminalized).
If a company can be held accountable for the stuff it carries, then it must also have the right to refuse to carry.
So, if Republicans want to strip Twitter & Co. of immunity, they can’t reasonably complain when said companies ban users whose postings could be used to go after the companies.
And I see no inherent difference between propganda for/from Muslim extremism, certain Kristian(TM) hate groups, neonazis calling for finishing Hitler’s work or other groups calling for a civil war with the intent to murder about half the country (or at least public officials and their supporters on the other side of the aisle).
Certain media personalities and politicians (elected or hoping to become so) are A-OK with all but the first (and define that so widely that anything but constant outright condemnation of Islam or what they mistake for it should be criminalized).
And right on cue, my friend texts me a photo from his brother in DC of a pick-up with a large sign reading:
TRUMP IS PRESIDENT
DEMS LIE, STEAL, KILL
BABIES, LIKE THEIR
FATHER THE DEVIL
And right on cue, my friend texts me a photo from his brother in DC of a pick-up with a large sign reading:
TRUMP IS PRESIDENT
DEMS LIE, STEAL, KILL
BABIES, LIKE THEIR
FATHER THE DEVIL
GftNC It seems to me likely that, however you decide to cope with it, the phenomenon we are dealing with is different qualitatively and quantitatively from what has gone before.
CharlesWT A previous advent of technology created a great deal of upheaval and its impact continues to this day. The printing press.
The differences between this moment and the historical moment of the printing press – the revolutionary force of the printing press for the spread of ideas was profound and it led to the Christian religious wars all through Europe that followed. But printing presses were large and expensive, and paper was not trivial to acquire and store and transport, and transportation between places was time intensive. I shudder to think what the European wars of religion might have been like if they had had even the telegraph around for coordination and the spread of information.
Copyright exists in the form it does because the copying of a document was not a trivial thing. It was enforceable because presses were large and expensive and hard to hide. Piracy was impractical.
What we have today is everyone with their own printing press, and infinite supply of paper, and a wireless telegraph, and an automated spymaster who can encrypt whatever we want to keep from prying eyes. That is a radically different potential for the dissemination and coordination of rebellion.
This is why our age is the age of conspiracy theories, stochastic terrorism, and lone actor mass murder.
GftNC It seems to me likely that, however you decide to cope with it, the phenomenon we are dealing with is different qualitatively and quantitatively from what has gone before.
CharlesWT A previous advent of technology created a great deal of upheaval and its impact continues to this day. The printing press.
The differences between this moment and the historical moment of the printing press – the revolutionary force of the printing press for the spread of ideas was profound and it led to the Christian religious wars all through Europe that followed. But printing presses were large and expensive, and paper was not trivial to acquire and store and transport, and transportation between places was time intensive. I shudder to think what the European wars of religion might have been like if they had had even the telegraph around for coordination and the spread of information.
Copyright exists in the form it does because the copying of a document was not a trivial thing. It was enforceable because presses were large and expensive and hard to hide. Piracy was impractical.
What we have today is everyone with their own printing press, and infinite supply of paper, and a wireless telegraph, and an automated spymaster who can encrypt whatever we want to keep from prying eyes. That is a radically different potential for the dissemination and coordination of rebellion.
This is why our age is the age of conspiracy theories, stochastic terrorism, and lone actor mass murder.
It’s thorny stuff…
Don’t get me started, it’s not good for my blood pressure. When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they didn’t listen to those of us who understood IP protocols and where the internet would be going, and they got the basics wrong. When the FCC set out the rules for internet service providers a year or so later, based on the law, they made the choice that inflicted minimum immediate damage (but was still going to be a disaster). Under Obama the FCC tried to correct the mistake by ignoring large parts of the law and was correctly slapped down. Now we’re at another critical place based on content distribution where the law says there are things like newspapers that are responsible for the content (including comments) on their site, and internet media that has no responsibilities.
We’ve had 25 years to get it right and we still haven’t. And all of this is on Congress.
It’s thorny stuff…
Don’t get me started, it’s not good for my blood pressure. When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they didn’t listen to those of us who understood IP protocols and where the internet would be going, and they got the basics wrong. When the FCC set out the rules for internet service providers a year or so later, based on the law, they made the choice that inflicted minimum immediate damage (but was still going to be a disaster). Under Obama the FCC tried to correct the mistake by ignoring large parts of the law and was correctly slapped down. Now we’re at another critical place based on content distribution where the law says there are things like newspapers that are responsible for the content (including comments) on their site, and internet media that has no responsibilities.
We’ve had 25 years to get it right and we still haven’t. And all of this is on Congress.
nous: What we have today is everyone with their own printing press, and infinite supply of paper, and a wireless telegraph, and an automated spymaster who can encrypt whatever we want to keep from prying eyes.
Absolutely agree.
And yet, even today, “free” speech costs money to disseminate. Any self-respecting capitalist must agree that capital investment by profit-seeking free-market entrepreneurs is required for speech to get widely disseminated “for free”.
That raises a question for self-respecting capitalists to answer: should capital-risking, job-creating entrepreneurs be required by The Guvmint to disseminate speech they disagree with?
It’s not a rhetorical question. As a left’ish Democrat, I don’t take the answer for granted. So I would appreciate any answer that people who use terms like “left’ish” care to expound.
I’ve been saying for a while that the Constitutionally mandated “post offices and post roads” should, in the 21st century, be interpreted as last-mile connectivity and ISP hosting provided by the USPS to every address in the country. Among other things, this would allow every RWNJ in the US to “speak” to all the other RWNJ’s in the US without having to print flyers and buy stamps. Maybe that would be good for democracy, maybe not.
I’d like to know whether “conservatives” and Libertarians(TM) would object to such a scheme on either (d)emocratic or Free Market principles.
–TP
nous: What we have today is everyone with their own printing press, and infinite supply of paper, and a wireless telegraph, and an automated spymaster who can encrypt whatever we want to keep from prying eyes.
Absolutely agree.
And yet, even today, “free” speech costs money to disseminate. Any self-respecting capitalist must agree that capital investment by profit-seeking free-market entrepreneurs is required for speech to get widely disseminated “for free”.
That raises a question for self-respecting capitalists to answer: should capital-risking, job-creating entrepreneurs be required by The Guvmint to disseminate speech they disagree with?
It’s not a rhetorical question. As a left’ish Democrat, I don’t take the answer for granted. So I would appreciate any answer that people who use terms like “left’ish” care to expound.
I’ve been saying for a while that the Constitutionally mandated “post offices and post roads” should, in the 21st century, be interpreted as last-mile connectivity and ISP hosting provided by the USPS to every address in the country. Among other things, this would allow every RWNJ in the US to “speak” to all the other RWNJ’s in the US without having to print flyers and buy stamps. Maybe that would be good for democracy, maybe not.
I’d like to know whether “conservatives” and Libertarians(TM) would object to such a scheme on either (d)emocratic or Free Market principles.
–TP
in what way is Twitter not hosting Trump’s noxious speech fundamentally different from a bakery refusing to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?
Terms of service.
To that point, I’m reminded of Areala’s suggestion about the great wedding cake controversy – if you don’t want to make cakes (or take picture, or whatever) for gays (or whoever), advertise that fact.
That, in turn, might hurt your business, or might help it. Who knows? But it saves folks you don’t want to serve the demeaning experience of being told that you will serve everybody in the world, except them.
As far as the feds monitoring people’s social media stuff, two thoughts:
1. Social media is the public statement par excellence. I’m not sure privacy can be assumed.
2. I’m absolutely against policing or suppression or persecution of people based on what they say or think. Responding to what people *do* is a different story.
The power wielded by actors like Facebook or Google is a natural consequence of their status as monopoly or near-monopoly enterprises. We used to frown on monopolies, now we’re kind of OK with them.
They’re convenient. Right? Everybody’s on FB, you can buy anything on Amazon and it will show up in a day or two.
There’s a flip side. The flip side is that it’s their way or the highway.
If we don’t want that, we need to return to a public posture of not allowing monopolies. That will result in a loss of some efficiencies and convenience.
Pay your money, and take your choice.
in what way is Twitter not hosting Trump’s noxious speech fundamentally different from a bakery refusing to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?
Terms of service.
To that point, I’m reminded of Areala’s suggestion about the great wedding cake controversy – if you don’t want to make cakes (or take picture, or whatever) for gays (or whoever), advertise that fact.
That, in turn, might hurt your business, or might help it. Who knows? But it saves folks you don’t want to serve the demeaning experience of being told that you will serve everybody in the world, except them.
As far as the feds monitoring people’s social media stuff, two thoughts:
1. Social media is the public statement par excellence. I’m not sure privacy can be assumed.
2. I’m absolutely against policing or suppression or persecution of people based on what they say or think. Responding to what people *do* is a different story.
The power wielded by actors like Facebook or Google is a natural consequence of their status as monopoly or near-monopoly enterprises. We used to frown on monopolies, now we’re kind of OK with them.
They’re convenient. Right? Everybody’s on FB, you can buy anything on Amazon and it will show up in a day or two.
There’s a flip side. The flip side is that it’s their way or the highway.
If we don’t want that, we need to return to a public posture of not allowing monopolies. That will result in a loss of some efficiencies and convenience.
Pay your money, and take your choice.
I’ve been saying for a while that the Constitutionally mandated “post offices and post roads” should, in the 21st century, be interpreted as last-mile connectivity and ISP hosting provided by the USPS to every address in the country.
. . .
I’d like to know whether “conservatives” and Libertarians(TM) would object to such a scheme on either (d)emocratic or Free Market principles.
For this (mild) conservative, treating “last mile” (which, in practice, might be significantly longer — especially in lightly populated areas) connectivity as the 21st century equivalent of post offices just makes sense. In fact, I’d be inclined to mandate fiber connections to every house. Giving people access to accurate information (even if they choose to ignore it) and educational opportunities is just that important to the economy and the health of the nation.
I’ve been saying for a while that the Constitutionally mandated “post offices and post roads” should, in the 21st century, be interpreted as last-mile connectivity and ISP hosting provided by the USPS to every address in the country.
. . .
I’d like to know whether “conservatives” and Libertarians(TM) would object to such a scheme on either (d)emocratic or Free Market principles.
For this (mild) conservative, treating “last mile” (which, in practice, might be significantly longer — especially in lightly populated areas) connectivity as the 21st century equivalent of post offices just makes sense. In fact, I’d be inclined to mandate fiber connections to every house. Giving people access to accurate information (even if they choose to ignore it) and educational opportunities is just that important to the economy and the health of the nation.
I’m absolutely against policing or suppression or persecution of people based on what they say or think. Responding to what people *do* is a different story.
I’d say rather that I oppose suppression or persecution of people based on what they think or advocate peacefully doing. Responding to what they *do*, or advocate doing by non-peaceful means, is a different story.
In short, I think advocating violence should count as doing something, and thus is susceptible to government in the interests of keeping the peace.
I’m absolutely against policing or suppression or persecution of people based on what they say or think. Responding to what people *do* is a different story.
I’d say rather that I oppose suppression or persecution of people based on what they think or advocate peacefully doing. Responding to what they *do*, or advocate doing by non-peaceful means, is a different story.
In short, I think advocating violence should count as doing something, and thus is susceptible to government in the interests of keeping the peace.
1. No open carry within 500 yards of any Federal facility (effective range for most higher end rifles), specifically including Post Offices. Since the right to bear is in the US Constitution, reasonable limits of time, manner and place may be applied.
Apart from the courts striking that down, I guess that could be impractical in some areas, e.g. by creating barriers through facilities being less than a 1000 yards apart. And how would one get a reading that one is approaching one too closely?
I fully agree with the general idea but the details would have to be carefully worked out (before the courts strike it down anyway).
1. No open carry within 500 yards of any Federal facility (effective range for most higher end rifles), specifically including Post Offices. Since the right to bear is in the US Constitution, reasonable limits of time, manner and place may be applied.
Apart from the courts striking that down, I guess that could be impractical in some areas, e.g. by creating barriers through facilities being less than a 1000 yards apart. And how would one get a reading that one is approaching one too closely?
I fully agree with the general idea but the details would have to be carefully worked out (before the courts strike it down anyway).
Was it hsh, cleek or nous who recently linked that game designer’s analysis of how some of this has worked on people, like an immersive game that is actually changing people?
twas i.
the item.
the gist is: Q isn’t just a collection of conspiracy theories. rather, there’s someone (‘Q’) driving it, who is deliberately setting up little vague puzzles that steer people into thinking they’re uncovering deep mysteries (when in fact it’s usually just conformation bias and apophenia at work). the cult is lead to believe there’s a truth out there that looks something like XYZ, when the world is absolutely full of XYZs so it’s easy to spot, once people start looking. this convinces people that they’re onto something big.
FTA:
Q has led a lot of people, by making them think they’re smart, into believing nonsense.
Was it hsh, cleek or nous who recently linked that game designer’s analysis of how some of this has worked on people, like an immersive game that is actually changing people?
twas i.
the item.
the gist is: Q isn’t just a collection of conspiracy theories. rather, there’s someone (‘Q’) driving it, who is deliberately setting up little vague puzzles that steer people into thinking they’re uncovering deep mysteries (when in fact it’s usually just conformation bias and apophenia at work). the cult is lead to believe there’s a truth out there that looks something like XYZ, when the world is absolutely full of XYZs so it’s easy to spot, once people start looking. this convinces people that they’re onto something big.
FTA:
Q has led a lot of people, by making them think they’re smart, into believing nonsense.
Q isn’t just a collection of conspiracy theories. rather, there’s someone (‘Q’) driving it
If Putin’s boys aren’t Q, they damn well should be paying him big bucks.
Q isn’t just a collection of conspiracy theories. rather, there’s someone (‘Q’) driving it
If Putin’s boys aren’t Q, they damn well should be paying him big bucks.
Family values in Trump’s
partyculthttps://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/19/capitol-rioter-reffitt-threaten-children/
Family values in Trump’s
partyculthttps://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/19/capitol-rioter-reffitt-threaten-children/
If Putin’s boys aren’t Q, they damn well should be paying him big bucks.
i keep wanting to think that.
but after reading that article, i realize that theorizing about the grand game based on ‘things that kindof make sense’ is exactly what Q is all about. so, you can’t win.
If Putin’s boys aren’t Q, they damn well should be paying him big bucks.
i keep wanting to think that.
but after reading that article, i realize that theorizing about the grand game based on ‘things that kindof make sense’ is exactly what Q is all about. so, you can’t win.
nous – This is why our age is the age of conspiracy theories, stochastic terrorism, and lone actor mass murder.
Ours is the times of marvelous technology coupled with the capitalist ethos….(they are still the real radicals), or one could be disconcerted by the thought that evolution has not suitably prepared us for the internet age.
Michael Cain – We’ve had 25 years to get it right and we still haven’t.
As I do not know an IP protocol from a mashie-niblick, I’d like to see more on this.
nous – This is why our age is the age of conspiracy theories, stochastic terrorism, and lone actor mass murder.
Ours is the times of marvelous technology coupled with the capitalist ethos….(they are still the real radicals), or one could be disconcerted by the thought that evolution has not suitably prepared us for the internet age.
Michael Cain – We’ve had 25 years to get it right and we still haven’t.
As I do not know an IP protocol from a mashie-niblick, I’d like to see more on this.
For years now, the Republican Party has been radicalizing at a furious rate, moving rightward at a far faster clip than the Democrats have moved to the left. Political scientists even have a term for it: “asymmetrical polarization.” How we got to this frightening pass is complicated, but chief among the reasons is that the G.O.P. has been on a decades-long campaign to delegitimize government. Run against it long enough, and eventually you have a party that wants to burn the system to the ground.
From an article in today’s NYT on McConnell.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/opinion/good-riddance-leader-mcconnell.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
For years now, the Republican Party has been radicalizing at a furious rate, moving rightward at a far faster clip than the Democrats have moved to the left. Political scientists even have a term for it: “asymmetrical polarization.” How we got to this frightening pass is complicated, but chief among the reasons is that the G.O.P. has been on a decades-long campaign to delegitimize government. Run against it long enough, and eventually you have a party that wants to burn the system to the ground.
From an article in today’s NYT on McConnell.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/opinion/good-riddance-leader-mcconnell.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Wait, I thought “Q” worked for MI6?
Brilliant intel op, if so.
Wait, I thought “Q” worked for MI6?
Brilliant intel op, if so.
I thought “Q” worked for MI6?
Brilliant intel op, if so.
Brilliant, and brilliantly successful — IF it is an intel op. It may be just a lone nut case, glorying in how much attention he’s getting. But my thought is: Who benefits?
I thought “Q” worked for MI6?
Brilliant intel op, if so.
Brilliant, and brilliantly successful — IF it is an intel op. It may be just a lone nut case, glorying in how much attention he’s getting. But my thought is: Who benefits?
But my thought is: Who benefits?
the people running Q YouTube channels benefit.
But my thought is: Who benefits?
the people running Q YouTube channels benefit.
My thinking on Q and Russia is that Russia, and maybe others, are almost certainly leveraging the BS that comes out of QAnon’s conspiracy machine. Set up fake accounts and share. You don’t have to be the one to create the virus to be the one to spread it.
My thinking on Q and Russia is that Russia, and maybe others, are almost certainly leveraging the BS that comes out of QAnon’s conspiracy machine. Set up fake accounts and share. You don’t have to be the one to create the virus to be the one to spread it.
I can’t help noticing how likely it is that any given opponent of deplatforming has not themselves been subjected to right-wing harassment and (attempted or successful) violence, and is not intimately connected to someone who has.
This isn’t always the case, but it’s a very good rule of thumb at the outset. And it is wearying to once again see (among others) people I love and care about being held up as acceptable sacrifices for a bloodless notion of freedom.
I can’t help noticing how likely it is that any given opponent of deplatforming has not themselves been subjected to right-wing harassment and (attempted or successful) violence, and is not intimately connected to someone who has.
This isn’t always the case, but it’s a very good rule of thumb at the outset. And it is wearying to once again see (among others) people I love and care about being held up as acceptable sacrifices for a bloodless notion of freedom.
I am not being snarky when I say that I would like to see every deplatforming opponent live for a month, or a year, with the routine harassment dished out against those who run afoul of the right-wing machine – the efforts to mass-report them with false allegations, the filling up of DMs and e-mail with gore and porn, the doxxing and stalking, the whole deal. And short of that, I would like each of them to feel a real burden to produce an actually viable plan for what such targets might possibly do.
I know a double-digit number of folks who have had to give up all public use of the Internet because of this stuff. A few have successfully (so far) built up handles that haven’t been connected to their prior identities. Others have just given it up and only ever use mail and messaging. They and other people who have managed with less total but still drastic sacrifices need something, and if the answer is never to constrain their abusers, what the hell is it?
I will no longer accept vague good attentions. People who are comfortable sacrificing my friends need to deal with this shit, already.
I am not being snarky when I say that I would like to see every deplatforming opponent live for a month, or a year, with the routine harassment dished out against those who run afoul of the right-wing machine – the efforts to mass-report them with false allegations, the filling up of DMs and e-mail with gore and porn, the doxxing and stalking, the whole deal. And short of that, I would like each of them to feel a real burden to produce an actually viable plan for what such targets might possibly do.
I know a double-digit number of folks who have had to give up all public use of the Internet because of this stuff. A few have successfully (so far) built up handles that haven’t been connected to their prior identities. Others have just given it up and only ever use mail and messaging. They and other people who have managed with less total but still drastic sacrifices need something, and if the answer is never to constrain their abusers, what the hell is it?
I will no longer accept vague good attentions. People who are comfortable sacrificing my friends need to deal with this shit, already.
walk into a restaurant, draw a dick on their menu board, they kick you out.
have you been deplatformed, or are you just a dick?
walk into a restaurant, draw a dick on their menu board, they kick you out.
have you been deplatformed, or are you just a dick?
William O. Douglas was THE SCOTUS liberal back in the day. Here is what he said about the topic at hand:
Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571-572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769) is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. . . . There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.
As an aside, I’m pretty sure the FCC has no meaningful right to control cable news, only broadcast news and even then, the ability to regulate is heavily circumscribed.
ISTM, the real issue is “no social media or darwinist/fantasist social media with no middle ground.” But I could be wrong.
William O. Douglas was THE SCOTUS liberal back in the day. Here is what he said about the topic at hand:
Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571-572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769) is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. . . . There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.
As an aside, I’m pretty sure the FCC has no meaningful right to control cable news, only broadcast news and even then, the ability to regulate is heavily circumscribed.
ISTM, the real issue is “no social media or darwinist/fantasist social media with no middle ground.” But I could be wrong.
Ben Sasse has a message for the (R) party.
Ben Sasse has a message for the (R) party.
Speech is often provocative and challenging.
I agree with this, and also agree that the 1st A guarantees the right to hold, espouse, and articulate pretty much any point of view short of deliberately and obviously inciting people to acts of violence.
The question regarding platforms like FB and the providers of underlying technical services like AWS is:
Are they obliged to provide their services to any and all takers? Or do they have the discretion to define terms of service that their customers have to abide by, even if that constrains the speech that those people can engage in *on that platform or using those services*?
The fact that being banned from FB or AWS effectively bans you from the vast majority of social media and cloud services is a function of the near-monopoly status of those providers.
Do we want to introduce additional obligations on private vendors of online services because they happen to own an overwhelming share of their markets?
Congress is obliged to make no law restricting freedom of speech. FB ain’t Congress. So where do they fit?
Speech is often provocative and challenging.
I agree with this, and also agree that the 1st A guarantees the right to hold, espouse, and articulate pretty much any point of view short of deliberately and obviously inciting people to acts of violence.
The question regarding platforms like FB and the providers of underlying technical services like AWS is:
Are they obliged to provide their services to any and all takers? Or do they have the discretion to define terms of service that their customers have to abide by, even if that constrains the speech that those people can engage in *on that platform or using those services*?
The fact that being banned from FB or AWS effectively bans you from the vast majority of social media and cloud services is a function of the near-monopoly status of those providers.
Do we want to introduce additional obligations on private vendors of online services because they happen to own an overwhelming share of their markets?
Congress is obliged to make no law restricting freedom of speech. FB ain’t Congress. So where do they fit?
Do we want to introduce additional obligations on private vendors of online services because they happen to own an overwhelming share of their markets?
Congress is obliged to make no law restricting freedom of speech. FB ain’t Congress. So where do they fit?
I think this is where the conversation got started. My personal opinion is that, until the law changes, the various social media platforms have the right to set their own terms of service. Whether, bigger picture, that is a *good* or a *bad* thing societally is anyone’s guess and will likely vary over time and circumstance.
From a law enforcement perspective, balancing upside and downside, I favor open access to all FB/Twitter type platforms so that the crazies can out themselves (I’m now repeating myself, so sorry for that) and be monitored.
A constitutional lawyer would have more insight than me, but another twist is that politicians use FB and Twitter like oxygen. I smell some First Amendment smoke if politicians can hold forth at a “public” forum yet be theoretically protected from competing views, criticism, etc.
Do we want to introduce additional obligations on private vendors of online services because they happen to own an overwhelming share of their markets?
Congress is obliged to make no law restricting freedom of speech. FB ain’t Congress. So where do they fit?
I think this is where the conversation got started. My personal opinion is that, until the law changes, the various social media platforms have the right to set their own terms of service. Whether, bigger picture, that is a *good* or a *bad* thing societally is anyone’s guess and will likely vary over time and circumstance.
From a law enforcement perspective, balancing upside and downside, I favor open access to all FB/Twitter type platforms so that the crazies can out themselves (I’m now repeating myself, so sorry for that) and be monitored.
A constitutional lawyer would have more insight than me, but another twist is that politicians use FB and Twitter like oxygen. I smell some First Amendment smoke if politicians can hold forth at a “public” forum yet be theoretically protected from competing views, criticism, etc.
Ben Sasse has a message for the (R) party.
I think McConnell is going to try to get enough votes to convict. I know MM is reviled here as the worst of the worst, but he really is less awful than DT and he knows DT is bad long term for the Repub brand.
Ben Sasse has a message for the (R) party.
I think McConnell is going to try to get enough votes to convict. I know MM is reviled here as the worst of the worst, but he really is less awful than DT and he knows DT is bad long term for the Repub brand.
The fact that being banned from FB or AWS effectively bans you from the vast majority of social media and cloud services is a function of the near-monopoly status of those providers.
AWS holds less than a 40% market share for cloud services. The problem is that all of AWS, Microsoft (Azure), Google Cloud, Oracle Cloud, RackSpace and the rest have terms of service that preclude Parler. If the service providers choose to enforce them. I mention that last point because Trump and several of his advisors clearly violated Twitter’s terms of service for most of his time in office, but were held to a different standard. AWS allowed Parler to operate until there was lots of publicity about people being banned by Twitter and flocking to Parler.
Congress is obliged to make no law restricting freedom of speech. FB ain’t Congress. So where do they fit?
FB’s business model depends entirely on Section 230 protections. If they have liability for what their users post, they’re done — they simply can’t police it adequately. I don’t know if it would stand up in court, but there’s at least an arguable legal theory that because FB’s business is only possible because of Congress’s actions, they are subject to the same rules about free speech as Congress.
I think that the real problem here is not a technology problem, it’s an ease-of-use problem. FB and Twitter make adding people to a social group easy. They encourage users to do so. (Why else is FB constantly suggesting new friends for me? Especially the skimpily dressed Russian women when there’s nothing in any of my posts suggesting that I have an interest in such.) Parler’s users could accomplish their aims with 20-year-old peer-to-peer technology. But it’s not easy.
The fact that being banned from FB or AWS effectively bans you from the vast majority of social media and cloud services is a function of the near-monopoly status of those providers.
AWS holds less than a 40% market share for cloud services. The problem is that all of AWS, Microsoft (Azure), Google Cloud, Oracle Cloud, RackSpace and the rest have terms of service that preclude Parler. If the service providers choose to enforce them. I mention that last point because Trump and several of his advisors clearly violated Twitter’s terms of service for most of his time in office, but were held to a different standard. AWS allowed Parler to operate until there was lots of publicity about people being banned by Twitter and flocking to Parler.
Congress is obliged to make no law restricting freedom of speech. FB ain’t Congress. So where do they fit?
FB’s business model depends entirely on Section 230 protections. If they have liability for what their users post, they’re done — they simply can’t police it adequately. I don’t know if it would stand up in court, but there’s at least an arguable legal theory that because FB’s business is only possible because of Congress’s actions, they are subject to the same rules about free speech as Congress.
I think that the real problem here is not a technology problem, it’s an ease-of-use problem. FB and Twitter make adding people to a social group easy. They encourage users to do so. (Why else is FB constantly suggesting new friends for me? Especially the skimpily dressed Russian women when there’s nothing in any of my posts suggesting that I have an interest in such.) Parler’s users could accomplish their aims with 20-year-old peer-to-peer technology. But it’s not easy.
I think McConnell is going to try to get enough votes to convict.
Yes, looks like he’s throwing him under the bus.
Trump’s usefulness to McConnell has come to an end.
I think McConnell is going to try to get enough votes to convict.
Yes, looks like he’s throwing him under the bus.
Trump’s usefulness to McConnell has come to an end.
I know MM is reviled here as the worst of the worst, but he really is less awful than DT and he knows DT is bad long term for the Repub brand.
I completely agree that Trump’s usefulness to McConnell is ended. So throwing him under the bus makes sense.
But I’m not so sure that McConnell is that much less awful than Trump. He does less overt damage than Trump. But whether the (somewhat)-behind-the-scenes damage he does outweighs that is, I think, an open question.
I know MM is reviled here as the worst of the worst, but he really is less awful than DT and he knows DT is bad long term for the Repub brand.
I completely agree that Trump’s usefulness to McConnell is ended. So throwing him under the bus makes sense.
But I’m not so sure that McConnell is that much less awful than Trump. He does less overt damage than Trump. But whether the (somewhat)-behind-the-scenes damage he does outweighs that is, I think, an open question.
there’s at least an arguable legal theory that because FB’s business is only possible because of Congress’s actions, they are subject to the same rules about free speech as Congress.
But the same could be said of a large number of businesses. For example, an enormous chunk of our agricultural industry is only viable because Congress has enacted subsidies and price support payments. Without it, those businesses couldn’t survive in their current configuration (or maybe at all).
there’s at least an arguable legal theory that because FB’s business is only possible because of Congress’s actions, they are subject to the same rules about free speech as Congress.
But the same could be said of a large number of businesses. For example, an enormous chunk of our agricultural industry is only viable because Congress has enacted subsidies and price support payments. Without it, those businesses couldn’t survive in their current configuration (or maybe at all).
Without it, those businesses couldn’t survive in their current configuration (or maybe at all).
Perhaps. When New Zealand did away with its agricultural subsidies and price supports, the sector grew much larger. Of course, its configurations changed a lot too.
Without it, those businesses couldn’t survive in their current configuration (or maybe at all).
Perhaps. When New Zealand did away with its agricultural subsidies and price supports, the sector grew much larger. Of course, its configurations changed a lot too.
The Turtle is a cold-blooded tactician and strategist, the one who does the real job (of evil from our POV) in the background and thinking medium to longterm. The Newt was (actually still is) a despicable grifter whose grand schemes fell (at least partly) through because he overplayed his hand and tried to harvest too early out of personal greed. Jabbabonk is a walking ID only in it for himself and his personal ego. The Newt systematically poisoned the well handing The Turtle the playing field. Jabbabonk is just the loudest donkey cavity. If you ask me, The Turtle is the most dangerous, the Newt the most despicable and Jabbabonk the most obnoxious. Without the work of the former two he would have never reached the position to get a mob to storm the Capitol.
The Turtle is a cold-blooded tactician and strategist, the one who does the real job (of evil from our POV) in the background and thinking medium to longterm. The Newt was (actually still is) a despicable grifter whose grand schemes fell (at least partly) through because he overplayed his hand and tried to harvest too early out of personal greed. Jabbabonk is a walking ID only in it for himself and his personal ego. The Newt systematically poisoned the well handing The Turtle the playing field. Jabbabonk is just the loudest donkey cavity. If you ask me, The Turtle is the most dangerous, the Newt the most despicable and Jabbabonk the most obnoxious. Without the work of the former two he would have never reached the position to get a mob to storm the Capitol.
Why else is FB constantly suggesting new friends for me? Especially the skimpily dressed Russian women when there’s nothing in any of my posts suggesting that I have an interest in such.
Don’t know whether they were Russian or not but I use to get a lot of those. But not any in recent months. My impression was that the friend requests were initiated by the women themselves. Perhaps as a way to recruit customers. In any case, it was ladies one-third my age with two-thirds of their clothes missing.
Why else is FB constantly suggesting new friends for me? Especially the skimpily dressed Russian women when there’s nothing in any of my posts suggesting that I have an interest in such.
Don’t know whether they were Russian or not but I use to get a lot of those. But not any in recent months. My impression was that the friend requests were initiated by the women themselves. Perhaps as a way to recruit customers. In any case, it was ladies one-third my age with two-thirds of their clothes missing.
My FB feed apparently thinks I need a pair of thigh-high crocheted leggings.
So much for algorithms.
My FB feed apparently thinks I need a pair of thigh-high crocheted leggings.
So much for algorithms.
You guys make me SOOOOO glad that, while I do have a FB ID, I don’t actually have any presence there. (I just have it for those occasions when I want to read something which requires me to log in.)
You guys make me SOOOOO glad that, while I do have a FB ID, I don’t actually have any presence there. (I just have it for those occasions when I want to read something which requires me to log in.)
For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.
This does not follow. It’s illegal to lie for financial gain. Why should it be legal to lie for political gain?
One should be permitted to argue for any idea. One should not be permitted to base one’s case on lies.
Who decides what is a lie? The courts. We have no problem in letting them decide what’s a lie in fraud trials. Why should politics be different?
For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.
This does not follow. It’s illegal to lie for financial gain. Why should it be legal to lie for political gain?
One should be permitted to argue for any idea. One should not be permitted to base one’s case on lies.
Who decides what is a lie? The courts. We have no problem in letting them decide what’s a lie in fraud trials. Why should politics be different?
“Speech is often provocative and challenging.”
Limbaugh (substitute any name conservative bomb thrower you like) claims to be an entertainer, as did John Wilkes Booth, though the Booth was a superior actor to the former lout.
Limbaugh’s an arsonist who yells “Fire” in crowded theaters. It’s a lucrative gig. Then, after the theater burns down, he bleats that he was merely yelling “Theater” in a crowded fire.
Here’s some free speech: Limbaugh will be dead soon from natural causes. That is merely a reflection of the turtle’s pace of real, deserved justice.
These insurrectionist conservative movement traitors and killers are nowhere near done with us.
Not one of them from top to bottom of the barrel of deplorables believe they’ve done anything unlawful, if even wrong.
Much, much worse is ahead as we go through the civilized motions yet again and expect the their next gambit to reflect our civilized behavior.
“In a break with past protocol, the federal government that Biden is set to lead tomorrow did not provide an airplane for the president-elect to travel to Washington, CNN reports.
It’s not clear what led to the decision. Biden will be flying private.”
That it is somehow still “not clear” is clearly the sort of willful stupidity of the sort the subjects of Mafia hits practice after receiving the kiss of death and then going out to eat at the corner restaurant. It is the kind of willful ignorant hopefulness practiced by minorities throughout history who procrastinated escaping across frontiers and borders as genocide darkened their doors.
Whether they have their free speech curbed or not, and whether those curbs meet our constitutional standards (whatever those moving targets can be guessed to be through time) or not are pointless questions.
This malign conservative movement will not take “yes”, “no”, or “maybe” for an answer.
Because their question is: “We are going to kill all of you, whether you give us the free speech platforms to tell you that beforehand, or not, so did you want “yes”, “no”, or “maybe” to be your last word?”
Charles wrote:
“In any case, it was ladies one-third my age with two-thirds of their clothes missing.”
Several dozen jokes come to mind. It seemed when we were one third the age we are now, despite the so-called sexual revolution Rod Dreher regrets he missed, considering how much raucous fun he has been misled to believe it was, that the ladies our own age were wearing two full sets of clothes at all times.
“Speech is often provocative and challenging.”
Limbaugh (substitute any name conservative bomb thrower you like) claims to be an entertainer, as did John Wilkes Booth, though the Booth was a superior actor to the former lout.
Limbaugh’s an arsonist who yells “Fire” in crowded theaters. It’s a lucrative gig. Then, after the theater burns down, he bleats that he was merely yelling “Theater” in a crowded fire.
Here’s some free speech: Limbaugh will be dead soon from natural causes. That is merely a reflection of the turtle’s pace of real, deserved justice.
These insurrectionist conservative movement traitors and killers are nowhere near done with us.
Not one of them from top to bottom of the barrel of deplorables believe they’ve done anything unlawful, if even wrong.
Much, much worse is ahead as we go through the civilized motions yet again and expect the their next gambit to reflect our civilized behavior.
“In a break with past protocol, the federal government that Biden is set to lead tomorrow did not provide an airplane for the president-elect to travel to Washington, CNN reports.
It’s not clear what led to the decision. Biden will be flying private.”
That it is somehow still “not clear” is clearly the sort of willful stupidity of the sort the subjects of Mafia hits practice after receiving the kiss of death and then going out to eat at the corner restaurant. It is the kind of willful ignorant hopefulness practiced by minorities throughout history who procrastinated escaping across frontiers and borders as genocide darkened their doors.
Whether they have their free speech curbed or not, and whether those curbs meet our constitutional standards (whatever those moving targets can be guessed to be through time) or not are pointless questions.
This malign conservative movement will not take “yes”, “no”, or “maybe” for an answer.
Because their question is: “We are going to kill all of you, whether you give us the free speech platforms to tell you that beforehand, or not, so did you want “yes”, “no”, or “maybe” to be your last word?”
Charles wrote:
“In any case, it was ladies one-third my age with two-thirds of their clothes missing.”
Several dozen jokes come to mind. It seemed when we were one third the age we are now, despite the so-called sexual revolution Rod Dreher regrets he missed, considering how much raucous fun he has been misled to believe it was, that the ladies our own age were wearing two full sets of clothes at all times.
“My FB feed apparently thinks I need a pair of thigh-high crocheted leggings.”
Did you order your man bag online?
%-)
I’ve never been on Facebook or any similar social media.
You lucky duckies get the all of me.
“My FB feed apparently thinks I need a pair of thigh-high crocheted leggings.”
Did you order your man bag online?
%-)
I’ve never been on Facebook or any similar social media.
You lucky duckies get the all of me.
All y’all have been living wrong. My FB ad feed is mostly DnD dice, craft mead, drinking horns, heavy metal bands with demos, and guitar ads.
All y’all have been living wrong. My FB ad feed is mostly DnD dice, craft mead, drinking horns, heavy metal bands with demos, and guitar ads.
I know MM is reviled here as the worst of the worst, but he really is less awful than DT and he knows DT is bad long term for the Repub brand.
And yet, you know, he really is MORE awful than DT because he knows (and has always known) what the constitution said, and how his oath to protect it was supposed to work, and not only did he not give a damn, he moreover played everything he did purely for advantage and with no consideration to the serious harm he was enabling to your republic and its democracy, let alone to the “Repub brand”. He is the apotheosis of KNOWING ambition, corruption, cynicism and lack of principle, writ not just large but gigantic. Whereas DT is an ignorant, lying, grifting, corrupt piece of sh*t who knew nothing, did nothing, and thought he could wing one of the hardest jobs in the world like he winged and lied his way through everything else in his worthless life.
Reviled? I guess.
I know MM is reviled here as the worst of the worst, but he really is less awful than DT and he knows DT is bad long term for the Repub brand.
And yet, you know, he really is MORE awful than DT because he knows (and has always known) what the constitution said, and how his oath to protect it was supposed to work, and not only did he not give a damn, he moreover played everything he did purely for advantage and with no consideration to the serious harm he was enabling to your republic and its democracy, let alone to the “Repub brand”. He is the apotheosis of KNOWING ambition, corruption, cynicism and lack of principle, writ not just large but gigantic. Whereas DT is an ignorant, lying, grifting, corrupt piece of sh*t who knew nothing, did nothing, and thought he could wing one of the hardest jobs in the world like he winged and lied his way through everything else in his worthless life.
Reviled? I guess.
I’m not on any social media either. Just as well, as under recent circs I’d probably be on various watch lists!
I’m not on any social media either. Just as well, as under recent circs I’d probably be on various watch lists!
“It’s illegal to lie for financial gain.”
If that statement was true, we could make a prison of the entire country.
Small print could go the way of the dodo bird.
Mark Twain’s definition of a gold mine as “a hole in the ground with a liar standing next to it,” could be retired.
We elected Donald Trump despite this imaginary illegality of lying for financial gain. Full stop.
Lying for financial gain is an American form, like quilting.
Opioids, penny stocks, NRA guns and accounting, boner pills, the health food supplement industry.
The Republican Party works overtime vanquishing the regulatory apparatus guaranteeing some semblance of probity.
I’ve eaten most of the “largest, world-renowned hamburgers” in the country and not ten miles down the road, there’s yet another one.
I have a few worthless stock certificates, from when there were such things, that were officially printed lies.
“It’s illegal to lie for financial gain.”
If that statement was true, we could make a prison of the entire country.
Small print could go the way of the dodo bird.
Mark Twain’s definition of a gold mine as “a hole in the ground with a liar standing next to it,” could be retired.
We elected Donald Trump despite this imaginary illegality of lying for financial gain. Full stop.
Lying for financial gain is an American form, like quilting.
Opioids, penny stocks, NRA guns and accounting, boner pills, the health food supplement industry.
The Republican Party works overtime vanquishing the regulatory apparatus guaranteeing some semblance of probity.
I’ve eaten most of the “largest, world-renowned hamburgers” in the country and not ten miles down the road, there’s yet another one.
I have a few worthless stock certificates, from when there were such things, that were officially printed lies.
American “art” form.
American “art” form.
FB wants to sell me sneakers, snarky t-shirts and cat toys.
FB wants to sell me sneakers, snarky t-shirts and cat toys.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/01/ftr-it-wasnt-a-hoax/
https://digbysblog.net/2021/01/ftr-it-wasnt-a-hoax/
Did you order your man bag online?
Dunno. Maybe it was the hacking knot?
Did you order your man bag online?
Dunno. Maybe it was the hacking knot?
And lest we forget, further to the rightly reviled Mitch McConnell, from JDT’s digbys link:
Because Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, was insisting there was no Kremlin operation, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell got in line. He refused President Barack Obama’s request to join the White House in issuing a bipartisan response to Putin’s assault. McConnell sided with party—that is, Trump—over country.
And he sided with party – that is, Trump – over country again and again. Which makes his current apparent concern about what McKinney calls “the Repub brand” purely laughable.
And lest we forget, further to the rightly reviled Mitch McConnell, from JDT’s digbys link:
Because Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, was insisting there was no Kremlin operation, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell got in line. He refused President Barack Obama’s request to join the White House in issuing a bipartisan response to Putin’s assault. McConnell sided with party—that is, Trump—over country.
And he sided with party – that is, Trump – over country again and again. Which makes his current apparent concern about what McKinney calls “the Repub brand” purely laughable.
It’s illegal to lie for financial gain. Why should it be legal to lie for political gain?
One should be permitted to argue for any idea. One should not be permitted to base one’s case on lies.
That is also the standard to which, I believe, lawyers are held. They can argue for their clients, and present whatever evidence they wish to that end. But if the lie to a judge in court, they are in big, big trouble. (Which is why Trump’s lawyers were so extremely careful to make clear to the judges they were in front of that they were NOT saying that there was election fraud, and that they were not claiming to have evidence of same.)
You’re talking about holding politicians to the same standard. Although I would hope that lobbyists would get held to that as well.
It’s illegal to lie for financial gain. Why should it be legal to lie for political gain?
One should be permitted to argue for any idea. One should not be permitted to base one’s case on lies.
That is also the standard to which, I believe, lawyers are held. They can argue for their clients, and present whatever evidence they wish to that end. But if the lie to a judge in court, they are in big, big trouble. (Which is why Trump’s lawyers were so extremely careful to make clear to the judges they were in front of that they were NOT saying that there was election fraud, and that they were not claiming to have evidence of same.)
You’re talking about holding politicians to the same standard. Although I would hope that lobbyists would get held to that as well.
And he sided with party – that is, Trump – over country again and again.
yep.
McConnell is only willing to step up when there’s nothing to lose. now that Trump is fatally wounded, he’s comfortable stepping up to take his turn twisting the knife. but when Trump was ascendant, McConnell wouldn’t lift a finger if it meant giving the Dems even the slightest win.
a man of principles.
And he sided with party – that is, Trump – over country again and again.
yep.
McConnell is only willing to step up when there’s nothing to lose. now that Trump is fatally wounded, he’s comfortable stepping up to take his turn twisting the knife. but when Trump was ascendant, McConnell wouldn’t lift a finger if it meant giving the Dems even the slightest win.
a man of principles.
Looks like Melania doesn’t want any of that stink on herself, either.
Looks like Melania doesn’t want any of that stink on herself, either.
She can never evade the stink of having participated in the birther lie, however.
She can never evade the stink of having participated in the birther lie, however.
The outgoing Third Lady of the United States, nee Melania Knauss, turned a bigger profit on her sexuality than Stephanie Clifford, d.b.a. Stormy Daniels, by any accounting except perhaps an Evangelical Christian one. It remains to be seen how that “family values” crowd will view her when she tries to cash out while He, Trump still has a penny to his name.
–TP
The outgoing Third Lady of the United States, nee Melania Knauss, turned a bigger profit on her sexuality than Stephanie Clifford, d.b.a. Stormy Daniels, by any accounting except perhaps an Evangelical Christian one. It remains to be seen how that “family values” crowd will view her when she tries to cash out while He, Trump still has a penny to his name.
–TP
End of support for war in Yemen.
https://twitter.com/RodgerShanahan/status/1351664151093891074
End of support for war in Yemen.
https://twitter.com/RodgerShanahan/status/1351664151093891074
Looks like Melania doesn’t want any of that stink on herself, either.
She was pretty obviously in it for the money. With Trump’s finances looking like crashing this year, there’s no reason to stay. It’s Trump-style loyalty, after all.
Looks like Melania doesn’t want any of that stink on herself, either.
She was pretty obviously in it for the money. With Trump’s finances looking like crashing this year, there’s no reason to stay. It’s Trump-style loyalty, after all.
She was pretty obviously in it for the money.
It’s way beyond me to figure out what these people have been in it for. They’re so far from anything I can understand – and I certainly hope it stays that way. I have no interest in figuring out Melania, Donald, or any of his kids.
She was pretty obviously in it for the money.
It’s way beyond me to figure out what these people have been in it for. They’re so far from anything I can understand – and I certainly hope it stays that way. I have no interest in figuring out Melania, Donald, or any of his kids.
What’s the Money Honey in it for?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bartiromo-keeps-up-trumpy-lie-dems-dressed-up-in-maga-gear-and-attacked-congress
Money first, but I wouldn’t discount honey.
What’s the Money Honey in it for?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bartiromo-keeps-up-trumpy-lie-dems-dressed-up-in-maga-gear-and-attacked-congress
Money first, but I wouldn’t discount honey.
I’m betting that Bartiromo was talking about the dude that went to record it all on video, who claimed in Rolling Stone that he was a BLM supporter but that the capitol police had no reason to shoot Babbit. That’s enough of a truth on which to float the larger lie.
I’m betting that Bartiromo was talking about the dude that went to record it all on video, who claimed in Rolling Stone that he was a BLM supporter but that the capitol police had no reason to shoot Babbit. That’s enough of a truth on which to float the larger lie.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2021/01/fox-news-decides-its-not-right-wing-enough
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2021/01/fox-news-decides-its-not-right-wing-enough
Well, the Fox brand is pretty poisonous outside their bubble. So, no real opportunity to pick up viewers from outside. But at the same time, their audience is getting poached from the right. So, the only way to hold on to viewer numbers is to move right. Not really a surprise they are doing so.
Well, the Fox brand is pretty poisonous outside their bubble. So, no real opportunity to pick up viewers from outside. But at the same time, their audience is getting poached from the right. So, the only way to hold on to viewer numbers is to move right. Not really a surprise they are doing so.
End of support for war in Yemen.
Sounds good, let’s hope they follow through. It’s ironic (or depressing) that Blinken would make that statement, as he was a leading hawk on Yemen in the Obama administration.
End of support for war in Yemen.
Sounds good, let’s hope they follow through. It’s ironic (or depressing) that Blinken would make that statement, as he was a leading hawk on Yemen in the Obama administration.
Here is Blinken on Yemen 6 years ago:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security/u-s-expedites-arms-shipments-to-coalition-bombing-yemen-idUSKBN0MY1TL20150407
Here is Blinken on Yemen 6 years ago:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security/u-s-expedites-arms-shipments-to-coalition-bombing-yemen-idUSKBN0MY1TL20150407
It’s ironic (or depressing) that Blinken would make that statement, as he was a leading hawk on Yemen in the Obama administration.
Or maybe it just demonstrates that Biden is able to learn. Which makes a nice change, doesn’t it?
It’s ironic (or depressing) that Blinken would make that statement, as he was a leading hawk on Yemen in the Obama administration.
Or maybe it just demonstrates that Biden is able to learn. Which makes a nice change, doesn’t it?
Taking it to a new level
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/20/capitol-rioter-thomas-fee-text/
Other insurrectionists merely posted pictures of themselves inside the Capitol. This guy sends a selfie to his girlfriend’s brother. Who is a Federal agent!
Taking it to a new level
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/20/capitol-rioter-thomas-fee-text/
Other insurrectionists merely posted pictures of themselves inside the Capitol. This guy sends a selfie to his girlfriend’s brother. Who is a Federal agent!
Been a while since I watched a swearing in. I am moved and inspired…IT IS DONE!
Been a while since I watched a swearing in. I am moved and inspired…IT IS DONE!
bobbyp, we often have different views on things. But today we seem to be one the same page.
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/01/some-reading-for-the-inauguration.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e20263e989dade200b#comment-6a00d834515c2369e20263e989dade200b
bobbyp, we often have different views on things. But today we seem to be one the same page.
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/01/some-reading-for-the-inauguration.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e20263e989dade200b#comment-6a00d834515c2369e20263e989dade200b
Yeah, Biden can learn. It might take a humanitarian catastrophe that can’t be concealed, but at least he is better than Trump.
Biden and other Democrats deserve no praise for ending a gigantic murderous crime they helped start. In a just world it is something that would be taken into account in their sentencing.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/yemen-war-saudi-arabia-uae-trump-obama-famine-power-khanna-sanders
The lesson here is that with enough photos of starving children and enough pressure, Democrats can be swayed while Trump and the majority of Republicans could not. It is a lesser evil argument. This is one reason why third party voting is wrong.
The politics of the war changed after Khashoggi’s murder. It probably also helped that by late 2018 you could clearly see this was now Trump’s war and he fully embraced it. In 2017 it was a holdover from the previous President. Ben Rhodes wrote a book about his time in the WH and said nothing about the war in Yemen. Samantha Powers did the same thing. They came out against it later.
But can the people responsible for this be trusted? No. Even in a world where the media is all slanted one way or another, it is a bit difficult to conceal what is currently the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, but lesser acts of brutality can be brushed off. Yemen was ignored for a few years and if the Houthis had collapsed at some point we would probably be reading how smart it was to support the Saudis. It would be a success story.
There is something wrong with our political culture. It’s probably a normal typical type of wrongness. The US is a democracy but even in democracies some lives matter and some don’t. There should probably be some sort of change of attitude about this that goes beyond learning after hundreds of thousands of children are starving that you shouldn’t conduct proxy wars against poverty stricken people who have done nothing to you. Maybe a movement is called for.
Yeah, Biden can learn. It might take a humanitarian catastrophe that can’t be concealed, but at least he is better than Trump.
Biden and other Democrats deserve no praise for ending a gigantic murderous crime they helped start. In a just world it is something that would be taken into account in their sentencing.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/yemen-war-saudi-arabia-uae-trump-obama-famine-power-khanna-sanders
The lesson here is that with enough photos of starving children and enough pressure, Democrats can be swayed while Trump and the majority of Republicans could not. It is a lesser evil argument. This is one reason why third party voting is wrong.
The politics of the war changed after Khashoggi’s murder. It probably also helped that by late 2018 you could clearly see this was now Trump’s war and he fully embraced it. In 2017 it was a holdover from the previous President. Ben Rhodes wrote a book about his time in the WH and said nothing about the war in Yemen. Samantha Powers did the same thing. They came out against it later.
But can the people responsible for this be trusted? No. Even in a world where the media is all slanted one way or another, it is a bit difficult to conceal what is currently the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, but lesser acts of brutality can be brushed off. Yemen was ignored for a few years and if the Houthis had collapsed at some point we would probably be reading how smart it was to support the Saudis. It would be a success story.
There is something wrong with our political culture. It’s probably a normal typical type of wrongness. The US is a democracy but even in democracies some lives matter and some don’t. There should probably be some sort of change of attitude about this that goes beyond learning after hundreds of thousands of children are starving that you shouldn’t conduct proxy wars against poverty stricken people who have done nothing to you. Maybe a movement is called for.